Only in Lebanon – Racism

Due to the unfortunate events happening in Syria and Occupied Palestine these days, many refugees have arrived to Lebanon seeking shelter and food. Those refugees, have lost their homes, have lost their jobs, have lost their loved ones, have no money, and have come to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, to try and live until the situation in their countries become better.

It might seem a plan, a plan by the U.S. and Israel, to once again jeopardize national sovereignty in Middle East Countries, and once again divide our nations.

Our famous Lebanese leaders always know exactly what to say in situations like these. The same leaders who have tolerated wars, and engaged in them. The same leaders who have blood in their hands. they return once again to blame it all on the refugees. MP Nayla Tueni, and Gebran Bassil, Leaders of two Christian Political Parties, have both (for once) shared a common point of view regarding the refugees.

Ms.Nayla Tueni wrote in an article : http://newspaper.annahar.com/article.php?t=makalat&p=3&d=24951

The response of the Anti Racism Movement is here : https://www.facebook.com/notes/anti-racism-movement/response-to-nayla-toueni/457359400994089

And i would like to add, that our ” supposed to be representing us” leaders still don’t get it, or maybe wish not to.

The problem is not with the poor refugees taking advantage of our resources,

it is with the government paying 20 million L.L for official employees, stealing our resources and making them their own, owning basically 90% of the country and leaving us without jobs, killing the meritocracy system and instead using the “Connections” system to give people jobs, dividing our country, protecting sects instead of protecting a nation, never fighting for the people but fighting for themselves, owning our wealth instead of distributing it to the people. getting paid 10 thousand dollars a month whereas teachers still get paid 400 and 500 USD, never finalizing issues, always postponing meetings, never meeting for that fact, playing us like puppies, selling us talks about how great they are and how badly they want Lebanon to develop.

All that crap. We are in 2012, Lebanon has been officially out of war for almost 30 years now. and we still don’t have trains, we still don’t have decent social security, we still don’t have decent minimum wages, prices are still rising, deficit is still getting bigger and bigger, roads and infrastructure are still horrible, people are still immigrating in thousands, we still don’t have electricity.

Whilst, those same leaders, are building mansions, and enjoying the luxury of having electricity.

Aren’t we sick of that? aren’t we sick of those leaders travelling and living abroad, better yet, having business abroad, while we can’t get a visa to leave this country because we are lebanese?

aren’t we sick of always asking for our rights? OUR god given rights? a right to nationality? a right to better education? a right to protection? etc.etc.

And they, still, talk on national TVs, like they represent us.

Dears, you have stopped representing us, ever since you began stealing from us and claiming innocence.

You have divided our country, you have turned us into sects. You have killed agriculture, you have killed tourism. You have killed my country, and it’s time for you to leave.

You do not represent me.

بقا حاج كل مين يطلع يتفسلسف ويحسسنا إنو هوي همو البلد. منكن إنتو اللي خاربينو.

The U.S. Conspiracy

The U.S., Destroys Cities to Save Them.

I will take the case of the Gulf War, though it is in the past now, but still, the U.S. is still using the same way it did more than 20 years ago, to interfere in other countries’ business. I wonder, is it really to help the countries? is it really to protect sovereignty in the country? Yesterday i watched Gernomino, a movie about how the U.S. managed to kill Usama Bin Laden, and i got really angry on how the mainstream media wants us to think about it, that today i decided to put together a post about it, and i chose the case of the Gulf War. couldn’t be more explicit. I did the research for you, and put the facts, evidence and analysis in this text to save you the trouble. Thanks to the Great Noam Chosmky, once can get a better understanding of the truth. of what really happened.

The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), code named Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) as explained by the mainstream media and the U.S. media and foreign policy explained, was a war conducted by a Coalition force from 34 nations headed by the United States, against Iraq in response to Iraq’s attack on and occupation of Kuwait.

The Wikipedia page (a free Encyclopedia i.e.: anyone can create an article to explain about a certain event/someone/etc.): “Kuwait’s invasion by Iraqi troops that began 2 August 1990 was met with international condemnation, and brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by members of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. President George H. W. Bush deployed U.S. forces into Saudi Arabia, and urged other countries to send their own forces to the scene. An array of nations joined the Coalition. The great majority of the Coalition’s military forces were from the U.S., with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt – though Egypt wasn’t aware of the U.S.’s actual intentions, which was to engage in a war against the Iraq – as leading contributors, in that order. Saudi Arabia paid around US$36 billion of the US$60 billion cost. The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial bombardment on 17 January 1991. This was followed by a ground assault on 24 February. This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces, which liberated Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory. The Coalition ceased their advance, and declared a cease-fire 100 hours after the ground campaign started. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and areas on Saudi Arabia’s border. Iraq launched Scud missiles against Coalition military targets in Saudi Arabia and against Israel.”

