One can safely argue that the Lebanese society, in the aftermath of the civil war, has been heading toward a two-society segmentation: the oppressive “elite”, comprised mainly of warlords, merchants and bankers; and the marginalized, representing over 95% of the population.

Laws are made and broken for the sole purpose of serving the first category, while the second category is left with unemployment, emigration, poverty and crime. The majority of those are destined (every decade or so) for chaos and sectarian and tribal feuds. Recent Information International polls show that the Lebanese are split around sectarian lines on issues such as UN Resolution 1559, support for this Zai’m and that Zai’m. In addition, the poll seemed to indicate that allegiances are forgotten as quick as they are made. Respondents’ answers (most of the time) varied, not according to age, gender, education, or income, but rather to which sect they were born into.

The Lebanese tend to forget that the second and largest group (the marginalized) is made up of all the sects and has a common destiny:

_- More than 500,000 immigrants in 20 years.

_- $10,000 is each individual’s share of the public debt by the end of the year 2009.

_- More than 250,000 are unemployed.

_- 25,000 university graduates and citizens are looking for jobs each year.

_- 500 million tranquilizer pills are consumed annually.

_- 700 homicides took place in 2009.

_- LBP 620 billion was the deficit of the NSSF Sickness, Maternity and Family Compensation Funds in 2009, funds that all of the Lebanese benefit from.

The oppressive “elite” share the following spoils:

_- 3.5 million m2 of illegal coastal property.

_- 5.2 million tons of fuel that is imported exclusively by a cartel setup, in violation of existing laws.

_- $43.7 billion in interest on the public debt since 1993 until the end of 2009 (attributed to few hundred individuals).

_- $20 billion in bank deposits that are attributed by 0.5% of depositors (2002 statistics).

_- $450 million only paid in corporate taxes.

_- $8.2 billion banking sector profit over the past 12 years

_- $410 million tax on the bank interest

_- $2.1 billion spent on people who were not displaced or displaced who did not return.

One can further argue that both groups often intersect and sometimes certain mobility is allowed or gained. The oppressive “elite” often plays the role of the marginalized, in its attempt to explain its failure to administer the country. On the other hand, the marginalized can also become aggressive and oppressive by infringing on public property or refusing to pay water and electric bills to a state it feels it does not belong to. The hypothesis, however, is not complete without a third missing segment that is neither oppressive, nor marginalized. This is made up of independent individuals that come from all sections of society. Should these individuals continue to fail to work together, they will eventually dissolve into one or the other category. It is high time for the Missing Third to unite.

*An Nahar newspaper published this piece on 3 August 2002. The Monthly chose to re-publish it in its issue number 32 of February 2005. The situation since then has grown worse. The Monthly republishes it again and the figures have been updated with the year 2009 as a basis.

Jawad N. Adra

My country: Divided horizontally and vertically between five heads, and sponsored by the Ta’ef and Doha agreements and jubilantly celebrated in the ceremony held at the Syrian Arab Republic’s Embassy in Beirut.

My hometown: No electricity, no sewage, no water, and pollution everywhere. No public schools, no preventive health care, lack of awareness for rights and obligations and no accountability for those elected to the municipal council.

My Municipality: A miniature replica of the public sector and the Council of Ministers with every family being represented by a person irrespective of how corrupt or ignorant he is and with the head of municipality controlling all decisions. The saying goes: “The municipality is a president and a policeman.” Squandering of public funds, outright theft, construction of roads and retaining walls even when they are not needed, and the ambition of families for their sons to be hired as municipality policemen.

The solution? The solution lies in the dissolution of all the municipal councils and the implementation of the laid out and paid for schemes, plans and strategies including (Lebanon’s urban and rural master plan and the strategies of social and economic developments, among others), holding elections after the integration of the municipalities to minimize their number to less than quarter, allowing residents to vote in their place of residence rather than their place of birth and placing them under the jurisdiction of the Court of Audit.

Considering that all of this is not in the horizon, it is therefore recommended to raise Nancy Ajram’s picture in their so-called “municipality palaces” and to start the day with her song “baladiyat”…” literally meaning municipalities or from the same hometown. Following are the lyrics:

“Very very good … I am also naïve, I thank him, there is no one else to make my hours happy … I am a part of him as he is also a part of me … he is also from the same hometown… he is my “baladiyat”.”

Since Nancy is the United Nations goodwill ambassador, we can here celebrate the so-called international legitimacy partnership with the private and public sectors and celebrate our success in raising Lebanon’s name high in the world of art and democracy.

A lie called civil society! Yes, “I am a part of him and he is also a part of me!” as Nancy says.

Jawad N. Adra

Issue June 2010 | Issue95

But some of them decided to move from “a state of abandonment – Halat al- Takhali “ to “a state of enlightenment – Halat al-Tajali” so here it is:

- Bashar Assad is planning to establish a state of institutions where independent judiciary can deliberate freely and citizens can elect independents and opposition figures according to a plan that moves Syria within 20 years to the 21st century not governed by a family or a single party and where public money is not squandered. Then the people would freely support their leadership and the resistance facing Israel with dignity for the sake of Palestine and Syria. Then he (Bashar) signals to “the allies” in Lebanon, and more specifically the secular parties, that their relation with the intelligence services is forbidden.

- And there he is Hosni Mubarak deciding that he has ruled Egypt long enough and that the water of the Nile is still polluted, the Cairo air is still suffocating and that half of Cairo’s residents envy the two million grave dwellers in it.

- And there he is Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz deciding to lead the Friday prayers in Al Aqsa Mosque and demanding the immediate lift of the siege on Gaza.

And there he is …

And there they are, the zua’ama of the Lebanese tribes deciding that their ancestors were killed, their fathers were killed and their sons were killed, and they shall no more squabble and fight.

And there they are the Arab sultans (kings and presidents) suddenly enlightened.

Then Muammar Gadhafi awakens you from the dream laughing to tell you “I am the king of Africa’s kings” and longest serving ruler worldwide.

Wake up, gather yourself, rub your eyes and never dare to dream again. Stay in your “state of abandonment” as long as you wish but never be enlightened. Now leave, you are unwanted.

Jawad N. Adra

- Hundreds of thousands of dead, missing and disabled in Lebanon’s civil war had become victims of an abandonment of reason.

- Billions of dollars worth in public funds from properties were squandered and violated, in an abandonment of reason.

- Confessions and tribes loathe and then love one another and elect zua’ama in moments of love and hate at the same time - all of course, in an abandonment of reason.

- Citizens protesting and voting after getting paid, in an abandonment of reason.

- A country with no electricity, in an abandonment of reason.

- Officers, politicians and capitalists ruled Lebanon and Syria and enriched themselves, in an abandonment of reason.

- Political assassinations and haphazard killings of students and citizens in clashes between March 8 and March 14, in an abandonment of reason.

- Lebanese soldiers were killed and the Nahr El Bared camp was destroyed, in an abandonment of reason.

- Public debt with high interest rates for Lebanese banks was accumulated, in an abandonment of reason.

- Media outlets were financed by politicians and states, in an abandonment of reason.

- Teachers do not teach and learners do not learn, in an abandonment of reason.

- Demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament on Sunday, August 13, 2006 were declared as soon as there was a “cessation of hostilities”, in an abandonment of reason.

- Bad roads and suffocating traffic, in an abandonment of reason.

- A railway without a train, in an abandonment of reason.

- A city without a public park and a public library, in an abandonment of reason.

- Polluted water everywhere and solid waste in the valley, in an abandonment of reason.

- Audi-Saradar announces the construction of an “urban dreams” complex after destroying what little remained of Phoenicia and Byzantium, in an abandonment of reason.

- LBCI suddenly discovers, after MTV was reopened, that there had been a squandering of funds over the past few years and that Solidere had crossed the limit, in an abandonment of reason.

- From “one people in two states” to at least two people, two nations and two embassies, in an abandonment of reason.

- From “the complete liberation of land” to two states: Palestine and Israel, in an abandonment of reason.

- From the “usurped province” (Iskenderun) to the Ottoman caliphate, in an abandonment of reason.

- An Arab world ruled by individuals, of whom the oldest ruler is Muammar Gadhafi (first worldwide) followed by the Omani Sultan Qaboos ben Sa’id, then by the Egyptian Hosni Mubarak, of course seeking to hand down the reins of power to their sons, in an abandonment of reason.

However, he read what Dr. Hassan Sarkis wrote in the Monthly about “Canaanite-Phoenician cities-states”[1] and “Phoenicia and the Phoenicians”[2]:

“Cities acted completely as independent states… He/she was either Sidonian (from Sidon), Aradian (from Arwad/Arados) and so forth. The natives’ negative reaction to be named Phoenician is caused by the term’s hidden pejorative meaning. Phoenician seems to have been derived from a Greek word for bloody, blood-soaked and even murderous or criminal.”

Furthermore, he read from Dr. Sarkis:

“Phoenicia, as a geographic entity, is confined to the middle part of the central eastern Mediterranean region situated between Ra’s Al Bassit in Syria, to the north, Mount Carmel in Palestine, to the south and the chain of Lebanon’s mountains to the east…”

But didn’t the Phoenicians establish Carthage in North Africa as well? Maybe it is possible to overcome the Sunni-Shia’a-Christian and Lebanese-Syrian-Egyptian-Iraqi-Saudi hurdles, but how?

Citizen Zero, after all this, deduced that he was a Phoenician in a moment of abandonment. He is therefore a Phoenician-Druze and so went the cry to the Arabs stretched from “the roaring ocean” (Morocco) to the “rebellious gulf” (Arab or Persian) to join him in this new identity.

1 - The “Canaanite-Phoenician” city-states by Dr. Hassan Salameh Sarkis, The Monthly, issue number 89

2 - Phoenicia and the Phoenicians by Dr. Hassan Salameh Sarkis, The Monthly, issue number 88

“Listen to me:

A family man is never a real family man.

An assassin is never entirely an assassin.

They play a role, you understand.

While a dead man, he is really dead.

To be or not to be, right?”

Since none of them care for, or for that matter, fear the dead, let us also quote Sartre in his 1943 Les Mouches (The Flies):

“Fear ‘your’ dead no more, they are ‘my’ dead.”

With this, The Monthly will notecase to publish an editorial for a period of time.

He believed that there was a serious chance during the Chehab era, had it not been for the American-Nasserite feud, the coup by the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party, the circumstances leading to the Cairo agreement, and, and …

He once again believed that there was a ‘chance’ through the Saudi-Syrian-American ‘agreement’ (toward and throughout the Ta’ef accord era) and of course had it not been for the distorted vision of the servants at the sultan’s court and perhaps the Khaddamists and Canaanites and, and … He again placed his bets on the era of Lahoud-Hoss, at least during the first months, which of course went to shambles due to the same gangs, this time including Murr and those who were vindictive against the followers of Hariri. The failure, to be more specific, was due to the “lobby of money and real estate”.

Despite all that, or perhaps because of all that, Citizen Zero decided to become a minister. This time he was no longer an adviser, but a decision-maker. He faithfully believes that he can accomplish the miracle of reform from within instead of sitting at the sidelines. While he knows the mission is arduous, he does not believe that it is impossible. He is also well aware that the same system that crushed many before him who ‘tried’ or were tempted to ‘try’ and all those who tried to light a candle in the dark tunnel is a capable system. But Citizen Zero insists on change and -in the worst or best case scenario- on ‘steadfastness and confrontation’.

He accepted appointment on a confessional basis - although he does not believe in it – because to him it is a mere formality. He was not at all pleased when the person who asked him the question smiled and said: thank God you did not remove your confession from your ID, or you would have had to seek the blessing of (the head of the confession) to consolidate your ‘rehabilitation’… (ask Ziad Baroud for details surrounding the removal of religious affiliations from IDs).

He believes there is an ‘opportunity’ and a ‘chance’ for success and he will try. Minister Zero will observe a country that has eroded and a republic that has collapsed. He will observe zua’ama who regard themselves as emirs, each a master over his own emirate , but defenseless before foreign powers. He will tell himself ‘I will try’ because there is a so-called “national unity” government and we might succeed in ‘building the state’ before the roosters pluck each other, not only because of outside interference but because it is the nature of the beast.

As for why it all happened and as for why we are the way we are, “not now” we are told! Why did we have a 15-year civil war? Not now! Why did the Marxists and the Arabists discover the art of compromise and the perfume of petrol? Not now! Why did Syrian Nationalists turn into advocates and lecturers of the Lebanese entity and defenders of Syrian intelligence services? Not now! Why do those who proclaimed themselves as workers on the path of ‘development and reconstruction’ regard themselves as crusaders instead of seeing themselves for what they are: servants in the sultan’s diwan? Not now! Why did the officers of Syrian intelligence enrich themselves under the noses of their superiors? Not now! What ever happened to the unity of “path and destiny”? (وحدة المسار والمصير) Not now! What happened to the demarcation of borders, bilateral ties on an equal footing and “Syria get out”? Not now!

Why was Syria cursed in the Borj Square by the very same people who once supported its apparatuses and are once again complementing it? Not now! Why did Saniora kiss Condi on both cheeks? Not now! Why was the country polarized between 8 and 14 only to have the zua’ama tell us they were never divided and have always been the best of friends? Not now! Why were people killed? Not now! Why this deadly silence? Not now!

The roosters divided the coops, the hens and the eggs amongst them and are today in a “state of harmony”.

In spite of all that, Minister Zero believes the “project of state-building” is still possible and that the states that were created after two world wars are still viable although they are ruled unilaterally by families. Welcome to an Arab world that takes pride in fossilized leaderships since the 60’s and in the deterioration of its values. A model best represented by he whose pride was wounded, threatened to occupy Sudan and cursed Algeria in defense of a football game.

But all this does not matter! Here is the Lebanese system, as usual, welcoming, with open arms, those who play the game, destroying the weak and the rebellious mercilessly.

When Minister Zero sat at his desk, his colleague, Citizen Zero, sent him a message with some lines taken from a book and an article about “The Myth of Sisyphus”:

But if the “alternative is ending the war” and if reform is not possible “unless it took place within a certain public political frame that drums up support around it…” and if it is not right to “measure suggestions about reform by the extent to which opponents of reform accept it …” and if the formula, established at the end of 1992, was founded on “an exchange of recovering the country’s productive energy with receiving money from abroad and swapping the project for state-building with the harmonization of the powers of militias and foreign money”, then what kind of formula do we have today after the Doha conference and at the end of 2009? Then let the zua’ama/roosters have the “administrative decentralization” that consolidates their powers and let them advocate or oppose “abolishing political sectarianism” to present themselves as reformists.

From here comes the interest in Sisyphus’ ideas as he climbs down the mountain only to start over. And this is a tragic moment when the hero realizes that there is no hope. But “there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn,” he tells himself. When Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. Although he does not believe in IGO’s slogans of a “quick fix” and “islands of integrity”, he says to himself  ‘tomorrow I will contribute to aligning the train’s path so it does not go to the abyss’. Tomorrow, ‘I will improve my ministry’s performance’, he tells himself. Indeed, what is so wrong with being satisfied with “steadfastness and confrontation” when it is not possible to do more than what has been done or what will be done?

Tomorrow Lebanon’s roosters will attack, tomorrow external powers will incite Lebanon’s roosters and tomorrow external powers will appease Lebanon’s roosters. Among one rooster and another, Minister Zero will walk on eggshells knowing that the chances of success and failure depend on the interests and moods of the roosters and those who control them. Tomorrow Minister Zero will be “disowned” before the crowing of roosters.

Minister Zero of course knows all this, but wants to try nevertheless! And as Camus says: “All is well,” indeed, “that one must imagine Sisyphus happy!”

Jawad N. Adra

2- Albert Camus

What happened exactly?

It is worth noting that not one member of the IC’s parents committee, parent, student or teacher (needless to mention nobody at the Ministry of Education) had in the past considered this important. Perhaps it is because we didn’t read the book, or perhaps because we read it and we approved of it, perhaps because we are simply apathetic, or, perhaps because we are content with any history book at all.

IC’s administration swiftly responded with saying that it had either “pasted over the [controversial] pages” or ordered students to “tear them out”. This is a reminder of how Queen Mary I of England burned the “History of Italy” in 1554 after ordering the execution of its author William Thomas. It is also a reminder of the burning of Thomas Hobbes’ books in 1683 in Oxford University. Similarly, in 1988, some groups in Europe and the United States burned Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”, while in May 2008 the Israeli Shas party burned the New Testament. Some mothers in America even burned books from the popular Harry Potter series, claiming it encouraged ‘witchcraft, the devil’s work’.

There are however some differences: first, the IC did not destroy the book altogether. It merely pasted over or tore out what was unwanted.

Second the matter is not related to royalty or religion, it is an issue of the Lebanese General Security, which, by law, controls the imports of books.

Third the issue was dealt with ‘à la Libanaise’, the storm abated, everyone relaxed, there was no accountability and there was no burning. There was, however, pasting over and tearing out.

The local press, especially “As Safir” and “Al Akhbar”, approached the subject from a specific angle concerned with the listing of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations. The Daily Star, meanwhile, merely quoted the Associated Press as saying: “A leading school was forced to remove pages from a history book said to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization … [school president] Johnson said ‘the school does not have a particular political position and does not teach the Arab-Israeli conflict.’” Why didn’t the editor make the effort of reading the book instead of using the word “said to” and, for that matter, why doesn’t the school teach the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Let us then bury our heads in the sand. This is a book that deserves to be methodologically challenged, yet we are content to just remove a few pages. The IC was established in Lebanon in 1936 but they “do not teach the Arab-Israeli conflict”. The parents’ committee had no comment, but in the July 2006 war they looked for alternative schools abroad because the Israeli minister of defense threatened destruction, and kept his word.

Since 1936, the Ministry of Education has overlooked the fact that private schools have their own curriculums. It did take notice that the structural deterioration of public schools (a matter to be debated at length) led 55% of students to enroll in private schools today. Private schools in Lebanon have their own “free”, “sovereign” and “independent” republics as well. The role of the Ministry of Education does not even come close to that of UNIFIL in counting the violations of Lebanese laws related to education.

The reader is urged to consider the book’s methodology. The description of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists in a history book reflects a specific view of history. How do the authors of the book regard other peoples?

