Lebanon’s Independence Day

Most countries around the world celebrate their “Independence Day” with ecstatic joy. To all of those countries, it is a reminder of their struggle to break free from superpowers that were using their land, their people, their resources…

In Lebanon, November 22nd has become a national mourning day of some sorts. What are the people mourning? The French citizenship that could have been.

What is the notion of Independence and why do many Lebanese find it easy to ridicule the independence of their country? Contrary to popular belief, I feel proud on November 22nd, just as I feel proud about Lebanon any day. My country has grave flaws but regardless of those flaws, it exists.

The reason it’s so hard for many Lebanese to see their country as independent is because the notion of independence is grossly overestimated. No country in the whole world is truly independent from other countries. Example? The USA has a national debt of over $14 trillion, a big chunk of which is to China. Why do you think the US is struggling to fix its national budget nowadays? To fix the economy? Partly yes. But mostly to lessen this national debt and its dependence on other countries, such as China.

The difference between people in the US and Lebanon is that they have national pride that does not waver while we have a national pride as firm as water. The difference between us and them is that, even though they do have poverty and even though some of their States have horrible internet and even though the 3G provided by many of their carriers is not good, they feel proud to call themselves American. How many of us feel proud to call ourselves Lebanese?

You do know that the problems in countries such as the US, France, Switzerland, etc… are very similar to our problems? You have villages in the United States whose only source of livelihood is the production of crystal meth. You have places in France, like Lebanon, where it’s so corrupt that the police doesn’t dare enter. And then you have Switzerland, a country that, despite the great diversity of its people, managed to find a way to get them to coexist.

The problem in Lebanon? Our problems are magnified because of our country’s small size.

Some of us blame our politicians. We say they got us into this predicament. But simply put, our politicians arise from our society – they are inherently part of us. We voted for them and got them where they are today. But our “Independence” day is not our politicians’ to take. It is for all of us as a nation to celebrate: the sacrifices of our forefathers against the French Mandate to establish the Republic of Lebanon.

Others still call for a French (or any other “decent” country) mandate, wishing we were still under one. You know, if our forefathers found the situation under the French to be absolutely peachy and happy, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have fought to get Lebanon out of the mandate. Perhaps you should contemplate what all these superpowers are secretly doing in African countries where their influence is much more penetrating, where they still control national resources and lead the people of those countries to kill each other?

At the end of the day, it is hard for many to see Lebanon as independent because we live in a very, very difficult region. I look around and see Syria where Bashar Assad is killing his people left and right. I look to the South and see Israel/Palestine, both of which want a piece of my land as well and both of whom tried to get it as some point. And then I consider all those Arab countries and see that for a small country like mine, I’m sure of utter importance to them. Why is that? Why is it that many countries around the world can’t wait to get their hands on something related to my country? No, it’s not overwhelming pride. It’s an observation. Perhaps because they know that, as divided as we are, it makes it much easier for them to put their hands on our resources, our people and our land?

Our Independence is wasted by none-other than us: the people who let other countries wage their wars on our land. And amid everything that’s happening in the region around us today, perhaps we should be less critical and more vigilant against all of these countries with messed up systems that are ready to move their fights inside our borders.

You don’t want to call it independence, fine. Call it Lebanon’s National Day. But regardless of terminology, you should at least feel a stinge of pride that you have a country and, despite all its problems and the problems thrust upon it, it exists.

Egypt’s Parliamentary Elections: The Delusion of the Islamists, Salafists and their Sharia

No, I’m not following up with anything Egypt-related. Partly because it’s not my cause to be part of but mainly because I’m disgusted by what’s happening to the Copts there. It sort of puts a damper on what could have been had the Egyptians saw their revolution to the end and didn’t slack off the moment Mubarak was overthrown.

No, this post is not my own analysis on an election I have no idea of nor will it attempt to be one. This is simply me ridiculing any person who thinks the way of ruling any country in the world today, especially a country like Egypt, is by way of Islamic Sharia.

