• Home
  • About Us
  • Events
  • Blogging Renewal
  • In the Media
  • Tajaddod Press Room
  • The Library
  •  

    We Only Hear Three Things

    Three expressions have been circulating lately that have been the truest description of the philosophy of politics and international relations emanating from them, and as a great number of highly popular political forces in Lebanon (and, hence, in the Arab world) have converted to it.

    The first expression is “conspiracy”. It is an expression that can only see plots in all policies, challenges and interests. It only looks at relations, international treaties and UN agencies through fear and apprehension of ambushes. By doing that, it not only makes our understanding of the world flatter and politically and culturally poor, but it also contributes in the failure of any possible effort to regard it based on defending interests, understanding alliances and seeking serious influence in them.

    The paradox is, that despite the fact that most of these forces, alongside with their advocates, make sure they follow the news of these “conspiracies”, monitor their updates and expose their scenarios, all of the above remain surprising to them, and is the source of calamities and woes. They acknowledge the conspiracies’ success—despite the fact that they revealed their deceitfulness. So they warn of the strife and the fights they cause between groups, and of the traps they push them in.

    The second expression is “the mandate of blood.” It has been repeated recently, to become the mouthpiece of claims to replace the principle of public right, the philosophy of law and the functioning of the courts, institutions, apparatuses, international treaties, man-made laws and principles of reward and punishment; with the elements of genetics and with the mandate of the family and the clan, as a revenge, forgiveness, or a ransom; where the “Councils of Elders” are the methods for resolving conflicts and turning the page on war crimes. Either that, or giving in to the same plots and the great wars of “Daas and Ghabraa” that result from them.

    In third place, with all the enthusiasm needed to shine in the face of “aggression”, is the ultimate defendant of “honor and dignity”, our “most valuable treasure” of course. As for their position, it does not find its place in our freedoms or in our political, economical, social and cultural rights; not even in our ability to live in dignified security and stability, nor in installing justice or preserving rights. It is in the privacy of our women, through exclusively calling them “the sisters/mothers/daughters/wives of”, therefore relating them to the men, waiting for their chivalry to defend them and their secrets. The most dangerous one is buried in a gynecologist’s office that became the target of “politically and morally fallen” conspirers.

    This is how administrative issues turn into metaphysics, and how the political and judicial issues turn into blood mandates; a transformation during which research for the sake of managing crises or obtaining exits and settlements become difficult. How is it possible that the whole thing was coupled with doctor’s clinics of honor and the preservation of morals on one side; and the escape from responsibilities on the other?

    Ziad MAJED
    NOW Lebanon
    05.11.2010

    Leave a Reply