What if I were a Native American, also known as a “Red Indian”?

I would be very pleased with what Suzan Shown Harjo wrote on page 109: “We will be asked to buy into the thinking that … genocide and ecocide are offset by the benefits of horses, cut-glass beads, pickup trucks, and microwave ovens.”

My heart would ache when reading Bartolomé de Las Casas’s words as an eye witness to the annihilation of my people on page 109: “… Their other frightening weapon after the horses: twenty hunting greyhounds. They were unleashed and fell on the Indians… Within an hour they had preyed on one hundred of them…”

But I would be angry because the issue of genocide is not tackled in detail. The book’s methodology portrays history through several general but “understanding” view points that in the end with the “Red Indians” falling prey to diseases more than genocide. But the questions, which the book lists at the end of each chapter, and on this particular subject, urge the mind to go through an in-depth debate.

Then, the book’s authors, under the title of “Different Perspectives- The Legacy of Columbus” understand that there can be more than one school of thought, more than one point of view of historical events. The book appears somewhat realistic, and aims to educate students while opening their minds to subjects directly linked to American society.

They appear more understanding and more prepared to accept the principle of “different perspectives” when it comes to “Red Indians”, African-Americans and Latin-Americans (Hispanics).

This is also reflected, in an albeit shy manner, on the role of CIA in toppling Salvadore Allende in 1973. After describing him as an “admitted Marxist”, the book recalls on page 492 how “through the CIA, [the United States government] helped forces … topple his government…” Take careful note of the word “helped”. In their analogy, addressing the use of the nuclear bomb in World War II, the authors ask a question that, to some extent, encourages criticism of the second bomb in Nagasaki.

However, the subject takes a different direction once we leave the United States and its social make-up and enter our Arab world or regions, perhaps sees as marginally important by the authors. The reader is then deprived of the overflow of emotions that Americans and “Red Indians” experience because here there is no happiness, sadness or anger, only abhorrence. There is a sense of revulsion from those who wrote (the West) and revulsion from those who were written about (us).

What if I were from the Congo? Here you come across a unilateral opinion. There is no room for “different perspectives”. Instead, we are confronted by the official US position, telling us the sugar coated version of the 1961 overthrowing of Lumumba. It fails to mention the circumstances behind the mysterious death of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld. The book settles for saying on page 519 that Mobutu came to power with a “bloodless coup” in 1965 and he “ruled… stabilized … but in 2000 the nation faced civil war …” The book fails to mention the role of the United States, and more specifically that of the CIA, although Belgium was mentioned as having interfered.

The authors are committed to their country’s official and old position, despite valid reports that Lumumba was toppled upon the request and intervention of the Americans.

What would the book, in its newest edition, say about the killing of some three million Congolese over the past nine years?

What about Iran and the coup against Mossaddeq?  “… They [Iranians] nationalized a British-owned oil company and, in 1953, forced the shah to flee. Fearing that Mossaddeq might turn to the Soviets for support, the United States had him arrested. It then restored the shah to power.” (494)

On the US support of the shah, despite a reference to poverty and the Savak, the main headline reads “The United States Supports Secular Rule”.

The issue, then, is that Iran is locked between the “seculars” (the shah) and the clerics (Khomeini), and of course, all of this has a distinct aroma of petrol. There is no need here for questions about human rights or the illegitimate intervention, what the authors called “the arrest of Mossaddeq”. The United States is made to appear as a legitimate policeman. Of course, there no mention that Mossaddeq was democratically designated prime minister with the support of an overwhelming majority.

What if I were a Muslim?

The book dedicates a few lines to Islam as a monotheistic religion, in the second chapter entitled “Judeo-Christian Tradition” on page 12.(Explain that to your children)

But what if you were from this region of the world? What do we call it?

Here I will not find a mention of my country or any other country.

“Judaism and Christianity both began in a small corner of southwest Asia”?

Where exactly is southwest Asia? (Explain this to your children)

What if I were Palestinian? “The division of Palestine after World War II set off bitter disputes in the Middle East. Some of the problems faced by the new nation of Israel were similar to those experienced by new nations in Africa and Asia…Palestinians who did not remain in Israel faced a disruptive life as refugees.” (Page 521) As for those who did remain in Israel, the book apparently thinks they are living a life of leisure. (Explain this to your children).

On page 522 there is a beautiful picture of Golda Meir (perhaps her most beautiful portrait) as “one of the signers of Israel’s declaration of independence”. Israel must have been occupied (but by whom?) and then liberated!  (Explain this to your children)

On page 523, the book mentions Hosni Moubarak and the way it is pronounced in Arabic (HAHS.nee moo.BAHR.uhk) (ask one of children try pronouncing these letters). On pages 524 and 525, the book describes “life in a Kibbutz” in Israel in 1951 saying that “…instead of teaching math, philosophy, or psychology … Israel’s eager immigrants [who] are former lawyers, professors, or physicians … pour over the latest publications on scientific farming from the US Department of Agriculture.” There is of course no mention of the people whose land was stolen and who were killed and displaced.

(Explain this to your children) On “peace” (Oslo 1993), the authors write on page 525 that although “Netanyahu had opposed the plan still he made efforts to keep the agreement…” (Let the Palestinians explain this to their children) Netanyahu is written neh.tan.YAH.hoo (the challenge of pronunciation still stands).

In order for us not to think that the book insensitive toward the Palestinian cause, it did the “forbidden” by asking: “they say the Arab-Israeli conflict is not between right and wrong but between two rights,” and asked what the reader thinks. Of course, there is nothing in their about the Deir Yassine massacre (refer to what has been written about the natives also known as “Red Indians”)

For these reasons, and more, the Modern World History, deserves to be debated and added to the list of challenged books. This is a matter that should be undertaken by IC’s parents committee. The Ministry of Education should also fulfill its role, or else what purpose does it possibly serve?

So! If there were schools in the United States that do not teach - or censor - books such as: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Mark Twain) and the Catcher in the Rye (J.D. Salinger) and Of Mice and Men (John Steinbeck) and if there are those who object to teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, then, why would the IC not consider challenging this book?

How? First: Lebanese General Security should not interfere in the issue of books, and this requires an amendment of the law. Leave the matter to the Educational Center for Research and Development and private schools.

