The Sectarian Card

It is sad to see that very few people make any attempt to view events in Syria away from divisive trends. And it is increasingly unfortunate that the “revolutionists” and their media supporters have proven to be much more sectarian and divisive than the regime. I have not heard president Assad or any official from the government even once mention the different sects in Syria or try to use it for political exploitation, whereas the “revolutionists” and media “analysts” (I’m using the term analyst very loosely here) have not missed a single opportunity to raise the sectarian issue and use all means and efforts to create and highlight divisions in Syrian society. Such attempts have become so vulgar that even President Bashar al Assad’s reform measures are described in such a repugnantly divisive way as to undermine them altogether and continue to incite Syrians to anger and violence.

When President Assad passed a bill granting undocumented people in Hassakeh Syrian citizenship, it was described as a way to take the Kurds out of the equation, implying that it’s a mere sinister plot by Assad to divide the Syrian opposition. This is both inaccurate and dangerous. It is inaccurate because the fact is that granting undocumented residents of Hassakeh was something that various groups had been discussing with the regime and encouraging Assad to adopt as an important measure to ensure equality among all Syrians. President Assad heeded those calls and did what should be recognized as the right thing. However, continued efforts to undermine and undercut such reforms were being made and thus certain sides felt it would be important to continue to incite Kurds, as well as other Syrians, making them believe that all this is just to shut them up.

When President Assad met with various representatives of different sectors in Syrian society, “analysts” continued to interpret such steps as mere attempts to appease this side or placate that side, only in order to sabotage this great “revolution”. Certain sectarian and ethnic terms continued to be emphasized in order to make sure that divisions in Syrian society are highlighted and strengthened. President Assad’s seriousness about reforms continued to be questioned, with many doubting that he would really put an end to the state of emergency in Syria, which was allegedly a key demand by the protesters. Once the state of emergency was lifted, again it was dismissed as “too little too late” by certain sides that have an interest in sustaining the current chaos and instability. Why exactly it is “too late” remains a mystery. Somehow a month ago it was a key demand but in one month it magically became too late. Yet again a key reform measure was dismissed and the divisions in Syrian society continued to be stressed as a means of continued incitement. The vulgar Robert Fisk, who is a Hariri paid propagandist, insists that the regime in Syria is a “Alawi” regime and therefore a “Shiite” regime, stocking the flames of Sunni-Shiite sectarianism.

All this has made it clear that there is indeed a conspiracy and a sinister plot against Syria, aimed at dividing it and weakening it so that the last state in the Arab world resisting US-”Israeli” hegemony is brought down and resistance against occupation is weakened.

The Shallowness of the Angry Arab

In his usual shallow and sarcastic way, As'ad Abu Khalil, on his blog "Then Angry Arab," posted the following comment:

So Bashshar Al-Asad in his last speech said that Syria needs a new law governing demonstrations because there is no law dealing with demonstrations. He then said that when his reforms are implemented, there would no reason for demonstrations at all. I kid you not. So I say: why formulate a new law for demonstrations then? Huh?

This is typical of Abu Khalil's silly and irresponsible responses to events seriously affecting the nation. Of course, Abu Khalil does not wish to objectively and comprehensively analyze the important speech given by President Bashar al Assad on Saturday, as this would require actual analytical thinking of an important event, something that does not interest the Angry Arab. Instead, he has a score to settle and a grudge to satisfy with the Syrian regime, which leads him to limit his response to the most recent events in Syria to mere sarcastic nonsense and peddling of US/"Israeli"/Saudi propaganda. The actual full quote of the portion addressing the right to demonstrate from Assad's speech is the following:

"أن القانون الأخير الذي اقترح ضمن حزمة القوانين التي اقترحتها اللجنة هو قانون السماح بالتظاهر لأن الدستور السوري يسمح بالتظاهر ولكن لا يوجد لدينا قانون لكي ينظم عملية التظاهر.. وهذا الإجراء عملياً.. هو تحد لأن الشرطة لم تهيأ في سورية لمثل هذه المواضيع فلابد من تهيئة جهاز الشرطة بشكل أساسي ودعمه بالعناصر والمعدات وربما بالهيكلية.. إعادة النظر بالهيكلية لكي تتماشى مع الإصلاحات الجديدة فمن مهام الشرطة أن تقوم بحماية المتظاهرين وبنفس الوقت حماية الأشخاص الآخرين والاملاك الخاصة والعامة من أي محاولة للتخريب أو للعبث بأمن المواطنين. "

Translate: The next law among the package of laws recommended by the committee is the law permitting demonstrations because the Syrian constition allows demonstrations but we do not have a law that organizes the process of demonstrating, which is a practical procedure. It is a challenge because the police in Syria is not equipped for such matters. The police service must therefore be essentially prepared and supported with personnel, equipment and perhaps structure. [There must be] a review of the structure such that it compliments the new reforms, for it is the duty of the police to protect the demonstrators and at the same time protect other persons and private and public property from any attempt at destruction or undermining the security of the citizens.

President Assad then goes on to say:

طبعاً عندما تصدر هذه الحزمة لا يعود هناك حجة لتنظيم التظاهرات في سورية والمطلوب مباشرة من قبل الأجهزة المعنية وخاصة وزارة الداخلية أن تطبق القوانين بحزم كامل ولا يوجد أي تساهل مع أي عملية تخريب.

Translate: Of course after this package [of laws] is issued there will no longer be an excuse for the organization of the demonstrations in Syria and what is directly required is for the relevant agencies, especially the Ministry of Interior, to apply the laws fully and firmly without there being any leniency toward acts of destruction.

A proper reading of the above is that President Assad is tying these new laws to the situation on the ground today. He explains the need to have a proper system that can organize demonstrations, so that demonstrations in the way they are taking place today would no longer be needed. Thus, the second part should be understood as saying that once we pass these new laws, there will no longer be an excuse to organize demonstrations in the manner they are being organized during these latest events. And in that way we can properly separate between demands for reform and acts of destruction. However, because there currently is no law or system organizing the process of demonstrations, people are forced to go out on their own and demonstrate without obtaining permits and without being able to rely on proper agencies to protect and secure the demonstrations. Once a new procedure for demonstrating is introduced, there will no longer be a justification for hasty, chaotic demonstrations where it becomes difficult to differentiate between genuine, peaceful protesters, and those seeking solely to cause trouble and engage in destructive behavior.

Comment on Sham (Syrian Arab Republic)

The following is a comment I made on Prof. Joshua Landis' Syria Comment blog, in response to an inquiry by another participant regarding my posting of articles and reports from state media in Sham:

Dear OTW:

You should know very well that I am very critical of the regime in Syria and of its oppressive and repressive methods since the arrival of the Baath to power in 1963 (even though oppression in Syria did not begin with the Baath but continued after their ascension to power). I also believe that its propaganda is quite crude, bombastic, and just plain dumb, so I do not really subscribe to it in general. And this whole charade of people chanting “bel rou7 bel dam” or “allah, souriya, bashar w bass” is to me a display of reactionary rhetoric, backwards thinking, and ignorance. Moreover, I have repeated numerously that ultimately the regime should be held accountable for what transpires in Syria, as the situation is not forever sustainable and its failure to implement real and serious reforms is going to lead to consequences that the regime is responsible for.

My criticism of the regime, however, does not blind me to what is being cooked up for Syria. I do not operate from the springboard of hatred and spite such that I would rather destroy the country than see the regime survive another day. I have made clear on several occasions that I want what is best for Syria, not what is worst for the regime. What is taking place today in Syria is not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. Although it started out with some protests here and there, most of these protests were very small and limited to specific areas and groups. There was never a clear presence on the street by the masses in rejection of their government, as was the case in Egypt. In addition, I found many of the protests to be repulsive and not representative of the Syria I’d like to see, specifically those calling for the end of mixed-sex schools and chanting slogans against Shiites, Iran, and Hizballah, which to me has nothing to do with demands for freedom and reform, but is rather an expression of the most vulgar form of sectarianism.

What we then witnessed was the steady descension of these protests into acts of violence and destruction combined with the most crude forms of vulgar propaganda, aimed not merely at opposing government repression, but rather at inciting people to violence by appealing to their base emotions, using hate-mongering and sectarian incitement. The videos, pictures, and stories that were being spread were intended to create a reaction stemming from pure hatred, which is always a dangerous reaction that is most likely to lead to chaos and division, rather than one based on rational thought. Videos of unknown and unverified “killings” and “massacres” allegedly by the regime against unarmed protesters were being spread in conjunction with filthy sectarian terms, such as “the Nusairi regime”, “Alawi regime,” “minority rule,” etc. which can lead to nothing but increased divisiveness in society.

What’s more is that most media organizations, both western and Arab, were peddling this propaganda and participating in attempting to incite Syrians through sectarian agitation. We kept reading time and again articles reminding everyone that Syria was a country of a “sunni majority” “ruled by a Alawite minority.” Over and over terms of “Alawite”, “Sunni”, “minority”, “majority”, “Shiite”, “Iran”, “Hizballah”, etc. were drilled into our heads in an apparent attempt to ensure that these divisive terms are imprinted in the minds of Syrians, so that all actions they take would be based on them and not on a feeling of true national consciousness. This was combined with the fact that the presence of armed groups spreading terror and chaos became increasingly evident, calling into question this entire movement from its core.

All this made it clear to me that there was a sinister agenda at play here, which was completely detached from the rightful demands of the majority of Syrians for genuine reforms. It was clear that there is a plan in place to take Syria from a state of stability to a state of chaos and confusion, as such a state is likely to do nothing but further weaken and disable a country. I saw that these foreign media outlets were active participants in this agenda in the way they reported the news and in their providing of platforms for reactionary individuals to spread their vulgar ideas, as was the case with Al-Jazeera and the debased Yousef al-Qardawi.

Therefore, I found it most critical that first and foremost we put a stop to the spreading of this destructive propaganda which can lead nowhere but to the descent of the country into violence and chaos. The only websites and news outlets that were carrying reports and articles rebutting these pieces of propaganda were unfortunately what people regard as “regime” or “pro-regime” sources. I found many of these reports and articles to be much more credible and believable than the hateful propaganda being spread by the so-called “revolutionists” with the aid of the so-called “free” international media, which has proven time and again to be anything but “free.” Hence, I chose to post them and distribute them. This in no way means that I subscribe to all regime propaganda, much of which I find to be distasteful and downright stupid (such as the hours and hours of phone calls supporting “Bashar” we are subjected to).

I have been very clear that my aim is not to overthrow the regime just for the sake of overthrowing it, regardless of what replaces it. I do not believe in satisfying grudges and settling scores as a basis of bringing about changes for the benefit of the country. I have particular disdain for uncontroled chaos and violence and destructive behavior. Moreover, I know for a fact that many Syrians on the ground have struggled and sacrificed, in a constructive manner, for the sake of improving their country, and they have been witnessing some of the fruits of their struggle, only to witness some destructive elements attempt to throw it all in the dumpster for the sake of narrow interests and service of foreign agendas. Finally, I am quite confident that President Bashar al-Assad is indeed serious about bringing about changes and implementing serious reforms that are going to change the political landscape in Syria, and to put a stake in the heart of this move toward reform for the sake of chaos and destruction, seems to me to be utterly counterproductive.

It's NOT the Joulan, Stupid!

It is getting quite tiring to see all the talk from Shami (Syrian Arab Republic) circles about "peace with Israel" and the return of the Joulan, whether fully or partially, or whether with sovereignty but without possession, as if now the only problem a Shami has with the Jewish entity is the Joulan. Once it is returned, this problem will be solved. This of course is a nonsensical position and is a result of the divisions the west was able to create and enforce in our nation, such that now Lebanon has its own problems, as does Sham, as does Palestine, as does Iraq, etc. And no two issues should be mixed or conflated because each entity should be looking after its own interests as an "independent", "sovereign" state.

The fact is that the Syrian nation has a single national cause and a single interest in life, such that any and all threats to any part of the nation are a threat to the nation as a whole. And any occupation of any part of its homeland is an occupation that affects the homeland in its entirety. To fragment and divide our cause is what gives the Jewish occupation the biggest service of all, as it causes us to lose sight of the nature of the struggle and renders us paralyzed before the enemy's assault on the nation. Unfortunately, however, Syrians continue to fall victim to the deception and trickery of "Israel" by going along with its continuous aim to divide our will and make us too fragmented and dispersed to mount an effective campaign against its usurpation of our land and its violation of our national rights.

Every inch of Syrian territory (including every inch of occupied Palestine) belongs to the Syrian nation (as a whole, in all its generations, and not as a group of individuals) and only the Syrians have the right to control and possess it. Therefore, the issue is not that the Joulan is occupied Shami territory that must be returned to the Shami entity in exchange for "peace" with the usurping entity. Rather, the issue is that the Jewish entity in its very nature is a threat to all of Syria and is a violation of Syrian national rights, and as such its very existence should be combated as no nation can reasonably accept a racist, cancerous entity within its body.

Obama's Basic Message: Recognize "Israel" and do as we tell you, and we won't kill you

The ecstasy with which President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo has been received by many circles in the Arab World is truly befuddling. Nothing in the speech was a cause for celebration or even reassurance. The entire speech sounded more like a scolding of our position toward the usurping entity and the United States for the crimes they have committed against our people. He stood in Cairo and told the Arab World that the United States' relationship with "Israel" is "unbreakable," that Jewish suffering is more important than the suffering of your people, that you must recognize the "legitimate right" of "Israel" to exist as a Jewish state, and that you must stop opposing US imperial agendas. And if you do all that , o Arab World, then perhaps we will not kill you. This was the essence of the speech and this was its central, deeply offensive, message.

President Obama took a few minutes to lecture us about Jewish suffering in Europe and about the holocaust, as if this issue has anything to do with us. He implied that because the Jews were killed and oppressed in Europe, that we must then allow them to take our land and kill our people. Not one mention was made of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land, and the deep psychological trauma this has caused to an entire people. Not one mention was made of the brutal, gruesome massacres committed by Jewish Zionist gangs against innocent civilians during their terror campaign to found a racist, exclusive state for Jews only. Therefore, the clear implication of his words is that while we will continue to recognize and mourn Jewish suffering throughout the ages, and demand that you do the same, we will not ever mention your suffering and will deny that any wrong was done unto you. In other words, we believe that the lives of Jews are more valuable and precious than the lives of Palestinians.

Then Obama tied the suffering of Jews in Europe to the requirement that we recognize the "legitimate right" of "Israel" to exist as a Jewish state. He said it is "deeply wrong" to call for the destruction of "Israel," and implied that such language was comparable to a crime of genocide. It is of course quite outlandish to claim that the demand to dismantle what is a racist, cancerous, illegal entity that has brought about nothing but pain and suffering to an entire people is akin to committing genocide against innocent populations. Moreover, Obama failed to denounce genocidal language used by the other side, when that language is actually followed by actions on the ground. It is of no concern to him that an "Israeli" minister would threaten the Palestinians of Gaza with a "holocaust" or that the war minister would promise that Lebanon would be burned from north to south. Both actions and threats of destruction of other countries by "Israel" are not considered "deeply wrong" by Obama, while he is so greatly offended by the notion that someone would demand the dismantlement of an inherently racist system.

He then went on to specifically identify "Israeli" "victimization" at the hands of Palestinians. He denounced Palestinian armed resistance and blasted Palestinians telling them that it is "not courageous to fire missiles at innocent children or to blow up elderly women on buses." Such a vile statement reeks of utter hypocrisy and callousness. It has not been five months since "Israel" brutally and mercilessly massacred over 1400 civilians in Gaza, and yet Obama finds it appropriate to lecture Palestinians on the proper means of struggle. He has the nerve to demand that Palestinians renounce violence and abandon violent resistance, while "Israel" is allowed to continue using savage violence against an innocent population whose only crime was living on a land desired by others.

But Obama did not forget the Palestinians. He gave them token recognition when he said that they have "suffered in their pursuit of a homeland." Apparently, the Palestinians have been pursuing a homeland and it is this pursuit that has caused them great suffering. It is such a general and broad statement that you would think the Palestinians have been suffering from some mysterious phenomenon, or maybe natural disasters, while traversing the globe searching for a homeland. This is of course a completely warped view of the Palestinian struggle and anything but "truth-telling" as Obama likes to brag he does. The Palestinians were never "in pursuit" of a homeland. They have a homeland, and it was stolen from them by Jewish zionists aided by western colonial powers. They were forcefully evicted from their land through massacres, ethnic cleansing, and terror campaigns, and were turned into refugees on their own land as well as in other countries. But President Obama conveniently skips over all the crimes committed against the Palestinians and reduces the cause of their suffering to some unfortunate circumstances.

Obama then proceeded to find an ostensible solution to the Palestinian struggle. His solution was that each side had to recognize the "legitimate aspirations" of the other. In other words, we are required to recognize the "legitimate aspirations" of "Israel" to build and maintain a state exclusively for Jews on land we live in. What a difference a political career makes. Here, I would like to quote from Obama's book "Dreams From My Father," where he was reciting a speech he gave in college at an event in support of the struggle of the African National Congress against Apartheid rule in South Africa. His words were:

"It's happening an ocean away. But it's a struggle that touches each and every one of us. Whether we know it or not. Whether we want it or not. A struggle that demands we choose sides. Not between black and white. Not between rich and poor. No--it's a harder choice than that. It's a choice between dignity and servitude. Between fairness and injustice. Between commitment and indifference. A choice between right and wrong..."

If those words were used by President Obama in his position on the Palestinian struggle, then I would have accepted and believed his claimed commitment to "truth-telling." Unfortunately, however, as President of the United States, it is politically too risky for Mr. Obama to utter such truly expressive words in support of the Palestinians' legitimate struggle against opprression.

Egypt: From "Mother of the World" to Joke of the World

With every further action that the Egyptian regime takes against Hizballah it digs itself a deeper hole. It is becoming ever more clear that Egypt is a puppet of the west and a collaborator against Palestinians and the Palestinian cause. According to Egyptian calculations, Hizballah aiding besieged Palestinians in Egypt is a violation of Egyptian sovereignty and a threat to Egyptian security, but "Israel" attacking the Sinai side of the Rafah border and forbidding Egypt from increasing its security presence in the Sinai does not in any way affect Egyptian sovereignty or security.

What has become clear is that Egypt is actively participating in the war against our people in Palestine. Egypt has become a lackey and a tool of "Israel" to be used against our people in the Jewish state's continuing attempt to subjugate us for the purpose of expanding their racist entity. After all, it is the foreign minister of this very state who threatened to "break the legs" of any Palestinian who dared cross the Rafah border crossing. No amount of empty rhetoric or baseless propaganda will now change this image of Egypt.

The regime's attempt to accuse Hizballah of engaging in "Shiitization" is laughable to say the least, and only adds to the utter patheticness of this collaborative dictatorship. To think that a few Hizballah operatives aiding Palestinians from the Gaza-Sinai border are going to carry out mass conversions of millions of Egyptians is of unsurpassed ridiculousness and is merely a smokescreen to attempt to distract people from the true nature of the Egyptian regime and the role it is playing today as puppet and collaborator.

Egypt has for sometime now been actively working to prevent any and all supplies from entering Gaza in order to aid "Israel" in its siege of the Palestinian civilians living in the Strip. Egypt has done its part in closing and sealing the border and in attempting to destroy all smuggling tunnels going from Sinai to Gaza. What it has been having a hard time with, however, is controlling the Bedouins of the Sinai, who have been admirably and courageously aiding the Palestinian resistance in anyway they can.

These Bedouins of course are not of Egyptian origin and have no loyalty to the Egyptian state. Rather, they feel that the Palestinian cause is their cause because they are of the same people. Egyptian security forces have been doing all they can to go after these Bedouins of the Sinai but have been reluctant to confront them as they don't want to create any unnecessary problems for themselves.

The Arab World in general, and the Syrian nation in particular, now see Egypt as nothing more than a tool in the hands of foreign occupiers. Egypt has been at the forefront of the war against the Resistance and has done all it can to deny our people their right to resist foreign aggression and occupation.

Moreover, the Egyptian regime has done nothing to improve the situation of its people, while it continues to beg foreign powers for economic assistance in order to sustain its disastrous hold on power. Mubarak has unleashed a security force of a million and a half in order to control 80 million Egyptians, most of whom are living in poverty. The state's infrastructure has been completely neglected and utter corruption is pervasive all across the government, such that the people's wealth is being stolen by a destructive regime. It is for this reason that Egypt has been trying to serve the US and "Israel" loyally, hoping to continue to obtain economic aid which it deems wholly necessary for the continued survival of the regime. And of course the US has no problem with a corrupt, totalitarian regime so long as it serves the US's interests in a slave-like manner.

In a previous time, Egypt was referred to by many in the Arab World as "mother of the world," an endearing term they used to describe what they saw as a large, rich, powerful country with tremendous potential. I have always disagreed with this characterization of Egypt, but nevertheless Egypt definitely had its admirers. Today, however, Egypt has relegated itself to "joke of the world" as it has reinforced its role as slave and puppet to western colonial powers.

"Not a Mirage" (ليس سراباً)

I recently watched the entire 32-episode Syrian series called "Not a Mirage," or ليس سراباً in Arabic (pronounced laysa saraban). The series tackles several important and controversial issues present in our society, the most important of which is sectarianism and religious fundamentalism, but also includes such prominent topics as women's rights, civil society (or absence thereof), honor killings, and love relationships. The story revolves around a divorced single "Christian" mother, Hanan, who happens to fall in love with a divorced "Muslim" father of two, Jalal, and the ensuing relationship that arises out of this love. But the prevalent social attitudes prevent the couple from making their relationship public, and create a host of obstacles and problems that keep them from leading normal lives together. Their obligation to keep the relationship secret, due to the social ills from which our people suffer, is a clear recipe for disaster.

The series does a good job of addressing controversial topics and breaking taboos in a courageous and thought-provoking manner. Our society's attitude toward women is expressed and demonstrated by the roles to which most members of our society believe women should be confined. A prime example is the attitude of Hanan's father toward her being a divorced woman, which he views with utter disgust and disdain, even though Hanan's ex-husband was a corrupt figure who regularly abused his wife physically and psychologically. The position of the father was that many things happen between a man and a woman that should remain inside their home. That his daughter was being beaten, and that her dignity and honor were being stepped on, is of no concern to him, as it is more important that his daughter resort to her natural role of the obedient wife. This is a mentality that is quite pervasive in our society, as women are viewed, to a large extent, as servants of their husbands who are required and expected to obey their husbands and remain under their control, irrespective of how they are treated.

The series also ponders the proper role of religion; whether it is to be a pure spiritual and moral guide being completely separate from matters involving the state and the political system, or whether it should govern all aspects of our lives, including political and judicial national matters. Michel, the owner and publisher of a controversial magazine prints an article in his publication criticizing the role that religious institutions have played in involving themselves in issues that are outside the natural role of religion, calling for the inception of a secular system. His article becomes the target of ire and revulsion from members of all religious sects in our nation, as they all view it as an attack on religion, rather than a mere criticism of the contribution of religious institutions to sectarianism, religious fundamentalism, and the absence of the civil society.

This leads to another article printed by Michel's magazine that addresses the absence of the civil society, as our laws, especially those dealing with family and personal status, are governed by religious jurisprudence and institutions. As such, citizens are not treated as members of a single nation with equal rights and duties, but are rather subjected to different rules and procedures depending upon their confessional background. This article again draws intense anger from members of society, as they see it as a blasphemous call for secularism. The feeling is such that, Jalal's son, who becomes indoctrinated as a fundamentalist Islamist, regards Michel as a "sectarian Christian" who is introducing a "corrupt, western" idea of secularism in order to advance a sectarian agenda.

It is highly important that such matters begin to be discussed and addressed in our society, as we suffer from many ailments that need to be treated and cured if we are to experience a renaissance and come out of the coma in which we continue to be stuck. When young men are shown cheering and encouraging a fellow citizen for murdering his sister for "honorable" reasons, attention is brought to a sick mentality that drives many of our people. It is a step in the right direction that will hopefully open the door to further self-examinations and self-critiques that can help make us a better, more advanced, more dynamic society.

Arab "Reconciliation": The Latest Joke

As we've recently heard in the news, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad met on Wednesday with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as part of an effort to reconcile the so-called "differences" between the Arab states that had caused relations to sour in the last few years. The reports coming out of this meeting is that it was "positive" and "constructive" and that a "mechanism" was agreed upon to help these states deal with future issues that may be a cause of discord.

First, to suggest that this was an attempt at reconciling the differences that have arisen between different Arab states, while at the same time uninviting Qatar, an important party to those so-called "disagreements," at the request of Egypt appears quite disingenuous and leads one to believe that alterior motives are at play. It is illogical for "Arabs" to be negotiating an end to the rift that has materialized in the last several years when a major Arab player is left out of the negotiations.

Second, the argument that there are mere "disagreements" between the two "camps" of the Arab World which need to be reconciled is completely contrary to the truth and to the reality of the events. There are no "Arab disagreements" between Syria on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the other hand. It is not as if these states were working toward achieving a common goal and serving a common interest and had mere disagreements on the best means of achieving that goal and serving that interest. What there was in reality is clear collaboration by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt with the enemies of our nation and an active participation of these states in the war against our people. Egypt and Saudi Arabia both played a dirty and sinister role in joining forces with the US and "Israel" to help them destroy our honorable Resistance against the brutal and criminal occupation of our land. Because these Arab regimes failed miserably in their endeavor, as their master "Israel" was defeated in its wars against our people, and because Syria stood steadfast with our people's right to resist their oppressors, these Arab regimes began to hold a grudge against Syria as it denied them their chance to please and obediently serve their masters.

The actions of these Arab states were not simple disagreements over a means to a common end. They were clear, unambiguous crimes against our people and their right to fight and struggle for their dignity and freedom. Egypt's role in helping the Jewish state starve and kill our people in occupied Palestine made it into a tool for the enemy. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's endless efforts to help "Israel" destroy the Resistance in Lebanon once and for all puts it in the same column with the Jewish entity. There is therefore nothing over which to reconcile. There are not mere "differences" between various parts of a common cause. There is rather a clear collaborator and criminal on one side and a clear defender of just rights on the other.

Unless and until these Arab regimes recognize their crimes and desist from denying our people their national rights, including their legitimate right to resist a brutal occupation and defend themselves against a barbaric enemy, then all these meetings and negotiations are futile, as they cannot possibly produce any fruitful results.

Let "Them" Accept Secularism First

It has become a common declaration among many of our people whenever they are confronted with the issue of secularism. "If 'they' accept secularism, then we would be happy to have a secular country." That is, they justify their sectarian mentalities and feign support for secularism by claiming that it is the other sects that refuse to accept secularism and therefore they have no choice but to embrace sectarianism. This is of course a bogus argument intended merely to rationalize their deeply embedded sectarian sentiments and their vehement opposition to secularism.

To claim that the only thing keeping you from accepting secularism is "their" sectarianism and "their" rejection of secular principles demonstrates a clear, unambiguous sectarian, divisive mentality, as you divide our people into "us" and "them." There is a clear matter of principle that we have to decide. Do we view our nation as one society and one people with one interest and one life? Or do we treat our nation as a collection of sects with differing and competing interests? If your position is in line with the former, then you should, under this principle, reject any notion of "us" vs. "them" and apply your ideals equally to the nation as a whole. If you believe in the latter, then no amount of explanations and rationalizations can disguise your inherent sectarian view of society.

As for the very logic behind such statements, its nonexistence is clear to the astute and conscious citizen. An individual who claims that he/she cannot embrace secularism until the "other side" does so first is merely a declaration that he/she does not wish to let go of his/her sectarian attitude. And just who is this individual expecting to embrace secular principles? There are citizens of our nation of all backgrounds who have adopted secular ideals, so who is this individual referring to when they proclaim that "they" must first accept secularism? They are in reality astoundingly implying that sectarian groups from other sects must accept secularism before sectarian groups from this individual's sect can be expected to transform into secular organizations. Such an outrageous condition is placed knowing full well that no sectarian organization is ready to tolerate, much less promote, secularism, or they wouldn't be sectarian to begin with.

Until we forever drop all divisive thoughts from our mindset, we can continue to expect to experience woes and disasters. The categorization of our people into "us" and "them" is representative of a diseased mentality of which the nation must rid itself. The only solution to all our ailments is the realization that we are one nation with one interest in life.

The Propaganda of Michael Totten

Michael Totten has a new entry here in which he tells his version of the "bravado" story of Christopher Hitchens being roughed up by members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party after defacing one of their memorials. The story is filled with so many lies and distortions that I don't even know where to begin. In any case, here are a few observations:

1. Michael Totten, Christopher Hitchens, and Jonathan Foreman, are three western neoconservative commentators and self-proclaimed intellectuals who can't read, speak, or understand Arabic, and who have never read any material on or by the SSNP, who nevertheless find themselves qualified enough to make judgments about the Party. It appears their entire display of arrogance was intended to make the claim that the SSNP is a Nazi tool of the Syrian regime employed in Lebanon to do the dirty work of Bashar al-Assad. Michael Totten even went as far as accusing the SSNP of committing all the assassinations in Lebanon, thereby bypassing the investigation and the "international court" that they so proudly flaunt and issuing a full and final verdict. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence linking the SSNP to any of the assassinations, but then again, propaganda doesn't need or even want evidence.

2. Michael Totten and Co. apparently have a problem with the emblem of the SSNP, to which they refer as a "swastika" when in fact it is a Cyclone with no ties or relations to the Nazi swastika. The Cyclone is in fact a historical Syrian symbol that represents continuous movement and dynamism. In addition, it has a specific meaning in the SSNP flag, as its four corners represent the motto of the SSNP, namely "Freedom, Duty, Discipline, Strength." And in any case, whatever their distaste is for the Party emblem, it is quite an arrogant argument they make that they have a duty to deface any poster or memorial which contains a "swastika." What if a different person thought they had a duty to deface any object that contains the British flag? I wonder how they would be viewed in the western world in general and in Great Britain in particular. And I wonder if anyone would pity them if they were to be roughed up upon being caught engaging in such an act.

3. Michael Totten, who quite clearly and openly displays his utter ignorance when it comes to any matter relating to the Middle East in general and to the SSNP in particular, makes it a point to insist that the SSNP is a "nazi" party, thereby justifying their criminal actions in the streets of Beirut. It is of course of no surprise to anyone who has read the writings of Antoun Saadeh (founder and leader of the SSNP who was murdered by the Lebanese government) that the type of nationalism espoused by the SSNP is one of SOCIAL nationalism, which includes all elements of society within the definition of the nation, and is completely contradictory to the RACIAL nationalism of National Socialism and the POLITICAL Nationalism of Fascism.

But Michael Totten doesn't bother with actually reading up on a matter on which he is utterly ignorant, as he dismissively and mockingly states "Many say they cannot be National Socialists, as were the Nazis, because they identify instead as Social Nationalists, whatever that means." So the intellectual vigor of this individual leads him to the brilliant conclusion of "whatever that means." What that means Mr. Totten is that while National Socialism is a racist ideology, which excludes all elements not of a specific racial origin from the definition of the nation, combined with a socialist economic philosophy, Social Nationalism is one that includes all elements of society and does not discriminate between one racial group or another. In fact, if Mr. Totten or his pals had bothered to read Antoun Saadeh's book on sociology, The Genesis of Nations, they would find that the founder of the SSNP was very critical of European racism which he believed to be irrational and not based on any scientific principles. Moreover, if they bothered to read the Principles of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, they would find that in the Fourth Basic Principle Saadeh states that "the alleged purity of the blood or race of any nation whatsoever is a groundless myth," and he goes on to argue that "this principle would free the nation from blood-tie bigotries that are apt to cause the people to neglect the national interests and to direct their energies towards internal strife, corruption and apathy. For those Syrians who believe or feel within the country or nation that they are of Aramaic extraction would no longer be actuated to fan Aramaic blood-loyalty, so long as the principle of Social Nationalist unity and the equality of civic, political and social rights and duties are guaranteed, and no discrimination between one blood or race in Syria is made. In the same way, those Syrians who claim to descend from a Phoenician (Canaanite), Arab, or Crusader stock, would no longer care also for any other than the cuase of their community, within which all matters affecting them would take place, and on whose fate would depend the fate of their family and of their descendants, their hopes and their ideals." Instead, Michael Totten relies on an analysis of the SSNP made by an "Israeli" in a publication called the Atlantic, whatever that means.

4. Michael Totten, again in a show of utter ignorance and pure propagandistic nonsense, accuses the SSNP of wanting "to resurrect the ancient pre-Islamic and pre-Arabic Syria and annex Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, and parts of Turkey and Egypt to Damascus." Of course, there is nowhere in the writings of Saadeh or any of the Party intellectuals any mention of annexing any part of the Syrian homeland to "Damascus". The truth is that the SSNP believes that the people of the entire fertile crescent form a single nation that was historically known as Syria. This has been established by historical, sociological, and anthropological findings. The SSNP merely advocates for the national unity of the people of this homeland and aims to persuade them of their true national identity. This is a far cry from wanting to forcefully annex different parts of the nation to a single city or political entity.

5. Mr. Totten goes on to state that the SSNP is made up of predominantly Christian members. I don't know how Totten comes to this conclusion as the SSNP has never conducted a census to determine the sectarian make-up of its members, for it is a truly secular party completely opposed to sectarianism or any other divisive mentalities. I can also guarantee that Michael Totten did not himself conduct a survey of SSNP members to arrive at his conclusion. The truth is that Social Nationalists include Syrians from all political entities and from various religious and ethnic backgrounds, and the SSNP does not know, nor will it ever care, what the specific sectarian and ethnic breakdown of its membership is.

