On Gebran and On Hizballah

I was very entertained by Naharnet’s ideas on Shiites as well as amused by Anon’s comment on Laz’s post, and I was writing something on it. But Gebran was assassinated, so I thought this is due:

So I was never a big fan of the man, and it was clear to me, and many others, that his paper was no exception to the general status of Lebanese newspapers. However, I find it unacceptable to kill a man who fought with his words and mind. All this killing shows is that the idiotic Syrian regime finds itself short of fighting back with word and mind, so it resorts to violence. I am not surprised he was actually killed. It had long been expected. I honor him for coming back despite knowing he will die. I must admit I didn't think he would do it.

I took some time to look at the aftermath of this murder. This is not very comprehensive, so as not to repeat what others keep saying.

The most immediate result, which Assaad Abou Khalil addresses with a quote from Assafir’s Sahar Mandur about racist chants in front of Annahar building. What Assaad does not quote from that article is the final questions which Sahar asked “the murderers”. The question is the essence of what Gebran meant to me. Sahar justly asks if the chants would have been the same had Gebran, or Samir, been alive. Let’s face it, some “Cedar Revolutionaries” did campaign in a racist manner for some time, but Gebran, despite the vague "sheep" incident, and Samir, among others, tried to correct this. The racist tag was given to that revolution unjustly, and I am outraged by it as much as I am outraged by holding HA accountable for some actions of their supporters.

As a side note, Lebanon Profile, among others, might say there is a dichotomy in my head between March 8 amd March 14. This is true, but only because I believe a dichotomy exists in reality in Lebanon. I also make these comparisons because “Cedar Revolution”, especially March 14, is the most familiar concept with which most people in the “blog universe” identify; I compare everything to some part or another of it.

And then there is Hizballah, and all that talk about how they stood there with no comment while their supporters distributed sweets in celebration. And the question of why they do not join the funeral. To be objective here, let’s admit that, even if Naharnet did not publish it, they did condemn the attacks and visit the family; they did not just stand without comment. Do I think they should join the funeral? Yes. Are they less patriotic if they don’t? No.

This is the same HA that maintained dialogue with the people who attacked their resistance against Israeli, and I am speaking of the time before May 2000.

You may think they are less patriotic for acting passively at an incident of national unity. I respect that, but it is then your responsibility to extend that logic, and apply it to people who attacked phenomena of national unity. If HA are less patriotic for not attending Tweini’s funeral or for not supporting an international investigation/tribunal, how do you rate people who were publicly asking the international community to disarm HA before 2000?

Next, unless something comes up: Aoun: Why he competes with, and beats, Berry for the position of second most popular character among the Shiites!