Significant incidents in the South and recent Israeli threats indicate that Israel and Hezbollah are preparing for a confrontation. A new war would far supersede the devastation and destruction inflicted in 2006. This underscores the urgency of acting fast to partner with Hezbollah. Domestically, you should engage Hezbollah and work with the U.S. and the international community on an incentive package that encourages the party to give up loyalty to Syria and Iran, surrender its weapons, and fully integrate into Lebanese politics. Concurrently, you should leverage developments in Syrian-American relations to cut off Hezbollah’s weapon supply.

Your Excellency, now is the time to act. America’s rapprochement with Syria presents an opportunity for Lebanon. But you should act fast to be a player in the process, working closely with the U.S. to prevent Lebanon from being used as a bargaining chip.

Situation: Israeli threat is imminent

Renewed conflict with Israel is probable. Activity along the border has increased, and Israel’s threats have soared in frequency and gravity. Hezbollah’s Katyusha launch into Israel on October 27 was the ninth serious incident since the 2006 war. Ever since the Kherbet Slim episode in July, Israel has held “all Lebanese” responsible “for any Hezbollah activity.” In addition, Israeli spying activities have increased, and the rate at which they are being exposed could provide Hezbollah the casus belli for a provocation. To make matters worse, the reported seize of arms shipment from Iran to Syria on November 3 is being advertised by Israel as the largest cache of smuggled weapons ever to be seized. Netanyahu called for the international community to “back Israel when it defends itself.” Israel could be laying the groundwork to justify a near-future strike to finish its 2006 war or to fight a proxy war with Iran.

In what follows, I elaborate on the proposed strategy:

Capitalize on improved Syrian-American relations

Recent developments in Syrian-American relations bode well. Syria is reciprocating America’s outreach earlier this year with a visit to Washington last month by Fayssal Mekdad, the highest ranking official to visit in five years. Syrian-Israeli peace talks are also likely to resume. On October 28, President Al-Assad voiced his support for resuming talks; Ehud Barak responded that peace with Syria was “a central brick in any stable regional arrangement.” Last Friday, Al-Assad called for French efforts to support Turkish mediation between Israel and Syria.

Privately, you should emphasize to the Americans that Syria does not want to be stuck on the Shiite side of the Sunni-Shia divide and U.S. rapprochement with Syria would stabilize the region. You should act fast to be a partner in the process to ensure that Lebanon's interests are not dismissed. In a presentation to the U.S. Congress on October 28, Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman reaffirmed that there will be no return to the pre-1990s era where Washington bargained at Lebanon's expense. Nevertheless, this is a risk we cannot take.

Engage Hezbollah

This is where you should focus most of your efforts.

Disarming and fully integrating Hezbollah has to be achieved through a political process led by the Lebanese State. Initiate a private dialogue with Hassan Nasrallah to truly understand Hezbollah’s demands and its core aspirations. As the recent past has taught us, any attempt to undermine or confront the movement is counterproductive, and supporting alternative Shia movements is futile. Even if its Syrian lifeline is interrupted, Hezbollah would remain powerful. If cornered, it could direct its arsenal inward, igniting a civil war. Your negotiation efforts should be private. Refrain from publically criticizing the movement. If Hezbollah is to disarm, mechanisms should be set in place for the party to save face.

You should persuade the U.S. that there is no alternative to engaging Hezbollah, and that the first step is to acknowledge the party as a legitimate player. Fighting Israel is not fundamental to Hezbollah’s ideology. Since inception, the movement has significantly evolved. It has publically rejected Iranian-style Islamization of Lebanon, a pillar of its1985 manifesto. Similarly, it has abandoned the destruction of Israel as a goal and reorganized as a Lebanese resistance. Given the right circumstances, Hezbollah would renounce violence against Israel. To make any headway, the U.S. must appreciate the diversity of Hezbollah's religious, political, and social ties with its supporters. Mutual symbolic gestures would go a long way: the U.S. would take Hezbollah off its terrorist list, and in return Hezbollah would apologize for the 1983 bombing. There is reason to believe that America might realize the pragmatism of working with Hezbollah. The Obama administration has started to strike a balance between American values and American interests. Case in point, the U.S. now has plans to work with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

With the help of the U.S. and the international community, offer Hezbollah a package of economic and political incentives. You should strike a balance between incentives that are attractive enough to entice Hezbollah to integrate but that still preserve Lebanon’s multi-confessional identity. Political incentives can vary from increasing the Shia quota defined by the Ta’if Accord to abolishing confessionalism. Some of the options will require structural modifications to our political system, but difficult compromises need to be made in return for peace.

There is also the question of Palestinian refugees. As long as the refugees, predominantly Sunni, remain in Lebanon, Hezbollah is unlikely to disarm. You should mobilize U.S. support for resolving the refugee dilemma. Make it clear that no peace can be had otherwise and that Israel would reap the benefits of a solution, given the link between refugee conditions and extremism. Lead the call for an international scheme that would compensate refugees and relocate them to the West Bank or Gaza or offer them citizenship in large, developed countries, or a combination of both.

Challenge: regional developments largely beyond our control

It is not clear to what extent Syria will be at the forefront of the American agenda. President Obama is currently overwhelmed with domestic issues, Afghanistan, and Iran. The situation with Iran is fragile. It appears that Iran has not accepted the nuclear fuel deal from the October 1 Geneva talks. If negotiations fail, thanks to Russia’s recent cooperation sanctions are likely to be tightened, followed by military intervention as Iran is one year away from a nuclear bomb. Israel, however, will be tempted to strike preemptively. Any military altercation with Iran—American or Israeli—would plunge Lebanon into a proxy war. This further underscores the urgency of integrating Hezbollah.

This is a long-term strategy. Making progress against it requires favorable regional developments that are beyond our control, including Syria’s relations with the West, Iranian negotiations, and Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. But as Obama’s strategy in the Middle East takes shape, you should continuously work in concert with the U.S. to steer developments in Lebanon’s interest.

Your Excellency, we now have a chance at peace. We should not repeat the mistakes of the past when peace slipped through our hands because we were too slow to act.

*Maurice Obeid, a graduate from MIT and formerly with McKinsey & Company, is currently pursuing graduate studies in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Whether seeking to marry or applying for a job, the first question is always what religious confession you belong to. To the untrained ear, this may sound jarring, but that is the reality of our society, a reality that is reinforced by the current political framework. Despite the Taif Accord, the country remains mired in political inertia and suffers from an inability to institute much needed reforms in its political structure.

Lebanon naturally converged to confessionalism in the 1926 constitution as a means to protect the identity of its diverse communities and provide a balance of power. In theory, the confessional system enables the peaceful co-existence of religious communities by distributing political posts “proportionally” according to each community’s demographic weight. Proponents insist that with no group constituting a majority in Lebanon, representation of every confession should be guaranteed.

I beg to differ.

The case against confessionalism

One of the fathers of the Lebanese constitution, Michel Chiha, once wrote:

"[Confessionalism] is not perfect but it is the most suitable…solution for all of us as minorities in the country. But we should be very careful: confessional politics must remain inside the Parliament for if one decides to resign, then the confessional tensions will be taken over to the streets, which can …result in destabilization."
Chiha understood the theoretical strength of confessionalism—the protection of the country’s 18 disparate minorities—but underestimated the disruptive incentives that are bred by its politics. More than 70 years ago, Chiha further stipulated that a secular solution could be found once the Lebanese are “mature” enough. This begs the question: when will the Lebanese be mature enough? Isn’t a 15-year civil war a strong enough indicator that it is time to turn the page on sectarianism?

What about the vicious cycle perpetuated by a confessional framework? The more entrenched the Lebanese are in a confessional society, the more solidified their prejudices become, and the harder it is to foment national unity that transcends ethnic communities. Confessionalism deepens sectarian differences by encouraging allegiance to one’s ethnic group over the state. Dependencies within one’s confession are emphasized: religious institutions exercise control over many facets of life, such as marriage and inheritance. Indirect controls and clannish clientelism are also plentiful: jobs, housing, and education are often obtained through appeals to confessional political representatives. This incubates “states” within the state.

The delicate confessional balance makes the state extremely sensitive to internal and external stressors. Minor changes in the political environment from demographic or foreign manipulation trigger instability. There have been several attempts at artificially bloating population numbers of specific communities to gain greater political representation. For instance, in the 1950s, President Chamoun naturalized Christian Palestinians, seeking to boost the number of Lebanese Christians. Similarly, in 1994, a naturalization decree attempted to bolster the Sunni population.

Demographic changes further exacerbate the situation. The proportional share of power, a central tenet of confessionalism, has to reflect the demographic reality in the country. As demographics change, power held by a particular confession no longer reflects the relative size of that group. A Christian majority in the 1932 census was the underpinning of a structure that gave Christians greater representation. As the century progressed and as the Sunni and Shiite populations increased relative to Christians, the latter were wielding a disproportionate amount of power. Sectarian rifts exploded. The Taif recalibrated representation, primarily in favor of Sunnis. Twenty years on, Christians and Shiites feel bitterly underrepresented, and the emerging regional Sunni-Shiite divide further aggravates the dangers of the frail system. How long before the eruption of a new calibrating war?

The path forward

A sustainable nation depends on the development of common interests across its communities. Much of life in Lebanon, however, is still organized according to religious affiliation, and sectarian rivalries run deep. Though the Green Line no longer exists as a physical demarcation in Beirut, it is engrained in the minds of the Lebanese. Many wonder: could civil war return? The crisis in May of 2008, when Hezbollah overpowered government forces, is a testimony that much work is needed in turning the page. Confessionalism should be abandoned.

There are challenges nonetheless. Public opinion is expectedly divided along sectarian lines. With changing demographics, former critics of confessionalism have become its protagonists, while its former advocates are now its opponents. Shiite Muslims, with their plurality of the population, view their powers diminished compared to what they would exercise under a majority rule. Previously secularized Christians, on the other hand, are now fearful of the rising power of the Shiites and, as a result, are more willing to accept the confessionalized status quo. Given the nature of the system, there will probably never be unanimous agreement on the issue.

It is clear however that the Lebanese are not ready for a swift riddance. A recent survey by the Lebanese Opinion Advisory Committee (LOAC) found that more than 50% of Lebanese across the board agreed that political confessionalism is rooted in Lebanese culture and cannot be removed. The secularization process should therefore be gradual and inclusive. Parliament should put forth a transition plan. Under its oversight, a national taskforce comprising of leading political, intellectual, and religious figures would be created to examine the situation. The taskforce would then present proposals for a sustainable, secular framework that upholds meritocracy and purges religious discrimination. Article 12 of the Constitution stipulates that, “no preference [should be] made except on the basis of merit and competence.” Indeed, merit should be the only criterion for political office.

A bicameral transition government would then be formed—one chamber based on the current confessional framework, the other elected without confessional quotas. The relationship between the two chambers would be defined by the taskforce recommendation. They would work jointly—and serve as a check-and-balance for each other—on a strategy for national reconciliation to reaffirm the Lebanese identity. The education system would be reformed to promote national unity. Horizontal interests and a secular electoral law would be espoused. If needed, the interim government could serve multiple terms for substantial legislative reforms to be instituted.

The path to a sustainable Lebanon is long, but possible. Ironically, Michel Chiha once wrote: “a nation is a guarantee for confessions, but confessions are not a guarantee to the nation.” These words could not ring more loudly today.

* Maurice Obeid, a graduate from MIT and formerly with McKinsey & Company, is currently pursuing graduate studies in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

This logic seems sound. Many in the Levant gave competing ideologies a second chance after Arab nationalists were humiliated in the 1967 War. In fact, Israel welcomed nonviolent Islamic cultural movements during this period—especially in the Gaza Strip—with hopes that it would weaken the PLO’s monopoly on power, and exempt them from providing for the Palestinian population. Over time, certainly given the chance from the inability and corruption of the PLO, the Palestinian Islamists were able to build enough support that it could even win an election.

The problem with this popularized version of history is that it is incomplete. Sure the Palestinian politics of today are bitterly divided into competing nationalist and Islamic factions; what isn’t so talked about, however, is a so-called “third force” that has entered Palestinian political sphere. Lets call it the rise of Salafi-Jihadism.

While this new brand of Islamism is still relatively contained to Palestinian refugee camps outside of Israel and the Occupied Territories, the recently foiled plot in South Lebanon should send chills down the streets of Arab capitals.

Last Monday the Lebanese Army arrested 10 suspects accused of plotting attacks against UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Nearly all arrested had origins from other Middle Eastern countries, and had entered Lebanon on fake passports. Though the extent of their plot is yet to be fully exposed, these men reportedly belonged to the al Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam group, that became famous after a heated battle with the Lebanese Army at the Nahr al-Barid camp, in the summer of 2007.

Though it is a dangerous game to contemplate hypotheticals , one can’t help but imagine the implications of such an attack against the UN peacekeeping force. None of the usual players...Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel—vest much faith in UNIFIL’s supposed mission of disarmament and territorial guardianship, as defined in UN Security Council Resolution 1701, to begin with. And at this point in the great political game, UNIFIL’s ability to “get even more tough” seems unlikely.

Such an attack would not only have served as catalyst for a troop reevaluation, but it would have caused the countries involved to question their commitment to this fragile peacekeeping mission. Though UNIFIL has a vastly limited role in keeping the peace along the Blue Line, the withdrawal of such a force would likely be written in history as a melodic overture for the next Lebanon war,

Simply put, this kind of plot has the marks of a Salafi-Jihadi group all over it. Islamists like Hamas or Hezbollah—for whatever one many think of their actions, do in fact have indisputable local and territorial connections to their conflict. Fatah al-Islam, in both this week’s case and the 2007 standoff at the Nahr al-Bahred camp in North Lebanon, have at least shown to be more interested in provoking conflict vis-à-vis global jihad than working for the poor who live in it.

The truth is that a new wave of Salafi-Jihadism is breaking over the Palestinian refugee camps of the Levant. Jordanian journalist, Murad Batal al-Shishani, published an article in al-Hayat on 29 June 2009, titled “Salafi-Jihadism: A New Face in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria’s Palestinian Camps,” where he argues that these camps have turned into a playground for “neo-Zarqawis” to spread their Jihadi ideology. He argues that the reason is rooted in the failure to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the slow decline of the PLO’s hegemony of the camps, the political fallout of the Fatah-Hamas conflict, and the simple fact that poverty and unemployment are on the rise.

Combining these factors, it should come as no surprise that there is an increased willingness to listen to this kind of Islamist ideology in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. And, while there are plenty of fingers to point for this crisis, the truth is that the political system in Lebanon cannot feasibly absorb some 400,000 Palestinian refugees without crumbling the existing ethos in Lebanon.

The catch-22 arrives—at least for those interested in the predicable status quo—when these camps become a destination ground for international Salafi-Jihadist who are intent on using these camps for planning attacks, like the planned attacks against UNIFIL earlier this week. Though these camps may be monitored by Syrian intelligence, the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah, the events of earlier this week have shown that the archetype of the wild western refugee camp must finally be addressed. No matter how much any of the mentioned parties do not want to work with the Palestinian factions who traditionally control these camps, the new era of Salafi-Jihadi will prove to be much worse.

There should be no doubt that with the ingenuity and commitment of the new U.S administration, the global community and a committed Lebanese government that the worsening situation in these camps cannot be resolved. If the rise of a bunch of “neo- Zarqawis” in the prison-like camps of Lebanon can teach us anything, it should be that this is how dire the hidden camps of Lebanon have become.

as well as the perennial assault from its southern neighbor, whether provoked or not. How does a country attempting to ease the memories of a scarring civil war repeatedly continue to reunite in the face of the enemies of its freedom and prosperity, assist those in greatest need, and lay the foundation for a better tomorrow?

Tackling our common challenges requires a clear assessment of Lebanon’s evolving strategic environment and the tools available to construct a meaningful, durable, flexible, and dynamic strategy. How will Lebanon’s strategy contribute to the better of the people? Who will be tasked to identify Lebanon’s objectives? What are Lebanon’s objectives? Who will be the strategy makers? Does the constitution also suggest a recommended religion for that position? Who are Lebanon’s enemies? Have they infiltrated its defense strategy makers as they have many public institutions? Will this strategy build on lessons learnt and insights from previous experiences and operations, including the Nahr El-Bared relative success?

Any strategy that is to work must represent the distillation of valuable experience across the spectrum of conflict and within the strategic environment. Will this include experience gained in the battlefield by Lebanon’s best trained armed group outside of the LAF? Or is it simply focused on stripping one bunker from weapons while stockpiling someone else’s ? Have those parties and individuals challenging for Lebanon’s best future ever contemplated brainstorming for Lebanon’s military solution? Or is this simply another topic to attract a bigger voter turn out? If history has anything to say with any matter of similar importance, it appears that the expected will simply be verbal provocation, and maybe Lebanon won’t need a defense strategy on June 9th once the ballots are in! Lebanon may soon have a new government, maybe democratically elected, but Lebanon’s complex issues will remain. Let’s not hasten into talking a defense strategy when so many policies and strategies need addressing. Let’s make this a blueprint to succeed in years to come.

More importantly, let’s tackle the pressing issues; Let’s supply Lebanese homes with power and water! Let’s assess the size of this defense budget, our potential defense contractors, what local industry we could create and develop from it! What hardware do we require? Or will we simply wait for what the cold-war powers can make part with every other decade, and forever remain unemployed while acquiring Russian fighters with chronic airworthiness failures. Hypothetically, can there not be a government that can systematically examine how it could implement a defense system without political or religious bias.

When will we see that the key is to emphasize unity around the people as a whole, not around leaders. When will we move to network communication technologies, and learn to downgrade the mass media focus on individuals at the top?

Will this strategy involve participatory planning, in which citizens are brought together and supported in developing ideas and implementing measures for defense? If people help design their own defense system, they are much more likely to understand, participate in and support it. The idea of participatory planning is a reminder that social defense need not be a government or a militia-led initiative, but can develop from grassroots action.
For the counter-offensive, will there be an analysis of the centre of gravity of the aggressor, whoever that may be. This is a wide topic, and depends considerably on whom the aggressor is and the method of attack.

If participatory planning is a good way to strengthen the centre of gravity of our defense system, it becomes obvious that all the dimensions of the defense strategy cannot be spelled out in advance by a few experts or officials. The defense system, including its technological aspects, will reflect the understandings and priorities of the people who must act to make it work. Experts and others can, of course, make analyses and recommendations, but not determine the process. Participatory defense strategic planning is a dramatic contrast to military strategic planning, which is far from participatory, and highlights a fundamental difference between national defense and military methods.

Just as militaries carry out research, development and testing of technologies to see which ones can be created or adapted for their purposes, so defense systems will need means for selecting, researching, developing and testing technologies appropriate for their purposes. The concept of appropriate technology thus can be applied to our defense: the question is, which technologies are most appropriate for supporting Lebanon’s challenges?

Although it is conceivable that our defense might be implemented by whoever is in government as a rational choice, another possibility is that Lebanon’s defense will never be implemented but will gradually become a reality as a result of the national struggles that will build the capacity for either violent or non-violent defense against aggression. Yes I did say non-violent; there will always be a choice! In reality, the move towards Lebanon’s industrialization and technology for defense must exist and will also be a gradual one.

Campaigns for technologies that create the capacity for adequate control, such as mass communication systems and centralized energy systems, can be seen as part of the struggle for a nationalized defense system, as can efforts to promote technologies fostering self-reliance. Since technological infrastructure is expensive and difficult to replace, it tends to freeze in associated relationships. Building infrastructure to sustain our defense is thus a long-term project, in which decisions now may be important for many decades to come. If our armed forces are truly what hold our country together, let’s make this work! Let us not simply look to borrow useless hardware, but seek opportunities to develop our own, employ, and unite Lebanon’s young minds. That in itself is the beginning of a formidable defense strategy.

and equally strong words for the perpetrators of rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory. Though such attacks may be against Lebanese “popular and official will” as Suleiman said, in reality there is little the state can do in its present state.

The Lebanese military is lauded as the golden child of the Lebanese nation. For all the praise that has been heaped on it, from its performance during the Nahr al-Bared fighting in 2007 to its non-sectarian stance during the civil strife of this past summer, the actual capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces are not in any way sufficient to assert state authority over Lebanese territory.

A case in point is the fighting in the Palestinian refugee camp at Nahr al-Bared in 2007. While undoubtedly a victory for the Army, a closer look will show that this victory has little in it to brag about. It took three and a half months for the tens of thousands of Lebanese troops deployed to subdue the probably less than 500 man force of Jund al-Sham and Fatah al-Islam fighters. The Army suffered over 150 dead and 400 wounded in the battle. This was partly due to the lack of effective air support; the best that could be mustered were UH-1 Huey helicopters converted into bombers using spare parts from the Air Force. The lack of precision munitions, such as American Hellfire missiles, and valuable air cover took its toll in the number of lives lost by the Army.

So the first lesson is that the Lebanese defense forces need to procure precision weapons; aging Soviet weaponry such as the BM-21 just will not do. Also, the reconstruction of the Air Force is becoming increasingly more prudent. The gift of MiG-29s from Russia is a good sign, but it will be years before a well-trained corps of fighter pilots can take to the skies of Lebanon. A more short term option is the acquisition of attack helicopters, such as the American AH-1 Cobra, newer versions of the French Gazelle, or even Russian KA-52 Black Sharks. These will show themselves to be more effective in the type of fighting Lebanon’s armed forces have seen lately. The armored forces of the Army should also be overhauled; archaic Soviet T-55’s and American M-48’s serve little purpose on the modern battlefield, and are especially susceptible to RPG’s, a weapon of choice for the modern militant.

The place to go for most of the required arms would be the West. As appreciated Russia’s contributions are, Russian arms have shown themselves to be no match for quality Western equipment. The Leopard tanks from Belgium and M-60 tanks from the United States, though older models, are still superior in quality to the newest Russian armored vehicles. In addition, Western anti-tank munitions, such as the American Javelin, and anti-aircraft equipment, as in the French Mistral, are far superior to similar Russian and Chinese models. It would be in the Army’s best interest to press the West to deliver such equipment.

Most important of all though, the Army needs to completely overhaul its training regime. Focus needs to be taken away from larger scale conflicts and towards smaller scale, counterinsurgency operations. The Army was woefully unprepared for the urban combat it faced at Nahr al-Bared, and as such demands increased focus on such operations. The Special Forces of Lebanon have shown themselves to be exceptional; however, they are too small in number to be used as large units in urban combat. The switch of military recruitment of the armed forces to an all volunteer force lends itself to creating a small, well trained and equipped military. A well trained volunteer force has shown itself to be of much higher quality than a large conscript force. One need only look at the United States.

Where can the Lebanese Armed Forces receive aid for such a training overhaul? Jordan, a fellow Arab nation with a top-grade military, is one source. The need for such change is clear, and would serve to greatly improve the quality of Lebanon’s forces.

The laws of the Lebanese republic are only good if they are backed up by a quality military that is ready to implement those laws. With militias running rampant in the camps, with groups such as the PFLP-GC and Hezbollah operating outside of the rule of the government and carving out their own armed camps on Lebanese territory, the need for an overhaul of the military in all areas is most definitely called for.

They all serve to undermine the state and drag Lebanon towards inevitable recurring conflicts with Israel.

Recent reports on the launching of rockets from Lebanon into Israel have brought the issue of Lebanon’s weak internal security services back to the forefront of Middle East policy circles. The usual suspects, Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), have denied any involvement in the attacks, and Israel sources have pointed towards the culprits possibly being a new pro-Saudi group called the “Jihad Movement for Gaza,” operating from the Ain al-Hilweh camp in Sidon. If true, this group represents a new factor in the proxy war being fought by numerous countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran, for control over Lebanese politics and territory. Reports of a possible kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, similar to that which started the 2006 war with Hezbollah, point towards the possibility of growing tensions along the border with Israel.

For all the trouble Lebanon went through to elect an acceptable President for the republic, little has changed in the way of strength of the Lebanese state. Rogue groups, operating from Lebanese territory, dictate the foreign policy of the state with their attacks on Israeli territory. In the case of the Palestinian militias, they lash out from the relative safety of the camps against Israel to show they are not an impotent force. Also, the communal strife within the camps often spills outside of them, into the cities, such as the fighting between Fatah and Jund al-Sham. For others, such as Hezbollah, they stock arms and perpetrate random attacks in the name of “the resistance.” The PFLP-GC maintains, with Syrian aid, a well armed and trained force that operates from bases fortified with anti-aircraft weaponry, artillery, and supposedly even armored vehicles. The stocks and capabilities of Hezbollah are unknown to few. Such facts do not lend themselves to being evidence of an effective state.

How does Lebanon reassert its sovereignty over its land? Sovereignty over a territorial claim is what makes a state a state, yet Lebanon cannot claim to have this. What can the Republic do?

One doesn’t have to look far to find what Lebanon’s options are. Jordan faced very much the same predicament in 1970, when the Yasser Arafat led PLO was operating as a state-within-a-state, attacking Israel (which inevitably drew a military response) and putting Jordanians themselves under a state of siege. King Hussein saw the writing on the wall: either he could act decisively, or watch as his nation was carved up by militants. He chose to act, and crushed the PLO while he had the strength. But is this really the answer for Lebanon? Thousands were killed in what became known as “Black September” in Jordan. As a nation that in the last forty years has endured civil wars and occupation by various local powers, is Lebanon ready to make the sort of sacrifices necessary to vigorously reassert central government control?

It would not be a horrible thing to say no to the military option. But it would indeed be wrong to say that Lebanon should go on with maintaining the status quo. Bringing the militias, terrorist groups, or whatever they may be called, under control is essential to the survival of the Lebanese state. Whether through diplomatic means or otherwise, the state must reign in the actions of renegade and non-state actors in Lebanon. It is in the State’s best interest; not doing so jeopardizes not only Lebanon’s internal security, but also makes it vulnerable to reprisal attacks by its neighbors. The Palestinians must remember that they are in Lebanon, and are therefore subject to the laws of the State. This also applies to Hezbollah and other Lebanese armed parties. Nations who find it prudent to fight proxy wars via various forces in Lebanon should resign themselves to having to having to solve their disputes through more direct means.

With Netanyahu to form the new Israeli government, Obama’s vision of a peaceful Middle East is at a cross road. Significantly, the impact of violent left the area boiling with vengeance and any USA solution should tackle the problem from its roots, and find solutions that provide a viable statehood for the Palestinians.

The USA along with President Abbas will find that they are caught in the middle between Netanyahu and Hamas hard-line thinking and dogma. The latest outcome of the Israeli elections, Gaza’s war, and Palestinians power struggle and division, no doubt that the region is heading towards more extremism and radicalism. It needs more than listening from Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton so as to gain momentum to start putting the peace process on track. Mrs. Clinton needs to brighten USA image in the Middle East; she urgently needs a change of policy, and a lot of determination to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict or the area will be heading to mini wars that will result in a chaotic Middle East where USA national interest will be at stake.

Make no mistake; the road to peace is hard especially with Netanyahu hard line approach and Hamas clinching to power in Gaza. Between these two extremes the United States of America will find itself indulged in a different kind of diplomacy. The above actors will target the peace process so as to gain more power on the ground, ignoring the human and suffering side of the problem. There is little chance that peace will come soon, on the contrary, in the name of security, resistance and occupation, the situation on the ground will deteriorate. Both actors are so radicalized in their approach which could lead to a regional unrest among the neighboring countries. Reshaping USA foreign policy in the region needs more than appointing an envoy; it needs addressing the root of the problem with unbiased approach.

Several envoys have visited the area for the last six decades to bring peace and tranquility to the people in the area, but alas the situation becomes worse and the death toll of children, women and Palestinian men is increasing. On the other hand, Israelis believe and nightmare that their existence is been threatened.

The spillover of violence and the volatile situation needs more than George Mitchell and Tony Blair visits, and presence in the area. The USA new administration should understand that it is dealing with a different hidden Israeli and Hamas agendas in the region. On one hand, Netanyahu does not believe in a Palestinian state, and on the other Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist as a nation. Both parties will be an obstacle for the new USA administration and mostly President Abbas moderate stands with Israel. Abbas position will be so fragile among his people for the Israeli Palestinian conflict and peace negotiations has been dragging for so many years without any fruitful results. Definitely, with Israeli hard liners, Peace is at stake, the region is anticipating more violence; Hamas is thieving on the idea of war to curb Mahmoud Abbas moderate position and status among the Palestinians, so it will cement its political agenda as an organization. This fracas has proven to be the headache for the American and European envoys that visited the area in search of a solution.

The USA should understand that Gaza’s war has changed the equilibrium between war and peace. It cemented hatred among the Palestinians towards Israel, and it also opened a strong debate on Israel’s belligerent actions and reactions’ in the world. It tipped what little hope in moderates from both sides who believed that peace can succeed. If there were any moderates in the Arab world, this war has influenced their thinking and determination to reach peace.

The Arab peace initiative that gave Israel recognition among Arab nations has been ignored by consecutive Israeli governments. Israel’s lack of response, their confiscation of land, closure of passages, etc…resulted in the volatile situation on the ground and cemented Hamas agenda and weakened Abbas position.

The new USA administration should understand that fear of survival among political actors in the area can create a negative impact on the ground and can lead to war and more instability. This fear will nourish state terrorism and non government actors’ terrorist attacks. These terrorists attacks will spread into neighboring countries and those who are called moderates will suffer the most. Also, the USA national interest in Iraq and neighboring countries will be threatened enormously. So as to avoid nourishing terrorism and curbing wars, the USA should seriously change its policy and engage even-handed in the area.

To reach a fair solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, the new administration should encourage the Israeli hardliners that peace will bring security, prosperity and recognition for them in the Arab world. It is not difficult to pressure Netanyahu into signing a peace treaty based on the Arab imitative. For History has showed that he handed eighty percent of Hebron in January 1997 to the Palestinian Authority control and signed the Wye River Memorandum on23 October 1998 where Israel will further withdraw from the West Bank.

On the other hand, the USA should be able to understand not to tie Hamas to any global terrorist organization, for Hamas believes that they are a resistance group that is fighting an occupier on their grandfathers land. So as to avoid turning Hamas acts outside Gaza, the new administration should encourage dialogue among the Palestinians so as to provide a peaceful terrain for the incoming peace negotiations.

It should also support Mahmud Abbas to reconcile with Hamas and accommodate them within a new government. In return the United States should accept such a government and deal with it as legitimate. Hamas should understand that this internal division among the Palestinians reflected negatively on this dignified cause all around the world and have stamped them as a terrorist organization. In the name of terror the Palestinian cause is deteriorating and the people are losing ground... and a fair, honest cause has turned into a fiasco.

Hamas should grasp that this reconciliation will change their image in the world and give them an edge over Israel’s hardliners. By doing so, the Palestinian political position will strengthen and the road to peace can be paved. Hamas should realize that their continuous attacks and Israeli’s counterattacks are costing the Palestinian people lives, land and strengthening Israel’s hegemony on the ground.

The new administration should avoid the previous mistakes of the Bush era; it should present solutions that tackle the problem from its roots. The Palestinians have been living in misery under occupation, in camps, humiliated from the world, driven to poverty and ignored by most of the world since the creation of Israel. Ignoring this misery is inhumane and cruel.

The Palestinian people need more than UN resolutions, envoys, or soft words from the world; they need a viable state that recognizes their existence on the world map based on 1967 borders, al-Quads as its capital, and most important Israel recognition of the magnitude of the misery of Palestinian refugees, the right of return that is protected under the UN resolution 194.Israel on the other hand, will be secure from any aggression. Both parties will benefit economically from the peace process. The area in general will be less volatile and more prosperous and the USA national interest in the region will be intact.

Photo: President Obama ( L) and President Abbas

Desperately needed by an energy starved nation, this deal highlights Lebanon’s need to attain at least a good amount of self-sufficiency in the energy sector.

Lebanon’s daily electricity needs call for over 2,300 MW, but the aging domestic energy industry is having trouble with coping with delivering just 1,500 MW. Day after day, whole sections of Lebanon are cut off from power due to strict electricity rationing. When the energy agreement with Egypt goes to effect, planned to be around next month, Lebanon will receive “one to two hours of additional electricity,” as Minister Tabourian stated. Hopes are also high for shipments of Egyptian gas to power the Der Ammar gas fired station in the Tripoli area.

For a modern country, Lebanon suffers some pretty third-word like energy woes. Power stations across Lebanon are, for the most part at least, aging and decrepit, of not completely obsolete. So, the nation not only cannot provide its citizens with reliable electricity, but really couldn’t if it wanted to without a massive overhaul of the domestic energy industry. Mix this with a complete dependency on other states for energy, and you have the makings of a total energy crisis, not that the situation isn’t already at that point.

The energy problem isn’t that straightforward though; energy problems have a direct correlation to the economy and industry. If there’s not enough energy, businesses can’t operate, people can’t work, which means no money is being made. There are two major problems: if the supply of energy is lower than demand, then the price is going to sky-rocket. The lack of electricity lowers productivity, which lowers the commodity output. Every hour a factory or business sits without power is an hour in which it is losing money.

All of the facts point towards Lebanon’s need to completely renovate its energy capacity. In this, Lebanon has a unique opportunity to lead the way in green, environmentally friendly power sources. The coast line offer space for wind turbines and wind fields, and the Bekaa Valley offers space for solar panels. This would obviously be very expensive, but the rewards would be many. Public works projects such as these would also provide jobs, and get more money flowing through the economy. If handled well, with adequate oversight, only gains will be made from refitting the energy production capacity of Lebanon.

the fourth anniversary of the assassination of former PM Rafiq Hariri

PSP chief MP Walid Jumblatt and parliament majority leader MP Saad Hariri in addition to several key dignitaries attended the funeral.

Jumblatt appealed for calm and restraint during the funeral on Monday:

"Lebanon today is above all divisions and wounds," Jumblatt told mourners

Jumblatt told the mourners in Chbaniye: The army has done its duty , as arrests were made against those suspected of attacking the March 14 supporters, and we are awaiting justice.

Jumblatt also told the mourners that he had called Lebanese Army Commander Jean Kahwaji, who "assured him that he will handle the matter and take appropriate measures against the perpetrators "

"Only the state, the army, the security services and the justice system will protect us," added Jumblatt, the anti-Syrian Druze leader, who urged his followers to refrain from revenge attacks in the wake of Zeineddin death.

Zeineddine is of the Druze faith. Last May, it was the Druze of Mt Lebanon that defeated Hezbollah and ended its aggression against Beirut and the rest of the country. Several Hezbollah members were killed as they tried to occupy the cities of Aley, Souk el Gharb, Chouifat and several other towns and villages in Mt Lebanon.

The PSP has accused supporters of the Hezbollah-led alliance of being behind Zeineddine's killing.

Hezbollah has denied any involvement.

As Zeineddine's funeral was being Hezbollah was preparing on Monday to commemorate the first anniversary of the murder in Damascus of its top commander Imad Mughniyah .

Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan praised the way Jumblatt has handled the slaying of Zeineddine during an interview with NBN television on Monday and said: The Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt’s speech on Sunday “was responsible and open, and it is important that [people] abide by it.”

“Two delegations from the March 14 and 8 alliances met on Sunday to contain the situation,” Hajj Hassan said, “[And] Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah will call for reducing tensions on Monday during his televised speech.”

Top picture: Hanadi, the daughter of Lutfi Zeinddine, reacts, during his funeral procession, in the village of Chbaniye in Mt Lebanon , Monday Feb. 16, 2009. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

Druze Sheiks gather around the coffin of Lutfi Zeinddine, seen in the center, as they pray during his funeral procession, in village of Chbaniye in Mt Lebanon , Monday Feb. 16, 2009 (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

Druse Sheiks, seen by the coffin of Lutfi Zeinddine, during his funeral procession, Monday Feb. 16, 2009 (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

PSP chief and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, right, offers his condolences to Druze Sheikhs during the funeral procession of Lutfi Zeinddine on Monday Feb. 16, 2009 (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

The real implications of the election of Barak Obama to the office of the presidency of the United States of America cannot be understood clearly unless the process is viewed as a continuation of what started more than two centuries ago, the American Revolution. Yes, the American Revolution lives on in order to demonstrate that revolutions never fulfill their promise if they allow their vision to become static. A revolution, ironically in the best Marxist tradition, must maintain its ability to reinvent itself and to evolve with the changing circumstances. Hegelian dialectics as borrowed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luckas speak to a revolution philosophy that refuses to become content for its initial successes. As Paulo Freire, the greatest educator of the last one hundred years has spent his life teaching, if we are to truly liberate ourselves then we must also liberate the other. What good is there to be gained if we are to settle for merely exchanging positions; the exploited become the exploiters and those that did the exploiting become the victims of the new rulers. If we allow that to happen then we would have failed to advance the cause of liberty and justice.
It is precisely in these terms that the election of Mr. Obama, to the highest office in the world is to be understood. This election is not a culmination of a dream as much as it is a continuation of a belief that a better and a more just society for all can be created. The United States has managed to surprise itself and the world by demonstrating its dynamism and by refusing to let its previous accomplishments hold it back from reaching for new heights and opening new vistas. The real genius of this revolution, and it is a revolution, is that it has sent a message to the world warning those that cling to old bygone fossil ideas that time has rendered obsolete and irrelevant have no one to blame but themselves for their inability to grow , change and move towards a more perfect structure. After all we must recognize the importance of the old Buddhist concept of impermanence. We need to accept that nothing is permanent except change itself.
This has got to be the lesson to the Arab countries in general. The world is best characterized by flux and if our societies are to survive and prosper then adaptation and evolution are two ideas that we should embrace rather than fight.

The writer welcomes your comments at wp.karam@gmail.com

Whether the culprit is the un-relinquishing rocket attacks into Northern Israel (Hamas) or the never-ending expansion of the Jewish settlements within the disputed territories or even the sub-human conditions of every day life in the Gaza strip, one must wonder what is the overall objective of this ground invasion of Palestine.

Could it be that the reason why Israel is calling up 2000 reservists is to expand this invasion into Southern-Lebanon? Is Hizballah next? Well as Lebanese, the latter question arises a multitude of fears.

If, God forbid, these Western-backed incursions continue on to the doorsteps of Sayyed Nasrallah’s bunkers, not only will it be a foreign occupation of our homelands but a lethal blow to our emerging economy. Bear with me and let us evaluate such an outcome. There are three things to consider when weighing out this situation: the Lebanese armies’ stance towards Hizballah (from the threats of Ehud Barak, “we consider the army and Hizballah as one”), the magnified Palestinian camps within Lebanon and adversely the possible unification of the Lebanese people in case of an invasion.

Consider the first element mentioned, basically if Israel goes about a campaign where it makes no distinction between non-Hizballah partisans and Hizballah militants. In the latter case this not only would subject the Lebanese people to death, injury and humiliation at the hands of foreign/Jewish occupational armies, it would as well make Lebanon, once again, the battlefield it once was in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Looking at the second element, the Palestinian camps, it becomes obvious these impoverishes, lawless environments will not only prove to be a threat to stability within our borders but also a fertile beacon of Jihadists military organizations. Consequently, the camps will burst and revenge will be taken at the expense of anti-Hizballah/anti-Syrian Lebanese militias and civilians that are believed to have collaborated with the Neighboring Jewish State. The preceding situation, in my opinion will be accelerated by the disorganization and destruction of the army by the invading forces, thus creating a window of opportunity, where unchecked Palestinian organizations would prove quite efficient versus barely trained anti-Syrian coalitions.

Finally, the third and in my opinion, least plausible situation would be the unification of the Lebanese throughout the country in demanding protection for all it’s citizens and maybe even an armed resistance against a thin 30,000 strong invading army armed with the latest technology. We all hope it will not come to that, but with an eager Israeli Neoconservative government, much worse is possible.

After having written all of the above one must wonder what is Syria’s stance on this situation? Well, isn’t it obvious? During the building up of negotiations between Syria and Israel, I’m guessing Syria had a concession to make and that concession might have been Hizballah and Hamas. Therefore, history repeats itself, in the 80’s Assad sold out the PLO for regional concessions (Lebanon), today Syria sells out Hizballah-Hamas and it’s ties with Iran for something far to similar, Lebanon.

Obviously these are all gruesome predictions, but shedding an eye on the emerging conflict, one realize how close to reality all this humbug might be. Further on, one must lay blame where blame deserves to be laid. Present Elect Obama has demonstrated his aligned stance with Israel and his conformity to the Jewish media by release absurd statements and not condemning the use of Phosphoric weaponry.

What kind of conscious leaders, whether the ever chest inflating and rhetoric experts of Damascus, the ultra conservative government of Canada or the ruthless thugs of the New proclaimed world order, such as the Bush legacy and Rockefeller stooge Henry Kissinger can sit aside and watch children perish under the rubble of Palestine. What is required for the people of the Arab world to realize that the only method to fight the growth of Israel is knowledge? Knowledge is power, an AK-47 cannot stand up to a tank or an F-16, but an ideology of a free Palestine, a free Lebanon and a free Middle-East from internal and external tyranny, will never die, because Ideas do not perish, they do not die, they remain after there barrens give their lives.

I am a McGill University Student, from the halls of Engineering to the halls of the Medicine Faculty, Arabic can always be heard: that is Strength. That is strength Mr. Mashaal, now go back to Palestine and die for that ideology that has mangled the whole of Palestine.

It is also clear that the Israeli government did not put together this complicated plan of fighting in Gaza at the spur of the moment. Israel has arguably been preparing for this onslaught for the past two years in an effort to rehabilitate its image that took a beating after the Lebanese 2006 campaign that proved to be quite ineffective if not outright fiasco. Yet, Israel wanted an excuse to move into Gaza and Hamas seems to have been more than willing to provide the IDF with a solid rationale for its onslaught. Why? Did Hamas miscalculate the Israeli ability to tolerate the Qassam rockets or were they motivated by other goals. The Hamas leadership has shown over the years its ability to be effective strategic thinkers and to be popular political players. As a result it is only fair to assume that Hamas must have known that Israel will eventually respond with overwhelming force, its own version of shock-and-awe, if you will. But yet they went ahead with their provocations by continuously firing the ineffective but irritating Qassams into Ashkelon and its environs. There are only two logical explanations for their semi-suicidal behavior:

1. Hamas was following orders issued by their financiers, military trainers and arms suppliers, the Iranian mullahs; or,


2. Hamas seriously believes that it is ready to inflict on the IDF major losses once the IDF is lured into urban warfare on the streets and alleys of Gaza.

And so who is it that has lured whom into this quagmire? Was it the Israeli policies that pushed Hamas into providing the IDF with an excuse for its forceful reoccupation of Gaza in an effort to influence the outcome of the upcoming Palestinian elections or even an effort to help Mr. Olmert; Israel’s George Bush; or was it Hamas incompetence and misguided policies that handed the IDF with the rationale that it needed for its operation? It really does not matter. Both sides to this bloody conflict have shown nothing but total disregard for the rules of war, sanctity of non combatants and have persisted to misread history.

Hamas, especially its refusal to accept the existence of the state of Israel and its resort to random violence as a means to achieving its goal makes it an anachronism. It is time that Hamas, Hezbollah, PFLP and all the other resistance groups recognize that their adopted methods have proven to be ineffective and counter productive. It is time to abandon these destructive tools and engage the adversary on a higher level. It is time to introduce into the equation pragmatism and an acceptance of reality. It is time to learn to live in peace with those that speak a different language and have a different religion. It is time to apply the idea of impermanence instead of clinging to the notion of authenticity in a world best described by contamination and flux. It is time that the Palestinian people reject the rejectionists in order to have hope for the future.

Israel, on the other hand, is just as much in need of a change in its policies. Military force will not bring peace; it might silence begrudgingly the guns for a while. Peace requires policies that do not dehumanize, discriminate, exploit and abuse the very same people that Israel claims that it needs as good neighbours. It is time for Israel to demonstrate its willingness to accept a Palestinian state next door by negotiating a date certain for the total sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza.

The current war in Gaza has entered its third week and yet it shows no signs of winding down. The rough details of the outcome of this war have been known from the outset. The IDF cannot wipe out Hamas, only the Palestinian people can do that and Hamas will have to stop firing its rockets into Israel. Is it that important who stops first? The IDF has a golden opportunity to declare an end to the Gaza operation, to remove the embargo and to start a serious economic development program with the help of the GCC in exchange for strictly inspected borders and an end to rocket firing into Israel. These acts stand the chance of moving the peace process forward. Israel and its Palestinian neighbours need desperately “change that they can believe in”’

The rise of Islamic Banking over the past 40 years into an institutional financial structure spread over the globe has been a phenomenon that has attracted lots of interest. As is often the case whenever a new idea arises it s rise is associated with many falsehoods, half truths and unfulfilled promises. The whole concept of Islamic Banking rests on 4 Qoranic verses that speak against Ribaa (2:275-81; 3:130-2; 4:161 and 30:39). Although the Arabic word Ribaa does not mean interest rate yet the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence have interpreted Ribaa to imply interest rates. In the opinions of many that interpretation could easily have been usury. In that case the idea of “Islamic Banking” would no longer appear to be inviolable.

The Islamic Development Bank, the largest Islamic Bank, is a breath of fresh air in the stultified field of economic development. How appropriate it is to give interest free loans to the developing nations instead of burdening them with huge debt service and strict conditionalities a la World Bank and the IMF. But this idea of interest free banking which rests strongly on the two sources of (1) Ijma, Consensus, and (2) Qiyas, analogy, becomes more problematic in other areas.

It should be clear from the above that the basis on which interest free banking rests does not sanctify the idea but in fact is an attempt to replace the interest rate income with a substitute that achieves the same objective as the banished instrument. This is nothing short of a process that seeks conformity with the letter of the prohibition against Ribaa but not its spirit. Since income that flows from trade and risk sharing is considered to be Hallal, lawful, Islamic Banks have adopted Profit Loss Sharing (PLS) as a replacement for the Lender-Borrower Haram, forbidden, relationship.

The Mudarabah and Musharakah, the most popular methods to avoid interest rate income are structured so as to yield the same income that traditional interest rates would have produced in traditional banks. Such a cumbersome structure makes Islamic Banks less competitive than traditional ones. It might be instructive in this regard to recall the words of the Islamic Pakistani economist Ahmad: “”No single Moslem country is running its financial institutions without resorting to interest… no one knows how to do it…they resort to some kind of subterfuge..change the name of interest and you have abolished interest”.

An even more scathing criticism is delivered by Dr Hasanuz Zaman who writes:
".. many techniques that the interest-free banks are practicing are not either in full conformity with the spirit of Shari’ah or practicable in the case of large banks or the entire banking system. Moreover, they have failed to do away with undesirable aspects of interest. Thus, they have retained what an Islamic bank should eliminate. "

The current Sharia prohibition on Ribaa renders consumption loans very difficult to structure and as a result the practice of financing trips and personal purchases under Islamic Banking rules becomes harder to structure and implement. Furthermore, a real challenge of Islamic Banking is the ability to develop effective tools that Central Banks can employ in transacting their monetary policies.

Equity and justice, the hallmarks of an Islamic society, do not have to be incompatible with a banking system that charges interest rates. All what is needed to make traditional banking acceptable to the Moslem believer is an act of Ijma, consensus, by Islamic fiqh whereby a distinction is made between usury and a regular interest rate. Once the Islamic Ulamah agree to equate Ribaa with usury then the often cited reason for the prohibition of Ribaa in the first place, ruinous borrowing and the need for Adl, justice, in protecting the weak and the poor would have been met.

Moslem societies do not have to invent financial instruments to perform the function of what is already being done but albeit under a different name. Islam can enrich us all by emphasizing the importance of ethics in the economic sphere but it does not need to reinvent the wheel in order to accomplish that.

The tremendous financial constraints under which the Lebanese government has had to operate for over two decades have pressured it into accepting the role of an international ‘GIFT SEEKER”. Lebanon has been transformed into a country that is totally defendant on gifts and giveaways by other countries in the world; both well meaning and not so well meaning; to conduct many of its state functions. Lebanon depends on the generosity of other states to deposit money in its central bank in order to strengthen its weak domestic currency, it depends on gifts from other nations in order to equip its police force with vehicles, it depends on other countries still to send its armed forces ammunition, it further depends on other countries to equip its army with unarmed helicopters and recently it is the “proud” recipient of 10 MIG 29.

It might not be exceedingly problematic to justify the need for Police cars or even Army helicopters since the quid pro quo from such transactions cannot be very damaging but one needs to think hard about the potential consequences of accepting such large gifts that carry with them an inherent role of dependency. A Lebanese Air Force composed of 10 MIG 29’s will not become operational for years, it will increase exponentially Lebanese dependence on Russian training, radar systems, and maintenance but above all it will help bring Lebanon into the Russian orbit in exchange for war materiel that is ineffective and that Lebanon does not strategically need in the first place. Anyone who has purchased a digital photographic printer for a very low price just to find out that they have become captive consumers for the colored ink and photographic paper of the producer knows exactly what I am talking about. Studies have shown repeatedly that consumers can save money, have better quality photos and maintain their independence by opting to use commercial print services.

At times it is the height of prudence to look a gift horse in the mouth instead of accepting meekly and uncritically the intentions of what is being offered. Many a time the apparent gift is nothing but a mean to entrap the recipient into a relationship of servitude. Obviously the best mechanism to escape from such machinations is to build a strong and healthy society that does not need the generosity of others in order to survive. In this case, however, what is at stake is even more compelling. Lebanon has nothing to gain from allocating its scarce resources in order to cultivate and maintain an Air Force that will not be effective under the most ideal of conditions. Any rational cost benefit analysis will have to conclude that monies, policies and resources spent in an ineffective way are tantamount to gross negligence and are harmful to the welfare of the citizens. Make no mistake about it; the harboring of the illusion that a 10 MIG 29 Lebanese Air Force is worth while is nothing short of a criminal act that can set in motion a scenario of destruction, misery and squalor that Lebanon can ill afford.

Ghassan Karam welcomes your correspondence at wp.karam@gmail.com

One illustration of the shortcomings of such models can be seen clearly in the efforts of The Group of Industrialized Countries, G 8 to deal with the ever spiraling level of poverty and deprivation on the African continent. The G 8 decided in 2005 to stem this downward cycle by lending its strong approval to the UK’s “Commission for Africa” plan spearheaded by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and the support of the PM Tony Blair in addition to the rather lukewarm support of the US administration. Fundamentally, the plan was based around the idea that a write off of the debt of the countries in question is the prescription for leading these countries out of poverty and dependency. Unfortunately, this scheme of increased money grants has been tried before with dire results. The level of sincerity of the G8 nations is not questioned; their ability to differentiate between “manifestations” and “causes” is. There is no doubt that if an individual/country/institution has a lighter burden of financial liabilities, then they would be better of temporarily. But if the initial conditions that resulted in the debt in the first place have not been removed, then do we have any right to expect a different outcome the next time around? Of course not. Since it is safe to assume that neither countries nor individuals within countries will freely choose to live under inhumane conditions of deprivation, misery and squalor, then such outcomes are imposed on the unlucky recipients by a set of rules that demand such outcomes. Outcomes do not just happen; they are dictated by the prevailing social, economic and political structure; by the mode of production. Outcomes change only if we make changes to the world system.

Environmental studies is another field that is replete with policy suggestions that commit the fallacy that Tolstoy warned against. Despite the clear conclusions of large scale scientific studies that global ecological resources are under severe stress the global community and the United Nations proceed to work on peripheral issues. We have chosen to address symptoms instead of causes when we know that any meaningful relief demands a fundamental change in the conduct of economic, social and political affairs. Anything short of a radical change in the architecture of the world system is a palliative measure that would be doomed to fail and to only aggravate the problem that it was intended to resolve. Whether it is global warming, the ever shrinking rain forest, desertification, endangered ocean fisheries, urbanization , water scarcity, pollution or declining biodiversity, just to name a few of the major environmental issues, it is clear that all of these problems are generated as a result of the global community’s unrestrained obsession with material accumulation. Again the solution is clear and obvious but the global community chooses to concentrate on “manifestations” instead of the real “cause”, economic growth. But to renounce growth and advocate redistribution is an unrealistic expectation from within the confines of the current paradigm that is constructed on the unrealistic assumptions of infinite growth and an economy that is not subject to any form of ecological constraints.

Globalization is yet another area whose analysis lacks distinction between symptom and cause. Recommendations and policy suggestions emphasize the superficial aspects of the phenomenon in question, proceed to describe in great detail its outer appearances, then conclude that globalization’s demands must always be accommodated since the process of globalization is inevitable and even irreversible. No attempt is made to explain the cause of globalization, its ultimate goal or whether that end is worthwhile. Globalization, to this group, is the order of the day, it can never do any harm and it must be unquestionably accommodated. A slight variation of the above admits to the possibility of generating unpleasant outcomes from the globalization process but believes that the structure is amenable to adjustment. It believes that reform could produce globalization with a human face thus creating a win-win solution for all stakeholders. This level of analysis is equally unsatisfactory since it does not delve into a meaningful analysis of the reason globalization arose, what is its reason d’être and whether it is amenable to reform.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in1989 is the most common benchmark for dating the beginning of the current round of globalization. The logic for such a date is compelling, because it is argued that prior to this date no real globalization would have been possible in a world made up of at least two major antagonistic camps. If globalization, however, is the product of a set of ideas and beliefs about the world, what proof is there that such ideas emerged in 1989? Furthermore, when a reference is made to “a current round of globalization”, by implication previous rounds of this activity must have preceded the current effort.

Conclusion

Globalization in its entire facets, political, social, cultural and economic, is ultimately the result of a unique project due to the nature of capital accumulation on a world scale and the need for capital to dominate and homogenize. As production and consumption become alienated from their local surroundings, then this pursuit of global co-modification will result in de-localization, de-socialization and de-territorialization. Globalization results in less diversity, less control and a loss of identity. None of these unhealthy effects of globalization can be eliminated if globalization is maintained. Change, if it is to come, will only occur when the victims decide to take action in order to vanquish the world system that has produced an environmentally unhealthy ecosystem and a humanly unjust society.