| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2005 : 7:46:11 PM
|
22 November 1943, Lebanon was declared a multi-cultural country, with an administration representing the whole Lebanese population that had just expressed its joy of getting rid of French occupation.
5 November 1989, Lebanon was declared an Arab country by a 17 years old Parliament, and in a situation where the Lebanese Christian society had no position to negotiate or give opinion.
14 Mars 2005, finally a major Lebanese accord about the downs of the Syrian rule over Lebanon resulted in a massive manifestation in the Martyr’s Place. It seemed as if finally the second Lebanese partner had agreed about putting Lebanese interest over Arab relations and the very erroneous Arab identity.
16 September 2005, the Guardians of the Cedars execution committee were arrested by the Lebanese Government, charged for promoting sectarian conflict, violence against the Palestinians, and trespassing the Lebanese constitution by denying Arabism.
5 November 2005, and that’s today…
The Guardians of the Cedars are still arrested, they are charged, hopefully towards lifetime prison…
Everyone who is interested can easily find out that there was no single religious word pronounced in the Guardians of the Cedars conference.
Everyone who is interested can easily find out today that the Guardians of the Cedars have not declared “Every Lebanese has to kill a Palestinian”… They have merely stated – and even in a historical documentary CD about Lebanese War – “No Palestinian will remain on Lebanese ground”…
Even though this statement was in a historical review and is not a present declaration of the party, it still doesn’t call for any violence against the Palestinians, and expresses a Lebanese wish the Palestinians share as well!
The Guardians of the Cedars were definitely not sectarian, definitely not violent: the only cause still “valid” for their arrest is contradicting Lebanese constitution by denying Lebanon’s Arabic identity. How valid is that?
How valid is that when one takes into consideration the dates and events I have stated above?
How valid is that when a Lebanese party which doesn’t deny its aspiration for a Lebanese Chiite Nation is not trespassing Lebanese constitution? And another which is calling for a Syrian Nation engulfing Lebanon is a jolly legal Lebanese party?
How valid is that when a Lebanese party which proudly, and in a very civilized way, shouts loud “Death for Sharon!”, or “Amrika the great Demon!” is not arrested for promoting violence?
How valid is that when such a party is given the consideration of a resistance?
Or yet again, Arab appurtenance is considered by some more important than Lebanese identity? Should we replace the Cedar of the Lebanese flag…by a palm tree?
5 November 2005, and that’s today…
I have to restate the very wise declaration of the Guardians of the Cedars: “Arabism is Lebanon’s enemy. The Arabs should be Lebanon’s friends.”
The Arabs constitute a very ponderable Islamic culture surrounding Lebanon, and part of the Lebanese people considers itself of this culture. That’s why Lebanon’s good relation with Arab countries and Lebanese Arab part of the people’s respect are very vital for Lebanese interest.
But we should set the limits between good relations with the Arabs, and accepting the false Arab identity bestowed upon Lebanon. We should set the limits between defending rightful Arab causes in a part of our literature and in the United Nations General Assembly, and sacrificing Lebanese interest for Arab interest.
Arabism brought Lebanon nothing but compromises for Arab leaders, to finally make of Lebanon the front-arrow of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lebanon was falsely claimed Arabic by the half of the people who refused the birth of the 10452km^2 country between 1920 and 1943, and was sacrificed on the altar of Arabism.
Just because the Lebanese Muslims have Christian partners, they felt more responsible towards the Palestinian Muslim brother than the Muslims of Jordan, Egypt or Syria…Just because their own Arab Nationalism wasn’t conquered by Lebanese Nationalism yet, Lebanon had to be offered to the Arabs.
The Arabs should have been our friends, but instead the Lebanese Arabs made of Arabism our enemy!
5 November 2005, and that’s today…
The chronicle of sacrifices goes on, and the Lebanese still glorify a resistance which is sectarian in constitution not only popularity.
The Lebanese still claim they have definite enemies such as the Israelis, never learning that the retarded politics of definite enemies and radical wars has been overthrown by diplomatic international strategies.
The Lebanese still allow a Lebanese citizen to insult the American – world’s most influential superpower – ambassador, and arrest others for saying Lebanon is not an Arab country.
The Lebanese still defend Syrian interest, never guessing that Syrian interest contradicts Lebanon’s interest at times, and American interest crossroads Lebanese interest at such times.
All of that because part of the Lebanese people is Arab…and wants Lebanon his way.
14 Mars 2005, it was nothing but the second Lebanese partner joining us not for finally caring for Lebanese interest, but because the family of an important leader of theirs had realized Syria was behind his assassination.
Just after that, we’re back to where we began…
What’s worse is that even the part of the people caring for Lebanese interest is cheaply represented by corrupt political figures who can’t care less about Lebanon when it comes to their personal interest…
…because 5 November 2005, and that’s today…
Not a single depute in the Lebanese parliament, from the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb or any other group who was fought side by side with the Guardians of the Cedars back in the 1975 Lebanese tempest has mentioned them.
Not a single parliament member has spoken of the injustice committed in the name of free opinion and democracy.
Never to forget, not a single human rights association or political activist group has called for a manifestation or a sit-in for their sake. The Baasist police state is taken over by Lebanese Arab Nationalists who make the same infra-democratic practices to safeguard their Arabic hope in Lebanon, hushing the first call for truth after the Syrian retreat.
5 November 2005, and that’s today…
I’m still a Lebanese citizen, and I am not Arab.
You can’t convince me I’m descending of Arab origins, and you can definitely not take away my Lebanese identity.
The only thing you can do is handcuff me…go on and show us your Arabic democracy.
Pietro Kheir |
|
|
Abu Arz
Canada
3 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2005 : 10:53:32 PM
|
Thank you brother Pietro.
Thank you for describing out loud and in beautiful words what we have suffered and continue to suffer from from.
Just because we are the Guardians of the Cedars.
They really don't want any Cedars guarded in Lebanon. They want to cut it all (really and figuratively) and sell it in their slave market.
Like Hariri sold Beirut to who knows who, they want to sell every square meter of our country.
They can throw us in jail, they can kill the body of our heros but they can never touch our soul.
We will always be the Guardians of the Cedars, 100% Lebanese and "there will not remain a single Palestinian on the Land of Lebanon". I will continue to work for that for as long as I live.
I call upon all Lebanese who are truly and purely Lebanese (not Arab and not Syrian) to heed your call my friend Pietro and join the March to liberate Lebanon from the Arabs.
In 1943, the Christians said No to France and the Muslims said No to the Arabs; the Muslims in Lebanon did not keep their word.
We should learn from history.
We either make this country LEBANON our final nation with only one identity LEBANESE (pluralistic by definition) or we break it.
I am 100% Lebanese, and 100% Christian and I do not give a rat's ass about Hezbollah or Joumblat or Hariri or the Palestinians or the Arabs.
It is time we live as we please in Lebanon.
We are not calling to Christianise Lebanon but we will not accept to Arabize it let alone Muslimize it.
They will have to kill us all or put us all in jail before they do that.
They want to have a democracy well we have to have our say in it.
They can't have a democracy that caters to the needs of the terrorists and fundamentalists and the agents of Iran and Saudi Arabia; but at the same ignores the rights of genuine, pure innocent Lebanese whose only crime is their love for their country above anything else.
It is either a Lebanese Lebanon or no Lebanon.
Believe me I am more comfortable living in a Lebanese Chritian ghetto than having to feast my eyes everyday on the dirt and rubbish that comes from the other side.
Call me racist, call me isolationist, call me intolerant. This is who I am and this is how I like to live.
I can tolerate them, if they tolerate me; otherwise, let's have a divorce.
We may be too different in our view of Lebanon to reconcile our differences and it may be healthier to give each their share.
I challenge any Muslim who visits this forum, to tell me where I am wrong and to explain to me which Lebanon he or she wants and how does their Lebanon differ from the Lebanon of Abu Arz. |
 |
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2005 : 04:22:21 AM
|
| Labbayka Lubnan! |
|
|
|
fraizzze
Canada
58 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2005 : 09:46:49 AM
|
Pietro, personally, my opinion is 100% like yours.
I always realised that this ''imposed'' arabic identity to Lebanon is really changing it is basic values.
I was always against that...
Untill I saw the truth.
My friend, Lebanon was born in 1943, in a VERY different social context than today. Christians in Lebanon represented almost 70% of the population. The Islamic minorities were consider as hosts, and it was so easy to say Lebanon is a new born occidental democracy, and absolutely not another arab country. In those days, Sunnies represented almost 20%, Druze more that 5%, and there was almost no Shias.
Today, my friend, the numbers have largely changed. This ''Islamic minority'' is worth 60% of the Lebanese population, and, we shall never deny this fact, Islamic identity always links to Arab patriotism. To take off the ''Arab'' face of Lebanon is denying the present situation, it is denying the 40% of Shias, and 20% of Sunnis. And yet, to consider thet Lebanon is an arab country will not necessarly break off the legitimity of Christians, if this is what we fear, because Christians are a community very respected in every single arab country. Christians will always have their churches, their traditions in Lebanon, their religious sites, and Muslims will not take that away because they respect Christianity. The important thing here is to remember that it is not impossible to create a Lebanese patriotism in an Arab community. The sunnis in Lebanon (or the large majority of them) desire a Lebanon for them. A Lebanon for every person living on the Lebanese ground, with respect to democracy and freedom. The Christians desire this Lebanon too, without denying the fact that many Christians desire a Christian Lebanon, free from any arab face, and a Lebanon that is part of the great Occident (democracy linked to america and europ, and which have nothing to do with these ''archaiq arab countries surrounding us''. But most Christians agree on a free Lebanon for all. The real heart of this Identity Crisis are the Shias, and I will tell you what is the reason of that divergent point of view of theirs.
In 1943, when Lebanon was born, the Shia community didn't represent anything in the balance of the Lebanese societe, so in the constitution, no real place is given to them in the government (president of the assembly room). But today they are the largest community in Lebano and they seek a voice to be heard, and since they do not feel the other lebanese communities seem to care, they turned toward their arab shias brothers : Iran. That is the first explication of the isolement.
The second reason comes from the fact that the history of the Shias in Lebanon is not the same as the history of Lebanon (the history to which all Christians and Sunnis referr too as Lebanon's history). Im gonna explain myself : Christians and Sunnis will tell you Lebanon was the Switzerland of the Middle-East during the fifties and the sixties. These were the golden years of Lebanon. Then this outrageous civil war occured in 1976, and faced us to Palestinians. And then the civil war have put all our communities face to face untill 1991, Thats when it all calmed down, and today it is getting a lot better.
But the Shias didn't live that.
The Shias will tell you : In 1943, when Lebanon was created, we had a relatively prosperous life in Nabtyeh. Untill 1948. In 1948, Israel invaded Palestine, and harraced the south every day with gun shots and bombings. For decades, they slowly stole our lands, put us in Israeli jails for no reasons, they would destroy our villages, and burn our houses pretexting to ''defend us from Palestinians''. The invaded Nabatyeh and sucked our blood (other communities, at that time, didnt really notice that because mainly shias live in the south, no other significant community). In 1976, civil war exploded, but it didnt change anything to our daily life: more chaos, more israeli abuse, more unfairness. In 1991, Taef is signed : waw, we, shias, are still under israeli occupation ,and this occupation is sucking our economy and energy. In 200, finally, Israel withdraws, and this is our real liberation! And why do we hate Israel that much ? Why , when Christians or Sunnis see us screaming DEATH TO ISRAEL , they feel weird? Because our history, as Shias, was a constant battle against Israel. It is true.
The history of Christians and Sunnis was mainly against Palestinians and Syrians because the ''north' of lebanon had to face syrian occupation, when the south had to face israeli occupation. Shias seeked Syrias help to get rid of Israel, and Christians and Sunnis seeked (or acutally, wanted to seek, in the sunnis case) Israels help to get rid of Syrias presence.
That, my friends, is the base of lebanons division between a free independant lebanon, without na arab face (Christians and Sunnis and Druze), and an Arabic Lebanon having very very strong relations with his arab brothers (Shia). We must, as lebanese of ANY confession, understand this difference, and battle to create a country which will consider both point of view. We shall not through lebanon into one camp or another, it would be unfair, and against our lebanese constitution of respect of all communities.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2005 : 5:53:49 PM
|
Dear fraizzze,
Back in 1943 when Lebanon was declared independent, there was a major consensus between Christians and Muslims that Lebanon is not a typical majority-rule democracy, rather a partnership between cultures. Back then it was very easy for the 70% you have mentioned to promote and reach a non-confessional regime and totally take-over the country. This way they would have had it their way, no war would’ve taken place and the demographical proportions would have not moved an inch – that’s if it wouldn’t have gradually moved more towards the 70%.
Back in 1943, the 70% had it all in hand but decided to rule in partnership and not majority. Today, it is asked of this 60% as an act of good faith in this Lebanese dream to do the same and not use proportions to falsify Lebanese identity. But of course this will not be by their happy accord, simply because they never wanted this Lebanese dream in the first place.
Back 1920, Patriarch Howayek had rejected the first border-drawing of a Maronite nation because the Christian scene strives for secularism and cultural meeting. But between 1920 and 1943 the 10452km^2 Lebanon was rejected by most Sunnits and Druzes because they have preferred Arabic belonging on Lebanese identity all the way.
Taking off the Arab identity of Lebanon doesn’t deny anyone anything. Saying Lebanon is multi-cultural includes Arabs as a culture, but saying it is Arabic excludes me an a ponderable part of Lebanese society, because you have said it yourself, if you go to the raw Arabism is nothing but a sophisticated veil of Islam – let’s be realistic and admit the only common factor between all Arabs is religion.
You are wrong about saying Christians desire a Christian Lebanon. If you insist go on and give me a historical example of such a project, or even give me one example of a Christian party – in constitution not popularity.If you really see the goals of so-called Christian parties, you'll find out that the Kataeb, the Ahrar, the GoC, and even the LF (people insist of making a party out of it) have nothing Christian in constitution and defend the multi-cultural identity of Lebanon.
If you ask why are the masses of these parties quasi-totally Christian, it's because what non-Christians in Lebanon wanted was something different from Lebanon.
You have made your best to humanely analyze the Sunnite and Chiite points of views but making them reasonable doesn’t make them rightful. There’s a big difference between having reasons to think this way and having right to think this way.
No Lebanon can not once more fall into compromise and accept any Arab or Irani Nationalism. No it is not a sin to reject one point of view when it has exotic allegiances.
No I will not tolerate giving up sovereignty for a social group whose aim is to fight Israel, because Lebanon might find itself one day single-handed in interest with its southern neighbor.
No I will not tolerate having a Lebanese partner who is alleged to the Fakih above all allegiance.
No I will not accept an Arab Lebanon: simply because I’m a Lebanese non-Arab… and that’s common sense.
Lebanon is free. Lebanon is independent. Lebanon is multi-cultural. Lebanon is holy.
Regards,
Pietro
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2005 : 09:16:41 AM
|
Can anyone explain to me, what does ARAB and ARABISM and ARAB Nationalism mean in the Lebanese context?
Is it language? Is the fact that we speak a dialect of the Arabic language enough to make us ARAB?
Does that mean that the Americans and the Canadians and the Australians are English?
Does that mean that those who speak French in Lebanon are French and those who speak English are English?
Frankly, Arabs as a tribal identity existed only in the Arab Peninsula and would have remained there were it not for a few twisted-minded Lebanese who felt they shared the same Ottoman burden with their neighbors in the region and reached out to the Arabs based on that same plight.
That burden became the west after the Ottomans.
Yes Muslims feel more than Christians that they are Arabs today but undeniable historical facts show that the leaders of the Arab cultural revival in literature and poetry (for the Arabs have practically nothing original in their culture but their language), the leaders of this revival were most if not all Christians (El-Mou3allem Boutros El-Boustany and others...). What spread beyond the Arab peninsula was Islam and not Arabism. Islam is not a cultural identity, it is a religion.
Many muslims in Lebanon confuse being Arab with being Muslim. This is wrong. For the people of Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran cannot be Arabs, yet they are muslims. Al-Futuhat historically were not Arb Fateh but Islamic fath, hence, even Egypt and North Africa are arguably not Arab but Muslim (look at brother Mu3ammar El-Gadhafy, he decried his Arabism and defines himself as an African now).
After this intro, I would really love to hear those in Lebanon who think that we are Arabs (Christians or Muslims) to define clearly what do they mean by that?
My guess is that ARAB in modern day Middle East is more of a political affiliation than a cultural identity. It means an affinity to and special interests with the Royal family in Saudi Arabia whose money fueled corruption and disaster in Lebanon and is fueling now Lebanon's new ruling family (Hariri), and their shadow operant (Al-Walid bin Talal).
Instead of allowing us to build modern state institutions that take care of the needs of the people, these two corrupt groups are trying to keep the people and their needs dependent on their private wealth in a very tribal fashion in order to reshape the politics of the country in a way that serves their narrow financial wealth.
This is the true face of Arabs today.
If we define the meaning of ARAB, the next question becomes then which ARABS do we emulate? Jordanians? Egyptians? The Badous of Bilad Eshsham? The Beduins of Arabia? Who is the role model for state and culture in the Arab world today? Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Bashar El-Assad? Gadhafi? The Emirs of the Emirates? or the royal family in Saudi?
On a side note, I do not believe the Shiite demographic explosion came from the Arab world. Family names like Moussawi and Sadr and others are most likely of Persian origin not ARAB!
I think we should be open-minded enough in Lebanon to realize that a state cannot have a single cultural identity and it cannot have a single religious identity in as much as it cannot have a single family name.
Therefore, I do not believe I can belong to a Lebanon that calls itself an Arab country (only) and I cannot belong to a Lebanon that is a Muslim country or a Christian country. These monocivic perceptions contradict the basic definition of the modern state. This is a concept that may be unacceptable for some in the Muslim majority who regard Islam as a religion and a state. I suggest they move to Saudi Arabia or else there will be endless wars. It is not a threat, it is the reality. |
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 12:31:42 PM
|
Truth Squad,
I had built my article with the assumption that there is such a thing as an Arab culture, and tried to stress on the point that the whole of the Lebanon does not belong to it and that Lebanon’s affiliation to the Arab cause has only brought Lebanon harm.
I made this assumption to stay on one level of argumentation but I also laugh at the “Arab” identity myself.
You’ve actually said it all about the incoherence in the Arabism theory…But I actually find it very coherent: Arabism is Sunnism in Africa and the Middle-East, and that’s about it. It’s because the last relevant Fateh was the Mamloock Fateh, thus the Chiite society was excluded from the Umma back then. The Ottoman/Egyptian duality kept the Arab “identity” before the 20th century while the Sunnite countries such as Afghanistan have split from Arabism due to geographic remoteness. Chiite minorities remaining in Lebanon and other countries speak of Arabism because it relates to them widely as Muslims, even if not Chiism.
Yes Arabism is coherent and it is totally sectarian!
The Maronites relation with the Arab revival is purely restricted to literature and is irrelevant to whether they belong to the so-called Arabism or not because as you’ve said the Americans are NOT English. Orthodox had this affinity to call for Arab revival, which resulted in the SSNP and the Lebanese Communists, only because they wanted to compete the Maronites on Christian representation of the East, and the red devil behind their ears was the KGB indeed.
Other Christians who claim Arabism in Lebanon will start claiming they’re of American origins if the balance in Lebanon wasn’t towards the Sunnits today.
This is the sad story of Arabism. The sadder story is of Lebanon and Arabism, because even if all what we’ve said, me and you, was wrong and Arabism existed as a culture…Lebanon should never be restricted to it.
Lebanon is free. Lebanon is sovereign. Lebanon is multi-cultural.
|
|
|
|
Eyad
Lebanon
24 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 11:04:16 AM
|
As a Lebanese of Muslim faith I would have been offended by Abu-Arz's words. But I can understand where he is coming from and I forgive him.
As far as I am concerned, Lebanon is my country and I too do not care whether we call it ARAB or not.
What I care about is to have a modern state with equal rights to everyone, guaranteed freedoms for everyone and equal opportunity.
As it is now, the country is decaying and we keep arguing about these vague notions of Arabism and Nationalism, we may loose our nation and be left with nothing to argue about.
So I say let's roll-up our sleeves and start working on bringing together our people and creating job opportunities for them in Lebanon to keep them here. |
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 6:06:44 PM
|
Dear Eyad,
You seem to be bright enough for recognizing how much of a pity it is to still call for Arabism in Lebanon in such a time when we are merely being able to manage our Lebanon.
Which makes me ready to ask you:
Why do Abu-Arz's words offend you?
The GoC and all other Lebanese Front political offspring have a problem towards the Lebanese Muslim attitude - and so do I - but without having any problem with Islam itself.
This is a very delicate discussion because the confessional issue is indeed personal and touching, but I hope you take it objectively, and with all my respect to your confession and religious beliefs.
I am not a Christian fanatic. I have nothing against Islam, and what I’ll be talking about next is more cultural than religious. So please take the confessional expressions to come next rather as interacting social groups, and not religious adjectives.
Muslims is Lebanon didn’t want Lebanon from the first place. Again this is social and not religious, it’s not in the Holy Koran, it’s in 90% of the Sunnite street which called for “erasing the false boundaries set by Sykes-Pico” between 1920 and 1943.
Lebanese Sunnites then joined the first call for “Arab Unification” by Abdelnaser in the 50’s, which would make them finally join their wider neighbouring Sunnite society.
Lebanese Sunnites killed Lebanese Christians of Damour alongside with Palestinian Sunnites back in 1975. When Christians didn’t oppose the Israeli invasion it was not against Muslim compatriots, but really against the PLO. Again and Again this is not from the Holy Koran, but from the controversial Mourabitoun.
Lebanese Chiites declare since the Chiite revolution and still today their total allegiance to the Fakih. Mohammed Hassan El Amine – renowned today as a Moderate figure and considered by some Chiites as a traitor to the resistance – have declared himself “The Lebanese Cause and the Cause of the Qods do not contradict, but when they do their total allegiance is for the Qods.” (Interview with Zahi Wehbe).
Ayatullah Fadlallah had declared the aspiration of Hizbulla to make of Lebanon a Chiite Nation, and this was never denied by Hassan Nasrallah when he reached the leadership, he always answers “This is the party’s aspiration but it is not on our political agenda NOW.”
Add to that: on the flag of Hizbulla you can clearly read “The Islamic resistance in Lebanon”, and not “The Lebanese Resistance”.
With all my respect to martyrs Hizbulla had in the South against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, I don’t really think they resisted for Lebanon’s sake, because they had no problem with the Syrian occupation all along. Their aim is simply not to resist for Lebanon, their aim is to resist against Israel.
This is why they insist on holding weapons even after Chebaa’s liberation – so they declared. This is why they permit themselves to call death for Israel, and dub America the Great Demon knowing that all sophisticated countries have overcome today this concept of ultimate enemy…politics imply you offend when it’s in your interest to offend, and they will keep on offending even if it’s against Lebanon’s interest because their interest is simply different from Lebanese: it is Islamic.
Once more this is not from the Koran, but from the 101 rural slogans lifted in Riad-Al-Solh the last March.
I had thought today’s problem is only Chiite Nationalism, but after seeing Jumblatt curve back to his “Arab line”, and Hariri’s government arresting the GoC for merely saying “Lebanon is not Arab”, I realised we’re still in the same vicious circle we thrust ourselves into back in 1920 when Patriarch Hwayek insisted in France on the establishment of a 10452km^2 country with half of its people refusing it.
So, I’ll put it shortly now: Abu-Arz, me, and any other Lebanese Christian-oriented party (I say Christian-oriented because there are no Christian parties in Lebanon in constitution or manifestoes, rather in popularity) have no problem with Islam as a religion but with the Lebanese Muslim’s politics, so you need not be offended.
Muslims in Lebanon simply still prefer the Islamic society’s interest on Lebanon’s interest. One last time, this is not in the Koran, but in everyday declarations.
So please answer me, what in my words, or Abu-Arz’s words offend you as a Lebanese Muslim, unless you’re offended by different political opinions?
PS: The Guardians of the Cedars are the Lebanese party which stress the most on secularism. One of the founders is Saiid Aael, and if you read his literature you’ll realise how Lebanese they are, and how anti-sectarian they are.
Cordially,
Pietro
|
Edited by - Pietro on 11/09/2005 6:08:13 PM |
|
|
|
Eyad
Lebanon
24 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2005 : 10:41:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Abu Arz
Believe me I am more comfortable living in a Lebanese Chritian ghetto than having to feast my eyes everyday on the dirt and rubbish that comes from the other side.
I do not see the justification for these words.
What rubbish on the other side.
I believe that you Pietro agree with me that these words were unwarranted.
And I think that Abu Arz in retrospect may have regretted uttering them.
I am not offended by political rhetoric but this was a racist attack not a political opinion. |
|
|
|
Pietro
Lebanon
64 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 4:12:30 PM
|
Eyad,
Abu-Arz, by using the word “Chistian GHETTO”, makes it clear that the “other side’s dirt” isn’t meant as in material dirt, rather the opposite. So you don’t need to take it personal, it’s politically meant.
I agree the words dirt and rubbish might be too harsh and non-diplomatic, and even though I agree with Abu-Arz about the “other side’s” politics as ruining Lebanon, I would have used more moderate adjectives.
But you’ve got to understand, seeing his nickname, that he belongs to a party upon which very hideous and inhumane ostracism is being practiced from the “other side”. You can’t really blame a GoC supporter for not being democratic when he was deprived of democracy.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Lebanon, Arabs and Arabism
Forum Locked