6. Michael Totten then propagates the myth that the anthem of the SSNP is sung to the tune of the German anthem under Nazi rule, "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles." Given that Mr. Totten and his friends have most assuredly never heard the anthem of the SSNP, and probably have never even heard the Nazi German anthem either, it is most likely that Mr. Totten merely regurgitated this information from some other propagandist, perhaps Daniel Pipes, without even bothering to check its veracity. The fact is that the SSNP anthem, which is titled "Syria, peace be to you" and not "Syria, greetings to you" as the ignorant Totten proclaims, is not sung to the tune of the Nazi German anthem nor does it have any relation to it. But again, the likes of Hitchens and Totten are more interested in spreading propaganda to further their own agenda then they are in relaying accurate information.

7. Michael Totten makes the argument that Beirut in general, and the Hamra area in particular, is a "liberal and cosmopolitan “March 14” stronghold," and that the SSNP has no popularity there. Well, what would probably be shocking news to Mr. Totten, is that the SSNP is in fact the oldest party in Lebanon and has had a strong presence in Beirut and elsewhere since long before the current "March 14" groups ever existed. Furthermore, to call the parties that make up the "March 14" alliance "liberal" is akin to calling Rush Limbaugh tolerant.

8. The most arrogant position by Totten and Co., however, is their justification of their own actions. That they went to another country and defaced a memorial there is treated as an act of heroism when in fact it was a criminal act of vandalism over which they would have been prosecuted in any other country. Had they done the same in the US they would have been arrested and at the very least fined for their offense. Had they committed vandalism in Singapore, they would have been caned.

In the end, Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens prove they are but neocon propagandists, who are willing to support sectarian, feudal, reactionary groups such as the Future Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party (which is neither progressive nor socialist and is run by a feudal, sectarian, war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Lebanese) in order to further their own agenda. I believe it is a good lesson they learned that they don't in reality have a right to go into a foreign country and deface and vandalize whatever objects they dislike.

Clowns of February 14

Everytime I witness an event organized by the February 14 (or March 14) clan I am amazed at how the so-called "leaders" they have to offer combine ignorance, dullness, stupidity, opportunism, and thuggery all into one. There is not a speech I hear by these clowns that is not full of empty slogans, vitriol, and nonsensical emotional rhetoric and empty of any substance. How any normal person can take such farcical characters seriously is beyond me, and is quite disturbing. And those were the drivers of the so-called "Cedar Revolution." If that's considered a revolution then Barnum & Bailey must be showcasing regular revolutions across the United States.

Beautifying the Enemy

I am especially digusted by attempts made in certain media outlets in the Arab World at beautifying the image of the terrorist leaders of the occupying entity. When terrorists like Rabin, Peres, Livni, or Barak are turned into peace doves and presented as advocates of human rights in general, and Palestinian rights in particular, I truly shudder and cringe. It is also quite obnoxious that some in the Arab World actually express preferences in "Israeli" elections, as if any result is going to matter for our people and our cause. Our land will remain occupied, and our people will continue to be oppressed, as all sides in the elections are representative of the same racist, hateful, colonial ideology.

This is NOT a War on Hamas

Contrary to the propaganda spewed by much of the mainstream media, this latest "Israeli" terrorist aggression is not a war on Hamas; rather it is part of the continuous war on the Palestinian people that has been ongoing for decades, since the inception of the Jewish entity. The war increases in intensity and severity every so often because "Israel" has had a continuous policy of terrorizing civilians for the purpose of intimidating them into submission and capitulation. Everytime "Israel" launches another one of its destructive, terroristic attacks, it justifies it by claiming self-defense and laying the blame on whatever group is resisting its murderous ambitions. This case is no different.

The bottom line is that "Israel" is a racist, colonial state that cannot be sustained except through military force. It is an unnatural entity that was built for a particular group of people on land inhabited by another people. As such, this entity could not possibly have materialized without the ethnic cleansing and driving out of the indigenous population, which is exactly what took place in 1948, and what has been continually taking place since that time. The Palestinians have been forced to live under occupation and siege while the Jewish entity has been doing everything in its power to make life unbearable for them, in the hope that this would make them go away.

This is the essential root of the problem and the source of the conflict. It is NOT Hamas. Hamas is merely a natural reaction to the problem, as is any resistance group against a brutal and oppressive occupation. However, the mainstream media, along with the leaders of western nations and collaborative Arab states, would like to ignore the problem, pretend like there has been no injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, and merely hope that the Palestinians can be bullied into accepting their fate and just submitting to the hegemony of "Israel." However, the Palestinians have refused to just lie down and continue to fight for their rights, which is making "Israel" and the nations mentioned above increasingly frustrated. The Palestinians are thus continually blamed for their plight and "Israel" is given a free pass to do what it wishes to them. However, unfortunately for "Israel," the Palestinians are going to continue to fight, and ultimately Palestine will be free, and the Zionist state will be brought down. This is the fate of an unnatural entity built on the blood and bones of another people.

Gaza on My Mind

The distortion of the facts in Gaza being perpetrated by the mainstream media today, specifically in the US is truly appalling and grotesque. It is of course no surprise, as the US media has always took it upon itself to beautify the image of "Israel" and conceal its ugly nature from the public. However, the deceptive propaganda campaign being waged by these self-described "objective" journalists, reporters, and analysts is quite outlandish. Justifications for the killing of civilians are being made on a regular basis through the ludicrous claims that Palestinian civilians are hiding weapons stockpiles in their homes, schools, and medical clinics. (I of course don't have any problem with anyone helping the resistance in anyway possible, as it is the duty of every patriotic Syrian to aid the resistance against this cancerous, rotten entity) Moreover, "Israel" is continuously and consistently being portrayed as defending itself against brutal attacks by "terrorists," when reality has clearly shown that "Israel" itself is the true terrorist and criminal in this conflict. In addition, once again our people are being stripped of any legitimate cause in the media (with the participation of saudi-funded propaganda outlets) by arguing that the resistance is made up of proxies causing trouble for the sake of advancing a political agenda of another country. The suffering of our people and their endurement of one of the most brutal occupations in human history is thereby denied and relegated to minimum importance and our righteous cause in fighting for our basic national rights is thereby stripped. It is up to us to correct these misstatements of facts and distortions of the truth by using every possible avenue available to us to bring the truth to the public. I urge all our people to organize and become active as we are engaged in a struggle of life or death, whatever the outcome, we are the ones to answer for the consequences.

"Israeli" Crimes in Gaza

Norwegian doctor and Gaza aid worker Mads Gilbert gives an accurate account of the carnage, destruction, and deliberate civilian targeting that the Jewish entity is visiting upon Gaza.

GAZA FACTS

1. Contrary to the myth being disseminated in the mainstream media, "Israel" Broke the Cease Fire, Not Hamas. Under the Truce agreement signed on June 19, 2008, all sides were to cease fire and "Israel" was to lift the siege on Gaza and open all border crossings so that much needed aid may enter the strip. Since that date, "Israel" continually failed to abide by its side of the agreement, as it kept the border crossings closed to everything but a very limited number of supplies and aid. Furthermore, on 4th November, Israel launched a series of raids into Gazan territory, killing 6 Palestinians, and subsequently completely tightened its siege of Gaza by sealing all border crossings, causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Richard Falk, the UN human rights rapporteur, argued that these actions constituted a "crime against humanity".

2. The fire power between the Jewish entity and Hamas is disproportionate. "Israel" dropped 200,000 pounds of artillery on the Gaza Strip in one day, December 27, killing over 200 people. More than 275 people were injured in the strikes. On the other hand, Israel is the largest recipient of military foreign aid from the United States, receiving $3.2 billion in advanced, sophisticated, and very deadly weaponry yearly. Although Hamas has sent rockets to the Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land in an attempt to protect its people against genocide, these rockets are generally ineffective and cause very little casualties.

3. The International Court of Justice has found "Israel" guilty on fourteen counts of violating human rights. Included among these violations are the Apartheid Wall, the settlements, the "Israeli" blockage of food, medicine, fuel and other life resources from coming into Gaza and the imprisonment of the Gazan people.

4. United States law prohibits the president from providing military aid to any country which engages in a persistent pattern of gross violations of international human rights. Under the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act, it is illegal to use US weapons to carry out extrajudicial-killings. Since September 2001, the "Israeli" army has used attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets to target Palestinian civilians, homes, buildings and demonstrations.

5. As of January 5, 534 Gaza Palestinians have been killed since the December 27 "Israeli" attacks began. Over 2500 Gazans have been injured (many critically), 35% women, children and elderly. The Al Mezan Center for human rights rationally states that most Gaza victims are civilians.

Long Absence

I apologize to my readers for my lengthy absence, but I should be back on track now. There's so much that has been happening and so much to talk about, and yet the overall picture is still the same. Palestine remains occupied, and no one appears to give a hoot about the suffering of innocent Palestinians, including the corrupt puppets and slaves of the Palestinian Authority. The February 14 puppets and slaves in Lebanon are still attempting to maintain their grip on power, although that grip appears to be loosening bit by bit, in spite of continuous American encouragement and assurances. Of course the highlight of the last few months was the Iraqi reporter throwing his shoe at George Bush, the butcher of Baghdad. Nothing could have expressed the true sentiments of the Iraqi people more than that simple act of basic human instinct. I did see Raghida Dergham condemn and denounce the courageous act of Mountadhar Al-Zeidi, but as a journalist for hire and a slave, nothing applies to her better than the famous words of Said Taqieddine: "How eloquent is the harlot when she lectures on chastity." In fact, this phrase pretty much sums up all the nonsense spewed by the slaves, puppets, and defeatists of the Arab World.

Death: A Way to Life

On July 22, Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst and professor, wrote an article in the Gulf News, titled "Women of Valor," in which he questioned the value of dying for your country. Specifically, Mr. Moubayed was undermining the contribution to their nation of the likes of Sanaa Mahaidly and Dalal Moughrabi, the two martyrs who died fighting the Jewish occupation of our land. Mr. Moubayed's analysis was that these were bright young ladies, with their whole future ahead of them, who could have become gifted intellectuals and thus contributed more to their nation by undertaking various intellectual and academic activities. Therefore, according to Mr. Moubayed, living for your country is better than dying for your country.

With all due respect to Sami Moubayed as a political analyst, I believe that his understanding of life and death is completely lacking. First, all nations are made up of individuals who are able to contribute to the advancement and development of their respective nations. We are all productive potentialities endowed with the capacity and duty to enrich our nation in our own respective ways. The nation is thus made up of doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, farmers, workers, etc., each of which is able to contribute to the betterment of the nation based on their specific individual ablities, talents, strengths, weaknesses, etc. However, the nation is also in need of fighters; those who are willing to risk their lives, or even give up their lives, for the sake of defending their homeland and protecting the national rights of their people as a whole.

From here, we understand that the life of the nation is more precious than the life of individuals. That is not to say that each individual life is not valuable in its own right. Rather, the continued life of the nation overrides and takes precedence over the idea of individual self-preservation. For this reason, numerous individuals throughout history have willingly sacrificed their individual selves for the sake of their respective nations as a whole. If we are to engage in an analysis of what each of these individuals could have contributed to their nation were they to remain alive, we would be undertaking a futile exercise that completely misses the basis of such acts of selflessness. It is not that these individuals do not value their lives, nor is it that they have nothing to offer to their nations while living, but rather they understood that the continued life and liberty of their nation was in danger and they viewed national life as more important than their individual lives.

Our nation is today divided, fragmented, and many portions of it are occupied by foreigners. More importantly, its continued life is under constant threat from its enemies who are working day and night to subjugate it. In such a state, the nation cannot meet its vast potential, as it is broken and its resources are dispersed. Our nation is currently neither free, nor sovereign, nor independent, because its destiny is controlled by foreign will, it is not allowed to act freely in betterment of itself, and its right over its land has been completely stripped from it. As such, the nation's very existence is threatened, and its life, in all its true meaning, has been stolen from it. In such a situation, it is natural that individuals within the nation would rise to defend their land and protect their nation's life. Such people understand that life is not worth living if it is empty of honor and dignity. That is, they realize that individual life means nothing when the nation as a whole is reduced to mere existence.

It is worth clarifying here the difference between living and existing. Life is a mere stand of dignity. That is, one cannot live unless they are enshrined in glory, dignity, and honor. And whereas life is not possible without glory, mere existence does not differentiate between glory and humiliation. Therefore, while the nation can exist in a state of enslavement and humiliation, it can only live in a state of glory; a state where it controls its own destiny, is in full possession of all its rights, and is occupying its rightful place among the nations. Only then can our nation truly be living in a meaningful sense.

It is with this understanding that our brave compatriots go into battle, insisting on defending their nation's honor. They understand that their individual lives do not take priority when their nation is divided, occupied, and subjected to persecution and oppression. And what people mistakenly conclude, is that these people do not love life, when in fact these are the very individuals who truly love life. But loving life to them is not a cliche. They love life because they love freedom. They would love nothing more than to see their nation living in freedom and their people freely acting for the betterment of their nation. And because they love life, within its true meaning, they also embrace death when death is a way to life. That is, they will gladly give up their individual lives if this leads to the life and prosperity of their nation. Therefore, rather than belittle and demean the actions of courageous, honorable figures such as Sanaa Mahaidly and Dalal Moughrabi, our intellectuals, including Sami Moubayed, should be honoring them and commemorating their sacrifices in a respectful manner.

Distorting the Resistance: The Case of Samir Quntar

With news of the recent agreement between "Israel" and the Resistance in Lebanon over the exchange of prisoners, the story of Samir Quntar, who is to be among the Lebanese detainees to be released by the Jewish entity, has again resurfaced with the official propagandistic version of the "Israeli" government being presented as the factual depiction of the event which led to the capture of Quntar. This version portrays Samir Quntar as a brutal, merciless, cold-blooded killer who killed a Jewish civilian in front of his 4-year-old daughter and then proceeded to smash the young girl's head against a rock with the butt of his rifle. It is an image of a heartless psychopath whose only intent was to terrorize and murder innocent civilians. Unfortunately, although Quntar's version of the event was never heard, most media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, have presented the concoction disseminated by the Jewish state as the true and accurate version of the event.