Second: no part of any book should ever be censored.

Third: The book should be on the list of publications to be critiqued or challenged. If this book is part of the curriculum of what is called the International Baccalaureate, then why is it this book and not another? Where is the problem if IC students were taught that its authors express a specific point of view that is not necessarily correct?

Fourth: The book is a call to those who take “pride” in their “Arabic”, “Lebanese” (sometimes “Phoenician”) patriotism to publish a history book that is as captivating with its illustrations, questions and stories as this book is. It should be a history book that dares ask questions and present different perspectives of history (ours and theirs). What are the “Arabists” doing to accomplish such a project? What about the Lebanese? What are the Arab regimes doing? And of course, where is the Lebanese Ministry of Education in all this debate?

This is an American book that reflects a semi-official point of view of the world, in which racism and American patriotism are camouflaged in a history book. This is met by a horrifying vacuum in our curriculums, which are filled with our superstitions, our gibberish or books like this one! Maybe this is the “unified book” that the Americans gave their students, and that March 8 and March 14– and those before them, above them and after them - will massacre each other over without even writing a remotely comparable book.

Let us read this book, criticize it and then toss it aside, with the full knowledge that it is Rome’s book on the Barbarians, and that we are the Barbarians. Do not tell your children that this is a history book. Tell them it is “their” book on “our” history that we have yet to know, comprehend, discuss or write.  To quote a friend: “What if students were asked in an exam if Hezbollah was a terrorist organization? How would they reply and how would they be graded? His answer is that the grading will depend on the examiner: Will it be As’ad AbuKhalil or Avigdor Lieberman?

Based on the book’s definition of terrorism, the US invasion of Iraq is considered a terrorist act, while the killing of 1,400 human beings in Gaza could be justified. Perhaps in the next edition, we will not find a single picture of them, but we will find one of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

We wait for the next edition.

Jawad N. Adra

2- Israel’s Foreign Minister

Citizen Zero was not surprised by the Lebanese public’s indifference to the annual Francophone games, which were organized primarily to demonstrate the link between Francophone countries, including Lebanon, and, as always, between them and France.

The Lebanese played the perfect hosts on the opening day, with the attendance of most of their zu’ama and representatives, applauding Lebanese singer Majida Al Roumi as she sang “Beirut, Lady of the World”, a poem actually written by Damascene poet Nizar Qabbani – an irony lost to the leaders of the ‘Cedar Revolution’. They also failed to notice that the Beirut Sports City was built by Syrian laborers and that the chairs they sat on were cleaned by those same laborers.

The audience, of course, relished the fireworks that have always intoxicated the Lebanese, which, perhaps, serve as a good alternative to the bullets that we normally fire in jubilation or at funerals. They also ignore the fact that importers only declare USD 1 million worth of fireworks a year to avoid customs, even though the Lebanese go through that much in a few events.

What is important is that the Lebanese are unconcerned with the Francophone Games, not because they oppose France, to whom Lebanon owes its birth, and not because they oppose Senegal, or the Senegalese singer Youssou N’Dou, who performed a duet with Majida Al Roumi, and whose countrymen fought Youssef Al A’azmi in Mayssaloun in 1920 under the command of General Gouraud. The cause of their apathy is threefold: money, food and spite. We participate in elections, festivals or celebrations for money, food or to spite a cousin, a neighbor or someone.

It seems that Sarkozy’s France no longer recalls what Clemenceau’s France did in Lebanon. First they gave us soldiers from the Senegal to ‘liberate us’, then they stood aside as we cursed them because they were Senegalese, then they sketched a Lebanese flag with the colors of the French flag and placed a cedar in the middle to spite Britain.

Indeed, if you wanted maximum attendance you should have declared that France was holding the Francophone Games out of spite for the Commonwealth Games, you should have distributed flags from both sides and then you would have had results!

We did not go to the squares of the Bourj or Riad Solh without being ushered by buses, sandwiches and money. So then why should we go to the Francophone Games for free? We did not cast our ballots for free, why attend the games for free?

We do not have sports clubs. We have a Maronite basketball club and Shia’a and Sunni soccer clubs. How then can you expect us to attend games that do not have a confessional tilt? Tell us that they are Catholic and then see the results!

We are not with or against anyone. We are not against the Francophones or the Anglo-Saxons. Give us Haifa Wehbeh, Nancy Ajram and Star Academy any day, offer us a meal, money and fireworks, and then you will swim in an endless human sea.

As for the sports cities – on which we spent around USD 125 million to construct – they have fallen victim to dust and rats. Truth be told, we built them according to the confessional balance from Trablous, to Sour, to Ba’albeck, to the Matn coast:

Beirut :79.2, Saida: 16.7, Trablous:16.4, Matn-Ba’albeck (others):12.8

Total: USD  125.1 million only

The cost of maintenance, meanwhile, is LBP 500 million for the Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium (Beirut) and LBP 375 million for each sports city in Saida and Trablous, in addition to annual salaries -estimated at LBP 810 million- for employees in Beirut. As such, the cost of maintaining these sports cities is estimated at USD1.3 million a year, excluding municipality expenditures.

The organizers of the Francophone Games should have known that our minds are preoccupied, that if they wanted a cheering audience they should have hosted games for the Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian and Iranian soccer teams. They should also have invited Walid Jumblat to tell us that “we are no longer alone” and that “Palestine is no more”. They should have invited friends of the Syrian regime to thank Syria for the excellent performance of its intelligence officers planted around Lebanon. The interim prime minister and the organizers of the Francophone Games should have asked Condoleezza Rice to be a commentator -something she adores more than the kisses of Saniora on her cheeks; then you would have had hundreds of thousands of attendees.

As for France, she should be satisfied with the rituals of her annual mass in Bkirki!

Jawad N. Adra

The domestic and regional events that dictated the terms of the agreement are not what our study will focus on. The article will instead evaluate what has been accomplished so far and offer a comparison of the powers of each of the three top state officials before and after the Ta’ef accord.

History

On September 29, 1989, 63 of the 76 surviving members of Lebanon’s 1972 Parliament gathered in the city of Ta’ef to reach a settlement to end the civil war at the request of Lakhdar Ibrahimi, envoy of the Arab Follow-Up Committee, set up by the Arab League. The meeting came against the backdrop of an escalating military situation and a power vacuum created by the expiration of Amine Gemayel’s presidency without the election of a successor. The situation worsened after Gemayel appointed then army-commander  Michel Aoun to head a military government considered illegal in West Beirut, especially after the resignation of Muslim ministers.

The deputies gathered in Ta’ef in defiance of Aoun, who had opposed a meeting, and, on October 22, they approved the framework of the accord. On November 4, Aoun issued a decree dissolving Parliament, but the National Assembly met the next day at the Qlaia’at air base in northern Lebanon and ratified the Ta’ef accord (58 votes and three abstentions), electing Rene Moa’awad as president. Some of the Ta’ef accord’s stipulated reforms were integrated into the Constitution by the endorsement of the Constitutional Law on September 21, 1990.

General principles

On September 21, 1990, a preamble was added to the Lebanese Constitution, as part of constitutional amendments stipulated in the accord. It most significantly resolved an old debate on the identity of Lebanon stressing that “Lebanon is Arab in belonging and identity. It is an active and founding member of the Arab League and is committed to the league’s charter. It is an active and founding member of the United Nations Organization and is committed to its charters…”

Section H of the preamble states, “…There shall be no fragmentation, no partition, and no repatriation [of Palestinians in Lebanon].”  Section G  stresses that the abolition of “political sectarianism is a fundamental national objective.”

Presidential jurisdiction

The president’s powers were modified several times and scaled down by Ta’ef in favor of the council of ministers and the prime minister, who became an essential part of the decision-making process. The prime minister’s signature became a prerequisite on all decrees except those pertaining to his own designation to the premiership, his and the government’s resignation. The Ta’ef also deprived the president from the power to dissolve Parliament and set a timeframe for the promulgation and signature of laws and decrees. Table 1 compares the president’s powers before and after the Ta’ef accord.

The powers of the speaker of parliament

Ta’ef consolidated the speaker’s position by increasing his term in office to four years from just one year, in one of the main modifications. Table 2 shows the speaker’s powers before and after the Ta’ef accord.

The powers of the prime minister

The Ta’ef accord left the selection of prime minister to the members of parliament, no longer the president’s choice, a fact that strengthened his position. The prime minister’s signature also became required on all decrees except those pertaining to his designation or resignation. Table 3 shows the prime minister’s powers before and after the Ta’ef accord.

Implementation of four marginal provisions

1-“Creation of a socioeconomic council for development: A socioeconomic council shall be created to insure that representatives of the various sectors participate in drafting the state’s socioeconomic policy and providing advice and proposals.” Decree 389 of January 12, 1995 established the Economic and Social Council while Decree 2012 dated December 30, 1999 appointed its members. The Council has yet to fulfill its mission and remains suspended following the expiration of its term without the appointment of new members.

2-“Abolish the mention of sect and denomination on the identity card.” In 1997, the government abolished the mention of sect and confession with the issue of new identity cards.

3- “To ensure the judiciary’s independence, a certain number of the Supreme Judicial Council shall be elected by the judicial body.” Implementation of this provision was delayed until 2002, when judges elected two members to the Supreme Judicial Council.

4- “A special law on the rules of trial [procedures] before the Supreme Council to try presidents and ministers shall be promulgated.” Article 80 stipulates the establishment of the Supreme Council in order to try presidents and ministers. The Council “consists of seven deputies elected by the Chamber of Deputies and of eight of the highest ranking Lebanese judges. A special law is to be issued to determine the procedures to be followed by this Council.” Although Article 80 was endorsed in 1927, the rules of procedures were stipulated by Trial Law 13, of August 18, 1990.

Non-implementation of seven essential provisions

1- “Efforts (will be made) to achieve comprehensive social justice through fiscal, economic, and social reform.” However, the public treasury suffers from deficit and poverty that affects many Lebanese.

2- “The Chamber of Deputies which is elected on the basis of equality between Muslims and Christians takes the appropriate measures to realize the abolition of political sectarianism. A national committee is to be formed, headed by the president of the republic and includes the speaker, the prime minister and leading political, intellectual and social figures. The tasks of this committee are to study and propose the means to ensure the abolition of sectarianism propose them to the Chamber of Deputies and the council of ministers and supervise the execution of the transitional plan.” In 1992, the first post-war Parliament elections were based on parity between Muslims and Christians, but the national committee is still pending formation and sectarianism still dominates  all aspects of Lebanese life.

3- “Abolish the sectarian representation base … excluding the top-level jobs and equivalent jobs which shall be shared equally by Christians and Muslims without allocating any particular job to any sect.” To date, sectarianism remains the basis for appointments and public posts. Grades five, four, three, two and one positions are still exclusive to certain confessions. For example, the posts of army commander, the Central Bank governor, the president of the Supreme Judicial Council, director general of the Ministry of Finance, director general of the Ministry of Education and the head of Central Inspection Department are all exclusive to Maronites. The posts of head of the Higher Council of Customs, director general of Ministry of Information, the president of the Council of the South, the director general of the Technical and Vocational Institute, public prosecutor of the treasury, head of the military tribunal, director general of the Ministry of Social Affairs and the director general of General Security are reserved for the Shia’a confession. Furthermore, the posts of head of the Council for Development and Reconstruction, the director general of Internal Security Forces, the general prosecutor, and the director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are reserved for the Sunni confession.

A more dangerous occurrence is that some ministries are being ‘given’ to certain confessions. For example, the Ministry of Finance is reserved for the Sunni confession and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Shia’a.

4-“Culturally, socially and economically-balanced development is a mainstay of the state’s unity and of the system’s stability.” This objective remains a mere slogan.

5- “Official, vocational, and technological education shall be reformed, strengthened, and developed. The conditions of the Lebanese University shall be reformed…” Since the promulgation of the Ta’ef accord, public schooling has been in constant regression while the Lebanese University has been reeling under the pressure of disorganization, a teacher surplus, an insufficient budget and an overcapacity in the literature and humanities departments.

6- “Adherence to the truce agreement concluded on 23 March 1949.” Consecutive governments have included provisions to support the resistance in the ministerial communiqués, breaching the truce, which is also violated by Israel’s repeated invasions and aggressions.

