I know, I know, I haven’t been at my best lately– I have been busy. Please be patient. Patience is rewarding.

Amal – Hope
December 2006
Beirut, Lebanon

The French mandate-era Lebanese army with its rusty artillery and rifles as old as my gramma is being hailed as a hero for “confronting” the IDF. Give me a fucking break.  You call this an army?  Why not follow the lead of the security forces and hire a tea expert? At least that would be a good investment.

This is the same army that folded its arms and did nothing while it too was under fire during the July war. I still remember the “defense” minister saying that “when” the IDF invades the army would fight alongside HezbAllah against the IDF. I guess that “when” never came true for our “defense” minister. Yalla bassita, as they say, el telte sebte.

Numbers speak louder than words:

• 5 is the number of half-meter-deep potholes in the middle of the Dawra-Nahr el-mot highway, one of which my car ‘experienced’ today. Hey, my car loves life too.
• 3 is the number of months those potholes have been there and no one has bothered to fill them up or patch them up.
• 4 is the number of times the power was on and off in the past 5 minutes.
• 2 is the number of lanes that the south-north “highway” near Mar Mikha’el (after MTC touch building) will be reduced to, to make way for more lanes for the opposite side.
• 2 is the number of years they have been working on constructing a bridge on the highway and are not halfway done with it.
• 0 is the number of photos I was allowed to take of Wadi Abu Jmil, because apparently it is a security risk.

Also see: Part I, Part II, Part III

Electricity.

The scale by which one can judge the state of this country.

I have heard several people say, when we have electricity for almost 24/24 in Lebanon, that’s when we will know that there is hope for this country.

Lest you harbour any illusions about the competence of this government (and past governments), here are some statistics, which will open your eyes to the truth:

• In 2004, the Ministry of Energy and Water received 1.1% of the total government expenditure, only 1.5 times more than the amount allocated to the “national lottery” (0.7%).
• This number dropped to 0.5% of the expenditure in 2005, whereas the “national lottery” received a whopping 0.7% of the expenditure.
• It must be noted that in 2005 the Electricité du Liban (EDL) received a loan from the Ministry of Finance, which amounted to 9% of the total government expenditure for the year.
• In 2003, the total electricity production in Lebanon was 10.55 TWh (Terawatt-hours).
• In the 3-R document “Recovery, Reconstruction, and Reform” prepared especially for the occasion of Paris-III, the government complains that it allocated some $650 million to the EDL. $650 million for heaven’s sake.
• The power has been off since midnight (it’s 8:25 pm now).
• We had more power during the summer war than we do now, despite the months-long siege and the bombing of the Jiyye fuel storage facilities.

Also see: Part I, Part II

Click to enlarge.

Ila eyn? (where to?) — a phrase popularized by Walid Jumblat (Walid beik)

 Also see: Part I

So, I am guessing this is Bush’s new plan for Iraq? Or is that the plan for Iran? Raiding Iranian embassies and kidnapping Iranian diplomats? Yeah, that will solve the U.S woes in the region.

As part of the “Badna N’ish” (we want to live) awareness campaign in support of the democratically elected government (and democratically elected governments under the Pax Syriana-Americana) I have decided to share Lebanese statistics from time to time. This is the first installment. Enjoy.

• Only 12.7% of government expenditure (or 2.6% of GDP) goes to education, compared to 20% in Djibouti,  Morocco, Oman, and UAE.
• Only 10% of Lebanese pre-primary teachers have received training. This is the same number as in Sudan and Tunisia, whereas in Syria it is 22%. In contrast, all pre-primary teachers in Iraq, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, and the Palestinian territories have received pedagogical training.
• Only 13% of Lebanese primary teachers have received training, compared to 61% in UAE, 98% in Algeria, 100% in Iraq, Kuwait, Mauritania, and Oman.
• Grade repetition in primary education in Lebanon is 11% of the total number of enrolled students in that level, on par with Algeria, Djibouti, Mauritania, and Morocco.
• The percentage of enrolment in primary education in Lebanon dropped 1% between 1999 and 2004, whereas in most other countries the percentage increased by more than 5%.
• 5% of Lebanese primary school age children are out of school.

Don’t shoot the messenger. My source is the UNESCO.

You’ve probably heard of the recent action carried out by Anarchists Against the Wall in Tel Aviv; at first glance, I was quite impressed. On inquiring further about the action, I discovered that it wasn’t quite what it looked like, at least not the impression one gets when one hears of the name “Anarchists Against the Wall”. Many of my readers will – I am sure – criticize my criticism of the group, because at least they are doing something. However, that they are doing something does not grant them a criticism-free status.

One would’ve thought that the Anarchists Against the Wall would have adopted a terminology distinct from the dominant nationalist discourse; in this context, my criticism does not deal with their actions, but with their stated objectives, which are as follows (emphasis mine):

The action was carried to remind the people of Tel Aviv of the everyday hardships of Palestinians, resulting from Israel’s apartheid policies and conduct in the Occupied Territories and from the occupation itself. The activists urged Israelis to take responsibility for what is being done in their names, and to force an end to Israeli occupation.

First, let us say that in referring to the “Occupied Territories” they were merely adopting an internationally accepted term to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and not necessarily endorsing the idea that the only occupied territories are the 1967 territories. However, upon closer inspection, one will notice that this is not what they meant. Clearly, their usage of the term “occupation” refers to the 1967 territories only. But what happened to the 1948 territories which were occupied – yes, occupied – and mostly ethnically cleansed of Palestinians? That is not only not a priority for Anarchists Against the Wall, it is also unthinkable.

Make no mistake, this is what they say in the “about” section of the website, in response to the question “why we resist” (again, emphasis mine):

It is the duty of Israeli citizens to resist immoral policies and actions carried out in out name. We believe that it is possible to do more than demonstrate inside Israel or participate in humanitarian relief actions. Israeli apartheid and occupation isn’t going to end by itself – it will end when it becomes ungovernable and unmanageable. It is time to physically oppose the bulldozers, the army and the occupation.

Other than that, their actions are quite impressive. I do hope that in due time the Anarchists Against the Wall will also advocate the return of the refugees, and not fall into the trap of “demographic” discourse. Perhaps someone from the AATW could clarify the movement’s views on this issue (I am assuming they are not a hierarchical organization, so individuals can speak their personal opinions even as “members” of this movement).

I apologize I have been unable to post much lately due to shortage of time and a very busy schedule, but I have decided to post an excerpt from George Orwell’s essay “Reflections on Gandhi”, which is quite relevant to the question of Palestine and the violent resistance vs. non-violent disobedience debate; I will attempt to post my thoughts on this issue later. Until then, I leave you with this:

In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of 1914-18. Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. He did not–indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not–take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you’re another” type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer’s GANDHI AND STALIN. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.” After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the régime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.
…
But let it be granted that non-violent resistance can be effective against one’s own government, or against an occupying power: even so, how does one put it into practise internationally? Gandhi’s various conflicting statements on the late war seem to show that he felt the difficulty of this. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings of whole nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed and a friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics?