the kitchen in our new place, Aleppo, Syria

  

Ben gone native

 

the sitting room, our new place in Aleppo, Syria

 

selling our household before leaving Lebanon

Leaving Lebanon

Petra by day! October 2006

 

Petra by night

 

Paragliding over Petra

 

Dahie,South Beirut, 3 September 2006

 

 

Dahie after 2 weeks of cleaning

Dahie, south Beirut, 3 weeks after the bombing ended

a bedroom

 

a bathroom from the back

 

a sitting room

 

new from lebanon

Junieh, 28 August 2006

Since I wanted to write about is war for a long time and never did it I thought it could be good to write about first impressions since coming back. I just wrote down ideas ad thought and uploaded them so apologies for the mess.

So, well, we arrived in Damascus and moved almost immediately to Aleppo. I mainly talked to taxi drivers on my way north and had the impression they were not as stiff as before (the war) when I mentioned my residing in Lebanon. On the contrary, they were asking where I spent my time during the war and talked about how bad the war was and so on. My citizenship was welcomed more than usual. I had generally the impression people were positive with the Italians (and their mission in Lebanon ?).

Don’t know why but the manager of the hotel in dar jabri showed us the whole building and its secret parts with bits of local history. The owner of the sweet shop told us about his family business going back 200 years and so on. Is there a renewed nationalistic feeling? An attempt at ‘normalising’ the terrorists? Simply very few tourists in town to spend energy on?

Syria was full of Hezbollah flags hanging on windows, walls, and even floating from cars’ windows. Amazingly in many of the posters typically decorating Syrian cars and buildings with the Assad family trinity Nasrallah has substituted the older brother. In other words he has become one of the heroes and bastions of Syria. And this time these seem spontaneous political expressions as ever before.

In Lebanon there were not as many flags. The day we came back by bus Nasrallah was dominating the screens as he was giving a very important declaration for the nation. He said he would have never kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers, would have he known Israel was going to react in such a strong way. This was topic of discussion this morning in the office. Nasrallah seems to be an incredibly good politicians. He is doing what is needed at the right time for his popularity to grow. Such a declaration somehow cleared him of the latest accusations, and almost only accusations by the government and many people, that by unilaterally kidnapping the two soldiers Hezbollah has endangered its people and drown them into a crazy war. His declaration is at the same time an apology to the Lebanese people, an invitation to trust Hezbollah whose fault, after all, is only to underestimate Israelis aggressive attitude, and of course a blaming to Israel for having over-reacted. Also, through this declaration Nasrallah indirectly expressed his self confidence at national level: he does not need hide his mistakes, he is not afraid of taking them to the open since his position is not going to be threatened anyway (Ben). Finally, he once again reinforced the belief that Nasrallah does not lie. As Nina told me, Nasrallah does what he says he does and is straight. A journalist wrote: “it has to be said that Nasrallah is a brave man who admitted his mistake instead of jumping on the wagon of victory”.

Hezbollah agreed with the rest of the government on disarming once the premises of their ‘resistance’ role are over. That is once Israeli armies go back to Israel, once the intrusion into Lebanese territory is over and Shebaa farms returned together with the prisoners. This, according to many showed that Hezbollah considers itself as the resistance movements and does not go beyond that. They are willing to abandon their weapons once there is no reason for the resistance to exists. Hezbollah line makes sense from beginning to end (regardless here of disagreements with their basic political position, armed resistance and so on). Also, does this mean that Hezbollah will recognise the existence if Israel? If the end of the resistance is confined to the self determination of Lebanon I would think so. However, if many people turned to Hezbollah for being the only ones able to defend Lebanon, some others are still very critical of their politics.

I also asked what are the Lebanese thinking of Syria. My thinking was that after Syria left Lebanon a year ago substituted by the US the US had for the first time won a lot of consensus in Lebanon. With this war, however, they lost it all and also increased anti-US feelings since the US sold the Lebanese to their enemies when these were most weak. Nina says the Lebanese are disappointed about the lack of a strong stand by Syria against Israel and this war. They are rather thinking of all the money Syria made with this war through selling food and other products, through rents from refugees, salaries for the reconstruction of Lebanese infrastructures (they did not start yet), taxi services ( have heard taxi drivers were asking up to 3000 dollars to take people to Syria after the first 10 days of war).

About our coming back. Many people, almost all those we met, teased us asking whether we came back only after the war is over. But they all great us nicely anyway and so many people pass by the office just to say ‘welcome back’, nice. Some asked again in a teasing manner if that was the first time we experienced war and heard bombs and so on, and when we said yes it all seemed clear to them (maybe our fear and running away?).

Yesterday, 31 August, at friends’ house, they are Maronites, they were asking me whether I was proud of having so many Italians soldiers in Lebanon, if I knew any of them and so on. They were also laughing since they thought that the soldiers sent by the new leftist Italian government will support Hezbollah against Israel.

Their position did not change much during the war. They are still more for Israel than Hezbollah. I think this is almost unbelievable for those who do not know Lebanon and its civil war when many Christians were supported by Israel against the Muslims (things were very complicated and alliances changed all the time, anyway). My friends told me that they knew Israel bombs only military targets. I asked about the civilian targets, then they agreed that some bombing of roads to stop Hezbollah from disarming did take place so I asked about the factories and then they said that there is also economical reasons for the bombing. They also told me a story they heard of a factory in the Bekaa they went to visit. The factory that used to produce readymade houses, was hit by five missiles and completely destroyed during the war. They were told that the US army in Iraq had just commissioned the building of a large number of constructions. Now these will have to be built by a factory in Israel that produces the same stuff. This seems to have been not an isolated case since, my friends argued, Lebanon is the only country in the region that can compete with Israel since they have both a developed economy and political/democratic system. Thus Israel tried to weaken its competitor by destroying its economy. Indirectly (apart from the people and the damage to its infrastructures) this war cost Lebanon incredible amounts in terms of loss of tourism for this season and the next ones. At the same time they strongly condemned the unilateral decision by Hezbollah of kidnapping the soldiers since all the Lebanese had to pay the price.

What surprises me is the choice of emphasis. I had to insist on asking about the numerous non-military targets that were hit during the war for them to mention them. They preferred to say that Israel hits only military targets and its Hezbollah’s fault anyway. I though that all the Lebanese by now had to be so angry at Israel just because this was attacking them ferociously.

While in Italy I had heard on the tv about a BBC team rescuing many old people in a village in the south they had gone to. Some were without water, some without food, some were stuck on a chair. Many old people preferred not to leave their houses in spite of the heavy bombardment. Thsy did not where to go. Those who wanted often could not since the roads were so badly damaged and cars and motorcycles were targeted by the Israelis; many people left their houses on foot leaving their old people behind. The choice between saving the young ones by leaving the house and losing the old ones must have been unimaginably terrible to make. This stories were somehow confirmed here. One of the employees here in the company said his 83 years old father in law had died. He decided to stay in his house in a southern village. It did not make any sense for him to leave his place his land. One morning he opened the door to get out and was shot by an Israeli soldier and died on the spot. Another friend from work said that his mother decided to leave her village but could not because of the dangerous roads, for the same reason they could not help her either. They called the red cross that went to rescue the old lady bringing her home after hours of travelling.

The activists scene seems to have been split between the more radical and less radical coalitions. Some groups seem to have even denied the involvement of the US in this war, even after the news that the US had shipped weapons to Israel. Other groups grew more or less close to the right of Lebanon to resist or the Hezbollah themselves. However on the field, they all worked together in spite of their political positions. Being active and useful kept many people sane.

The real Arabs! 

leaving for adventure! 

With Heinz and Cilli in Taquye Sulemaniye, Damascus 

On the Investigation into Hariri's Killing.

According to the government controlled Al Thawrah daily on March 15: "In a telephone conversation Al Thawrah held with him in New York, Assistant Foreign Minister Dr Faysal Al-Miqdad said the first report by Serge Brammertz, chief of the International Investigation Commission, was characterized by realism and a great deal of professionalism. With regard to Syria's cooperation, Al-Miqdad said Syria's commitment to cooperation was made during the visits that the head of the commission made to Syria and the visits that Syrian officials made to Beirut. Al-Miqdad said the previous scandalous reports gave the media an opportunity to prejudge things, but the new report did not offer such an opportunity. "... The analysts said the report was a slap in the face of the forces that immediately blamed Syria after every crime in Lebanon. They pointed out that the report brought the investigation back into the legal framework..." - Al Thawrah, Syria

Syria is making the most of the fact that the report said Syria was cooperating, no Syrians were named personally as they had been in the Mehlis reports. Also Syria was not directly mentioned as the author of the crime. Because of these three improvements, Syria claimed a qualified victory. The report makes it perfectly clear, however, that Syria remains the only suspect of the UN commission in its ultimate responsibility for the killing of Hariri and ordering the crime. What is new, however, is that Brammertz seems to be discounting the testimony given by both Hussam Hussam and Saddiq, which provided the most lurid parts of Mehlis' crime narrative. Mehlis persisted to the end in insisting that Hussam Hussam's testimony given to the commission remained valid and believable. Brammertz seems to have questioned Mehlis' wisdom on this.

