The skyscrapers, the luxurious cars, the gigantic malls, the artificial landscapes, the man-made weather, the veiled, the nude and the multi-language speaking streets: Welcome to Dubai. The minute you step out the airport doors, you instantly feel like you’ve landed on a new planet. It’s metropolitan… it’s cosmopolitan……..it’s drastic! While sitting with family members in one of Dubai’s synthetic atmospheres (i.e. mall), I was asked about my “plan B” if a war erupts in Lebanon. My clear intentions of not leaving the country were followed by a long debate on whether war is the only solution left to solve all conflicts in this region. In other words, it is obviously believed by many that war would be the clear cut determinant of the strongest party/side and hence the authority that should rule the area of conflict. At one point, my sister stated that “We (the Arabs) do not love our countries anymore. If we did, internal conflicts in Palestine and Lebanon would not be happening and hence we would not be so vulnerable.” With that, I couldn’t help but wonder: Have we grown out of “loving” or getting attached to certain territory because it’s a small world after all and we belong everywhere? Do we belong anywhere? And, if this is a small world, then why does a new Holocaust in Gaza not trigger any kind of response from cities just a few hours away?!
Normally, societies blame politicians and stakeholders for not “loving” the country and holding individual interests or hidden agendas instead, hence spinning around in a conflict impasse. However, expression of an abstract term like “love” should be defined first, especially when it’s directed towards a certain place. Therefore, the blame could also be shared by the people, since the expression of love, or hatred in this case, can go down to the smallest details like littering the streets or vandalizing the properties of the country.
Nowadays, people would argue that the place that guarantees one a good life deserves all the love one would hold. So, many would dismiss their Palestinian roots and settle for the new identity, granted to them by a little blue book called a passport, because Palestine has not given them anything while the new place granted them a life. Similarly, many Arabs would deny their Middle Eastern roots for the new American, Canadian or European identities because in those countries human beings are respected, rights are secured and accountability is held by strict laws. Accordingly, we should redefine “love for the country” and whether such feelings are directly related to the adoption of a certain identity, since it is apparent that most of us living in this part of the world suffer from an identity crisis.
On the other hand, some might argue that we still hold so much love for our countries. Nevertheless, the expression of love has changed from one generation to the other as we are moving to becoming more individualistic societies. Nowadays, one is usually putting oneself in advance before the nation, while our ancestors concentrated on the nation as a whole and hence they fought to stay on a particular piece of land rather than leaving it for another life somewhere else. Another stated argument is that we get attached to a certain place because of the people in it. Thus, we grow to love a specific place as a result of the experiences and relations we make in it rather than what that territory has to offer in terms of materialistic possessions. Consequently, our expression of love should stem out of respect to that place in the sense that we should try our best to stay there and create a respectful life rather than wait to be granted one.
The problem with us (the Arabs) is that we are still linking identity to certain piece of land. Alternatively, a new stream of thinking is emerging where people around the world are relating identity to the whole world. Therefore, it is a small world after all and we do belong everywhere. In other words, we belong to a whole system and we are all related to one another. This mode of thought is the main force that urged the French people in Paris to walk the streets in protest shortly after the Holocaust in Gaza. Unfortunately, reactions from the Arab world were concentrated in areas that share the Palestinian enemy, like Lebanon for example. Conversely, the deluxe Gulf countries are experiencing the biggest economic boom in their history and have no direct threats; hence they tend to smoothly dismiss such violent events.
In reality, this is a long argument with multiple dimensions. For the love of the country, we should learn to contemplate the changes that we can make and accumulate the courage to make them. The initiative to change should come from each individual for the good of an entire nation. For the love of the country, we should appreciate the land that holds us all together and work for its development rather than its destruction
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Have Your Say: Religious or Civil?
As I was browsing the internet the other day, a friend popped a question (on msn) on what I thought about “inter-religious marriage”. Before filling my friend in with my opinion, I started googling civil marriage. As expected, several hits returned with the word “Lebanon” shinning in the title. Most of those articles supported civil marriage as it was asserted a solution for the Lebanese society’s religious/sect segregation, by allowing young couples from different religions to get married without having to alter their beliefs or religious practices. After reading all related articles on the topic and reflecting back on the time I have and still am spending in Lebanon, I wondered: can we really consider civil marriage a key solution to this society’s religious sects’ separation or are we basing our pro-civil marriage views on basic instincts and lovers’ dreams?
Going back to the conversation with my friend on msn, and as a moderately religious person (who loves and practices her religion), my views were mainly against the issue. I consider religious marriage vital for the long-term success of any relationship under the marriage “umbrella” for several reasons. Initially, marriage is a system created by and put forward by religion. Hence how can we bypass that and sign a piece of paper in court without any religious consent? This is why many agreed that civil marriage is considered a weak bond that can be easily broken and hence they would not consider it either. Others have pointed out that the fact that religion is not involved should create some doubt since “religious rights” are not guaranteed (that mainly include assets stated in some religions for either party involved in the pact). Of course, the main question that remains is: how will any children resulting from such a bond be raised? In my opinion, I thought it would be very difficult and would result in the children getting confused regarding the different religions, their beliefs and practices. It is not very realistic to ask the child to choose between either religion. I believe it is the parents’ role to guide their children through their respective religious beliefs and practices, and hence a conflict in religious views would hinder that role from being executed.
On the other hand, those for civil marriage argue that religion should never be the reason to separate people. In fact, since all main religions around the world call for peace, love and honesty, people should find religion a resort and a solution to solve their problems and break down all obstacles. In addition, civil marriage is viewed as an internationally recognized contract and hence is flexible. Regarding children, it was said that they should be raised as believers, introduced to both religions and then left to choose to choose their own religious practices as long as they are believers in God. An interesting view that was also put forward was that civil marriage is a solution for the “belonging” problem (i.e. belonging to a certain religion, country, ethnicity….culture). So, it would free people from all those ties and taboos that are inherited, hence decreasing restrictions and divisions around the world.
Yet, another question is raised here: can we free ourselves from our cultural and religious ties with a small signature on a piece of paper? As one colleague put it: “religion and culture go hand in hand. It was never religion that separated people. It is in fact the cultural background that goes with it”. Actually, after reading several case studies of civil marriage in the Middle East, the longevity of such cases is indeed affected by the incoherent diffusion of the two cultural circles of either party. In reality, the cultural aspect is valid since both parties agreed to overlook their religious differences, but for some reason they still fail to sustain their marriage.
When I laid my views out in the open, I was judged as being radical, strict, extreme and rigid. Since this type of marriage was proposed it has been the focus of many debates. So, I want you to have your say: religious or civil?
Going back to the conversation with my friend on msn, and as a moderately religious person (who loves and practices her religion), my views were mainly against the issue. I consider religious marriage vital for the long-term success of any relationship under the marriage “umbrella” for several reasons. Initially, marriage is a system created by and put forward by religion. Hence how can we bypass that and sign a piece of paper in court without any religious consent? This is why many agreed that civil marriage is considered a weak bond that can be easily broken and hence they would not consider it either. Others have pointed out that the fact that religion is not involved should create some doubt since “religious rights” are not guaranteed (that mainly include assets stated in some religions for either party involved in the pact). Of course, the main question that remains is: how will any children resulting from such a bond be raised? In my opinion, I thought it would be very difficult and would result in the children getting confused regarding the different religions, their beliefs and practices. It is not very realistic to ask the child to choose between either religion. I believe it is the parents’ role to guide their children through their respective religious beliefs and practices, and hence a conflict in religious views would hinder that role from being executed.
On the other hand, those for civil marriage argue that religion should never be the reason to separate people. In fact, since all main religions around the world call for peace, love and honesty, people should find religion a resort and a solution to solve their problems and break down all obstacles. In addition, civil marriage is viewed as an internationally recognized contract and hence is flexible. Regarding children, it was said that they should be raised as believers, introduced to both religions and then left to choose to choose their own religious practices as long as they are believers in God. An interesting view that was also put forward was that civil marriage is a solution for the “belonging” problem (i.e. belonging to a certain religion, country, ethnicity….culture). So, it would free people from all those ties and taboos that are inherited, hence decreasing restrictions and divisions around the world.
Yet, another question is raised here: can we free ourselves from our cultural and religious ties with a small signature on a piece of paper? As one colleague put it: “religion and culture go hand in hand. It was never religion that separated people. It is in fact the cultural background that goes with it”. Actually, after reading several case studies of civil marriage in the Middle East, the longevity of such cases is indeed affected by the incoherent diffusion of the two cultural circles of either party. In reality, the cultural aspect is valid since both parties agreed to overlook their religious differences, but for some reason they still fail to sustain their marriage.
When I laid my views out in the open, I was judged as being radical, strict, extreme and rigid. Since this type of marriage was proposed it has been the focus of many debates. So, I want you to have your say: religious or civil?