Note to the Reader: In April 1990, Saddam Hussein, then still George Bush’s friend and ally, offered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons if Israel agreed to destroy its non-conventional weapons — including its nuclear weapons. The State Department welcomed Hussein’s offer to destroy his own arsenal, but rejected the link “to other issues or weapons systems.” It is essential to mention that Saddam Hussein was an ally to the U.S. and was highly supported by the Great World Powers. The U.S. supported Saddam’s war on Iran (Though it failed). It is the U.S.’s policy, to create a monster, and then use it as an excuse to “enter” a country and conquer its resources. (can we forget that it is the “Urge to gain more resources” that kicked off WWI?) Though Saddam was always defending regional resources, he was looking to protect the region and help it become self-sufficient. Of course, that would not be good news to the U.S. – Saddam was always connecting all issues in the Middle East to that of Palestine. He wanted Israel out, he wanted Israel to destroy its arms and nuclear weapon. The U.S. could not see the link between the two – Obviously.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102–.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102–02.htm

*   Why the motives behind the war were/are not consistent:

a-     Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) quotas for oil production. Discipline was essential to maintain the cartel at its desired price of $18 a barrel. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing; the latter at least in part to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal. The result was a decrease in the oil price with a subsequent loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq.

Answer: Divide to conquer

(1) The cost of more expensive oil would be much less than the cost of the military operation.

(2) Oil prices have a market-regulated cap, consumer/production/producer/cost relationship. If oil producers raise prices too high for too long, users decrease the purchase which is self-defeating for oil rich countries.

(3) In May of 1990 at an Arab League meeting, Saddam Hussein bitterly complained about Kuwait’s policy of “economic warfare” against Iraq and hinted that if Kuwait’s over-production didn’t change Iraq would take military action. Yet the Emir of Kuwait refused to budge. Why would an OPEC country want to drive down the price of oil? In retrospect, it is inconceivable that this tiny, undemocratic little sheikdom, who’s ruling family is subject to so much hostility from the Arab masses, would have dared to remain so defiant against Iraq unless Kuwait was assured in advance of protection from an even greater power – that is the United States. Kuwait was traditionally part of Iraq’s Basra Province until 1899 when Britain divided it from Iraq and declared Kuwait its colony. (Divide to conquer?)

A war to destroy Iraq as a regional power

That the Bush administration wanted the war is obvious by its steadfast refusal to enter into any genuine negotiations with Iraq that could have achieved a diplomatic solution. Iraq’s negotiation proposal on August 12, 1990 indicated that Iraq was willing to make significant concessions in return for a comprehensive discussion of other unresolved Middle East conflicts, was rejected by the Bush administration.

President Bush avoided diplomacy and negotiations, even refusing to send Secretary of State Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the January 15, 1991 deadline as he had promised on November 30, 1990. Bush also rejected Iraq’s withdrawal offer of February 15, 1991, two days aver U.S. planes incinerated hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter. The Iraqis immediately agreed to the Soviet proposal of February 18, 1991 – that is four days before the so-called ground war was launched – which required Iraq to abide by all UN resolutions.

**  Analysis:

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 induced a resilient response from the world powers; in fact, two not very similar responses. The first was an array of economic sanctions of exceptional severity. The second was the threat of war and both responses were initiated at once, even before Iraq’s capture of Kuwait. The U.S. moved quickly to ensure that sanctions could not be effective and to bar any diplomatic initiative.

–      “Perhaps most troublesome for Bush in his effort to create a `new world order’,” one reporter observed plaintively, is the fact that “a surprising number of Europeans believe that the United States is in the gulf not to free Kuwait or punish Saddam Hussein but to bolster its own influence and power.” (Boston Globe, Jan. 13) A poll reported in the same paper the same day revealed that a surprising number of Americans share these delusions, believing that control over oil is the “key reason” for the U.S. troop presence (50%), not “liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation” (28%) or “neutralization of Iraq’s weapons capabilities (14%).

