23 Comments. Add your own...

• 1. Tareq | October 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am

  N, anyone who keeps trying to unite Lebanon is lying to himself and to us and is doing the worst service for future generations…When Bachir died many Lebanese cheered, when Gebran died same thing, when Walid Eido died same thing, how can we all call ourselves Lebanese??

  If there is Federalism then there will not be a reason anymore to hate others because their choice will not affect us, if they want to kill themselves against Israel good for them, if we want our president to be pro-America good for us…And Federalism doesn’t mean we can’t talk with others or live in their area, if a Christian wants to fight Israel fine go to the borders…If Shiite want to drink alcohol and dance fine come to Jounieh, but most Christians don’t want to fight anymore and most Shiite want to keep fighting until Israel is wiped.

  We are not enemies but we don’t want the same things so that’s why we need to have separate states so we stop hating each other!

• 2. ali bm | October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 am

  anyone who believes that dividing lebanon into federal states will solve all problems and usher in an era of prosperity is dead wrong for many reasons.

  first of all, if the divisions are done on a sectarian or religious basis then looking at the map of lebanon where all sects intermingle to one degree or another, any person realizes that there can be no such division. take the example of beirut where one street is inhabited by Sunnis while the one right next to it is inhabited by Shi’is (for example the Mar-Elyas area, or Qasqas and Tareek Jdeede right next to the airport road and Dahyeh).

  second of all, there are no deep rooted disagreements among the people that necessitate such a division. three years ago, no sunnis or druze were calling for a division. only when disagreements erupted at the top level, the level of our beloved leaders, did the people start polarizing against each other. i.e. the divisions are coming from the top down, which means that if Sa’d Al-Hariri kissed nasrallah and walid junblatt kissed birri and Geagea kissed aoun, the disagreements down on the popular level will disappear and fast.

  third of all, even if the divisions happened, then what is to prevent new disagreements from rising inside the newly formed states, for example because of struggle over power or turf or money? what is to prevent amal from going back to clashing with hezbollah or the PSP clashing with the LF or the Future movement from clashing with everyone else? or do you believe that our leaders learned their lessons and became saints?

  and please let no one talk to me about how the Shi’is want to go on fighting israel for good, they don’t. and that is why hezbollah is staying quiet on the front with israel because it knows that the shi’is will not let it survive another war without holding it accountable.

  i believe that the solution is for coming up with a new and better electoral law, ideally non-secular, based on proportional representation which would help us get rid of all of the current political class so we can make a fresh start. let the march 14 team pressure their freinds in the international community so they can rid hezbollah of its last excuses for resistance, i.e. te Shebá frams and the prisoners, and the popular pressure on hezbollah will increase sufficiently to force them to merge with the army…

• 3. omar | October 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am

  N: I read your blog daily and I respect your opinions very much. You’re one of the few people who has the courage to say the truth and among the even fewer who does something about it (start a blog). So please take what I’m about to say constructively and know my heart’s in the same place as yours.

  Tareq: I dont know you but I assume the best

  Guys, it’s idealistic and a bit naive to believe that all people, in every country, everywhere, revere the same people, mourn their loss equally, and believe in the same causes. People everywhere disagree with their co-nationals all the time, and very often even more so than in Lebanon.

  We, Lebanese, are not a nation (as many people confuse out of romanticism). We are a state, a country, a group of people who chose to live together, willingly or by chance. One should not think of Lebanon as a failed marriage, but rather an Auberge Espanol (shared accommodation). Without established rules and mutual understanding, the auberge would break down into a looting, raping pandemonium.

  We have our seperate rooms in the auberge, seperate “bubbles” if you will. If you look Lebanon without the emotions involved in a “failed marriage” analogy, you can spare yourself some of the emotional agony.

  Federalism is de facto present in the country and anyone who denies this is deluding themselves and obviously hasn’t been around. I’m not only talking about the South. All across Lebanon we live in ’states’: Tripoli is very different from Beirut, Saida different from Tripoli, etc. Organizing this de facto system into a formal system is actually less problematic than people think, and can be done with little change on the ground (as far as our daily lives). But…… and this is where the LF and I part…. it doesn’t solve our problems.

  Federalism is a political arrangement that would formalize decentralized government and allow for more local accountability for the mundane issues of everyday life. It will not, and cannot, resolve our foreign-relations issues (Syria/Israel), Hizballah’s weapons, Palesintian refugees, etc. The only real solution for those are compromise, war, or seperation. The last two can be ignored for now, even at present, and compromise should be followed up.

  You’re probably laughing at this point and tempted to click away. Please don’t and read what I have to say.

  Compromise is meant here not in the Berri-an “tawafo2″ or the Hariri-esque “7iwar” sense. Compromise is used in the Bachir-ist sense of mutual understanding on a popular level: grassroots understanding of the wishes/dreams of each sect and compromising dogmatic sectarian goals for the sake of fellow citizens. It’s done in countries all the time: where in many citizens, not politicians, control the airwaves.

  Think of your Shiite friend. I’d bet good money that many Shi’ites, deep down, feel the same way he does. Maybe not all do, but a good 50% at least does. 50% of Shi’ites, more or less the same with the Sunnis, and even if you assume the same for other sects, you get a 25% extreme left, 50% middle, 25% extreme right, healthy bell-curved shape of attitudes in the country that are actually indicative of a healthy society.

  Our problem is that popular voices are marginalized and pathetic popular efforts such as “kafa” and “2ou3a” are not enough. Aoun had the idea right with OTV being “Owned by the People” but messed up terribly with the way he implemented it (kinda like Harb al-Tahrir). OTV was born out of political interest and narrow-mindedness and has already been written off as just another Lebanese station.

  We need a political system that brings politicians in line with the moderate attitudes of society. Best places to start:

  1. Unified district voting
  2. High-level position/positions (Supreme Court) popularly elected by the people.

  Both of these changes would allow the true moderateness of the Lebanese to show, rather than the polarized mess we are in today. I’d also suggest Education reform and getting rid of religious schools and rather have an enforced secular curriculum, but that might be a bit too extreme for some people right now.

  The point is, let’s not think about federalism until we’ve really tried living as a Republic.

  Take care.

• 4. omar | October 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am

  Oh, and one more thing. You might be thinking I am being naive for assuming the Lebanese are generally moderate and that we have this healthy bell-curve shape of attitudes. For both criticisms I point to:

  1. Dr. Theodor Hanf’s book: Coexistence in Wartime Lebanon (documenting the tolerance that took place in Lebanon even at the worst times of the civil war).

  2. March 14 demonstrations, whereby ~1 million of 3.5 million took to the streets asking for essentially middle-class desires and expressing middle-class attitudes. 1 million plus 700,000 (assume a good 700,000 people stayed at home out of fear that day) equals 1.7 million.
  1.7 million divided by 3.5 ~ 50%.

  Peace

• 5. Rodge | October 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

  I see lots of constructive discussions in this posting, and it’s very good indeed, something that we hope will be generated in Lebanon, especially on a high level class.

  As for the opinions showed here, i can honestly tell that I don’t totally agree with N10452 and Tareq, eventhough you are both more realistic and N, you were showing facts.

  But i like what Omar wrote, and i think you’re right Omar about the 50%, which in my opinion are even much more than that.

  The problem in Lebanon is that we’re so romantic in Politics, so heartfull, and personal relations count more than common interests. When it comes to Elections, people in Lebanon make their selection depending on the people who may have provided a service once to one of their relatives or friends, more than the political program. Everybody in Lebanon knows someone in Power, maybe they know his cousin, his brother, relatives, or even his driver and bodyguard, and that’s why they don’t really judge him for his actions or works. And for that reason, politicians are much more corrupted than any other country. Politicians here are not afraid of voters, because even the religious factor, or the regional one, or other reasons that i’ve mentioned will play a big role in winning, in addition to money and threats etc…

  What we really need in Lebanon is to forget about sects and religions, is to cancel it on our idendity card, and to act as Lebanese first and last. We’re lacking this and we still as long as we’re attached to the combination between religion and Politics.

  I’m a Christian Maronite, and i’m attached to my religion. I live in a Muslim country (Kuwait) but i practice my religion freely and i also found a way to deal with my surroundings and to interact with it.
  I’m an LF pro, but personally believe that having a Maronite President in Lebanon haven’t done any good to me lately, since i was obliged to leave my country, my family, my life and friends, to come here and work hard with all the positive and negative aspects at the same time.
  So for that, i prefer to have Kurdish or maybe Boudhist or any other President that can make this country so well and safe and can end all conflicts and occupations and intereferences etc… and the same gos to the house speaker position and the Prime Minister, they could be Christians or others and do well.
  We should reform all our political and administrative system, we should establish clear laws and regulations, not “Sigha” like the “1943 Sigha”, and not “A3raf” for everything. We should build a new country not a new state.
  In my opinion, Federalism is the best system, but maybe we can agree on others as well, we should make proposals and negociate them openly.

  Finally, i hope from all to adopt a constructive discussions in this posting and the others to follow, we should forget our leaders and parties and movements etc… and thinks about us what we want as people.

• 6. arze | October 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

  Omar i would like to felicitate you on this MARVELOUS thing you wrote ….I honestly really liked it …its very constructive argumentative and very convincing….I specially love the Term “Auberge” given to lebanon….I really like what u wrote

• 7. paul | October 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

  why don’t we take the United States as a model example of a federal state.

  Federalism and a strong presidential system of government are thus no contradictions.

  Generally, I think that elements of both models have their advantages, and it is quite possible to integrate that in a system which ultimately neither federal nor centralized.

• 8. N10452 | October 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

  Thank you all of you guys for those constructive and serious replies, i really enjoyed reading them, specially Omar’s reply ..

  Tareq, we cannot just advocate for a separation as i posted, it is a very serious step but i think we need a group of people to put those problems for all the people to see and accept things as they are and try to resolve them, not make people live in illusions.

• 9. N10452 | October 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

  Now to answer you Omar,
  I dont know why you assumed i might laugh at your reply or not take it seriously .. i see no reason to do so ..

  I thank you for reading the blog daily and hope to see more feedbacks from you ..

  I know nothing but the truth, it must seem too idealistic as an idea, but it is easier than one might think .. u just need a clear conscience and some balls

  Back to your reply,
  We started on similar basis, Lebanon is indeed an “Auberge Espagnole”, and i recommand everyone to watch the movie named “L’auberge espagnole” to get a clear idea of what Omar is saying.

  We are sects that are living on a piece of land, sects made Lebanon what it is and not the opposite, and based on this historical fact, federalism is de facto present as u said.

  Federalism u say will not resolve our problems, however you are starting off from a wrong basis, that Federalism will be imposed just like that .. which is wrong ..

  No one can come and impose this system, we need a mutual agreement on it and one of the solid pillars of Federalism is its neutral foreign policy, where as each group in Lebanon has a veto right when it comes to foreign affairs .. like declaring a war for ex … You will be satisfying all sides that way and keeping your country stable and safe …

  Now what you tackled in ur 2nd part is something Federalism will achieve on the long run, that is creating a Lebanese moderate identity, which can be achieved through a secular approach that must be spread in all states .. and that i have developped in a study once , i will be glad to repost it if u wish so ..

  Having states based on religion and implementing a secular approach in them will bring the moderates and most competent in each society and will pave the way for maybe a secular Lebanon …

  However let us get real, the only problem standing in front of federalism is not really the people, since i also believe a large amount of the people are somehow moderate, but the political class that is confiscating the masses for itself and brainwashing them … and those can only be fought through federal-based parties .. parties that include muslims, christians & Druzes ..

  Federalism is a very complicated project that has several steps, it cannot and MUST not be implemented randomly, it might be disastrous if done so ..

  I dont think we are disagreeing here on the long run goals, i am just seeing them from a Federalism approach that you are failing to see ..

  I say let us propose decentralization, federalism, explain it to the people, promote it through democratic pluralistic parties and remove that taboo once and for all from the people’s minds ..

• 10. Amir in Tel Aviv | October 17th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

  What is so needed these days, is an Arab Ata-Turk.
  Before talking about secular Arab society, we have to cure Arabs (specially the young) of the malignant Jihadi plague.
  .

• 11. Tareq | October 18th, 2007 at 1:49 am

  Ali BM, Thank you for raising these very good points…well some concerns are real but some concerns are from fear that everyone has about Federalism or partition…for example you say Beirut is mixed so you can’t divide it, but you don’t have to divide all of it, for exampke:

  1) Downtown Beirut can stay an open city like many Arabs and Westerns ask Jerusalem to be open city…I think it is already a Solidere city some people have shares in it, so why not make it shared by all people.

  2) Some areas are clear like East Beirut (Achrafieh Gemmayzeh etc.) or Da7ieh etc. so they are already federal in a way.

  3) Some areas are mixed, well there is always a majority and minority in mixed places even 51%-49%, in one place Shia will be slight majority in other area Sunni will be slight majority, it balances in the end.

  Anyways all this is tacitcs and logistics can be worked through dialogue, and if someone thinks it is too simple and not common sense, well I will ask this:

  Is putting Bcharreh with Akkar in 2000 and 2005 elections common sense? Lebanese accepted it twice!!…Is it better to emigrate to Australia than to move from Tarik Jdideh to Da7ieh?

  If you live now in a mixed area where you are minority you already accept rule of majority in your area…for example Christian living in the South….So is it bad to accept it officially in Federalism?…I think it is much better than to live in bankrupt economy and threat of civil war waiting for solutions which never happen.

  Ali when there is federations the disagreements inside the federation will not be about life or death choice everyday, you will not have division between Aoun-Geagea on war with Israel, you will have normal politics like every country has…Everyone will go to their size, you will not have Christians elected by Shia or Sunni, the Christians can decide what they want and you get rid of the bad politicians. You will not have Lahood as a top leader of anything because FPM and LF both don’t want Lahood, only Hezbollah want Lahood, etc……

  Best Regards.

• 12. mikel | October 18th, 2007 at 2:06 am

  I believe federalism is the way for Lebanon, but unfortunately, it’s nothing but a dream.

  As long as there’s Hezbollah, which wants all of Lebanon to itself. And is starting to control more and more land as time goes on.

  Second, everyone in Lebanon thinks federalism means ‘to2sim’, and so they’re afraid of it. We need to have more lectures and confrences and things like that to let people know what federalism is, and stat making the issue more popular and more supported.

• 13. Tareq | October 18th, 2007 at 2:32 am

  Omar, great reply…I understand your points but I have a different opinion with all respect…

  First I think it is not normal in a real country for one group to wish death for the other group…if you are democrat in America you don’t love Republicans but when your president is assassinated you don’t accept it even if it is Bush…you don’t wish for death on politicians…maybe a few crazy people but not half the people or all the states of the North etc.

  The Lebanese leaders have told us for half the century that Moslim and Christian want the same thing, but in reality Christians alone paid the price for independance for 50 years…even if Sunna forget about Syria (after Assad regime is gone) and Shia forget about Iran, there is no trust between Christian and Moslim and there is no trust between Sunna and Shia…So my opinion is do we want to wait 50 more years to see if this will work?…We will all be dead without feeling we have a country one time in our life…It is very frustrating for all of us Christian Sunni and Shia.

  I respect your opinion Omar and I think most Lebanese think this way but I think it is not real hope to try the same thing that doesn’t work since 50 years…I already feel like we say in Lebanon yalli bi jarrib mjarrab bikoun raso mkharrab because I feel we are always trying the same thing and we are going nuts, the Lebanese are becoming more crazy everyday…

  Best Regards.

• 14. Tareq | October 18th, 2007 at 2:59 am

  Rodge and N10452 I agree with both of you, I don’t want to impose Federalism or Partition…I am talking about convincing other Lebanese that this is the best way because the other solution did not work for 50 years…To be convincing we Christians have to be very honest and speak our mind because we are paying the biggest price…Look at Sunnis now, they are not happy with the situation but they feel strong and they have Saudi Arabia backing and economically they are OK…Look at Shia I believe they also want a better situation but they are doing OK also they have Iran backing…Christians have nothing all we get is bombing and assassination right?

  So I think we have to be COMPLETELY honest with ourselves so we can convince Sunni and Shia that this is a bad deal for everyone…Like Mikel said we need more open discussion and dialogue on Federalism or other systems, that is my opinion.

  Amir, Ataturk is not enough because without USA backing for the Turkish Army then Turkey will have returned to a Islamic country and now they have a Islamic Parliament and Islamist President…I prefer Federalism or partition not unity by force of the army.

• 15. Ali 1559 | October 18th, 2007 at 8:18 am

  To much violence makes it difficult for us to achieve stable balance and security . Culture is what we see and hear so often that we call it reality . Many lebanese , both christians and muslims , are victims of culture violence and verbal abuse ( hadole al massi7iye , hadolle al chiaa , hadole 3wniye ) , which may take the form of internal clashes and then civil war . The rate of internal violence in lebanon is higher than in other arabic countries. Hatred in between the lebanese youth is unreal!!! Inside me there is a seven-year-old who is still hurting from the past civil war where my ppl killed each others for the sake of it . Sadly , im over 25 yrs old now and my ppl are still killing each others for ….? What are we fighting for ? Nothing , nothing but an UNCONSCIOUS MIND & unresolved civil war .

  When peaces becomes possible ? How is that possible , when we have criminals running the office? IZA kan rab al bayti bil tabli daribon ma ma 3la ahli al bayt ila al rakess !!!

  Thank you chabeb .

• 16. Ali 1559 | October 18th, 2007 at 8:20 am

  N,

  this is the best post ever … if you can keep it clean , god bless you…

• 17. omar | October 18th, 2007 at 10:11 am

  Hi guys:

  Thank you everyone for the really nice comments. I’m glad we all feel the same way about Lebanese political attitudes. We have the basis for something really meaningful here.

  To Both Tareq and N:
  I used to hold the same opinions of Federalism. I really did. I even tried to sell Basil Fuleihan on the idea a long while ago and gave him a full 30-minutes on Federalism’s merits. His response is one that I’ll repeat again over and over again: “Federalism might be a great way to increase accountability, but it doesn’t solve our problems.”

  Looking back on that conversation, I see now we have (at least) two problems to tackle: the lack of accountability and security.

  As trust requires time, accountability is a better place to start. “Great! Why not Federalism?” you might ask… how about a more radical idea: Taef.

  The Taef Accord provides for two important structural changes: a Senate and rapid decentralization. The Senate would represent sects themselves, and allow the Parliament to be elected on a popular basis with Christian/Muslim quota. Sect representation will be assured by the Senate, and if what we were saying about the healthy attitude-curve in society, we should have nothing to fear from a Parliament that’s popularly elected.

  Decentralization, obviously, allows for local accountability. Not much elaboration needed.

  As for security, I really feel there is common ground to be found. The vast majority of people want security, just dont know how to go about it. Some want to disarm Hizballah, others will defend them with their lives. The former cites law, the latter cites God. Let’s assume the bell-curve of attitudes and apply it to security.

  The bell curve would imply that between the two extremes, the bulk of people would agree on an arrangement whereby Hizballah could take orders from the elected chain-of-command (Chief of Staff, Prime Minister, President…whatever), but would maintain structural integrity. This “Southern National Guard” as I like to call it, would be subject to the accountability by the elected Chief of Staff, but would maintain structural integrity for the sake of “fighting the 3adou”. Sign a permanent armistice with Israel (forget about permanent peace with ambassador exchange and trade as they’d both be blown up the same day). Back to the future: 1943.

  This might all sound like a pipe dream, but, like you’re Shi’ite friend, I’m sure many Shi’ites and Lebanese would agree on an arrangement like that. Speak with people one on one and you’ll see that a good base of support for that arrangement: they’res really just no venue for their expression

  Right now, as Rodge said so aptly, voting is insufficient. In fact, I’d argue routine voting is symbolic in most mature democracies. It’s only when large issues that touch on most people’s lives that we see really meaningful elections and high voter turnout. What promotes accountability are independent and effective judiciaries, courage and independence by the media, and mobilizing the “50%+” middle-class of society in elections. It’s those 50%+ who will safeguard against vote-payoffs and radical attitudes.

  Want a big issue? Alter the constitution and have a popular referendum on the status of Hizballah. Even the most extreme federal systems (again, Switzerland) have them. Usually they’re on mundane issues but in Lebanon, a referendum on HA’s weapons would be the hottest election ever. Nasrallah wants a popularly elected President: let’s see him put his money where his mouth is and agree to a popularly elected “Resistance”.

  So to recap: accountability and security. Everything else is… “basita”.

  Back to work…

• 18. omar | October 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am

  Oh yeah, N. To answer your question why I thought you would laugh: I’ve been posting on the LFPM forums (www.lfpm.org) and this guy named Abu Sandal’s really soured my taste for internet-based discussion.

  It’s back now though with everyone’s thoughtful responses.

• 19. arze | October 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  Guys ….the most stupid thing one can do is compare Lebanon to ANY country in the world ..You can not compare Lebanon to the U.S , or To germany , or to any other Federal state… i dont think the US has 18 sects , and Israel in the south and syria in the north . So please Be rational , when u wanna talk about federation ….Dont compare lebanon to ANY other country in the word..Lebanon is indeed unique in a positive and negative way .

• 20. omar | October 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  Arze-

  We clearly disagree here.

  Lebanon is composed of overlapping layers of societies, all sharing a common thread that can be called “Lebanese” society, and the structural arrangement that keeps these societies together called “Lebanon.”

  If you accept the hypothesis that people are united by some level of basic, almost instinctual motives in life, then you must accept that there is some common thread to allow for a even a vague comparison between Lebanese societies and other societies around the world.

  People (i.e. societies) are driven by fundamental considerations that are common and logical. For example: people everywhere want to eat, want to sleep, feel productive, feel loved, etc. All those might be interpreted differently in different places and times, but the drive is fundamentally the same.

  Notice I use the word societies. Countries, in the legal and political sense, clearly share similarities and differences in their arrangements and is not really an issue up for debate. Lebanon is very much like France in some ways, more like Somalia in others, and some aspects are indeed unique.

  When we talk about federalism, we are talking about a political arrangement that may or may not reflect the realities of Lebanese society. It could be argued that federalism is indeed congruous with Lebanese society. I personally would agree with such a statement but feel its shortcomings outweigh its benefits, hence opting for a more moderate approach.

  Anyway, the point is you can compare Lebanon to other countries in the world, and Lebanese to other societies in the world… but just have to operationalize discussion and really know what you’re talking about.

  PS. I work in downtown. Anyone up for a coffee?

• 21. Tareq | October 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pm

  Omar, you gave a nice perspective…this is not the first time I hear something similar and it is very moderate also open-minded so my answer will look like an extreme but I am not extremist…I don’t want Federalism or partition because I am closed minded, I don’t hate other sects or parties (I think you see this but others may not see it…So my answer is only based on reality of the past in Lebanon…You and me did not create anything in the past but we have to learn from it so we can create our future:

  First I point your attention to the differences in political action between sects in Lebanon, the Christians are plural (many parties, opposition, competition etc.), the other sects have one or two big parties with the same agenda, so when you have political disagreement with their parties, all the sect becomes against you, it is very difficult to build a country like this…Taef or something else is doomed if there is disagreement because there is no democratic spirit in some sects in Lebanon.

  Second, Taef or no Taef some groups in Lebanon are in Love with Syria and other Arab nations…if you want to do Lebanon’s interest but Syria’s interest or Egypt’s interest is different they will block you to help the UMMA…this is why power sharing did not work for 50 years and power separation may be better.

  Three, all Moslim sects are obsessed with Israel…the fight with Israel (not only military but boycott and solidarity with other Arabs etc.) comes before anything else…so if Syria and Israel have a war or Egypt and Israel have big problems in 10 years this will affect Lebanon seriously with Taef or without Taef, again look at the past and look at the present how the population think (not the elite, the normal people on the street who work drivers, waiters etc.)…This passion against Israel is not in the Christian sect…We don’t care about Israel they mean nothing for us.

  Personally I have a BIG problem with integration of Hezbollah in the Leb Army, they are stronger than the army and they can never be controlled because their religious ideology is the base…they will always obey the religious authority before the national…I see this becoming another way to waste money like Majles Al Janoub and all the other biased reward for only one part of the population.

  Lebanon is a small country and Hezbollah or the Leb Army cannot defend it against Syria, Israel, Turkey, Egypt, USA etc. if they want to attack us we can resist better with Hezbollah but at the end we will be destroyed…Federalism in LEbanon with neutral foreign policy and UN guarantee for defense is our best option in my opinion…if some Lebanese want to follow Lahood and Hezbollah propaganda about “strong” Lebanon and resistance guarantee etc. then my opinion the solution becomes partition because most Christians don’t want to fight wars or help the Umma or worry about Egypt.

  Again I don’t want to sound extremist but like Bachir said only honesty will save us…we cannot be ashamed to say this is our limit we cannot take more than this…I am not born Moslim and I don’t care about Jerusalem or Cairo or Damascus…if we continue to hope for compromise and build Des Chateaux en Espagne with Taef I am afraid we will all emigrate and our story will be over.

• 22. Rodge | October 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  All the constructive discussions i read here makes me think about the necessity of forming a group of young people who are well moderate and open minded, and who can give an example formany to follow.
  We need to create this group and show that people can agree on many things even if they have different views and opinions.
  N, you are the person who’s able to take the initiative in this regard, since you can make the contact with everyone of us.

• 23. SONIA | October 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

  Very impressive writing and discussion.

  Have just returned from a holiday trip to Turkey where I saw what secularism and democracy can do.

  American backing? Lebanon could have it too,couldn’t it? (yes I know that politics is not my strong point.)

  Quite by the way,the vast majority of passengers on the charter flight were Israeli Arabs pursuing a similar objective to ourselves…Taking a break from all the tension and aiming to have some rest and relaxation.

Leave a Reply

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed