Iraq’s Christians, Lebanon’s Shame

By Peter Durkovic
This commentary was published in The Daily Star on 11/04/2011

Iraq’s Christians are a dwindling minority, one that may soon disappear from the Middle East. But you would not realize the seriousness of their plight from the way Lebanon has dealt with them.

Whether it is the state, churches or their Lebanese coreligionists, all have done little to help the community confront its myriad problems.

Today, the number of Iraqi Christian refugees in Lebanon is estimated to be around 5,000. However, since 2003, when the United States and its allies invaded Iraq, more than 20,000 have come through Lebanon. Most have resettled in the European Union, the United States or Australia, while a mere 1 percent has returned to Iraq. Those in Lebanon have remained because their request to resettle in third countries has been denied by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

A majority of the Iraqi Christians, some 65 percent, are from the Chaldean Catholic Church. The rest include Assyrians, Syriac Orthodox, and Syriac Catholics. Yet no matter to which church they belong, the Iraqis all face similar problems: the absence of official refugee status; difficulties in obtaining adequate accommodations, education and medical assistance; and abusive labor practices.

Because Iraqi refugees are not officially recognized as such by the Lebanese state, many arrived in Lebanon on a tourist visa. Once their visas expire, their presence in the country becomes illegal. Unofficially, the Lebanese authorities have allowed them to stay, but because Lebanon did not sign the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, the legal foundation for their presence is vague. In effect, most Iraqi Christians do not officially exist in Lebanon.

The Lebanese position is ambiguous. Iraqi Christians can be detained by the security forces once their visas expire, but the security forces have not been specifically ordered to find them and expel them from Lebanon.

This ambiguity only adds to the precariousness of their daily existence and living conditions. There are those who have been taken into custody and sent back to Iraq, though a resolution of their legal status would have allowed them to remain in Lebanon until the situation in Iraq improves and they can go home, or elsewhere.

If the Iraqis expected their own churches in Lebanon to be of greater assistance, they will have been equally disappointed. Very few of the Lebanese Chaldean and Syriac churches are assisting in easing the refugees’ difficulties, by offering them spiritual support, an education, understanding, or social assistance. Education is of particular importance to the Iraqis, because that will provide their children with the knowledge and skills to enhance their future job opportunities.

Alas, Lebanon’s Christian communities have not shown any greater solidarity with their Iraqi coreligionists. And yet it was them whom the Iraqi Christians expected to count on when they chose to leave their homeland. There have been exceptions of course, but the most recurring feature that the refugees have found is that their brethren have tended to abuse them as cheap labor, often paying them no more than 30 percent of what would be considered a normal salary.

Nor is it rare for employers to pay nothing at all for work done. They know that the Iraqis, because of their illegal status, will not dare report them to the authorities. This makes it more urgent for Lebanon to resolve their legal status by officially recognizing them as refugees.

Adequate medical treatment is another problem that the Iraqis are confronting. Most are poor and have only very rudimentary medical coverage. Those with serious illnesses are almost guaranteed of being denied appropriate medical care.

The issue can only be effectively resolved with the collaboration of international institutions, including the United Nations, and Lebanese non-governmental organizations. Some political parties, in their turn, have intervened on behalf of the refugees. They include the Free Patriotic Movement, the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb (Phalange), and Hezbollah. But they usually do so to advance a political agenda and only at specific periods, such as Christmas.

There have been sporadic endeavors to address the Iraqis’ predicament. However, the impact has been very limited. Recently, for example, Notre Dame University hosted a conference on the Iraqi Christians that was attended by Lebanese and Iraqi officials, as well as by Chaldean, Assyrian, Syriac Orthodox, Syrian Catholic and Muslim representatives. The participants formulated a number of resolutions, but until now none have been implemented.

To allow the situation to fester will means creating another angry refugee community in Lebanon, with all the difficulties ensuing from this: a sense of hopelessness, psychological problems, illiteracy among the young and so on.

And yet Lebanese churches and the government have great latitude to highlight the issue domestically and internationally, and mobilize support on behalf of the Iraqis. They can, and must, provide the refugees with official documentation until they return to Iraq or move elsewhere. A suffering community surely merits better than the Iraqis have received in Lebanon.

Peter Durkovic, a Slovak journalist recently in Lebanon, writes for a number of media outlets in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Hezbollah...So We All Agree

By Tariq Alhomayed
This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 10/04/2011
 
It seems that the "Wikileaks" documents have begun to have a positive effect in Lebanon, as today we see a media battle taking place between the Shiite Amal movement, and the Iranian sponsored Hezbollah. This is a positive development because, although we've yet to see them reach a consensus, we are witnessing them settle scores amongst themselves.
 
