From: medawar@prism.poly.edu (Bassem Medawar)
Subject: Re: European Parliament and the Lebanese legislative elections
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:46:50 GMT

Hani, this will be my last message to you on this issue.  

In article <bwV-37_@engin.umich.edu> hani@gilaman.engin.umich.edu (Hani Abinassif) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul29.192457.11631@prism.poly.edu>, medawar@prism.poly.edu (Bassem Medawar) writes:
>[......]
>> 
>> It is good you brought this point.  Denemark people just voted in a referendum
>> not to be part of the European unification.  I guess Denemark people now
>> must move to Greenland or Antarctica to let the European unification happen.
>
>Bassem,
>	The example of Denmark you are refering to, works agianst what you
>are saying.  If you were following the unification of Europe properly, you
>would have noticed that the Danish people voted against their government,
>more than on the unification ticket.  In fact, the vote was close like 52-48
>I believe.  It is forgranted in Europe that everyone WILL join.  And Denmark
>is going to have another referundum which is expected to pass.  The point I
>am making is that the ultimate goal or objective of any Arab state, and Lebanon
>is one BTW, is to seek unification based on economical proseberity and
>political power sharing and democratic terms.  I am not necessarily advocating
>a catholic marriage with any undemocratic country.  Some day though some
>responsible people will be in power and realize the importance of unity
>as the German people did.  The unification of East and West Germany took
>place although many were against it on both sides. Now tell me how much
>of benefits the Wet German gained.  On the contrary, their economy is shaking
>with the burden of this unification. Nevertheless, they went ahead realizing
>the importanceof democratizing and rebuilding East Germany.  These are
>situation where benefits are not measured only by Oil Barrels, although nothing
>is wrong with that either.  There a shared destiny, common culture, and
>famlial relations between Lebanon and many Arab states.
>

I wish you write in smaller paragraphs to make your writing easier to follow
and reply to.  Here is my point by point reply:

- I am not "following the unification of Europe properly", I was merely
  struck by your statement in an earlier message:

  "If some Lebanese are objecting to unity they probably should live in 
   GreenLand, or maybe Antartica.  By doing so they have no problem of 
   unification with any creature...Maybe with the Big Foot population:-)"

  And so I brought the example of Denemark population who voted against
  unification and so by your statement are now supposed to go into
  Greenland, etc..  Now you say words to effect that you are sure that
  another vote will take place and it will be in favour of unification.
  Fine, but that doesn't change anything: there are still a large (almost
  half the population) number against unification.  By your statement they
  should live in Greenland, etc..,  instead.  If somebody disagrees with
  you, you send them into exile!!!!

- The unification of Germany was good, I'd love to unify with kuwait and
  have all the kuwaity dinars pour into Lebanon for reconstruction.  That
  will be a dream come true (the reconstruction) beyond the wildest 
  immagination.  I have nothing against the concept of unification per-se if 
  it is done for the right reason and with the consent of the majority of the 
  population.

- Unification based on brotherhood is good as long as brothers are equal.
  When big brother tells little brother what to do, this is hardly a 
  unification.  It is a subjugation.

>> Do you see how follish your argument is?  If the Lebanese population vote

>> by majority in an honest election to unite with the rest of the Arab countries
>> that will be great, at least my country will get a share of the Gulf oil
>> revenue, wouldn't you say?  So, what form of political government will this
>
>Bassem, if you can not continue this conversation without using words like
>"foolish argument", then let this be the last reply.  If you gave the DAnish

I did not intend to insult you by calling your argument "foolish".  If you
take it as an insult, I truly appologize.  It is not my intention to let
this discussion degenerate into a name calling match.

>example to prove that the majority of the Lebanese do not want unity with
>the Arab world, then you are simply misreading the headlines...It seems you

No.. I did not give the Danish example to prove that the majority of the 
Lebanese do not want unity.  I don't see how you draw that conclusion.
I gave the Danish example to extend your argument (that descenters should
leave and go live elsewhere) to the Danish situation to show you how horrible
your remark is.  Tolerance of differing opinions is what makes democracy work.

>are decided that most Lebanese do not want unification.  Can you refer me
>to any reference, or previuos experience through history.  It is noted however,
>that REGIMES DO NOT REPRESENT PEOPLE IN THE ARAB WORLD.  If there was a

So let's change regimes BEFORE we talk of unification.  Right now we are
talking about unification with Syria before changing the Syrian regime.
Give me a democratic and just Arab world, I will race you to unification.

>Country like Sweden on the Northern borders, and Norway to the East, and
>Canada to the south, (all with ARAB population) would be more willing to unite,
>although economic benefits are not clear, as the case in Europe?  

Sorry, I didn't get that.

>
>
>> union have, or do you want to unite first an decide on the form of government 
>> later?  [While in jail for defying the absolute Arab ruler]  My point on this
>> issue is that you should unite when it is benificial to you and not based on
>> romantic sentiments which others may not share.  When you unite, you should
>
>Explain to me the romance the West German are practicing, although they
>are under economic burdens due to unification.

The Germans would have unified no matter how much it would've cost them in
financial terms, if that is not romantic nationalism, I don't know what else
is.  Mind you, I am not saying that romantic nationalism is right or wrong but 
that you should see things for what they are.

>  
>Come on Bassem, you are so inticed with the EC resolution you can not think of
                            ^^^^^^^ you mean energized?  Yes I am.  Blinded?
				    No I am not.  That is why I sent the letter
				    to Ghali that I posted on scl about a month
				    or more ago.

>anything else.  I do not like the idea of Euro-sponsored or any Foriegn-
>sponsored resolution on an internal affair that was decided by the Lebanese
>Government, elected by a Parlimant, and endorced in your article as to keep it

Elections in Lebanon is hardly an internal affairs.  It was engineered in
Damscus.  If you don't believe me that the elections are being imposed 
on Lebanon by Syria, then there is nothing I can do and our discussion is 
pointless.  The election are one year ahead of their time according to Taif.
Do you accept Taif?  Then do you allow Taif to be twisted?

>alive.  So why do you accept Hrawi and Co., Solh and his Cowboys? According
>to your anaylsis, it would be ok. if the EC felt that Solh does not represent
>the Lebanese, then we should sponsor their views on this issue.

The issue is not whether Hrawi or Solh are or not not appropriate.  The issue is
about who guides the destiny of the Lebanese people, the Lebanese people
themselves or Syria?  The European want the voice of the Lebanese people
to be heared without intimidation.  How can you disaproove of that?

>
>> know what you are jumping into before you start jumping.
>> 
>The unification will be gradual, starting by educating the people on
>democracy, civilization and ideological alternatives.  It is not a unity after

If that is how unification works then I am all for it.  Unification is going
to forced on Lebanon by Syria, which is by most accounts undemocratic, dictating
unification terms to Lebanon (otherwise known as annexation).  There is
nothing democratic in this and if you think otherwise, you're in for a big
chock when the new parliament ratifies unification.

>the Eygptian and Syrian example whereby unity took place over the air waves
>and newspapers.  It took Europe centuries to reealize the importance of
>unification to face the new economic and political challenge.  I hope we
>can learn and reduce that time to less than centuries...I think Arabs can
>learn quick.  If Eastern Europeans (who are acting like Arabs now) can revolt
>and dispose of Dictators, Arabs can and will. 

min timak la bwab al-sama (from your mouth to the doors of heaven -- May God
hear you)

>
>A people with no dream, can not build a nation.  Especially when cosmic
>objectives are measured by the insignificance of individual economic 
>prosperity.  
>
>> Do you really think that Kuwait's miniscule population will share its
>> enormous oil revenue with Egypt 40 million+ population?
>> 
>
>One way or another Lebanese always benefited from Arab Moneys.  So
>why not?

You didn't answer my question:  Would the Kuwaitis want to share with the
Egyptians their wealth?  That's why I believe the Kuwaitis for example
would not want to unite with Egypt.

bassem


Newsgroups: soc.culture.lebanon