The Bold Reality about Sex!
The red season of love is back. The flower shops, the gift shops, the clothing stores, the book shops and even pharmacies, all have their red hearts decorations put up and ready for the lovers’ day: Valentine’s Day! As I was heading to have dinner with friends, I couldn’t help but smile at the red color covering Beirut and the couples holding hands and strolling lazily down the bustling streets of Hamra. As we chatted our way through dinner, one of my friends shared the flyer that the Lebanese Red Cross AIDS committee would be using on this year’s Valentine’s Day to promote safe sex using condoms (as is always the case every year). Most of us loved this year’s slogan and flyer design when another friend mentioned his opposing opinion to such an activity which in some way promotes premarital sexual relationships. He argued that the Red Cross is actually saying “It’s okay to have premarital sex, as long as you’re having it in a safe way”. I was surprised by such an argument coming from a fully educated, exposed and experienced Red Cross member. Of course the debate started on whether this campaign is appropriate or not, and I started wondering: Are we still so unaware of the realities of our sexual relations in the light of today’s deeply high tech, “globalized” and open society? Or do we tend to dismiss the reality of people having sex outside the context of marriage due to strict religious views, values and beliefs?
The argument here is not whether premarital sex is right or wrong. It is the fact that values, morals and concepts in our somewhat conservative society have changed due to the global media, cross-cultural exchange and globalization. So, people are having sex outside the context of marriage whether we like it or not. It is this reality that we should understand and accept before making judgments on initiatives, like that of the Red Cross AIDS program’s, which targets the reality of sex in order to decrease its drastic effects that comprise unwanted pregnancies and STDs (including HIV that tops the list).
Regarding religious views, the strict catholic stream of thought promotes abstinence, as the use of contraceptive methods, especially condoms, is forbidden. As far as my knowledge goes, all main religions encourage marriage and sticking to one sexual partner. Yet, it is Islam that recognizes sexual needs as a basic instinct that comes with the creation of every creature and hence it is realistic when it comes to the fact that people could engage in haphazard sexual relations not only to reproduce but to fulfill their sexual innate desires. So, marriage in Islam came as a solution to those random relations (that existed before Islam) which resulted in unwanted children and the spread of many diseases. In other words, we should all accept the presence of sexual needs since birth and the fact that those needs reach their peak during the years of adolescence onwards (with varying degrees from one person to the other).
However, this acceptance is still not the case in many societies of the oriental world. Many parents across the region fail to educate their children and teenagers on various sexual issues since they’re still considered taboo. Hence, youngsters reside to other abundant resources (the internet, TV satellite channels, books, magazines, friends, etc..) in order to find answers for their questions. This lack of proper sex education plays a key role in a range of physiological and psycho-social problems that some might suffer from. Therefore, the first solution to our problem would be to raise awareness among the older generations on the fact that our societies have developed in such a way that we are accessing a vast amount of information from a variety of sources. This means that the silent approach to sexual issues is not valid anymore and we need to intervene aggressively in the younger generations’ perceptions on the matter through accurate sex education.
Another factor also affected by this extensive globalization phenomenon is the alteration of moral values, in the sense that premarital sexual relationships and cohabitation are becoming more and more apparent in our societies. Each one of us has been brought up in a specific way that included religious and moral primary and secondary orientation. So, it is only one’s choice to get involved in any premarital sexual experience, since one supposedly knows right from wrong. Ultimately, our role is to recognize the reality of such relationships in our societies and raise awareness on their dangers. This would have a double effect on such occurrences: deter people from engaging in premarital relations because of fear of their consequences, and simultaneously decrease the effects of those relationships (unwanted pregnancies/diseases) through promoting mechanical contraceptives (i.e. condoms).
The main conclusion is that our societies need to wake up and be aware of the many changes and foreign introductions that have been made from the outside world. We live in a “small village” and we should acknowledge the bold truths that come with that existence including the truth about sex.
Beirut 10.2.2008
The argument here is not whether premarital sex is right or wrong. It is the fact that values, morals and concepts in our somewhat conservative society have changed due to the global media, cross-cultural exchange and globalization. So, people are having sex outside the context of marriage whether we like it or not. It is this reality that we should understand and accept before making judgments on initiatives, like that of the Red Cross AIDS program’s, which targets the reality of sex in order to decrease its drastic effects that comprise unwanted pregnancies and STDs (including HIV that tops the list).
Regarding religious views, the strict catholic stream of thought promotes abstinence, as the use of contraceptive methods, especially condoms, is forbidden. As far as my knowledge goes, all main religions encourage marriage and sticking to one sexual partner. Yet, it is Islam that recognizes sexual needs as a basic instinct that comes with the creation of every creature and hence it is realistic when it comes to the fact that people could engage in haphazard sexual relations not only to reproduce but to fulfill their sexual innate desires. So, marriage in Islam came as a solution to those random relations (that existed before Islam) which resulted in unwanted children and the spread of many diseases. In other words, we should all accept the presence of sexual needs since birth and the fact that those needs reach their peak during the years of adolescence onwards (with varying degrees from one person to the other).
However, this acceptance is still not the case in many societies of the oriental world. Many parents across the region fail to educate their children and teenagers on various sexual issues since they’re still considered taboo. Hence, youngsters reside to other abundant resources (the internet, TV satellite channels, books, magazines, friends, etc..) in order to find answers for their questions. This lack of proper sex education plays a key role in a range of physiological and psycho-social problems that some might suffer from. Therefore, the first solution to our problem would be to raise awareness among the older generations on the fact that our societies have developed in such a way that we are accessing a vast amount of information from a variety of sources. This means that the silent approach to sexual issues is not valid anymore and we need to intervene aggressively in the younger generations’ perceptions on the matter through accurate sex education.
Another factor also affected by this extensive globalization phenomenon is the alteration of moral values, in the sense that premarital sexual relationships and cohabitation are becoming more and more apparent in our societies. Each one of us has been brought up in a specific way that included religious and moral primary and secondary orientation. So, it is only one’s choice to get involved in any premarital sexual experience, since one supposedly knows right from wrong. Ultimately, our role is to recognize the reality of such relationships in our societies and raise awareness on their dangers. This would have a double effect on such occurrences: deter people from engaging in premarital relations because of fear of their consequences, and simultaneously decrease the effects of those relationships (unwanted pregnancies/diseases) through promoting mechanical contraceptives (i.e. condoms).
The main conclusion is that our societies need to wake up and be aware of the many changes and foreign introductions that have been made from the outside world. We live in a “small village” and we should acknowledge the bold truths that come with that existence including the truth about sex.
Beirut 10.2.2008
Political Garbage
As the time signaled the arrival of our lunch hour at the office, we heated up our food and gathered around the lunch table. As usual we started discussing various issues, when one colleague asked about the status of recycling plants in Lebanon. So one thing led to another and the story of garbage division into organic and inorganic matter by the major garbage disposal company in Lebanon, Sukleen, was recalled. The story’s conclusion was that efforts to establish a factory for categorizing Beirut’s garbage and hence send clean organic and inorganic material for recycling in their respective factories have failed due to political disputes. In other words, the factory’s location was not agreed upon by any political party because no one wanted it in “their” territory. As my colleague put it “I don’t want my or your garbage in my backyard and I don’t care what you do with it!” So large areas, like Dahyeh for example, ended up accumulating their waste in a huge in-land dumping area close to the airport. The story entertained yet surprised me, for I began to wonder: Are we so engrossed in our politics that we tend to politicize everything including garbage, or are we so clueless when it comes to politics?!
As defined by Webster’s English dictionary, politics is the “art or science of government; the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing a government policy; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government”. Political actions were defined as “activities characterized by artful and dishonest practices”.
We should all recognize the word “art” in the definition and how some politicians have artistically excelled. Since dishonesty is the color used in politics, politicizing media, or in other words coloring media with dishonesty, could be a valid fact. It is true that various media resources around the world are politicized to serve a certain political body and attack the other by influencing the general public. Fox news, CNN, Al Jazeera, Al Manar, Future TV and LBC are just a few examples of visual media (going into other media resources will require another article!).
On the other hand, how valid is it to politicize religion for instance. All religions around the world call for peace and honesty. It is a pity to see leaders and whole nations for that matter, politicize religion and hence lead to severe consequences of such “art actions”. Throughout the course of history, humans have started and led massive wars in the name of religion. In addition to the blood shed and other losses, such wars and conflicts have increased the number of non-believers who argue that it is because of religion that people are killing each other around the world, so why believe in such a brutal and problematic concept? In fact, I am continuously bombarded by questions like “Where is God? What is he doing watching the continuous blood bath in the world you claim he has created?” Some might argue that religious wars are actually a result of unsuccessful political actions and so they do not fall under the umbrella of sound artful politics. Hence we are not politicizing religion. Yet, when you come to think of it, it is those extreme religious terms and speeches painted with the many colors of political deceitfulness that trigger the bomb. So, we are also politicizing certain terms to serve our ultimate goal: take control of governmental or territorial reigns.
Of course, since politics is an art and science being educated in universities around the world, it is a vital part of our lives. We actually use politics very often if not daily. It is actually healthy and advanced to have political views, insights and beliefs. It is believed that political affiliation and/or inclination is becoming part of human nature. Unfortunately, for many, the understanding of politics has become too advanced (or too backward!) that their artistic politicizations due to their perceptions have included political signals, symbols, body gestures and car horns! So the ultimate question that remains is: are we going to be able to co-exist in a world full of political garbage?
Beirut 1.2.2008
As defined by Webster’s English dictionary, politics is the “art or science of government; the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing a government policy; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government”. Political actions were defined as “activities characterized by artful and dishonest practices”.
We should all recognize the word “art” in the definition and how some politicians have artistically excelled. Since dishonesty is the color used in politics, politicizing media, or in other words coloring media with dishonesty, could be a valid fact. It is true that various media resources around the world are politicized to serve a certain political body and attack the other by influencing the general public. Fox news, CNN, Al Jazeera, Al Manar, Future TV and LBC are just a few examples of visual media (going into other media resources will require another article!).
On the other hand, how valid is it to politicize religion for instance. All religions around the world call for peace and honesty. It is a pity to see leaders and whole nations for that matter, politicize religion and hence lead to severe consequences of such “art actions”. Throughout the course of history, humans have started and led massive wars in the name of religion. In addition to the blood shed and other losses, such wars and conflicts have increased the number of non-believers who argue that it is because of religion that people are killing each other around the world, so why believe in such a brutal and problematic concept? In fact, I am continuously bombarded by questions like “Where is God? What is he doing watching the continuous blood bath in the world you claim he has created?” Some might argue that religious wars are actually a result of unsuccessful political actions and so they do not fall under the umbrella of sound artful politics. Hence we are not politicizing religion. Yet, when you come to think of it, it is those extreme religious terms and speeches painted with the many colors of political deceitfulness that trigger the bomb. So, we are also politicizing certain terms to serve our ultimate goal: take control of governmental or territorial reigns.
Of course, since politics is an art and science being educated in universities around the world, it is a vital part of our lives. We actually use politics very often if not daily. It is actually healthy and advanced to have political views, insights and beliefs. It is believed that political affiliation and/or inclination is becoming part of human nature. Unfortunately, for many, the understanding of politics has become too advanced (or too backward!) that their artistic politicizations due to their perceptions have included political signals, symbols, body gestures and car horns! So the ultimate question that remains is: are we going to be able to co-exist in a world full of political garbage?
Beirut 1.2.2008
What’s Your Favorite Dish?
While I was having my usual lunch break with work colleagues, I was asked by one of them about my favorite dish. Among many, I told her I loved a Palestinian dish called Msakkhan (this of course was followed by giving the recipe). So one thing led to another and we ended up talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as my colleague expressed her admiration to the late King Hussein of Jordan (although I don’t understand her feelings yet!). Then she suddenly asserted that the only solution for the Palestinians is for Jordan to donate parts of it territories for them to form a land, in addition to Gaza, and hence end the struggle with the Israelis by building a “new” Palestine for themselves, and give up the rest to live in peace. As expected, I was furious. Her suggestion (in addition to many other similar comments that came rushing through my head at that moment) made me wonder: did we become so inhumane so to brush away this key regional matter, around which the Arab history has revolved for years, with a ridiculous solution? Or are we so humane that we want to find a solution, regardless of how unreasonable it sounds?
Yes, there are a million conflicts and issues around the world. Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Bosnia …you name it. And yes, we do wish for all of them to get solved this minute. Yet, have we become so ignorant when it comes to the Palestinian issue? I do agree with the fact that the current and really sad dispute between the Palestinian leaderships has tainted the original cause with the corruption and silliness of all political parties. This might have led many Palestinians, Arabs and others to ridicule the main core issue since the internal conflict has taken over the whole picture. But, it does remain appalling to see that some people, including some Palestinians (at least the ones I have come across over the past few years) idolize several Arab leaders who have played significant roles over the course of history to worsen the Palestinian situation in favor of personal interests. It’s even more shocking to find that a significant number of Palestinians and Arabs call for the compromise of Jerusalem and the right for the refugees to return for peace with Israel (an enemy that has proved its deceitfulness since its existence), so that they would all live in peace and party with a clear conscious!
Of course the most common questions that friends, colleagues and acquaintances raise are: what do you think is the solution then? Are you with Fateh or Hamas? Don’t you think that we (Arabs) have suffered enough because of your conflict? Who’s to blame for this whole ordeal?
In reality, Israel has established itself as a country made up of people, a government, scholars, journalists etc. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that it has stolen the land on which all of this was built. And we should not forget that the Israelis and all their allies have outwitted the Arabs throughout history by planning ahead of time for all their actions. So the solution remains vague. This vicious cycle of constant killings on both sides will continue, because and like it or not, resistance is only normal and corruption will always invade the minds of our leaders.
Many would argue that as a Palestinian, born in Jordan, raised in the Gulf and currently residing in Lebanon, I wouldn’t fully understand the intensity of the internal situation and the day to day action in my homeland. The fact that a single twist in fate that led me (like a million others) to grow up in well-off family, receive the best education and have access to various life resources, does not mean that I have lost my Palestinian roots (“identity” is another controversial term!), my Arab heritage and most importantly my humanity. In fact, I believe that all of these circumstances have put additional pressure on me to keep the Palestinian humanitarian case alive and relay the message to the next generation.
Our duty towards Palestine is to read more, learn more and write more about it. Educating our children and young people on this eternal conflict (since it’s also known as the “Arab-Israeli” conflict) remains an essential responsibility. The answer is not to hate the Israelis, but to deeply understand all dimensions related to this issue in order to hopefully, find a clear solution in the future. We must realize that this is a humanitarian matter and not purely political. Therefore, it is vital that we reinforce our own humanitarian instincts in order to effectively raise awareness and disseminate peace.
Beirut 5.1.2008
Yes, there are a million conflicts and issues around the world. Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Bosnia …you name it. And yes, we do wish for all of them to get solved this minute. Yet, have we become so ignorant when it comes to the Palestinian issue? I do agree with the fact that the current and really sad dispute between the Palestinian leaderships has tainted the original cause with the corruption and silliness of all political parties. This might have led many Palestinians, Arabs and others to ridicule the main core issue since the internal conflict has taken over the whole picture. But, it does remain appalling to see that some people, including some Palestinians (at least the ones I have come across over the past few years) idolize several Arab leaders who have played significant roles over the course of history to worsen the Palestinian situation in favor of personal interests. It’s even more shocking to find that a significant number of Palestinians and Arabs call for the compromise of Jerusalem and the right for the refugees to return for peace with Israel (an enemy that has proved its deceitfulness since its existence), so that they would all live in peace and party with a clear conscious!
Of course the most common questions that friends, colleagues and acquaintances raise are: what do you think is the solution then? Are you with Fateh or Hamas? Don’t you think that we (Arabs) have suffered enough because of your conflict? Who’s to blame for this whole ordeal?
In reality, Israel has established itself as a country made up of people, a government, scholars, journalists etc. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that it has stolen the land on which all of this was built. And we should not forget that the Israelis and all their allies have outwitted the Arabs throughout history by planning ahead of time for all their actions. So the solution remains vague. This vicious cycle of constant killings on both sides will continue, because and like it or not, resistance is only normal and corruption will always invade the minds of our leaders.
Many would argue that as a Palestinian, born in Jordan, raised in the Gulf and currently residing in Lebanon, I wouldn’t fully understand the intensity of the internal situation and the day to day action in my homeland. The fact that a single twist in fate that led me (like a million others) to grow up in well-off family, receive the best education and have access to various life resources, does not mean that I have lost my Palestinian roots (“identity” is another controversial term!), my Arab heritage and most importantly my humanity. In fact, I believe that all of these circumstances have put additional pressure on me to keep the Palestinian humanitarian case alive and relay the message to the next generation.
Our duty towards Palestine is to read more, learn more and write more about it. Educating our children and young people on this eternal conflict (since it’s also known as the “Arab-Israeli” conflict) remains an essential responsibility. The answer is not to hate the Israelis, but to deeply understand all dimensions related to this issue in order to hopefully, find a clear solution in the future. We must realize that this is a humanitarian matter and not purely political. Therefore, it is vital that we reinforce our own humanitarian instincts in order to effectively raise awareness and disseminate peace.
Beirut 5.1.2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)