In the "Wikileaks" documents, it was revealed that during interviews with the Americans, a number of MPs and ministers belonging to the Development and Liberation Bloc, affiliated with Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, had shown indignation towards Hezbollah, its weaponry, its domination of Lebanon, and they even talked about Hezbollah's apparent subordination to Iran. The documents also revealed the restlessness of Berri's men with regards to Syria, saying that if a clear arrangement was not reached with Syria to deal with the International Tribunal for the Assassination of Rafik Hariri, then Hezbollah would turn Lebanon into a living hell by resorting to car bombs and terrorist attacks. To make matters worse, the sources claimed that Syria was also capable of mobilizing its agents in Lebanon, namely the Palestinians, and its sleeper cells, in order to do the same thing!
 
These are important words, and they must be taken seriously, rather than just be labeled as propaganda. This is for the simple reason that Hezbollah itself is taking these words seriously - it has called for the immediate resignation of each political figure quoted in the Wikileaks documents. Berri's group, like Hezbollah, have already relied much on the Wikileaks documents to damage their opponents like Saad Hariri and Fouad Siniora, let alone other Arab countries, so they cannot deem them to be credible here, and false there. How could Hezbollah, or the Amal movement, claim that the documents are true when they serve their interests, and false if they do not? Furthermore, these documents are not the first, but there have been other documents revealing that followers of General Aoun have talked in the same vein about Hezbollah!
 
Through these Wikileaks documents, which quoted followers of Nabih Berri and revealed their opinions of Hezbollah, the danger of its weaponry, and its affiliation to Iran, we can deduce that the so-called moderate Arab camp has been, and still is, correct in its view of the gravity of Hezbollah and its weapons, the seriousness of its alliance with Syria, and the role they play in Lebanon. This is not the opinion of the moderates only, but also the view of Hezbollah's allies in the Amal movement, as the documents show.
 
It is true that the events in our region today, and the position of Iran and Hezbollah towards them, specifically their stances towards what is happening in Bahrain and Syria, have exposed Tehran and Hezbollah completely. While they criticize the Bahraini government, in support of the Shiites there, we find them supporting the regime in Damascus, which is suppressing the Syrian demonstrators with violence, even depicting the demands of the Syrians as being fostered externally. Yet more importantly here are the Wikileaks documents, and what they reveal about Hezbollah's allies in Lebanon. They reveal that everyone, whether in Lebanon or the wider region, or even in the Shiite Amal movement, is in agreement about the affiliation of Hezbollah towards Iran, and the danger of its weaponry, and this is highly important!

Hijacking The Arab Revolution

Aijaz Zaka Syed writes: After propping up dictators all these years, it's heartening to see Uncle Sam cheer on the march of democracyThis commentary was published in The Gulf News on 11/04/2011

So it has come down to this. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, Libya now finds itself in the line of fire of the Coalition of the Willing. Of course, the West isn't fighting ‘Islamist terrorism' in Libya or is looking for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The mission now is to ‘save lives' and take out the monster who refuses to fade away like the other friendly, neighbourhood dictators.

He must hang on in there like a bad dream, an evil spell over Libya. Those who thought Muammar Gaddafi would soon follow his fellow travellers into the sunset were clearly mistaken. The author of the Green Book seems to sincerely believe he's God's gift not just to the people of Libya but to mankind. But he isn't the only one to inhabit this make-believe world.

There are many out there who have persuaded themselves that their leadership is crucial to the survival of their people and their departure would bring on the end of the world. Après moi le deluge. (After me, the deluge!) Such is the power of conceit. You tend to believe you are at the centre of the universe. Those larger than life statues, from Baghdad to Benghazi, are not the celebration of a monstrous ego but the manifestation of a perennial insecurity of the powerful. They must perpetually reassure themselves about their own power.

Some of the most obscene tributes to human vanity are found in Muslim lands. Islam came to banish all man-made idols and we have replaced them with men who view themselves as divine. They adore themselves and expect their people to do so. So Gaddafi must kill his people if need be as he's been doing all these years, to govern them.

After three decades of absolute power, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen believes his people are still not ‘ready' to govern themselves or determine their own good. Bashar Al Assad — he and his father between themselves have ruled Syria for nearly half a century — insists he and his people are ‘on the same page.' There's no problem whatsoever.

What about those angry demonstrations? And why are Syrian troops killing protesters? Of course, it's the doing of ‘conspirators and outsiders,' you know. There's no trouble in the Baathist paradise. In fact, a government spokesperson recently told CNN's Hala Gorani with a straight face, President Al Assad has wanted to introduce ‘reforms' since he took over 11 years ago. Then why hasn't he? What are we waiting for? End times or another crusader coalition?