7- “With the election of the first Chamber of Deputies on a national, not sectarian, basis, a senate shall be formed and all the spiritual families shall be represented in it. The senate powers shall be confined to crucial issues.” Parliament has yet to be elected on a “national basis”; consequently, the birth of the senate has been delayed indefinitely.

Violation of eight essential provisions

1- “The number of members of the Chamber of Deputies shall be increased to 108, shared equally between Christians and Muslims.” Before Ta’ef, there were 99 deputies, 54 Christians and 45 Muslims. The number of MPs increased to 128, by 29 deputies instead of nine, as stipulated by Ta’ef.

2- “A constitutional council shall be created to interpret the constitution, observe the constitutionality of the laws and to settle disputes and contests emanating from presidential and parliamentary elections.” The Constitutional Council was created by law 250 of July 14, 1997 but was stripped from its power to interpret the Constitution.

3- “The armed forces intelligence shall be reorganized to serve military objectives exclusively.” However, as in the past, Army Intelligence is still involved in a number of cases and issues that are outside the military’s jurisdiction.

4-“Disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias shall be declared. The militias’ weapons are to be handed over to the state of Lebanon within a period of 6 months, once the National Accord Charter has been certified and the president elected…” Lebanese militias have been officially disbanded, yet only partially disarmed by the state. Furthermore, the state has yet to disarm Palestinian camps and organizations.

5-“The armed forces shall be unified, prepared, and trained in order that they may be able to shoulder their national responsibilities in confronting Israeli aggression.” The army has been unified and trained but remains under-equipped and consequently incapable of confronting the Israeli danger. Some believe in the saying that “Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness” based on the fact that the army is incapable of fighting Israel in all cases.

6- “The problem of the Lebanese evacuees is to be solved, and the right of every Lebanese evicted since 1975 to return to the place from which he (she) was evicted shall be established. Legislations to guarantee this right and to insure the means of reconstruction shall be issued.” Most of the displaced, despite receiving state funds for reparations, have not returned to their homes, especially in villages such as Kabreeh in the Chouf and Kfar Matta in A’aley. The state has approved substantial amounts for people who were not displaced to reward their loyalty to certain political groups. Lebanon has so far spent an estimated USD 2.5 billion on the displaced at a time when only a quarter of evacuees have returned to their homes.

7-“All the information media shall be reorganized under the canopy of the law and within the framework of responsible freedom [of expression].” A regulating law was enacted to regulate the issuance of licenses, but instead is serving as an authorizing body for television and radio stations affiliated with political parties and confessions.

8- Clause Two of Article 49 states, “The president may not be re-elected until six years after the expiration of his last mandate… It is also not possible to elect judges, Grade One civil servants, or their equivalents in all public institutions to the Presidency during their term or office or within two years following the date of their resignation or their leaving office for whatever reason.” Since Ta’ef’s enactment, Article 49 has been violated several times, starting with the extension of late President Elias Hraoui’s mandate for three years; the amendment of the text to elect Emile Lahoud as president prior to his resignation from the post of army commander; the extension of Lahoud’s term and finally the election of President Michel Suleiman without the necessary constitutional amendments.

Parliamentary electoral law: multiple interpretations

The parliamentary electoral law dominated extensive deliberations during the drafting of the Ta’ef especially in terms of the form voting should take. Following are some major points of contention: Should Lebanon vote along a majority criterion or a proportional? What should the size of an electoral district be and should Lebanon be a single electoral constituency? What about the sizes of the muhafaza (governorate), the qada’a (district) and individual districts? Under the political reforms section, Ta’ef stipulates, “The electoral district shall be the governorate.” The text on electoral law stipulates, “Parliamentary elections shall be held in accordance with a new law on the basis of provinces and in the light of rules that guarantee common coexistence between the Lebanese, and that ensure the sound and efficient political representation of all the people’s factions and generations. This shall be done after reviewing the administrative division within the context of unity of the people, the land, and the institutions.”

Former Speaker Hussein al-Husseini, one of Ta’ef’s cornerstones, stresses that “the governorate” includes five main governorates: Beirut, Northern Lebanon, Mount Lebanon, the Beqa’a, and Southern Lebanon (excluding Nabatiyeh, which, in his opinion, is an administrative muhafaza).

The new administrative distribution, as cited in the accord, aims to create new administrative, not electoral, muhafazas. Meanwhile, other MPs who took part in the drafting process insist that “the governorate” cited in the Ta’ef consists of new muhafazas smaller than the present ones but larger than the qada’a. Drafters also discussed the creation of 12-15 muhafazas/electoral districts considering that the Ta’ef accord cites the administrative division in the clause on electoral law to emphasize the link between the two issues.

The state has adopted multiple electoral laws since the enactment of Ta’ef. In 1992, the governorate acted as an electoral district in all muhafazas except Mount Lebanon, where voting was based on the qada’a. In 2009, the qada’a criterion was adopted as stipulated by the 1960 electoral law after Beirut was divided into three constituencies.

Ambiguous provisions and clauses that require revision or reinterpretation

The Ta’ef accord has a number of texts and clauses that need clarification, amendment or a permanent arbitrator – a role Syria played for many years – to resolve conflicts. Some of the ambiguous texts in the pre-Ta’ef constitution were modified by the accord without being clarified. These include:

_- Article 58 (prior to modification by Ta’ef) states, “…The president may render executable any project which has previously been declared urgent by the government by the decree of transmission taken on the favorable advice of the Council of Ministers, and on which the Chamber of Deputies has not adjudicated within the forty days following its communication to the Assembly.”

The Ta’ef Accord amended the article to read: “Every Bill deemed urgent by the Council of Ministers and in which this urgency is indicated in the decree of transmission to the Chamber of Deputies may be issued by the president within forty days following its communication to the Chamber, after including it on the agenda of a general meeting, reading it aloud before the Chamber and after the expiration of the time limit…”

The article fails to specify  when the 40-day grace period goes into effect. As a result, if the speaker abstains from listing draft bills on Parliament’s agenda, the 40-day grace period cannot officially start until he does. Such a loophole gives the speaker the chance to impede the work of the government by not discussing draft bills in Parliament and eventually vote on them. As long as Parliament has not endorsed these bills, neither the president nor the government can promulgate them pending the start of the grace period.