This depiction of Samir Quntar is in fact part and parcel of the continuous campaign waged by "Israel" and its allies to discredit the Resistance and tarnish its image before the world. The ultimate aim is to conceal the reason for the very existence of the Resistance and to strip it of its cause. The world must be prevented from seeing that the Resistance has a cause, which is to liberate its land from foreign occupiers and protect and defend its people's inherent rights. As such, Resistors are transformed from freedom fighters to murderers and trouble-makers whose sole objective is to terrorize civilians.

The reason that "Israel" chose to fabricate that very story about Samir Quntar is because the tale implies that Quntar organized this entire operation for the sole purpose of killing a civilian in front of his daughter and then crushing the skull of the little girl. In reality, Samir Quntar, and three of his comrades, embarked on an operation on April 22, 1979 the purpose of which was to attack one of the biggest "Israeli" military bases, located in Nahariya, in order to prevent the continued establishment of permanent Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.

The operation initially succeeded brilliantly in that Quntar and his fellow fighters were able to drive their speedboat into occupied Palestine, maneuvre through six squadrons of warships, hide the boat from the seashore guards and "Israeli" radar, and enter the settlement camp of Nahariya after combatting and defeating an "Israeli" patrol squad. However, the subsequent detection of Quntar's group by "Israeli" forces led to a gun battle that resulted in the death of several people including an "Israeli" settler family of four. The exact details of the event are still unclear, but Quntar at the time engaged in a battle in order to escape and return to Lebanon. His intention was thus to get back into the boat and make his way back. However, his plan was stopped short and once the dust of the battle cleared, people were found dead.

The idea that Quntar would take time from his heated battle with "Israeli" forces in order to shoot a father in front of his child and then crush the skull of the child is completely implausible. However, "Israel" needed a tale that would demonize Resistance fighters and all those who dare stand up to the Jewish state and its occupation of their land. It also needed to minimize the success of the operation in the ability of 4 fighters to penetrate "Israeli" security. As such, during the course of the sham trial (this was a trial run by the occupiers to try resistance fighters from among those whose land is occupied) the illegitimate prosecution presented to the illegitimate court fabricated evidence to demonstrate that Samir Quntar was nothing more than a brutal, cold-blooded killer, equivalent to any common criminal.

Unfortunately, this story has floated around for so long that anyone who dares regard Samir Quntar as a hero is seen as a hypocritical, callous apologist for a disgraceful criminal. As such, the successful liberation of Quntar by the Resistance in Lebanon is portrayed as a group of terrorists whose moral bankruptcy allows them to insist on the freedom of a convicted murderer. What is most saddening, however, is not the position of the enemy on this issue, as this is normal and expected, but rather the position of fellow citizens whose very honor and dignity the Resistance is fighting to defend.

After his sentence was announced, Samir Quntar responded saying "I don’t care if the sentence was 9 or even 10 life sentences, the important thing for us is that we made them realize that we are here to stay. Now and tomorrow." These words express the mindset of a person struggling to defend his land and his people against an unjust, brutal occupation, and not that of a murderer. It is in line with the spirit which says that there is nothing easier than for some nations to surrender their right to life for the sake of an "everlasting peace", and we refuse be among those nations.

The Folly of Economic Prosperity through "Peace" with the Enemy

Many misguided citizens of our nation anxious to make "peace" and normalize relations with "Israel" have used a fallacious economic argument to make their case. The assertion is that if we come to a "peace" settlement and normalize ties with the Jewish state, we will find economic prosperity, as western nations will reward us with money and we will benefit from new economic relations with said nations. There are two erroneous assumptions with this theory. The first is the assumption that "Israel" is willing to open the door for the potential prosperity of our nation, and the second is that economic agreements with western nations is the way to economic prosperity.

In their blindness to reality and clear misguidedness of surrounding events, many proponents of the above-mentioned argument find it useful to cite to two prime examples of economic boom following normalization with "Israel." These two examples are Egypt and Jordan. The idea that Jordan and Egypt are exemplary models of economic success is based on superficial observations and a shallow understanding of economics. A simple visit to either of these countries presents one with a facade of economic prosperity. This facade is constructed by the presence of western retail stores, restaurants, and hotels and by the financial wealth of certain capitalists and entrepreneurs, who were able to achieve tremendous financial success. In reality, however, these manifestations merely show that rich people can be found anywhere and that western nations have no problem turning developing countries into consumers of their products. A closer look at the economies of both Egypt and Jordan gives a much more grim and dismal outlook.

Recent developments have exposed Jordan's major economic problems and its inability to eliminate or even reduce the increasing poverty rate in the country. Global price increases have hit Jordan especially hard, as it has proven to lack the ability to cope with this crisis, given that Jordan imports just about all its consumer products, including much of its food. A study on rural poverty in Jordan indicates that because of the arid nature of the land in Jordan, people are unable to produce enough crops to feed themselves. In a statement released on June 24, 2008, the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood called on the government to declare certain extreme poverty areas as disaster zones. Poverty rates in those areas were astoundingly high, as these rates stood at 52.8% in southern Ghor, 62.5% in Wadi Araba, and a shocking 73.7% in Rweished. This means that these percentages of people in those areas are living on no more than $553 per year. Yusuf Mansur, in an article in Bitter Lemons, shows that high inflation, combined with the stagnant double-digit poverty and unemployment rates, is forming a dangerous tripod, and goes on to argue that "last year the average household consumed 20 percent more than it earned, not a sustainable phenomena."

Jordan's normalization with "Israel" has thus failed to pay off in the manner proposed by those supporting normalization. Even as early as 1998 Francesca Ciriaci, writing in the Jordan Times cited the "failure of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty to deliver many of the promised economic dividends" as a cause for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The situation in Egypt does not look any less grim, as price increases led to riots recently, due to the fact that such increase in the cost of food is unsustainable for a large portion of the Egyptian population. Add to this the fact that Egypt is a net importer of food, and Egypt's economic condition becomes even more fragile. Reports continue to show that poverty is rampant in Egypt's rural areas.

The idea that economic prosperity will come with a so-called "peace" agreement with the Jewish entity is a flawed one based more on the wishful desire to achieve success without having to struggle than on any reality-based findings. Economic prosperity can only be achieved with national unity and with organizing the national economy on a productivity basis. Turning our society into one that merely consumes western products is not a healthy development, and is bound to lead to the economic collapse of our different entities. In addition, basing our economies on services and on opening our markets to the invasion of foreign goods is not a wise or sustainable policy. Economies can only be built on increased productive capacities. If we are to achieve true economic success, we must focus on maximizing our productive potential by investing in industries, research institutions, and agricultural programs. Only with increased production can we hope to alleviate our citizens from the economic disasters they continue to experience. Therefore, rather than normalizing ties with the enemy, our priority should be on normalizing ties with each other, so that we may remove all obstacles to our natural economic life-cycle and realize our productive potential.