Truth be told, whether it's Libya or Syria or numerous other Arab republics, they have all suppressed and persecuted their people for decades — or the lifetime of a tyrant. In addition to perpetual abuse of power and all-pervasive corruption, they all share one distinction: repressing popular democratic movements that turn to Islam for guidance and inspiration, rather than dance to the tunes of London and Washington. And they have all done this with the blessings of western champions of democracy and freedom. In Egypt, the founder of Muslim Brotherhood Hassan Al Banna was assassinated and his successor Sayyid Qutb was executed, and thousands of its activists were incarcerated and tortured for years for believing in a better world.

The Muslim world's most admired grassroots movement has been banned and suppressed for half a century. It's the same story all across the Arab world. From Egypt and Yemen to Syria and from Algeria and Tunisia to Libya, the Islamists have been hunted like animals for decades. In 1982, Syrian forces massacred thousands in the city of Hama in a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. The memories of the Hama massacre are still fresh.

Reign of terror

And who could forget how Algeria's veteran revolutionaries dealt with the Islamic Salvation Front when it swept the first ever democratic elections in 1991-92? The regime not just annulled the historic vote and the verdict it threw up, but also unleashed a reign of terror against the Islamists for taking the democratic path to change. Nearly 300,000 people died in the subsequent civil war whose wounds are yet to heal. History repeated itself when Hamas wrested power from Fatah in 2006. The Palestinians are still paying the price for that cardinal sin.

All this, of course, wouldn't have been possible without the active support and cooperation of our western masters. Even as they have endlessly praised democracy, they have aided their allies to crush and destroy those foolish enough to believe in their rhetoric. If the region remains a black hole of tyranny in the 21st century, you know who to thank for.

So it's rather touching to see Uncle Sam and his cohorts come around to cheer on the juggernaut of change. The folks who are working with Israel to wipe out an entire nation in its own land have no qualms in pontificating about people's right to freedom and choose their destiny.

Those who have propped up and protected the Mubaraks and Bin Alis all these years see no irony in claiming credit for the Arab revolution. Talk of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds! Some even hail the Cowboy Crusader, who gave us Afghanistan and Iraq, sending a million people to their death, for the winds of change.

Is there no limit to western hypocrisy? Why do they think they can fool all the people all the time? Don't they see the writing on the wall? The tide has turned in the Middle East and big powers will ignore it at their peril. Those who have the courage to throw out their despots can confront their masters too. Most Arabs and Muslims have no sympathy for Gaddafi. They are breathlessly waiting for his exit — and that of others like him. But they aren't going to welcome Janus-faced friends of their tormentors either. So expect no roses in Tripoli for the liberators!

Aijaz Zaka Syed is a widely published columnist based in the Gulf.

The Days Of Anger: Humiliation, Fear And Dignity In The Middle East

By Lieven De Cauter
This commentary was published in Foreign Policy In Focus on 08/04/2011

Some will claim that the true, structural causes for these Arab revolts reside in the rising food prices or other objective economic factors. Others will claim it is the new social media. Others again will hail the rising multitude foretold in the West, happening in the Middle East. Who can prove them wrong? But that is not what the street interviewees and commentators tell us: they speak of Anger, of Pride, of Humiliation and Dignity.

In his famous, infamous book on The End of History and the Last Man Fukuyama was harking back to Plato and Hegel to stress how important these affects are in politics. They are sui generis: political moral affects of their own. Egotism and Desire are not the sole factors that determine human behaviour (as both liberal and Marxist ‘paneconomic’ theories have it). His major example is that it is not the economy that played a major role in the movement of Havel and his lot that brought down the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe. Thymos, meaning: feeling for justice, honour, anger, pride, dignity, etc. has been a determining factor from the onset.

The self burning of the Tunisian youngster was a thymotic gesture par excellence. One of the highest thinkable forms of it: total defiance, not only for dead, but even for the most painful and cruel of death. A quote from the web: “Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi, living in the provincial town of Sidi Bouzid, had a university degree but no work. To earn some money he took to selling fruit and vegetables in the street without a licence. When the authorities stopped him and confiscated his produce, he was so angry that he set himself on fire.” (our emphasis).

This total defiance out of humiliation turning into anger, and anger turning into dignity and defiance has proved contagious: “Rioting followed and security forces sealed off the town. On Wednesday [January 12^th], another jobless young man in Sidi Bouzid climbed an electricity pole, shouted "no for misery, no for unemployment", then touched the wires and electrocuted himself. Tunisia's president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali has fled his country after weeks of mass protests culminated in a victory for people power over one of the Arab world's most repressive regimes.”

