Sunday, March 11, 2007

The Middle of Nowhere

If hell is paved with good intentions, then the March 11th watchamacallit is working up a helluva macadam.

Their concern about the “widening gap in Lebanon between the two blocs of March 8th and March 14th” is valid, the diagnostic appears valid on the face of it, but they miss some key elements:

The Existence of “Common Points”

There are common points between the politicians who adhere to one camp or another; it the pursuit of their own happiness at the expense of our lives and liberty. They may reach a “deal” that may calm things down for a short while, until their puppet masters tell them to start dancing again.

However, there can be no common ground between those who want a normal, free country and those who work, knowingly on unwittingly, for the return of Syria, or worse, for the transformation of the only (barely) secular Arab country into another nasty Mullocracy.

Gebran Tueni’s pledge is a sign of unity among all Lebanese, Christians, Moslem, Druze, within a FREE Lebanon. It should not be taken as a willingness to abdicate to the barbudos, just for the sake of avoiding bloodshed.

Maintain the “Pillars” of “Lebanese Society”

What a crock of newspeak; there are no “pillars”, nor a “Lebanese Society”.

Those famous pillars have long been blown up by our stupid civil war. Whatever was left was destroyed by Syria, via assassinations from Kamal Joumblat to Rafic Hariri, and by Libya’s Kaddafi, who killed Moussa Sadr. The “pillars” left today, at best, leave much to be desired, at worst, they usurp the great men they claim to succeed.

At best, their judgment is impaired when they visit Pillars such as our Quisling-in-chief. Right address, wrong man; all this true fils de Pétain can offer is to continue his litany against “voices coming from here and there increase the political tension in the country, whereas the thing needed is the reinforcement of the inner structure to stop the splitting there is weakness in partition and power in unity”…

As to our precious “Lebanese Society”, it is a great idea. It will remain only an idea as long as religious leaders rule us, either directly, or indirectly. At worst, there can no common ground among religious leaders whose main function is to proselytize. At best, religious leaders have little choice in the matter, since all “secular” politicians have failed in their leadership role.

What do they offer?

Nothing but a exhortation to “either to reach a solution and return to the national negotiating table”, forgetting what a great waste of time that was. And their Leverage? An expansion of their “peaceful movement to achieve the desired goal”.

I guess, as long as they do not burn tires, they can march all they want; it could make for a nice defilé. But I am not optimistic about their success; “two negations may not a nation make”, but neither do empty platitudes. At best, they’re pointless, at worse, ever more subversive that Hezb…

Business as Usual…

This can simply be another Lebanese businessman with an angle to make a few bucks, or to get out of a mess…

In the past, Merhi Abou Merhi made history when his ACLN Ltd was the first company in more than 25 years to be subject to an SEC temporary suspension of trading” because of “because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information”… Or it could all simply have been a misunderstanding, with Abou Merhi’s simply not having “a clue about the necessities involved in shareholder disclosure”.

Either way, that king is naked.

1 comment:

ghassan karam said...

Whenever two incongruous elements are mixed together they will never be able to bind strongly with each other. This is the case also when the two main groups in a country have opposite beliefs not limited only to the means but even to the end. Under such circumstances the differences are so basic that to pretend otherwise is dishonest and disingenuous. Hamlet , in his famous soliloquy struggles whether "to be or not to be" but he new that you cannot "be and not be". It is simply one or the other. Lebanon is facing the exact same dilemma; are we to establish the ground work for a modern secular democracy or are we to become a close minded theocracy ruled from capitals outside the country. This chasm cannot be bridged and we must resist any attempts to find solutions based on deception and delusion. If we paper over the differences then we will have bought the appearance of tranquility but only at the expense of a more destructive eruption in the future. Honesty is the only way to manage such a volatile situation. We have to have the strength of character to admit that the two opposite ends cannot be part of the same cabinet. A cabinet of beth sides can only mean one thing, one group will have to betray its oath of office.
Jumblatt appears to be the only major politician who has learned that lesson. Definitely the same cannot be said of either Saniora or Sa'ad Hariri who will not question his Saudi instructions.

The deep differences in Lebanon will not prevent us from forming an efficient and functional democracy. But the first step would have to be to stop the denial. Then it becomes very clear that this silliness of consentual democracy is simply that. The majority will rule and the minority will occupy the seats reserved to a law abiding opposition. (I don't expect HA to give up on its mission but I do expect them to act within the law). This definitely implies that no militia is to exist. A democracy has room for different ideas but it does not need to tolerate illegal activities especially when they are geared to undermine the state. Who else will join Jumblat in recognizing this simple and unassailable fact and would he stand by his position. Unless he does and unless others join him then I am afraid that the future does not look bright.