–      Another of the President’s favorite slogans is that “it is the world against Saddam Hussein. The U.S. has consistently opposed an international conference on the Middle East. The excuse offered now is that we must not reward aggression. The U.S. is commonly quite happy to reward aggression, and it opposed an international conference long before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and continued to oppose a call for such a conference even when it was not “linked” to Iraq, as noted above. The real reason is that at an international conference, the U.S. would be isolated. Such a conference could only lead to pressures for a political settlement that the U.S. rejects. So, Washington opposes an international conference. For the same reasons the U.S. has vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a political settlement and blocked other diplomatic initiatives for the past 20 years.

–      Why do we find two major First World military forces in the Gulf, the U.S. and Britain, while other powers declined to give more than token support — even financial? Furthermore, even after extensive U.S. pressures, the Security Council could not be moved beyond an ambiguous resolution authorizing “all necessary means” to secure Iraqi withdrawal: diplomacy, sanctions, or military action by that intent on undertaking it. As noted by David Scheffer, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the resolution “neither requests nor commands the use of military force” and “avoids the terminology of war and such explicit terms as `armed force’ or `military measures’.” When the history of this period emerges, if it ever does, it may well turn out that, in reality, the U.N. record did not deviate much from the standard pattern of attempts at peacekeeping frustrated by U.S. veto; in this case, attempts to pursue the course of sanctions and diplomacy, blocked by U.S. threats and pressures, leading the U.N. in effect to wash its hands of the matter, never pursuing the procedures by which the Security Council may make “plans for the application of armed force,” according to the Charter.

–      Declassified U.S. documents outline British goals in similar terms: “the U.K. asserts that its financial stability would be seriously threatened if the petroleum from Kuwait and the Persian Gulf area were not available to the U.K. on reasonable terms, if the U.K. were deprived of the large investments made by that area in the U.K. and if sterling were deprived of the support provided by Persian Gulf oil.” These British needs, and the fact that “An assured source of oil is essential to the continued economic viability of Western Europe,” provide some reason for the U.S. “to support, or if necessary assist, the British in using force to retain control of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf.” In November 1958, the National Security Council recommended that the U.S. “Be prepared to use force, but only as a last resort, either alone or in support of the United Kingdom,” if these interests are threatened. In January, the National Security Council had advised that Israel might provide a barrier to Arab nationalism, articulating the basis for one element of the system of control over the Middle East developed in the years that followed.

So what was Bush concerned about? I would say “Domination”

• Iraq violated a fundamental principle of world affairs — that the energy reserves of the Middle East have to be firmly in the hands of U.S. energy corporations and trusted U.S. clients like Saudi Arabia’s elites.
• This means Mideast populations do not really benefit from their own resource, but “so what,” says Bush. The West benefits because Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar are basically sectors of London and New York. The U.S. government doesn’t care if the Saudi elite administer oil prices because that’s like having it done on Wall Street.
• The U.S. (Bush Administration in specific) destroys cities to save them; it is not of the U.S.’s interest to have an independent Arab National threaten to use the resources of the Middle East for domestic purposes.
• The State Department says Mideast oil is a “stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest prizes in world history.” And it is in the Middle East, now what?
• In Iran in 1953 the U.S. overthrew a nationalist parliamentary regime. Now the U.S. threatens a murderous tyrant’s regime, although Hussein was just as much a murderous tyrant before August 2, when we supported him because doing so furthered U.S. interests

My opinion

The U.S. destroys cities, to save them.

At this point, I wonder why did the U.S. and Britain, insist on using force in Iraq? Why did the U.S. betray Saddam Hussein? Although Saddam was an ally to the U.S. – and like many other countries, one of which being Kuwait, were doing horrific acts and were criminals. Why did
Bush lie? And why did he create a certain awareness to get international support to engage war with Iraq? Most importantly, why did Bush refuse any negotiations or talks for settlements?

Though highly related but never acknowledged, Iraq and Palestine issues are very much links. Bush wouldn’t accept that. Saddam agreed to destroy all weapons and surrender if Israel does so to. Why were those talks turned down? Why did Bush offer sanctions, but engaged war instead? What was the character of this war?

I can only speculate the reasons.

Iraq didn’t attack or threaten the United States; in fact it was an ally. I believe that this war was to re-divide and redistribute the markets and resources of the Middle East.

It was an Imperialist war.

Bush, wanted to strengthen its domination of this strategic region. It did this in league with the former colonial powers of the region, namely Britain and France, and in opposition to the Iraqi people’s claim on their own land and especially their natural resources.

The United States interfered in and aggravated the Iraq-Kuwait clash. It knew that an Iraqi tendency to engage in a war against Kuwait was likely, and then took advantage of the Iraqi move to carry out a long-planned U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Respect for national sovereignty is an after-the-fact rationalization of Desert Storm, not a motive.

Why did Bush refuse negotiations? Because they might actually work

The U.S. is usually against diplomacy. If the U.S. can establish force as the way to rule the world, the U.S. wins because it’s way ahead in force, technology, arms, etc. If diplomacy succeeds, it de-legitimizes militarism, reduces the relevance of military strength and increases the significance of diplomacy.

The U.S. supports linkage when it benefits it.  But in this case the U.S. is against linkage, and the reason is not just because Israel is its ally, but because linkage is a step toward diplomatically resolving the Gulf and Arab-Israeli crises. The U.S. opposes a diplomatic settlement of either crisis and therefore certainly opposes a joint diplomatic settlement of both of them.

Needless to add, Kuwait was protected by the U.S., which is why, it refused negotiations or settlements. Instead, it fought Saddam; knowing that it didn’t have enough military artillery or armory, or even troops.

When Bush sent 400,000 troops instead of 15,000, which could have been just as effective, he did it so to destroy negotiations and leave only military power as the solution. His plans to conquer the Middle East would be destroyed if the solution is a negotiation, – that would legitimate the rule of international law rather than U.S. power.

All in all, I believe that if it weren’t for the U.S.’s policies and interventions, the Arabs would be just fine. We wouldn’t have wars. We would be self-efficient, and independent from those powers. We might as well be a power itself.

Credits go to

Wikipedia,

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102–.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102–02.htm

She is Not her Body.

The Bible: “Stoning Girls to Death When They Fail To Bleed on Their Wedding Sheets.”

China: (From the New Dong Dynasty) “For A Woman to Starve To Death Is a Small Matter, But For her To Lose Her chastity is a calamity.”

The UN Population Fund has estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings a year, almost all in the Muslim World. (Pakistan uncovered 1,261 honor killings in 2003 alone)

(The paradox of honor killings is that societies with the most rigid moral codes end up sanctioning behavior that is supremely immoral: Murder.)

This Emphasis on Sexual honor is a major Reason for violence against women. And because female sexuality is so sacred, rape becomes a tool of war. Families fight each other with the “honor” of their daughters.

Behind the rapes and other abuse brought on women in much of the world, it’s hard not to see something more sinister, crueler than just libido, Sexism and Misogyny.

Why so many women are kidnapped and trafficked every day and not men? Why so many women are being raped and not men? Why so many women are being silenced and not men? Why do women hear name callings and men don’t? Why so many women are judged for their clothing and not men? Why so many women get their fingers cut for studying and not men? Why so many women are having fixed marriages at the age of 13 and not men? Why so many women are humiliated and not men? Why is a women what her body is and men aren’t? Why so many witches were burned than wizards? Why is acid thrown in women’s faces, and not in men’s? Why are women so much more likely to be sexually abused and not men?
I do believe in a society who treats a women as men’s equal, I do believe in a society that fights off oppression, I do believe in a society that empowers women, educates them.

I do not believe in a religion that marginalizes women and treats them as “sexual” machines, as reproduction factories, among many others; In a Religion that fights off the right to fight abuse, the right of to speak up, the  right to seek defense.

Of all the things that people do in the name of God, killing a girl because she doesn’t bleed on her wedding night is among the cruelest. Yet, the hymen remains an object of worship among many religions around the world.

We shouldn’t thrive to change the regulation of social constraints, but to change the perception of the nature of women. Her Burden, is Her Body.

“La Femme Quelque Soit Sa Condition, n’est jamais inférieur a l’homme. » Gisele Halimi, La Cause Des Femmes.

Are Women Human Yet?

Are Women Human Yet ?

How can they be, when they are being trafficked in Boxes from one nation to another ?

How can they be, when they are being murdered in the name of Honor ?

How can they be, when they are an obsession to the opposite sex ? …

How can they be, when they are Only seen as Sexual Machines ?

How can they be, when they are being projected in commercials as naked, or half their bodies are only shown, or turned into objects for the mere purpose of selling an item.

How can they be, when they cannot, < in some countries > give their nationalities to their children ?

How can they be, when they are subject to Stupid ancient Traditions ?

How can they be, when they are murdered for not bleeding the night of their marriage?

How can they be, when they have fixed marriages at the age of 9 ?

How can they be, when they are taught to obey the husband?

How can they be, when they only symbolize sexuality and HONOR?

How can they be, when they are forced to work as prostitutes?

How can they be, when they are being traded as commodities?

How can they be, when they do not have control over their own bodies?

How can they be, when they are judged for their sexual appeal, or appearances.

How can they be, when they are used as weapons/tools of war?

How can they be, when strong women are feared?

How can they be, when they cannot have control over their own thoughts and decisions?

How can they be, when they are brought up to be mothers and wives only. they do not own their own future. they do not have a choice in choosing their future.

We are in the twentieth century, Women are still suffering from violence, Rape, being Treated as inferiors, cannot give nationalities, in some countries (many) don’t have rights, can’t drive, are not allowed to vote, and not allowed to learn or to educate themselves,among many other things.

I Have Zero Tolerance

I Have Zero Tolerance, For A Government that is Stealing our money, and laughing at us while we are clapping and re electing them.

I Have Zero Tolerance for a government that does not care about me, and in which if a political leader is upset, because of PERSONAL conflicts, he would resign and leave us stranded.
…

I have Zero Tolerance for A Government to Whom i should pay taxes to cover ITS mistakes, ITS debts AND Its salaries, while all it does is increase prices, stop electricity, curse one another on Live TV and humiliate us, dissolve government meetings, build castles while we starve,

I have Zero Tolerance for A Government that does Not give me my rights.

I have Zero Tolerance for a Government run by an ‘Octopus’ that is controlling our lives, the way it wants it to.

I have Zero Tolerance for a Government, where the parliament members don’t even represent the people.

I Have Zero Tolerance For Lebanese Who fight for Political Leaders, as if they’ve done them any good in the past 30 years.

I Have Zero Tolerance for any Lebanese, who follows Other People’s beliefs, and does not know how to stand for his own – or who doesn’t have his own beliefs for that matter.

I have Zero Tolerance For Lebanese, Who Don’t Have Money to Buy Gasoline, But still Manage to re-elect, support their leaders.

I have Zero Tolerance, and I am Not immigrating, Let THEM leave.

Wake Up Lebanese!

Help Me, Help Them

Dear Family, Friends and donors,

I have been Recently accepted to Peru Teaching Program, with Expand Peru. Expand Peru, a non-profit organization, was legally created on the 16th of September in the year 1999, Please check this link to learn more about it http://www.expandperu.org/wsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=114&lang=en

Through Expand Peru, I will be making the journey of 3 months to Huancayo, Peru starting in July 2013, to participate as a volunteer in their Peru Teaching Program. Not only will I be realizing my dream of travelling overseas, but I will also be helping children that have been devastated by poverty and poor conditions. I will be involved in listening, teaching, and writing to and with the children.
I have already begun planning, researching and saving. But I will also need your help. I am looking to meet a fundraising goal of $4,000 to pay for my airfare and my program fee. Your donations will be helping those kids attain a better education, get clothes, books and pens. You will be helping me give them those needs and teach them. I believe that education can change the world, I believe in the power of Education.

I’m a highly motivated, positive and energetic 23-year-old who is currently studying Translation at the American University of Science and Technology. I freelance as a translator and work a full-time job while studying and make just enough to cover my tuition fees. I hope to study Linguistics in MIT in the future.Thank you for helping me reach my goals and I can’t wait to come back and share stories from what I hope will be a life-changing experience. My dream come true would be meeting Dr.Noam Chomsky.

For your donations, please contact me by email or phone : krysteltabet1@gmail.com  ; 009613621785 –
Bank Account: 5264 3206 3534 6309 – Christelle Tabet Bank Audi SARL

Funds will cover : Ticket USD 1,800.00 (current ticket price) + 1500.00 USD (Program Fee) + buying books for the children and covering my expenses while in Peru for 3 months.

You can choose to donate:
– 20 USD for pens and teaching material
– 30 USD for books
– 50 USD or more for ticket and program fee.

Time limit for receiving funds is February 2013. Time is running!
Thank You and God bless,