No, I’m not berating Islam. And no, I’m not being anti-semitic. I’m just being realistic. Whoever thinks the ways of 600AD still apply in 2011 is not only delusional but should probably get their brains checked. Whoever thinks a theocracy where one religion’s rule is enforced on everyone else is still living in the Dark Ages of their corresponding religion, be it Islam or Christianity or Judaism.

Israel, the country these Islamists perceive (along with the United States and possibly Iran) as the ultimate devil, has a neo-theocratic ruling system. And look where that’s leading us.

But no matter, this is not a post for overanalysis. This is a post to present this picture that a friend was outraged enough to share on Facebook with me.

In order to showcase their point about the validity of their view of Islamic Sharia, this picture was made out to show people who would be damaged by applying the Sharia. You have, starting from right to left: the homosexuals, the alcoholics, the prostitutes, the corrupt politicians and killers: what they consider as the scumbags of society. The picture serves to paint a picture where these people would be eradicated from Egyptian society if the Muslim Brotherhood (and those with whom they have an alliance) win the elections.

But naturally I beg to differ. Not only is this picture non-sensical, it’s also demeaning, ridiculous and unfounded. I wouldn’t be addressing it hadn’t it had tons of Facebook likes and an immense amount of shares. This picture has basically gone viral. But I digress. To suggest that the existence of these people would cease upon applying the Islamic Sharia is, simply put, stupid. Or aren’t those Islamists the same people who are horny enough to pursue the prostitutes or the closeted homosexuals who are afraid to come out? Being a staunch religious person with an infested three-foot long beard does not mean that person is holy.

Besides, who says it’s up to the Islamists to judge these people for what they do? What will their punishments be in case Sharia is applied? Whiplashes and cutting hands? How is that humane? Some might say there’s a process to follow when it comes to these types of punishment, that it’s not a haphazard process. But simply put: this is year 2011. Corporal punishment enforced by the State should not exist. What gives the state the right to cut off a thief’s hands or whip a person’s back until they can’t walk anymore? There’s a reason the charter of Human Rights was adopted by almost all countries around the world: it’s because basic human rights, even when people mess up, should be respected. Some even say such punishment would teach others. Then why is prostitution the world’s oldest profession? And why are thieves a part of every society? Why would I get punished for drinking alcohol? Who has the right to dictate what food and drinks I want to consume?

And how does a Sharia-run society work for those who do not want sharia to govern them in the first place?

So let me paint a picture of Egypt with Islamists ruling:

1) Increasing persuction of religious minorities in Egypt, only this time the state would turn an even blinder eye to them. If whatever type of ruling Egypt has today were to change to Islamic Sharia, who’s to say the Coptic minorities in Egypt won’t be decimated worse than they are being persecuted today? I understand Islam does not preach this. But there’s a drastic difference between Islam as a religion and what people understand of Islam. After all, the Islamic Sharia is some man’s interpretation of Islam, whether you like it or not. And it is these men that will believe that these Copts (and other minorities) are not suited for living under their ruling. The mentality that it’s okay to dispose of these Copts will grow. One only needs to remember how many Egyptians, including Egypt’s National TV, commented on the Maspero murdering of Copts to know that fertile ground for hate is there. Moreover, according to a Pew Poll, half of the Egyptian population has negative views of Christians in their country. Couple all of that with Islamic sharia and you get the picture.

2) Increasing censorship and decreasing free speech: I cannot begin to fathom Islamists allowing liberals to express their opinions now, would they? It’s the way things are with most parties that get to power in countries that are struggling to achieve democracy. Even in countries that we consider democratic models, media has never been unbiased. Fox News is pro-Republicans in the United States, ABC and CBS are pro-Democrats. So it will only be rational for many Egyptian TV Stations, newspapers and other media outlets to be coerced into diffusing one type of news only: the one approved by the political majority, run by Islamic Sharia.

3) Worse oppression than the one SCAF is now implementing: Many may want Islamic Sharia to be applied. But if it is applied, how would the atheists be treated? How would the Muslims who want a civil non-theocratic state to rule them be handled? The premise is not religious; it’s humanitarian. Islamic Sharia is being applied in many countries around the world, most notably Saudi Arabia. And if you look at Saudi Arabia from a non-economical point of view, the idea of living there is dismally depressing. Women cannot drive, they need to be veiled all the time. No movie theaters for you to spend time at, punishment laws that date back to the dark ages, patriarchal supremacy, very high disregard to basic human rights of free speech and freedom of religion, etc…. So to those who champion the idea of Islamic Sharia being the solution for all, this is definitely not the case. And there will come a time when drastic compromises in the basic foundation in that Sharia have to be given in order to accomodate the views of those who are different. Odds are those compromises will not happen and this is where oppression starts.

4) Worse economic situation as many of the world’s countries lose their faith in dealing with Egypt. It’s not very hard to imagine this really. Tourists will start coming less and less to Egypt. If the Mubarak regime had them fooled into thinking Egypt was somewhat liberal and understanding, I’m sure any delusion will be washed away by Islamists winning. Investments by major businesses will start decreasing as investment laws dictated by the Sharia will start getting implemented. And the ball gets rolling until the poor get poorer and with Egypt that’s a lot of people getting poorer.

5) Finally, all of the aforementioned points coupled together would mean Egypt back to pre-Mubarak days. The revolution dead.

No, the picture I’m painting is not grim. It’s one that can be easily evaded. And no, it’s not delusional like that picture being circulated among Facebook’s Islamist Egyptian populace. It might as well happen (with a higher probability that is than Islamists eradicating the people portrayed in that picture). Perhaps the youth who actually care about being who they are in Egypt should stop caring more about their country’s political situation and vote?

You know what they say: if you don’t vote, you can’t nag.

And sometimes the choice is so obvious that you can’t even begin to fathom another choice. Just look at this electoral poster from Egypt:

These people are calling for a modern Egypt. What’s modern about having the eyes of the only woman on their list hidden from everyone? The woman even looks like she was drawn there, not given the decency of having a proper photograph taken of her (even if that photograph won’t show anything). Who’s to say under Salafi and Islamists ruling such a thing won’t be forced on all women of Egypt? Who’s to say whatever rights women in Egypt have today won’t be taken away by these men who see themselves as superior?

And at the end of the day, as a Lebanese, an Islamist Egypt has the least effect on my political system. The only country getting the bad side of the deal will be Egypt itself. Good luck with that, I guess.

In the meantime, my heart goes out to the Copts. Again.

Lebanon’s Syrian Occupation – A Persistent Matter That Should Never Be Forgotten

April 26th, 2005. As those last trucks carrying those Syrian soldiers left our land, many Lebanese drew a sigh of relief. Many thought that chapter of their present was finally going down to the history pages of the books in which it was going to be written. They also wished it would stay there, indefinitely.

What those people didn’t think of, however, was that their struggle with those Syrian soldiers and regime that occupied their land for over thirty years would be forgotten a few months after those soldiers physically left their land. Those people never thought that whenever they spoke about a Syrian occupation of the country, they’d be ridiculed by people. “There’s no such thing as a Syrian occupation. They’re a fellow Arab nation,” is many of the things you’d hear being said. As if them Arabs can never do wrong to Lebanon.

Those who say the Syrians never occupied Lebanon refer to the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese South and suggest that as a model of occupation. So let’s dissect the Israeli occupation of the South, based on what a Shiite Southern friend of mine told me on numerous occasions of what went on with the lives of the people.

Once upon a time, there lived a certain part of the Lebanese populace under the tyranny of a Zionist Israeli regime. They were afraid to go out of their houses after 6 pm because of patrol vehicles that the Israeli army would deploy. The vehicles didn’t usually do anything to them but the idea of them hovering there was unnerving and frightening. Many were forced to work for Israeli companies and, eventually, using the products made by those companies as their source for food, water, etc…

Their cars had special license plates that they removed as they got to Lebanese-Israeli checkpoints and replaced with Lebanese ones to avoid any reactions on the Lebanese side. Those license plates were reversed as they came back through the three hour checkpoint to avoid any repercussions on the Israeli-occupied side. Men, upon turning eighteen, were forced into joining the Israeli army, causing their families to get them to flee to Beirut or other non-occupied areas of the land mostly out of fear of how their sons would be seen after the South was liberated and because they didn’t want their sons serving the enemy’s army.

Their biggest fear was not of the Israeli army per se, but the idea of occupation and having those foreigners be your boss on your land. They were afraid, however, of the Lebanese people who joined the Israeli army and, to signal their power, treated the sons and daughters of their country badly. Israel ran the hospitals, school, etc… that existed in the South, simply because there was no Lebanese State down there. In a way, the occupiers were the people’s providers. The Southerners naturally and justifiably hated that.

The main fear of those Southerners after the Israeli withdrawal from their land was how other Lebanese would perceive them: would they be seen as traitors or would they be welcomed with open arms? Would those Lebanese know that it was really out of their hands or would they think that they were happy with the status-quo of the occupation?

Even after withdrawal the Israeli army kept breaching Lebanese sovereignty via their airplanes, army men, etc…  The Israeli withdrawal was not left as is after 2000 but was tarnished by many displays of force by parties on both sides: Hezbollah on the Lebanese side and the Israeli army on the other one, culminating in the 2006 Lebanon war, of which a friend tells her story here.

And as any occupier does, the borders of “their” territory were planted with landmines and other explosive weapons to deter “outsiders” from approaching.

As you can see from the little anecdote I wrote, the info in which are almost verbatim what my Southerner friend told me, the Israeli occupation can be described as follows: it was a psychologically exhausting experience where you had outsiders ruling your land, taking your men and women to enroll in their army and work in their factories. They took over the hospitals, threatened you via their Lebanese proxies and the combination of every aspect of the situation put the Southern Lebanese into a dilemma of whether they would be welcomed or not.

Now let me tell you what I lived through over fifteen years of the Syrian army occupying my hometown, district and every other part of the country except the Lebanese South.

Once upon a time, as the Southern Lebanese populace struggled with their occupation, another part of the population had a struggle of its own. And I was part of that population. We were afraid to speak out against that army. I remember finding their presence around very peculiar, especially that I rarely saw Lebanese army personnel at the time. But I was repeatedly told not to express my opinion regarding the issue by my parents and every family member who had heard my instinctive self speak out. We also couldn’t formulate honest political opinions, first and foremost because politics was rarely discussed in households mostly out of fear and second because those political opinions were mostly against the army present in your land. Syrian workers, present in a substantial majority all around you, held a power that no foreign worker should have. They walked around as if they owned the place, fueled by the protection they got from having a member of their country’s army present almost everywhere.

We were allowed to roam more or less freely  but we had to go many Syrian army checkpoints along the way to our destination. Now how is that normal? I find Lebanese army checkpoints to be out of place today. How about checkpoints made at more frequent intervals by an army that doesn’t belong there? My grandfather’s ambulance was stopped at a Syrian army checkpoint back in 1987 and didn’t let it pass. My grandfather ended up not arriving to the hospital alive. He was 45.

Many of the Lebanese who lived where Syrian influence was god found it better to leave Lebanon to countries where freedom ruled. This immigration is key to understanding the demographic differences many speak about in the country today: the big Christian minority and the dismal Muslim majority. Christian numbers were decreased through the influence of Syrian occupation over the course of its existence until their say in the country’s affairs was rendered minimal, something we’re still paying the price of today.

Whenever a leader emerged as counter-Syrian, he/she was either thrown in jail, exiled or eradicated. The oppression was so high that most newspapers ran formulated news about how peachy things were. TV networks were not allowed to speak up. Elections were rigged up to points where a dismal 10% Christian participation in the 1992 parliamentary elections was considered by the Syrians to give unearned jurisdiction for their appointed parliament. The political scene of Lebanon was stripped down from any politician who dared speak up. Those who went with the status-quo were given power. Those who did not were silenced. One way or another.

Whenever someone spoke up, they found security personnel knocking their doors down, taking them inside army trucks and taken to Anjar where the Syrian-Lebanese proxies did their work. Till this day, many Lebanese men and women are still missing after being kidnapped by Syrian forces and unlike the Lebanese-Israeli prisoner situation where all the prisoners have been liberated, no one knows where these prisoners are or if they’re even still alive. Many activists were killed for speaking up.

The only breach of Lebanese sovereignty that people speak about is the Israeli one. When Syrian army members cross the border to kidnap Syrians from inside your borders and take them to Syria, no one thinks of that as a breach of jurisdiction. But when an Israeli warplane crosses the Lebanese atmosphere some ten thousand feet up in the air, we throw fists about how that is a breach of our land. Call me old fashioned but I don’t care about an airplane hovering over my land when you have a foreign army crossing into your land on very frequent basis to do military operations and kidnap members of their country’s opposition, which came to Lebanon’s democratic atmosphere seeking refuge. This Monday, November 14th, the Syrian army entered our land and kidnapped a Lebanese citizen. The government said nothing.

As we speak, the Syrian army is putting landmines on its border with Lebanon, especially in the North, to secure those borders. This is happening without approval from the Lebanese authorities and these landmines are being placed inside the neutral region of the border. Lebanese authorities can’t do anything about it.

While Southerners were worried more about Lebanese proxies for the Israeli occupation forces, the same applied for people who lived under the atrocity of  the Syrian authorities in Lebanon. In North Lebanon, Sleiman Frangieh’s Marada ruled supreme. They complemented the Syrian army’s ruling of the land by making up the rules as they want. Their members carried out personal vendettas against people and made it all seem “legal.” My mother almost had a miscarriage when she was pregnant with me when a Marada member entered my dad’s shop and held the gun to his head. No one could have done anything had he pulled the trigger.

As you can see from that little companion to the first anecdote, the other side of the occupation of Lebanon in the later part of the 20th century (and beginnings of the 21st) was very similar to what the Israelis did in the South. The only difference between story A and story B is what my friend Elia eloquently described in a note she wrote as part of a dysfunctional family.

She comes up to her mom, in tears, more afraid of her reaction than she is of the devil that just tormented her. With her choked up voice, she said she was hurt, really hurt. Her mom was concerned, genuinely protective of that teenage spirit. Once mom knew that someone so close, her own brother, had raped her daughter, her mind went blank. Instantly, her motherly instinct was tearing her insides apart. She crumbled in a way she never thought possible, with her mouth open, and her looks hollowed out.

How can someone so close hurt this way?

Furious anger waves soon came over her crashing. She was shouting, boiling. Hot and cold emotions invaded her being so violently that she barely made sense of them. She wanted to voice out her pain, free her weeping daughter from this misery, find the culprit and strangle him with her bare hands…

But her hands were somewhere else. One was holding the poor creature so tight her shoulder went numb. The other was covering the once opened mouth. She wanted her to stop, stop crying, stop telling, stop hurting. She wanted her to be quiet, quiet about her story, her agony, her fault.

You see, the Lebanese population that was under the Syrian occupation is that little girl, the helpless person whose struggle is rarely understood and often ridiculed. After all, how can those Arabs who speak Arabic and eat tabboule hurt a people similarly to those Zionists who speak Hebrew and eat sabich. But what people don’t get is that those Arabs with whom many like to identify as brethren in a cause that knows no identity have done as much. They have killed, tortured, imprisoned, assassinated, terrorized, controlled the way of life and worked at the economic decimation of the region they were occupying – All of Lebanon, minus the South.

For many, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not seen as an occupation because many of our politicians (many of which are still active today) were accomplices to their agendas. After all, the president was assigned by an order from Damascus, executed via Anjar, and relayed to the parliament. Parliament members had imaginary ballots cast for them in order for them to hail a previously known victory a few minutes after the polls close.

For many also, the Hariri dynasty is to be blamed for our economic woes. What is not known, however, is that our economic woes start with the political instability that was residual from our civil war and kept floating by the Syrian regime who tore at our every foundation as a nation, taking whatever income the country generated and using it to make their country one of the few on Earth with no debt to any foreign entity.

There are some who said – to my face that is – that “Christians deserved what the Syrians did to them for their betrayals. We need to ally ourselves with the Assad regime like Michel Aoun is suggesting, against the sunni extremists of the region” This post is to that person and everyone who thinks like him. This is to tell him that the Syrians were the one who forced Aoun to stay in France for over fifteen years. But yet again, our working memory as a nation is shorter than that of a fish. How can you ask for an alliance with a leader who’d kill a thirteen year old and send his mutilated body to his parents? How can you hope for the protection of a president who turned one of his country’s major cities, Homs, into a near dead zone and is still wreaking havoc to it? How can you ask to be under the moral auspices of someone whose morality does not stop him from killing over 3500 of his people just because they opposed him? How can you ask for the protection of a ruler whose regime was thrown out of the Arab League by countries whose legacy of political dormancy is their tell-tale?

You see, I’m not saying we suffered more than the Southerners. That is not the point I’m trying to make – not even close. I’m hoping that somehow those who think we had it easy know that it wasn’t the case. They need to know that the Lebanese who suffered under the Syrian rule were as badly hurt as those who suffered under Israeli occupation. There are no superlatives to be used. It is a matter of equality in suffering.

Here’s hoping for a day where, upon writing the history of Lebanon in hope of reaching a state of national conscience, we can look in an objective eye at what everyone suffered and say: we’ve been to hell and back – all of us as a nation, that is. It is only then that we can attempt to consider a solution to our political system. What’s the solution to our political system? Federalism. But that’s for another post altogether.

Cultural Terrorism in Lebanon: The Adventures of TinTin in the Country of Brainless Censorship

Welcome to Lebanon, the country where blocking a director’s name off his movie poster is apparently our *awesome* government’s way of affirming its power.

The latest incident of cultural terrorism in Lebanon is having Steven Spielberg’s name hidden off TinTin’s movie poster, simply because Spielberg donated $1 million to Israel during the July 2006 war. While I am firmly against what Spielberg did, as I am against anyone who actively supports acts of violence either financially or morally, does this really warrant this ridiculous act of hiding his name?

Spielberg is Jewish so it is natural for him to feel some compassion for the state of Israel – regardless of whether we like that or not. The same applies to many Sunnis in Lebanon who feel loyal towards Saudi Arabia and many Shiites who feel loyal to Iran. It’s just the way things are. If religion is important to you, you feel strongly about countries where your religion has a good stronghold. It doesn’t mean it’s right, it just means it’s there. If religion is the least of your concern, well, power to you for being”free”.

But before we start thinking about banning movie directors’ name off their movie posters, why don’t we contemplate this:

1) If we’re going to have a problem with every Hollywood director or producer who has Israeli-ties, then the only array of movies we’ll have in our theaters will be the crappy Egyptian movies we get and the occasional Nadine Labaki movie which takes our theaters by storm (PS: If you haven’t watched Where Do We Go Now? yet, what are you waiting for?)

2) The act of blocking Spielberg’s name off the poster is simply ridiculous. What end is served through the decision to do so? People won’t know that he’s involved in the movie when his name is flashed on a huge screen in front of them? It would have made more sense to have the movie banned in its entirety, not that would be acceptable in itself. Tintin is an animated movie based on a hit comic series that many of us have grown up reading. The fact that this agenda-less movie is being targeted in a flimsy “ban” is beyond ridiculous. It’s simply egomaniacally stupid.

3) For those who are probably furious that I’ve somehow, in a nonexistent way, shown “compassion” towards something Israeli, this is far from the case. In fact, if Tintin had been “Waltz with Bashir,” I would have probably been less offended by whatever’s taking place with Tintin today. While I could simply download the aforementioned movie, I would have understood not having it play in our theaters, simply because it’s an Israeli production. But Tintin is not an Israeli production, even if an Israel-compassionate person had a role in doing it. If Tintin had been serving some hidden pro-Zionist agenda, which as I’m writing this seems hilariously ridiculous, then perhaps I would have understood an act of banning in any form towards the movie.

4) Our country needs to start getting accustomed to the idea that, even in these simple ways that it does, it shouldn’t “silence” those that are different from us. We pride ourselves that we are a beacon for freedom of speech in the region and we most definitely are. But things like this “ban” put a damper on what is, truly, an innovative country that we have. The fact that Tintin was played in theaters across the region without a hitch is a clear indication that our lovely government (or whoever issued the Spielberg ban) is out of its mind. Maybe the government should start caring less about blocking a director’s name because of a Wikileaks article and more caring about fixing the internet situation of the country (I still haven’t gotten my upgrade!).

5) Just for your reference, this is a list of actors, actresses, directors, producers & singers who have ties with Israel, be it moral or financial: Adam Sandler, Annette Bening, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ashton Kutcher, Ben Stiller, Billy Crystal, Bruce Willis, Dustin Hoffman, Halle Berry, Harrison Ford, Kathy Bates, Kevin Costner, Kobe Bryant, Madonna, Frank Sinatra, Natalie Portman, Nicole Kidman, Paula Abdul, Norah Jones, Robin Williams, Sarah Jessica Parker, Tom Cruise…. and the list can go one to list hundreds of other names. All of these people are entertainers that provide us with movies and songs that we love. How about we ban all of their movies, music and anything they’re affiliated with?

The sad thing is this isn’t the first time this happens. First it was Gad Elmaleh, then Lady Gaga’s album, which was later unbanned, passing by an Iranian movie against the Islamic revolution: Green Days. When will Lebanese cultural terrorism stop and we begin to care less about a person’s political,  religious or whatever affiliation they may have and care more about what they’re providing the world with. If you think it’s offensive, you can CHOOSE not to be exposed. But you have NO RIGHT to force your own views on other people who don’t share them in any way whatsoever. As for me, I may have not wanted to watch Tintin but I’m definitely going to now.

So dear Hezbollah, protecting your precious arms doesn’t start with you blocking every single that that is related to the root of your weapons. Culturally terrorizing the whole Lebanese population into believing that if something isn’t approved by you then that thing shouldn’t work is NOT acceptable. Instead of having Lebanese traitors, whose dealings with Israel are as clear as the sun rising every morning, almost getting no jail time (Fayez Karam in case you’re wondering), Hezbollah is offended by Steven Spielberg’s name on a movie poster. You see, a movie poster is simply a weapon of mass destruction.

Hezbollah allies speak of “change and reform.” Well, where is change and reform when you truly need it? Or does it apply to some internet upgrade through a submarine cable that’s suffering from more outages in its month of service than the whole Lebanese internet sector has had over the past two years? Perhaps Mr. Aoun, instead of being Hezbollah’s little minion 24/7, you’d pass some of the freedom values you might have learned in your fifteen year stay in France because of Hezbollah’s BFFs?

Lebanese Politicians Fighting Live on National TV

Allouch VS Chaker – round one.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words… how about a video?

This is embarrassingly hilarious and also sad. I have no idea what the context of the discussion was but you know something’s seriously messed up when something like this happens.