In short, Damascus can breathe a bit easier for the time being. As al-Nahar reports: A well-informed Syrian source told An Nahar that Brammertz’ report represented ‘the beginning of a new era, the most important aspect of which is the withdrawal of the pressure sword that’s been pointed at Syria for over a year’. “Nonetheless, the source indicated that ‘the outcome of the report does not mean that the US pressures will cease. Its importance stems from the fact that it restored Syrian dignity and shed light on its strategic decision to fully cooperate with the International Investigation Commission…’ The report was issued in parallel with an important first visit, paid by the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al Muallem to Moscow,… and during which the issue of mutual Russian and Syrian efforts were addressed, in order to soften Hamas’ positions.

A very intersting article that looks at the current global crisis between the West and the Muslim world. Contrary to the media perspectives we usually get this article gives some space to the points of view of the Arab world.

Islam’s resistance movement

An adviser to Israel’s prime minister, summing up its strategy after the Hamas election win, said the Palestinians should be ‘put on a diet but not starved to death’. They will be punished for practising democracy, and both the United States and the European Union endorse that punishment. Western double-talk about democracy and justice has provoked outrage in Muslim countries and encouraged resistance to foreign intervention.

By Georges Corm, Le Monde Diplomatique

About US and Syria, Iraq and the whole region.
Robert Fisk is a British journalist, currently Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, described by the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain" . (to know more about Fisk read here)

TONY JONES: Unless the pressure from the United States ratchets up on Iran to the point where there are military threats against these nuclear facilities. Could it not therefore create havoc in Iraq?

ROBERT FISK: Well, you could say the same about Syria, too, couldn't you? And, of course the Americans are also accusing Syria of supporting the insurgents or letting them cross the border. But I think it it's much more complicated than that. For example, my sources in this area, who are pretty good, tell me that the Americans have already talked to the Syrians and are trying to do a deal with them to try and get the Syrians to help them over the insurgency and the price of Syria's help, I'm told, is that the Americans will ease off on the UN committee of inquiry into the murder of ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri, here in Beirut, only a few hundred metres from here, on the 14th February last year. You know, if the Americans are going to get out of Iraq - and they must get out, they will - they need the help of Iran and Syria. And I think you'll find that certain elements within the State Department are already trying to work on that. Now, we hear the rhetoric coming from Bush. I mean, he's got an absolute black-hole chaos in Iraq, he's got Afghanistan - not an inspiration to the world, it's been taken over effectively by narco warlords, many who work for Karzai, the man who's just been making jokes about the Afghan welcome for Bush - and Bush wants another conflict with Iran? I don't think the Americans are in any footing or any ability, military or otherwise, to have another war or to have another crisis in that region. They're in the deepest hole politically, militarily and economically in Iraq. The fact that the White House and the Pentagon and the State Department seem to be in a state of denial doesn't change that. We had Condoleezza Rice here - literally in that building behind me - a few days ago saying that there are great changes taking place in the Middle East - optimistically. Well, sure, there is a mosque war going on in Iraq with the Americans up to their feet in the sand, there's an Iranian crisis, or so we're told, the Saudis are frightened the Iraq war will spill over into Saudi Arabia, the Egyptians don't know how to reconcile Syria and Lebanon, there are increasing sectarian tensions here in Lebanon. You would think that someone is building what used to be called Potemkin villages, you know, these extraordinary things that Catherine the Great's court favourites use to build, facades of villages, so that everything looked nice in Russia even though things were barbarous behind the facades. I mean, this is a barbarous world we're living in now in the Middle East. It's never been so dangerous here, either for journalists or soldiers but most of all for Arabs. Hence the thousands of people in the mortuary.

An interesting position on Hezbollah, Hamas and Terrorism

This whole discussion on terrorism and the dangers of its instrumental use is expanding lately. I had the impression you could hear skepticism about the 'global fight against terrorism' in a few occasions only (mainly radical circles). But it seems also the EU has recently challenged the Turkish definition of 'terrorists' because this was including fighters from ethnic minorities (Kurds in this case) claiming for their rights.

Stanley Cohen: "thin line between terrorists & those fighting for freedom"

In its March 1 edition, An Nahar, an independent newspaper, published an exclusive interview with Jewish American attorney Stanley Cohen. The following are excerpts from the interview: “… In an interview given to An Nahar in Doha, Cohen attacked Israel and considered it ‘a nation that is founded on arrogant beliefs that are related to racial superiority. It thinks that it can determine what could and should be done in the region, that it is solely entitled to the land and to land distribution, to demolish and construct, to hold all the authority regardless of international laws, and to openly attack others’.

“In regards to what America calls terrorism, he said: ‘I am not defending terrorism because I am not defending the American President George Bush. There’s a thin line between terrorists and those who are fighting for freedom. Before he came out of prison and was elected the President of South Africa, the world considered Nelson Mandela a mean and dangerous person and a terrorist for 27 years…’.”

The interview then addressed Cohen’s vision of the Israeli and American plans in Palestine and his opinion of Hamas, before reaching the Lebanese issue. The interview went on: “Stanley Cohen visits Lebanon four or five times a year. He said: ‘If you look at what has been happening in Lebanon for the past two years, 20 years from now, you will see things differently. You will see the fingerprints of the US and the West. You will see how the US got involved in the invasion of Iraq and how it destabilized Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah has made Israel withdraw from Lebanon as Hamas made Israel withdraw form Gaza. We can’t say that these two organizations are terrorist organizations’.

“He also said: ‘Hezbollah has worked for a long time to provide people with social services in the hardest circumstances, is still responsible for the liberation of the remainder of the Lebanese territory, and should have an important political role. I understand that there are forces in Lebanon that want to lead the country in another direction, that I understand as well. I just hope that the West does not interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs and lets the Lebanese freely decide what they want. The US and the West want to impose democracy on the countries of the region because they want to impose a change that would suit the strategic priorities of their policies. But when the outcome of the elections is not what they expected, they do not support the results nor the parties that were elected democratically’.

“He added that: ‘The US does not care much about the democratic process. What it cares about is the outcome of the democratic imposition. That is why it is refusing Hamas and refusing Hezbollah’. He also considered that ‘Washington does not really want to implement reformatory programs in the Arab world. It wants to maintain its interests and will not acknowledge any Arab regime that will not protect these interests, but would acknowledge a regime that spreads chaos, as long as it protects its vital interests in the region’.

“He concluded by saying that: ‘I know that the US has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist group for two reasons. The first reason is that Hezbollah destroyed a US Marines H.Q. in Beirut, which I do not consider a terrorist act, since the American forces were interfering in Lebanese affairs to serve another party, and Hezbollah did not attack American civilians but an arrogant power that disembarked there to change the situation. The other reason why the party is accused of terrorism is because of an attack that was conducted on a Jewish headquarters in Buenos Aires, an accusation that was groundless and had nothing to back it up. All that I hope for, is that the US lets Lebanon and the forces in it, including Hezbollah, choose the destiny of their country freely’.” - An Nahar, Lebanon

This article is an interesting view on the Cartoon incident in Syria - The attacks on the Embassies

February 4, 2006, ‘Aqoul

The news from Damascus, however, should've made many a regional observer to reach for the alarm button. Syria is one of the most tightly controlled societies in the region. The secret services (that's a plural) either know everything, or at least the population thinks that they do. Either one is sufficient to keep 99.999997% from doing something the government doesn't want them to do. There is NO demonstration in Syria that is not approved or even organized by the authorities. And there's no way that anybody would get even close to an embassy without the security apparatuses (again - plural) consciously deciding to letting it happen. In other words - at the bare minimum, the Syrian government let an angry mob burn those two embassies. Others will even claim that there was no angry mob, but it was all orchestrated by the regime itself. In either case (or those others in between) the question is: Why would the Syrian government let this happen? I mean - protests are one thing, but burning an embassy is quite something else.

Again, I think that the answer lies in the local context. Syria is currently under "Western" pressure. Its ruling regime is afraid of "Western" attempts to end the "reign of the house of Asad", maybe even through (military) force. The regime, and foremost its head - "Duktuur" Bashar al-Asad -, have argued that, should they be deposed, Syria would tumble down the path towards an Iraq-style chaos. They have also - using the latest elections in Egypt and Palestine - argued that "if we don't hold the Islamists at bay, then they will take over Syria as well". The Syrian public, while not particularly liking the regime, has embraced the regime's shift from personality cult to patriotism (I blogged about it here) and one should also not forget that political brainwashing actually works, i.e. the vast majority of Syrians does believe that the "West" is bad & "out there to get them". In this context, it is noteworthy that the slogan the protesters chanted was the generic one throughout the region - "Bil-ruh, bil-dam, nafdiik, ya (fill in the blanks: Bashar, Saddam, or - today - Muhammad), meaning "With (our) soul, with (our) blood, we defend you, oh ...". Anger at those "Danish cartoons" is as genuine among Muslims in Syria as anywhere else, but in Damascus it is compounded by a very locally-specific feeling of being under pressure and possibly attack any moment now. The Syrian authorities might very well have let the burning of those two embassies happen for a number of their very own reasons:

1st - By letting popular anger vent itself, the regime maintains (& maybe even gains) legitimacy. After today you can say what you want about Bashar al-Asad & his henchmen, but you can't accuse them of protecting the "Western" blasphemers against "popular sentiment".

2nd - By letting "an angry mob" burn those two embassies, the regime can show the "West" just how potentially dangerous "religious fanaticism" can be, even in such seemingly peaceful and secular places like Syria, and bolster its own credentials as "the secularist dam stemming the Islamist tide".

Something on Lebanon and the Cartoon incident - The attacks on the embassies.

In Lebanon I heard everybody blaming the foreigners: the Syrians and Palestianians. It seems a lot of Syrians were arrested despite having nothing to do with the violent protests in Beirut. I also criticise considering the Lebanese Palestinians as foreigners...However, the positive thing about all this 'blaming the others' is that it seems the Lebanese are not willing to go to war right now, they prefer to blame somebody external than the other Lebanese sects. The following is an article that shows the 'fraternity' feeling across groups that some people are trying to express.

Columnist: "We are really angry, very angry" at the rioters

Regular columnist in An Nahar Ali Hamade, wrote in an opinion piece on February 7 that: “The barbarism that was programmed by ‘remote control’ and that exploded among people’s homes in Ashrafieh and its surrounding areas, is like a warning siren to the Lebanese, that the attempts to push Lebanon over the edge have not yet ceased. It is tangible evidence for the Lebanese government and the parliamentary majority, that the Syrian regime and its aids in Lebanon will not stop spreading terror among the Lebanese people, whether through booby-trapped car assassinations, explosions at the entrances of military [positions], the enhancement of men and weapons infiltration across the border and through the deployment of panic among people, by assailing their possessions and their places of worship behind the facade of an innocent legitimate demonstration.

“It is the warning siren for the parliamentary majority that fought against tutorship and dominance and succeeded in chasing it out of Lebanon in April 2005, with the power of unity of the Lebanese people. The Syrian regime hasn’t and will not stop trying to shake the country’s stability, and will not hesitate to do all that is possible to create dissidence among the Lebanese people. It will not hold back from its followers, like those who infiltrated the demonstration last Sunday, any support it can provide across the long border with Lebanon in order to sabotage the country’s civil peace. It is a regime that denies Lebanon’s independence and the right of its people to live freely in their own country. It can’t conceive dealing with Lebanon as an independent and sovereign country.

“The barbaric scenes we witnessed last Sunday were so shameful that the Muslims, and I am one of them, felt this attack hurt them more than it did their Christian fellows, the inhabitants of our dear Ashrafieh. The yelling of poet Talal Haydar from Baalbek on TV, was somehow a way for us to repent a crime we did not commit, a crime that was perpetrated by a bunch of scoundrels and every Muslim, whether Sunni or Shiite or Druze, is ashamed they did this abomination under the holy green flag. Talal Haydar spoke on behalf of us all. They have attacked us as Muslims and stepped on our dignity more than they did to the people of Ashrafieh by terrorizing them. They insulted our places of worship more than they tried to assail the Saint Maron church and the Beirut Orthodox diocese.

“We say that because we are really angry, very angry. If only our families in Ashrafieh, and our families from the Saint Maron church parish and Saint Nicholas cathedral knew how much anger we have inside. Were they able to know, they would’ve felt sorry for us today. We are not saying this to undermine the importance of what happened, nor to bypass the shortcomings that were seen, but because, and here is the paradox, we felt on Sunday how much we care for and are attached to our partner in the nation […]. We wouldn’t be exaggerating if we said that had it happened in the so-called Muslim areas, we wouldn’t have been so angry and disgusted […].

“All the Lebanese are invited to see who their real enemy is. Their leaders, no exceptions made, must work according to one motto: ‘Lebanon above all’, or else, all that will be left from the unfinished Lebanese independence, are memories and stories told to future generations, born with the yoke of slavery and under the sword of terrorism.” - An Nahar, Lebanon

Elections in Palestine

I think it is interesting to read how the position of Hamas is changing already. Maybe they will play a tough game that will lead somewhere in the peace process..I hope somewhere positive. Finger crossed.

“Hamas: we wouldn’t exclude a conditional acknowledgment of Israel”

Al Quds Al Arabi, an independent Palestinian owned daily, reported on February 8 that: “Mr. Khaled Meshaal, head of the political bureau of the Hamas movement, declared yesterday from Cairo that his movement does not exclude the acknowledgment of Israel, once Israel acknowledges the rights of the Palestinian people and retreats from Palestinian territories. He said in a joint press conference with Mr. Amr Mussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, that when ‘Israel declares it acknowledges Palestinian rights and retreats from our territory, there will definitely be a Palestinian and Arab willingness to cooperate and make a positive step, but only when Israel meets those conditions’.

“He added, when asked a question about the same issue, that the ball is in the Israeli court. When Israel acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people, everything will be dealt with when the time is due. He stressed that the killer must acknowledge the victim. This position constitutes, to many observers, another step made by the Hamas leadership, towards leniency and cooperation with Egyptian demands that stressed on the necessity of Hamas’ acknowledgment of Israel and its refusal of terror, in order to form the new government. The Hamas leadership had proposed a long-term truce with Israel, whereby it ceases any military actions against it in exchange for Israel’s ending its assassination policy and releasing the detainees.

“According to diplomatic sources in Cairo, Mr. Mussa had suggested to the Hamas movement delegation [that it] declare its approval of the Arab peace initiative that was promulgated at the Beirut Summit in 2002. [That agreement] had stated that Israel should withdraw from all the occupied lands in 1967 in exchange for the normalization of relations and the complete acknowledgement of the two parties of one another. The source added that Mr. Mussa considers Hamas’ acceptance of this initiative as an exit way from all the international pressures to acknowledge Israel without getting anything in return. Nonetheless, Mussa and Meshaal have not reached an agreement, but they both said that their talks were the beginning of a fruitful dialogue that will go on.

“The lenient statements of the Hamas leader came at a time when Ehud Olmert, acting Israeli Premier, declared yesterday that Israel will still have control over the valley of the Jordan River, the big settlement complexes in the West Bank and Jerusalem - and that in light of the final drawing of the Israeli border from the West […]. On the other hand, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya said yesterday that it was very probable for a Hamas member to head the Palestinian government, and added that since Hamas has the majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament, President Abbass will leave it to one of its members to form the government.

“Hamas has declared that Fatah still has not given its response on whether it wants to partake in the government - Palestinian sources said that there was a schism within Fatah regarding this issue. While Mr. Abbass endorses it, other wings are against it. The same sources indicated that Hamas offered Fatah eight ministerial portfolios in the new government, among which are key ministries […]. An important source in Hamas expected that the heads of the Palestinian security bodies will be removed, and people affiliated to the movement will be in charge of them.” - Al Quds Al Arabi, United Kingdom

One more article by Phyllis, on the Elections in Palestine

Hamas wins the Palestinian Elections
Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies,
27 January 2006

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow at TNI. She is a US researcher on Palestine issues. I think this interview is very interesting

Challenging Empire
Cher Gilmore interviews Phyllis Bennis
Share International Media Service, February 2006

il compleanno di Joseph 

il muretto di casa da imbottire di ciclamini! 

il bottino di ciclamini della settimana scorsa

Good intentions

Dear All,

since I am reading a lot of news everyday I have decided to start posting the articles I thought are somehow intersting (both those politically close to me or belonging to the 'enemy'!). This means that from now on I will be posting either articles or links to articles about the Middle East, mainly, but also about anything else that I consider worth spendig time on. I would also like to add a couple of comments to each of them but I start thinking I won't have the time to do all this. Anyway, enjoy the reading!

a strange lake in the mountain a few kilometers from our house  

Landscape 

Ben under the waterfall 

hike to AlAassi waterfall