_- Clause Six of Article 64 of the Constitution states, “He [the prime minister] calls the Council of Ministers into session and sets its agenda, and he informs the president and the ministers beforehand of the subjects included on the agenda and of the urgent subjects that will be discussed.” Is this a mere formality on the part of the prime minister? Does the president have the right to object to the agenda’s contents? If so, is the prime minister then required by law to cancel some of the items that the president opposed?

There are divergent interpretations to Clause Six with some considering the contents of agenda to require the president’s approval. Others deem such approval unnecessary and, if the president objects to some of its contents, he can preside over the cabinet session in which these topics are to be discussed.

Twenty years after the Ta’ef accord, the state should allow the implementation of some of its essential provisions and reconsider some of stipulations that have been implemented, especially in relation to the president’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the zua’ama of the Sunni confession are holding on to what has been achieved so far, since the Ta’ef transferred the powers of the president to the council of ministers, which is to encompass all confessions. At this point, it is worth asking a few questions about the constitutionality of the council of ministers: If a confession is not represented in cabinet, would the council of ministers remain legitimate? Would it still be entitled to the powers awarded to it by the Ta’ef? Or should it be considered defunct even if it consists of the two-thirds majority required to form a government? If so, how should the previous government under Prime Minister Fouad Saniora be defined after the resignation of the Shia’a ministers?

The Ta’ef accord will remain one of the most essential and debated topics in Lebanon, especially during tumultuous periods. However, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to amend it. In conclusion, what has been implemented so far does not exceed four marginal issues; what has yet to be implemented are seven essential provisions and what has been violated are eight pivotal issues. The de facto situation now is that Ta’ef consolidated the power of the speaker of parliament and the prime minister at the expense of the president’s.

The 2008 Doha agreement is a confirmation that the zua’ama of Lebanon had no intention to implement Ta’ef. These leaders have violated the Constitution by reintroducing the 1960 parliamentary electoral law and putting Lebanon on a path of continuous crises and threats of civil wars.

The stubborn adherence of some politicians to the accord, practically indicates an insistence to preserve the power of the Sunni za’im without awarding a larger share to the Shia’a and Maronite zua’ama and without taking into account the other provisions under Ta’ef. Calls by others for the implementation of the Ta’ef accord are basically calls to amend it in order to recover the powers of the president and to give a larger share to the Shia’a zua’ama without implementing other stipulations.

The 2009 parliamentary elections further confirmed that talk on state building is mere rhetoric. In the end each confession voted for its zai’m and each za’im ‘partitioned’ a geographical area and stakes in both the private and public sectors. These leaders’ competition for power is essentially, and sometimes structurally, linked to external forces and interests.

Therefore, one can argue that the Ta’ef accord has ended, and perhaps it was over long before it even started.

Ta’ef and Syria

Syria played an essential role in the endorsement of the Ta’ef Accord while enjoying a large military presence in the country and strong political influence on Muslim parties and the zua’ama of Muslim confessions. Ta’ef included clauses pertaining to the Syrian military presence in Lebanon and on bilateral relations. However, Syria was unwilling to implement or unable to allow the implementation of these stipulations, and the text related to the Syrian presence was drafted in an ambiguous manner giving Syria a chance to be noncommittal.

Ta’ef stipulates, “Considering that the objective of the state of Lebanon is to spread its authority over all the Lebanese territories through its own forces, represented primarily by the internal security forces, and in view of the fraternal relations binding Syria to Lebanon, the Syrian forces shall thankfully assist the forces of the legitimate Lebanese government to spread the authority of the state of Lebanon within a set period of no more than two years, beginning with ratification of the national accord charter, election of the president of the republic, formation of the national accord cabinet, and approval of the political reforms constitutionally. At the end of this period, the two governments — the Syrian Government and the Lebanese National Accord Government — shall decide to redeploy the Syrian forces in Al-Beqa’a area from Dahr al-Baydar to the Hammana-al-Mudayrij-’Ayn Darah line, and if necessary, at other points to be determined by a joint Lebanese-Syrian military committee. An agreement shall also be concluded by the two governments to determine the strength and duration of the presence of Syrian forces in the above-mentioned area and to define these forces’ relationship with the Lebanese state authorities where the forces exist. The Arab Tripartite Committee is prepared to assist the two states, if they so wish, to develop this agreement.”

Syria took the stand that the two-year grace period will not take effect before the comprehensive constitutional endorsement of political reforms. However, after September 1990, when certain minor steps were taken in accordance with the accord,

Syria failed to withdraw its forces in September 1992, reneging on its commitment under Ta’ef. It claimed that since not all the reforms have been ratified the grace period has not started.

Syria maintained its military presence in Lebanon until its complete withdrawal in 2005, due to international pressure and resolutions following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Lebanon and War: two words that go hand in hand. As soon as one war ends, another one always seems to be around the corner. The 1840 war, the 1860 war, and then on to World War I, then there was the 1958 strife, until the major war of 1975 that lasted until 1990 during which there were Israeli wars on Lebanon including the 1978 and 1982 invasions, after that the Israeli aggressions of 1993, 1996, and finally in 2006.

The history of these wars has yet to be written in a scientific manner, away from exploitation and bias, with an identification of the reasons, the real motives, the results, and the aftermath these wars left in their paths. For that reason, the history of Lebanon became just points of view from the different groups (political or sectarian). Each group had their own favorable history, a history that works towards their goals and legitimizes their past deeds and future plans or aspirations.

“Lebanon Wars, Why?” is a book published by INMA (Social and Cultural Development Association in cooperation with Information International) as part of its Bee Series.  This book aims to chronicle the events that preceded the war in 1975, the stages that the war underwent, and the results it ended with: starting with the Ain El Rummaneh bus incident on Sunday, April 13th 1975, on to the traveling massacres across the nation and mainly Black Saturday, through the mountain wars, reaching the Ta’ef accord which represented the formal end of this war.

This book is a trial to re-write the history of Lebanon clearly and transparently in order to understand the past and to open a window into the future, leaving all the wars and miseries behind and looking into a promising Lebanon that overcomes all obstacles to become “A Nation of Peace and Love.”