Victor's Blog about the Web, Security and Life

Ecosystem Virtual Implementation

victor — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:13:59 +0000

Two of my students, namely Elie Khoury and Wissam Salameh, implemented a virtual Ecosystem implementation that simulates life in an aquatic system including Sharks, Fish and Plants. The implementation is so beautiful that it allows any application user to test the proper settings required for an aquatic to avoid extinction or to simply simulate the life in such a medium for research purposes.

The final report can be downloaded by clicking on the following link.

Party Time

victor — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:56:33 +0000

Yes this is the best time to have parties. By parties, I mean dancing and singing within a real democratic life. Drinking and enjoying different and opposite political thoughts in an open manner. It is about time that Lebanese citizens learn to think BIG about Lebanon regardless of the SMALL local ideas that we grew up with.

For 31 years now, this is the FIRST time that Lebanon is not being split by religions although many external parties are trying to make it look as such. Call it "a pitty". Call it "we're tired". Call it "Yet Another Reason for Immigration". Call it any negative name you want to call it.

I always look at the positive side.The current situation in Lebanon is the best time for a democractic movement to start. Regardless of HOW things are occuring in Beirut, this is probably the ONLY time where democracy really has a chance. If we don't make good use of the current situation, we will be losing everything but the ability to allow external parties to interfere with internal Lebanese affairs.

If we make good use of the current situation and consider this as the corner stone for two main political parties in Lebanon - call it "The Right Wing" for March 14 and call it the LEFT wing for March 8 and Tayyar - if we consider this as the corner stone, then Lebanon will be winning for good no matter what happens from this point forward.

We must all think OPEN. We must all think of what the coming generations will inherit from us.
We must NOT think narrow. We must NOT think of what we are going through.

Many Arabic and International leaders are working to get a package deal for all parties to agree upon. The package deal that I see is:

The international court must be approved regardless of who will be blamed. I don't really think there is anything that can be proven. We all remember the 30 days that the crime scene was left open for the rain and the wind. I know that the international court will be used politically to put pressure on many parties including Syria and Iran. The question is who should stop this? Lebanon? I don't think so.
Sanyoura must resign and someone else is elected with one agenda on the item: Early Parliament Elections. (Karameh resigned under pressure. Sanyoura must understand that his resignation is necessary to get equilibrium back to the current situation and to eliminate the WINNER principle). A winner is someone who knows how to stay as such and to be able to control opposite opinions without forcing them to go down to the streets. With this in mind, Sanyoura's government lost. It was enough for me to watch their faces during yesterday's meeting to learn that they all know that they lost.
Hezbollah signs a planned weapen delivery contract that states when and how Hezbollah will give the weapons to the Lebanese army. I am completely with the idea that Hezbollah's war leaders should be part of the Lebanese Army's main headquarters team. The war strategies that were used against Israel's last invasion were astonishing and, for the first time in my life, I feel strong and safe. I tend to "force" myself to believe that this weapon will end one day and now is the best time for it to end by enforcing the Lebanese army.
A new parliament is elected with TWO main party wings that are obvious now in Lebanon: Right and Left.
The new parliament elects a new president.
A new government is formed.
The presidential era is assigned to FOUR years instead of SIX. Four years are enough to have an agenda and are short if the president ought to be changed like the current situation.
If, at any time, two of the three presidents believe that the third president must be re-elected or re-assigned, the third president must abide to their decision. This is a better approach than the current approach called up for by Hezbollah and Tayyar.

The whole deal is based on the fact that after March 14, some of the parties were humiliated by other parties. This left a sense of grief. Of course this humiliation was due to a previous humiliation caused to many leaders in March 14. With the above package deal, equilibrium is brought back, the pricinple of political parties is introduced (instead of religious parties) and a guaranteed equilibrium is provided by forcing a democratic change when two presidents are against the third one.

We went through the worse nightmares during our lives. This should be the last one to go through.
We must remember that "Birth starts with Pain!"

Sana vs. Michel Hayek

victor — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:55:53 +0000

Michel Hayek is a well-known Lebanese personality known of his ability to predict things (somehow) before they happen. I personally don't believe in all of this and this is not the purpose of this story.

SANA (the Syrian official news source) knew about the murder of the late Sheikh Pierre Gemayel before it happened according to the "Al Seyassa" newspapper. A reporter called a local newspaper 55 minutes before Pierre Gemayel was murdered in Beirut. The purpose of his call was to ask about the details of the murder.

NO .................. COMMENT!
This news can be read in Arabic on "Al Siyassa" website by clicking here.

Mohammed Saleh: Another Proof of Neo-Nazi Israel!

victor — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:08:34 +0000

Mohammed Saleh, a Palestinian aged 23, started his day in a very normal way until he was arrested by Israeli forces due to having doubt of him carrying bombs (suicider). He was searched and nothing was found on him. Yet, he ended up being dead! How??? Let the pictures tell you. Click on the image for the whole story.

Day-by-day, the whole world should understand what took us many years to see: Israel has no respect to anyone but to Israel.

This, by itself, should be a source of action so that the whole world, if interested in democracy, take proper action and ask Israel to stop humiliating other human beings, killing innocent civilians, performing outstanding massacres that event he holocaust did not witness.

All of this must stop and must stop soon. Otherwise, we will all, including Israel, have to bare its consequences. Today's event in Britain (when a terrorist group was stopped from bombing airplanes between the United Kingdom and the USA is just the start.

More is yet to come...

[ Click on Image to Enlarge in a New Window ]

Israel: More War Days, More Reasons to Cease Existence

victor — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:54:04 +0000

As elaborated in previous articles, Israel has lost all sorts of human dignity in this massacre against Lebanon. I mentioned last week the cost of consequences that we will have to bare.

Three days ago, MP George Galloway bursted at Sky News.
Today, Norway is up in arms after author Jostein Gaarder asserts that Israel has lost its right to exist.

Anlysists say that Olmert must swallow his pride and adopt the UN resolution in order to put an end for these massacres performed by cold-blooded criminals.
More is yet to come tomorrow unless we all work together to put an end to all of this. It is about time that this world understands that War brings nothing but War. Massacres are yet another reason for more "terrorism". Looking deeply into this, one can find that the so-called terrorism is the weak's only weapon. Being strong bares responsibilities on the strong towards the weak. Abusing force is the main reason for all terrorist movements around the globe.

Middle East Roadmap, New Middle East, Mass Destructive Weapons, etc. These are all names for the SAME misatke: Power Abuse.

If the USA uses its power in a responsible manner, if Israel uses its inherited power in a responsible manner; then and only then will the so-called terrorism cease to exist. Until then, we can either learn from previous mistakes or keep wasting time defining terms and giving out names.

I think it is about time that all world leaders grasp this notion and put it into action. Georges W. Bush, the worst US president ever, must understand that what was applicable 20 years ago is not applicable anymore. The world must realize that Lebanon only seeks peace. Peace that is built on strong and solid rock, not peace that is built on diplomatic and dynamic soil!

Let us all hope that the UN comes up with the solution for all of this today or tomorrow (as promised by all leaders). If I was to guide this through, I would take out Bolton and Gillerman for 20 min and let the others decide (isn't democracy the act of the majority?). By doing this, a solid and fair peace can be achieved in less than 5 min. Believe it or not, I will not take out Blair: "Haram" Blair!

Political Correctness!

victor — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:42:40 +0000

This article is, unfortunately, true and lists the rules of Political Correctness when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Rule #1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation".

Rule #2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".

Rule #3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians, this is called "self-defense", or these days "collateral damage".Rule #4: When Israel kills too many civilians. The Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".

Rule #5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.

Rule #6: Israel has the right to kidnap or capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial in Israeli jails). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism".

Rule #7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran"

Rule #8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK or other smaller countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not not an equal conflict.

Rule #9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words"occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions", or "human rights". This could distress the audience of Fox, Sky News or CNN.

Rule #10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".

Rule #11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti- Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion about Arab Genocide.

Isn't freedom of speech and democracy wonderful ?!

UN Campaign

victor — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:25:54 +0000

The United Nations is, by its lack of power in peace-keeping in the world and its lack of decision, shamefully sponsoring the Israeli killing of Lebanese civilians and the total destruction of Lebanon. TheUNCampaign.org's aim is to give the Free in the world visual weapons against UN's shameful inexistence. You can download high-resolution artwork, read and comment on their blog, see heart-breaking pictures, etc. Go there now by clicking on the picture or by clicking on the link below:

www.theuncampaign.org

Real Politicians!

victor — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:13:27 +0000

The video you are about to see shows what Mr. George Galloway, a UK MP, has to say on Sky News regarding the war between Israel and Lebanon.

Watch the movie and think whether it is about time that we see a single ARAB politician saying this!!!

If you cannot see the video, open Windows Media Player, click on File=>Open URL and fill the URL below:

http://www.victorsawma.com/movies/galloway_060806.asx

Windows Media Player is Required for the movie to work.

Proofs regarding the Nazi Israel

victor — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:19:09 +0000

In this unfortunate ongoing massacre taking place in Lebanon, Israel is breaking all International Laws related to Humanity, International Law and War regulations.
This article simply lists the many incidents that occurred and describes the Nazi side of Israel's war serving as a proof for condemption of Israel.

ISRAEL ATTACKING RED CROSS CARS
Israel is continuously attacking red cross cars in various cities of Lebanon. The International Red Cross Organization (CICR) stands with no clues at what must be done to stop these attacks. Many contacts have been made through CICR with Israel regarding these incidents and Israel keeps claiming that it is only attacking cars that are not abiding by the rules of War. The red cross in Lebanon continuousy reported that all cars are abiding to war rules when entering war zones and, yet, are still being bombed by Israel.
ISRAEL ATTACKS CIVILIANS MOURNING THEIR DEAD
Israel attacked a group of civilians mourning their dead in Lebanon. Israel continuously attacks civilian buildings causing death and injuries. Then, while procedures are being done to save the injured by the red cross and while the dead are being burried, Israel attacks again the people performing these procedures. In other words, Israel attacks and forbids any procedure for saving the injured. The result is death of the injured due to non-treatment. Israel attacks civilians while mourning and burrying the dead. The result is death and more death.

ISRAEL ATTACKS THE UN TWICE
Israel attacked the UN headquarters in South Lebanon. Kofi Anan requested that the UN Security Council condemns Israel for this attack. The USA used the VITO right to forbid such condemnation. Israel apologized from the UN. Three days later, Israel attacked the UN again and injured 6. Surprisingly enough, the UN Security Council did not take any action regarding this attack. The rule is clear: Nobody is allowed to condemn Israel, not even the UN. The new hierarchy for World-Control is as follows: Israel at the top of the pyramid, USA at the second place, UN at the third place and everybody else below. Those who accept this hierarchy must bare its consequences on the very short run.

ISRAEL SUGGESTS WIPING ALL CITIES IN SOUTH LEBANON
The fact that Israel sees all non-Israeli human beings cheap and useless lead an Israeli Minister to suggest wiping every city in South Lebanon where Hezbollah might be found. The suggestion did not mention wiping the area where Hezbollah is found, it mentioned wiping the WHOLE CITY including all citizens, hospitals and infrastructure. This is how CHEAP non-Israelis are through the eyes of Israel. It will not be surprising to see this same rule being applied to Israel itself by some other country. The difference is that if Israel does this, it is not terrorism. If somebody else does it, then for sure this is Terrorism.

More is yet to come...

Lebanon: A Proof for a Neo-Nazi Israel

victor — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:38:31 +0000

This is not a topic to discuss. This is a topic to inform. Israel is the New Nazi state within this world.

I am a Maronite-Christian from Lebanon, one of those people that Israel is seeking to convince that this war is against them and that Hezbollah is leading this war to achieve an Islamic state in Lebanon.
Naturally, I am against terrorism in all of its forms and I dispute Hezbollah with many political ideas and I agree with some of them.

Unfortunately, Hezbollah is NOT the terrorist in this war. Israel is the real terrorist.
This war started when Hezbollah kidnapped three soldiers and killed 8 on July 12, 2006. At first glance, Israel's reaction towards this act was to try to attack Hezbollah to regain the kidnapped soldiers. This made complete sense to everyone including me. Now, after one month of continuous war in Lebanon, the following facts will prove that:

Israel has no intent to eliminate Hezbollah.
Israel has the only intent of destroying Lebanon.
Israel has the only intent of killing innocent Children and innocent Families.
Israel is "testing" new weapons on Lebanese ground.
Israel is preventing Lebanon from any change of getting back to life within the coming 10 years.
Hezbollah is NOT playing a terrorist part in this war.
Hezbollah is purely acting as a defense although they have a lot more attack capabilities categorized under terrorism (car bombs, suicide bombers, etc.)
Hezbollah is respecting the International Law more than Israel is.
The USA is openly supporting terrorism in the Middle East.
Georges W. Bush is clearly, the worst president the US can ever have and is a main partner in the massacre/holocaust taking place in Lebanon.
Tony Blair is clearly a partner in this endless massacre taking place in Lebanon.
The UN is useless.
The UN Security Council is useless.
World War III is on the way unless proper measures are taken by the failing UN and USA are taken to avoid that.

The interesting part is in the FACTS to support the statements above. The remaining part of the document below is simply the list of facts related to the points listed above. For each fact, I will provide the title as well as the points it proves or help proving.

CIVILIANS DEAD vs ARMED DEAD (pts. 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)
The official numbers of dead people is as follows.
In Israel: less than a 80+ dead in total including 42 soldiers. Ratio: 51% soldiers, 49% civilians)
In Lebanon: more than 1,000,000 dead in total including slightly above 30 from Hezbollah. Ratio: 0.003% soldiers, 99.997% civilians)
The precision that Israel claims is clearly denied from the simple, extremely suffering fact shown above.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, is being relatively more precise when it comes to attacks on Israel.

CAUSE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ATTACK (pts. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
During the first FIVE days of the war, Israel had attacked almost all bridges in Lebanon including Mobile antennas, TV antennas, Radars, etc. No reason can be given for attacking any of the infrastructure mentioned here except the fact that Israel is seeking to weaken Lebanon. Another fact is that all of the infrastructure was attacked even before the first member of Hezbollah was killed.
Despite the fact that Hezbollah can attack Israeli infrastructure, Hezbollah is relatively more responsible than Israel in this matter.

NEW WEAPONS TRYOUT (pts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11)
Israel is currently using Lebanon as a weapon laboratory where all sorts of new weapons (made in the USA) are being used. This includes "clever" rockets (rockets that are oriented using chips), vacuum rockets (rockets that go through buildings and evacuate all available oxygen producing vacuum that leads to the building collapsing to the inside rather than falling to the outside), and many other rockets that are said to burn all available oxygen in bodies that are injured as well as phosphoric bombs that are being used to attack the green environment that Lebanon is well-know with.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY REACTION (pts. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
In Rome, 14 countries agreed for an immediate cease-fire, Condolisa Rice was the only participant to vote against it. In the UN Security Council, the USA explicitly used the right for Vito to reject a call for immediate cease-fire. Britain, Israel, and the USA are the only three countries that are refusing an immediate cease-fire. This by itself is a clear proof that the UN and the UN security council are both useless since 14 countries that are with an immediate cease-fire cannot force 1 country to accep it.

WORLD WAR III (pt. 14)
As a result of all the above, we can clearly see that the USA and Israel are day-after-day becoming the center for criticism from all the world. This is not a new thing since it had already started after Afghanistan and Iraq when the US policy was clearly exposed to the International community as a policy build on false information and lies. Ben Laden is still free. Saddam is still not convicted. Mass Destruction weapons, the main reason for the Iraq war, remain not found until this moment (and I doubt they will ever find them). On the other hand, Iran is now a strong country in the Middle East region and the USA is still blindly dealing with this case without taking into consideration the power that this country has achieved during the past 20 years. Added to the fact that Lebanon served as a proof for the Israeli-US-based Neo-Nazi Policy, I can hardly believe that the International Community will still support the USA in any of the coming wars. This, in my opinion, is the turning point for the US policy and for Israel. If this point is treated with care by the International Community (and the UN), World War III might be bypassed. On the other hand, moving on with the same policy that the USA is forcing the International Community to accept via the right of Vito will, for sure, lead to World War III very soon (sooner than we all expect).

July War: The Final YAHW Event?!

victor — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:05:32 +0000

This is NOT the time for all of us to comment on politics. This is NOT the time for great silly forces to act stupid. This is NOT the time for BUSH, RICE and BLAIR to discuss with CHIRAC, PUTIN and SANYOURA a complete solution for the Middle East crisis.

If Bush, Rice, Blair, Chirac or Putin have ANY REMAINING BIT of Conscience in their naive/materialistic/money-oriented mind, they would better push ISRAEL to CEASE fire on Lebanon NOW!!!

Israel, we are NOT an experimental land.
France, we are NOT silly politicians.
Putin, we are NOT a VAST land with ENOUGH time to negotiate ceasing of fire.
Sanyoura, We are NOT a WEAK entity.
Bush, we are NOT order takers.
Rice, we do NOT negotiate under fire.

We were, are and will always be a LAND of FREE Souls living in human bodies seeking democracy at its utmost climate.

It is about time to understand that YAHW (Yet Another Hollywood War) events are about to expire.
First Kosovo, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Lebanon.
Do you see a declining curve somewhere?

As for the majority of Arab conscience, I would better not comment because I always try to keep this blog empty of Eudora Hot Peppers as much as possible and getting into the Arab Conscience topic will surely fill it up with three-pepper symbols!!!

Wake Up! It is about time!!!

Israel: More Powerful than the UN!

victor — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:24:05 +0000

These are the 70 UN Resolutions against Israel. No need to add that Israel never respected any single one of them. The UN has always been royally ignored by the State of Israel. The details of the resolutions, and all other UN Security Counsil resolutions can be found and downloaded on the United Nations website.

This also proves how useless the UN is when it comes to Israel being in question. Taking this fact into consideration, world leaders and politicians must understand that this type of behavious is exactly what makes the Middle East problem more complicated and unresolvable.

Israel must be forced to abide to the International Law. Otherwise, extreme organizations and terrorism will never stop.

The list of resolutinons follow...106 / 29 March 1955
The Palestine Question; 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid.

111
Condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.

127
Recommends Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem.

162
Urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.

171
Determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.

228
Censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.

233 / 6 June 1967
Calls for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities.

234 / 7 June 1967
Demands a cease-fire.

237 / 14 June 1967
Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

242 / 22 Nov 1967
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

248 / 24 Mar 1968
Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)

250 / 27 Apr 1968
Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.

251 / 2 May 1968
Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.

252 / 21 May 1968
Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.

259 / 27 Sept 1968
Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

267 / 3 Jul 1969
Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect

271 / 15 Sep 1969
Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.

298 / 25 Sep 1971
Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….

338 / 22 Oct 1973
Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....

339 / 23 Oct 1973
Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.

381 / 30 Nov 1975
Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.

425 / 19 Mar 978
Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

446 / 22 Mar 1979
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

452 / 20 Jul 1979
Calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 / 1 Mar 1980
Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 / 8 May 1980
Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.

469 / 20 May 1980
Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.

471 / 5 June 1980
Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

476 / 30 June 1980
Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 / 20 Aug 1980
Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

484 / 19 Dec 1980
Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.

508 / 5 June 1982
Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)

509 / 6 June 1982
Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).

512 / 19 June 1982
Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.

513 / 4 Jul 1982
Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.

515 / 29 Jul 1982
Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.

516 / 1 Aug 1982
Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.

517 / 4 Aug 1982
Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.

518 / 12 Aug 1982
Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut

520 / 17 Sep 1982
Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

521 / 19 Sep 1982
Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)

573 / 4 Oct 1985
Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)

592 / 8 Dec 1986
Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.

605 / 22 Dec 1987
Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

607 / 5 Jan 1988
Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

608 / 14 Jan 1988
Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.

611 / 25 Apr 1988
Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

636 / 6 Jul 1989
Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

641 / 30 Aug 1989
Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

672 / 12 Oct 1990
Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

673 / 24 Oct 1990
Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).

681 / 20 Dec 1990
Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

694 / 24 May 1991
Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

726 / 6 Jan 1992
Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

799 / 18 Dec 1992
Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.

904 / 18 Mar 1994
Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.

1073 / 28 Sep 1996
Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)

1322 / 7 Oct 2000
Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.

From Israel to Lebanon

victor — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:25:21 +0000

Because I believe in freedom of speech and opinion and because I witnessed the "blocking" of www.fromisraeltolebanon.org, I decided (without prior notice from the authors of the blocked website) to put a cached copy of the blocked website on my blog.

This page contains pictures of dead children and destroyed areas due to the Israeli bombing of Beirut during July 2006. If you are annoyed by such pictures, please DON'T proceed.

Otherwise, please click the link below to witness what Israel is doing with Lebanon and please sign the petition at the BOTTOM of the page.

Click here to see the cached page.

Iran: The Upcoming Invasion?

victor — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 06:19:27 +0000

For the past months, Iran has been facing many problems with the International Nuclear Organization regarding its nuclear activity. Last week, Iran was threatened by the fact that its Nuclear activity file will be submitted to the UN Security Council. Yesterday, Iran threatens to withhold oil sales if it is referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities.

This scenario is "deja vu" especially with the part related to threatens to withhold oil sales that are directly followed by a war. Is Iran going to be the upcoming target for invasion? Nothing more to say but wait and see.

If you have any comments regarding this topic, please feel free to post them here.

Pure Chaos!

victor — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:25:08 +0000

For the past two months, I have been watching the political situation in Lebanon and trying to understand the position, background, and characteristics of the various political parties in Lebanon. The simple result I achieved, although after too much thought, was that ALL Lebanese politicians, with an occupied government or a free one, with an occupied country or a free one, with the support of the majority or the minority; all of these politicians turned out corrupted and chaotic at least in the way they work, the way they act, the way they think, and even the way they explain politics to their parties and followers.All Lebanese citizens ran down to Riad el Solh and Martyrs Square last March. In April, the results of these movements started producing the so-called "dream-fruits" for a free and independent Lebanon. May 2005 witnessed many political "positive" achievements that was centralized with the return of Gen. Michel Aoun from France after 14 years of exhile, the discussions and negotiations regarding Dr. Samir Geagea and his freedom.

The negative side started with the discussions regarding the parliament elections. The following people ALL played important roles in these discussions and ALL led to the current situation whether directly or inderictly: Gen. Michel Aoun, Walid Junblat, Saad El-Hariri, Gen. Emile Lahoud, Michel El-Murr, Gabriel El-Murr, and Suleiman Franjieh. I will try, in other articles in here, to explain how the current situation was the result of these discussions and how each memer influenced Lebanon for GOOD in one way or another.

My main interest in this article is to highlight the following contradiction:

Gen. Michel Aoun is supposed to be a leader of all the country. Now, in one way or another, he is jailed in the Christian room.
Walid Junblat is against Syria and is supposed to be 100% against Gen. Emile Lahoud. Now, Walid Junblat is in power and has agreed, in one way or another, with Gen. Emile Lahoud or at least share a common vision in the newly-born government.
Saad El-Hariri moved from the opposition to power by controlling the majority of the parliament and the government. Now, the same speach still exists with the difference of having NEW faces.
Michel El-Murr and Suleiman Franjieh were the main reason for pointing out negative feedback to Gen. Michel Aoun during and after the parliament elections. Now, I can only see them relaxing while Gen. Michel Aoun is paying a high-price for his inconvincing and un-explained allies.

Up to this point, I can only see chaos and negative vibrations in the political atmosphere here in Beirut. The reason, in my own personal opinion, is the lack of well-established political parties where people can meet, discuss, conclude, and advise. My main concern is that this negative atmosphere starts to slow down, decrease, and hopefully vanish so that we can start, again, what was supposed to start on March 14, 2005.

Lebanese Prisoners: Who Betrayed Who?

victor — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:28:31 +0000

A very hot topic nowadays in the Lebanese media is the presentation, discussion, and analysis of the psycholgical and social aspects that the Lebanese prisoners faced in Syria and Israel throughout the past 30 years. This topic is two-fold and must be approached from two points of view which are totally independent from each other.

The first point of view is humanitarian whereby all prisoners must be evaluated equally: How did Israel and Syria violate Human Rights?
The second point of view is political: Who betrayed who, how, when, and why?
How Did Israel, Syria and Lebanon Violate Human Rights?

No matter how this topic is to be addressed, basic human rights of prisoners must NOT be violated in any form. History, in general, and our present situation, in particular, is full of many prisoners who were denied their political rights, prisoned in one way or another, and condemned for false reasons while their human rights were still being preserved. Two very famous examples of such cases, in Lebanon, are Gen. Michel Aoun and Dr. Samir Geaga.

General Michel Aoun was expelled outside Lebanon, to France, where he stayed for 15 years. He was also deprived his right from having his salary, visiting Lebanon, appearing on local TV stations, talking to journalists, etc. His human rights, however, were still being preserved and were untouched. Now, Gen. Michel Aoun is seen innocent by the same political regime that expelled him outside Lebanon.

Dr. Samir Geagea, on the other hand, has been in prison here in Lebanon for 12 years now. His political party (the Lebanese Forces) was terminated and were forbidden from political participation since then. Dr. Geagea, however, still enjoys his basic Human Rights while in prison.

Israel and Syria, on the other hand, invaded the basic human rights that every human being must be given. Lebanese prisoners in Syria and Israel were tortured to the maximum extent possible and in ways that no mind can imagine or grasp. Many died while being tortured and many were injured, parallelized partially or totally. It was NOT a machine that ordered the torture and it was not nature that tortured the prisoners. The source of torture was another human being - in full conscience - who designed, implemented, tested, evaluated, and re-designed the art of pain on other human beings.

What I heard from prisoners yesterday during Kalam El-Nass, was not a story of pain. It was a story of the Art of Pain being created and performed by human beings on other human beings.

The words of torture, pain, fear, tears, cry, scream, beg, loneliness, abuse and even death became meaningless as I heard the prisoners describe what they survived. They were simply thanking God for being able to survive what another human being planned and performed. It wasn't a natural crisis: it was human-made.

This fact in itself, i.e. the ability to nullify the meaning of death, is the worst crime that any person or country can perform towards Human Rights and this describes the whole case of Syria and Israel violating Human Rights.

As for Lebanon, one wonders if the Lebanese Government violate the Human Rights of these prisoners as well? The answer follows.

All prisoners who came back to Lebanon faced two problems:

Society rejected the prisoners at first, and then slowly started accpeting them (as some of the prisoners mentioned). This problem is natural and is mainly caused by the society not knowing the main reason for being prisoned. The solution for this problem is to help the prisoner cope with the society by defining the weak points causing the rejection of the society and helping the prisoner strengthen them to better cope with his daily life.

The Lebanese Government, on the other hand, betrayed all prisoners in many ways. Although the hero-traitor definition was well-established from the government's point of view by calling prisoners in Israel as heroes and calling prisoners in Syria as traitors, neither the heroes nor the traitors got the help that was promised by the government. Thus, both parties felt depressed and betrayed by their own government while both parties, as mentioned during the show, said that the society started accepting them day after day. This denial of rights from the Lebanese Government is, yet, another violation for Human Rights.

The Lebanese Government, in summary, was completely absent and did not do anything of what it was supposed to do. It did not help any of the two parties socially, financially, or psychologically. The only help came from the social organizations sponsored by other Lebanese citizens. Furthermore, the vague definition of traitor and hero lead to having the two parties rejecting each other. Instead of the two parties working together to defend their stolen human rights, the two parties were afraid of each other. Credit goes to Kalam El-Nass for taking this topic one step further by unveiling the truth about both parties being mis-treated by the Lebanese government.

Who Betrayed Who, How, When, and Why?

This topic was very interesting in yesterday's show since it almost caused a fight. Mr. Ghanem took the appropriate steps by moving into a commercial break. The story is simple: Dr. Ahmad Ayyash gave a partially-right opinion using wrong expressions at a wrong time with the wrong people.

What Dr. Ayyash was trying to say is that torturers have existed way back throughout history. Torturers are motivated by a strong belief that the torture they cause to prisoners is a revenge for what these prisoners have done to their country, families, etc. Torturers do NOT know and have no way to know whether the person being tortured is innocent or not. This is what Dr. Ahmad Ayyash was trying to say. The main purpose of saying these words, as I guess, was to ask the prisoners to ease their sense of revenge to avoid entering an endless loop of revenge, revenge, and more revenge.

The words, however, that Dr. Ayyash used, were polymorphic and were explained by each prisoner in a personal manner. Thus, the prisoners sensed that Dr. Ayyash was claiming that the torture they survived was a punishment for what they have done. This, added to the fact that these prisoners did nothing at all and were falsely judged, prisoned and tortured, almost started a fight during the show.

This is not the main point of this section, though. What Dr. Ayash missed during his comment was that the term betrayal needs to be defined first being being used in a public conversation where each party will define it according to its own beliefs.

So the main question is: What does betrayal mean in this case? Did the prisoners betray Syria? Did the prisoners betray Israel? Who betrayed who? How? When? and Why?

If we are to take the case of the prisoners in Israel, then the answer is Yes. Prisoners who were in Israel did in fact betray Israel. This, however, is normal since Israel in this case is the enemy of these prisoners. Of course Israel still violated the Human Rights of these prisoners by torturing them. The reason, however, does make sense and can be seen (but not accepted) as an act of revenge from Israelis.

Prisoners in Syria, on the other hand, did NOT betray Syria. The majority (not all) of the prisoners who were interviewed in Kalam El-Nass were prisoned for personal revenge and other personal reasons that militia and political members created and supported. Some of these prisoners were even fighting Israel (the enemy of Syria) when they were caught by Syrian Intelligence and prisoned in Syria.

For these prisoners, they were jailed, tortured, and released for something they didn't do. Their future was lost for something that someone (somewhere) decided to ruin. They were not fighting in a war, they were not killing enemies, and they were not transmitting confidential information. They were either on their way home from work or sleeping at home when they were captured by Syrian agents.

Conclusion

The two points discussed above describe a MAJOR difference that everyone must take into consideration when analyzing the social and psychological case of the prisoners who where in Syria and the prisoners who were in Israel.

Prisoners who were in Israel are the type of prisoners that many wars witness. They were fighting for a cause, they were captured, they were tortured, and then they were released. Their return home is always seen as a return of heroes who were fighting enemies to achieve victory.

The prisoners who were in Syria, on the other hand, did NOT enjoy the same pleasure. They were NOT fighting Syria and, yet, they were caught by Syria, tortured, released and condemned as traitors by their own Government and treated as such.

The main question still stands with a minor change: Who betrayed who? The Prisoners vs. the Lebanese Government

Where did the Fouhoud Go???

victor — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:30:47 +0000

Two months ago, Lebanon started facing a security crisis when many explosions started taking place since the assassination of Mr. Rafic El-Hariri. One month after the assassination, Mr. Elias El-Mur, during a TV interview, asked "Where did the Fouhoud go?" A question that was and is still un-answered clearly.The Fouhoud are a group of security professionals that work for the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They are well recognized for their black jeeps with their famous red logo.

What was surprising enough though, was that at the night of the new government being re-elected, and when Mr. Elias El-Mur was actually being re-appointed as the Minister of Defense and Mr. Hassan El-Sabe' was being appointed as the Minister of Internal Affairs; and while I was driving back home around midnight, I saw many Fouhoud jeeps starting to take monitoring places along the road from and to Beirut.

The question, up till this point, remains un-answered:

Where did the Fouhoud Go?!

Kalam El Nass: A Battlefield for Respect!

victor — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:39:44 +0000

Yesterday, a very unfortunate scene was seen during the famous LBCI TV Show "Kalam El Nass". My comments on the show are not about the topics that were "discussed" but rather on the approach that many Lebanese leaders use and master while in such public situations.I, as many other Lebanese citizens, waited for this show to see what Mr. Jmayyel and Mr. Wahhab had to say about the current situation. The show started tense and continued tense and ended with a simple conclusion: NOTHING!

Representation

Instead of negotiating the current situation in Lebanon, the guests (namely Mr. Wahhab and Mr. Jmayyel) discussed the past of each other. The present and future, according to Mr. Wahhab mainly, is directly related to the past of each and every one of us. What Mr. Wahhab didn't grasp is that Mr. Jmayyel was not acting a self-motivated politician. He was simply a representative of the many other individuals that are part of the Lebanese opposition. Thus, the first point that should be pointed out to Lebanese politicians willing to go public on TV shows is "Who is the Other Person Representing? Himself or his Party?!?!"

Personal vs. Party Opinions

When discussing issues in public, a politician must stick to one approach: either that of his party or himself. In most cases, a politician is interviewed and discussed as being a member of a certain party. If he is to discuss his personal opinion, then this must be stated clearly in order to avoid confusion. Jumping from personal opinions to Party opinions was the main cause for confusion in yesterday's show. Mr. Wahhab jumped from his personal opinion about Mr. Jmayyel, to his personal opinion about the current Lebanese situation, to the Party's opinion about everything (Ain El Tineh in this case). He kept jumping back and forth between these three positions which lead to the unfortunate sense of humiliation that was caused to Mr. Ghanem (the show leader), Mr. Jmayyel (the opposite guest), and myself as a TV viewer and guest.

Use of Bad Words and Unthoughtable Interruption

Mr. Wahhab and Mr. Jmayyel did not hesitate to use very bad words in his speech. Mr. Wahhab used far more bad words than Mr. Jmayyel did since he used the terms "to2rotna", "rou2 ya 7abibi", "sma3neh 3am 2ellak", and "mabrouk 3leik". These terms, like any other decent person knows, are the main reason for end of negotiation or dicussion and can act as direct and indirect causes for fights. I was surprised by the nerves and faith that Mr. Ghanem had yesterday and by his capability to keep himself under control without losing temper and stopping the show. In my personal opinion, the discussion between the two guests stopped during the early minutes of the program. Discussion stopped when bad terms starting being used.

On the other hand, I was shocked by Mr. Wahhab's direct responses to semi-questions. His answers lacked thinking and, in my opinion, he must learn to listen to the complete question, think it over (a very necessary step for achieving usefull conversations), and then start to answer. Mr. Wahhab's direct answers did not satisfy the question involved and, thus, the long time he consumed talking was useless and caused frustration to many viewers including myself.

Indirect and Vague Answers

Normally, when a TV show is set and guests are invited, the agenda of the show is presented to the guests so that they can prepare for the show. What happened yesterday is that many questions asked by Mr. Ghanem remained un-answered and many other questions were vaguely answered. The lack of respect to others as well as the lack of self-control and self-confidence were the primary cause for the answers to remain unanswered. This showed a lack of preparation for the show from the guests and caused TV viewers to suffer while waiting to hear the answers for the important questions that were being asked.

A Word to Mr. Ghanem

While watching the show yesterday, I felt the suffer, Mr. Ghanem, that you faced during the show with the majority of attacks caused directly or indirectly from Mr. Wahhab's expressions and approach. You were attacked on all levels: as a Journalist, as a TV Show Presenter, as a Political Master, and as a Person. I was amazed by your self-confidence, patience, courage, and democratic approach for keeping "Kalam El-Nass" a real place for people to communicate.

A piece of advice, if I am allowed to, must be given. When you invite guests to your program, please ask them to prepare the agenda and to stick to the agenda only. This must be well-preserved especially during shows where the two guests are opponents. Then, during the show, your cleverness and strong personality can easily open off-the-agenda topics for discussion without giving the guests full control over the show.

Conclusion

What happened yesterday was a disgrace for the show that I always looked forward to watch. I completely and fully understand, as well as many other viewers of the show, the reason why this happened but I cannot understand why the guests were completely free to use any term they wish to use without any respect to viewers. If they are to stay calm while disrepsecting each other, then the viewers might simply turn off the channel next time and watch something else. I also liked Mr. Ghanem's request to shake hands between the two guests at the end of the show, but I would have liked it better if he had asked them to appologize from the viewers for everything they said and for the suffer they caused.

"Kalam El-Nass" is still one of my favourite programs and Mr. Ghanem is still one of my best presenters. Because of that, I wrote this article filled with hope that this won't be happening again another time...

Independence 05

victor — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:52:58 +0000

Today, Beirut witnessed a huge protest lead by the opposition parties. Words are countless. Witnessing this event is an honor for each and every free and independent Lebanese citizen watching history being written and sealed.

Millions of Lebanese Citizens
Thousands of Cities and Villages
Hundreds of Lebanese Political Sectors
Tens of Lebanese Political Parties
Three Objectives: Self-Decision, Freedom, and Independence
Two Slogans: Loyalty for Lebanon, Gratefulness for Rafic El Hariri

ONE WINNER: Lebanon!

Lebanese Security?!

victor — Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:39:08 +0000

I really don't know where this entry should go. Should it be under Security (a topic that I prefer and that is still empty for the time being on my blog or under Politics where it really should be?)

The whole story is related to what happened during the past few days here in Beirut. This story is a complete mapping of what happens every day in Lebanon when politics is taken into consideration and when players fall and others rise.

Here we go...

Last week, the opposition to the power (known in Lebanese language as the Mouarada) asked for a peaceful demonstration on Monday at the Martyrs square to support parliament members in their democratic seek to know the truth about the assassination of Mr. Rafic El-Hariri.

For me, like any other Lebanese, this was just another demonstration to be performed by Free Lebanese guys where we will all go to the Martyr's square to demonstrate. The usual scenario during the last 10 years was that the gorvernment will first reject to let us do so while being easy-going when it comes to street rules. Then, when we insist on moving forward, the Lebanese army and Internal Security Forces take care of delaying protestants from reaching the place.

What happened this time was completely different. All of a sudden, the government decided (unofficially) to have another demonstration by people of its own in the same place and at the same time and the reason was that they wanted to show the US (since a US diplomat was visiting Lebanon at this time) that other Lebanese people are AGAINST what the Mouarada was asking for.

The following questions directly popped into my mind:

The US diplomat visit was NOT at the Martyrs place. Why would they want to demonstrate there?
The US diplomat arrived two days before the demonstration. Why did they chose this day?

Weird enough, I, as many others, concluded that this was just another way for making things harder for us while demonstrating.

To make a long story short, the day went great and the opposition forced the gorvernment to resign. This is where the whole thing started really getting weird. Mr. Karami (the Ex-Prime Minister) left to Tripoli and his followers demonstrated there causing huge damage to shops, homes of current opposition members, and the death of an innocent person called Fadi Ahmad (as I still recall as it's been two busy days around here)

The second day, followers of Mr. Karami and Mr. Frangie also organized two other demonstrations. Their communication language was tense and the language that was being used was very sarcastic.

My questions, which are still not "completely" answered, and I insist on the word completely answered are the following:

Fourteen days of demonstrations from the opposition by hundreds of thousands of people. Result: Not a single fight took place (except a minor one with parliament members not with other people). One day of demonstration from people IN POWER. Result: shops corrupted, bullets shot randomly in the air, and an innocent person died. What does this mean?
While in power, Mr. Karami and Mr. Frangie were asking the opposition to negotiate. Now, when they resigned, their communication language is more tense and no more negotiation is being offered. It is worth being noted that the opposition held Mr. Karami and Mr. Frangie responsible for the assassination of Mr. Hariri as Government members and not as Lebanese citizens. Why did things get worse between Mr. Karami and Mr. Frangie on one hand and the opposition on the other hand. Shouldn't the resignation be a door to more negotations? Are they afraid now too or is this an expression of something else? Of course this is not revenge since death of innocent people (who are not part of the party you wish to take revenge with) is an act of someone angry or afraid. They are not angry. Are they afraid? If yes, of what?
Why did all of the sudden Mr. Frangie attack Patriarch Nisrallah? Is this related in any form to his way of staying a leader in Zogharta? Is he afraid that his followers stop being loyal or is this related to something else?

I am sure that the three questions above are completely weird and probably don't have complete answers so don't tell me how the heck did I come up with these. What is more weird for me is why did I think of them? This question can only be answered if I was capable of answering these questions in a logical manner.