The jasmine revolution in a nutshell. Mohamed Bouazizi was not a calculating egotistic, economical being, measuring his profit. He just went for it. It is not by incident, that this most powerful of gestures of defiance and indignation has set off a wave of anger that floods the Arab world.  

Anger has had some bad press lately in our culture. So much so that we tend to dismiss it. And yet it is this affect that has given its name to these appeals to revolt: ‘Days of Anger’. The Days of Anger have been succeeding one another since January: from Tunisia to Iraq, from Egypt to Yemen, from Oman and Bahrain to Libya to Syria. Was it just a cheap appealing slogan to mobilize? No. It contains a profound truth (philosophical, psychological, political or even psychopolitical as Sloterdijk would call it): he (or she) who is angry has lost all fear.

Anger can be a door to freedom. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. Janis Joplin’s catch phrase explains it all. Human dignity resides in freedom. Therefore he who is free has nothing to lose, he who has nothing to lose is free. Even if anger is not a popular affect in our culture,  the philosophical truth is that freedom lies in human nature, that it is in the human nature to desire not only for food and riches, but also for recognition, for honour, and pride. When this longing for dignity and recognition is not met, entire peoples can get angry. And lose fear.

He who loses fear, regains his pride and honour. He who regains his pride and honour has nothing to lose but his freedom. He will defend it with his life if must be. This sequence explains why the words of anger, pride, honour were not out of the air in street interviews and commentaries, and even in slogans: “Here we are, Egyptians, proud again!” read a slogan on Tahrir square quoted on Al Jazeera, on February, 10^th at 7 pm local Belgian time. I noted it down for this article.

Why is it so touching, this slogan? Because it touches a deep string in all of us. Freedom is the base of dignity. A slave can be rich and healthy and well (mostly not, mind you), but has no dignity, cannot be proud. For he is not free. Now the people feel sovereign, free to speak and act. This is the biggest empowerment one can get. No bullets will stop this, even airstrikes can’t stop this.

Peter Sloterdijk’s accusations in his book Zorn und Zeit (Anger and Time) against what he calls ‘Anger Big Banks’ is convincing in his case studies, quite devastating in fact: his cases being the church and communism – but wrong in its premises and conclusions. By taking up Fukuyama’s theme and linking it to Nietzchean resentment, he casts an almost solely negative light on anger. The Days of Anger, from Tunisia to Syria, from Egypt to Libya to Yemen, etc. prove him wrong. Anger can be a very positive force in history as the days of anger in the Arab world prove. 

A witness from Cairo on February 18^th on Skype: “The repression is massive, and will only rise by the days ... scary. This era is mad. Full of mixed hope and anxiety, I have this unbreakable smile with eyes filled with tears at times.” Libya is a matter of concern. But whatever Khadafy does, or any other leader in the Middle East for that matter, as somebody said from Tripoli on Al Jazeera (on February 23th): “The wall of fear has fallen, the spring of Arab youth has began.”

And we haven’t seen the end of this. Even China is weary and cracking down on activists – there it is ‘jasmine’ that has been the key word: they censured the word jasmine on the internet – can you imagine? Can you imagine a more innocent word? I can understand (not agree) that authorities censure words like porn, bomb, terrorism, but Yasmine. I mean. I think it is the practical joke of the year. World historically ridiculous.  But indeed, the Chinese call their days of anger and protest “jasmine walks”. And indeed: the authorities are wetting their pants. They are scared like hell for this fertile spring breeze blowing from the Mediterranean. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Everywhere Tahrir Square!

Lieven De Cauter is a philosopher, writer and activist. He teaches philosophy of culture (in Leuven, Brussels and Rotterdam). His latest books: The Capsular Civilization. On the City in the Age of Fear (2004) and, as co-editor, Heterotopia and the city (2008); Art and activism in the Age of globalization (2011). He is initiator of the BRussells Tribunal.

Congratulations To The Lebanese!

By Abdullah Iskandar
This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 10/04/2011

 

The Lebanese have succeeded, and what success, at stripping the body of their state of flesh and fat, and proceeding to eat at its nerves. And some of them these days are quarreling over shreds of its broken skeleton.

They have succeeded, and what success, at destroying a social semi-fabric that was once in agreement. They have become openly divided into sects, regions and families, each with its own stances, concerns, programs and wars. The fig leaf has fallen off, after some had tried to hide their faces with it, under the cover of national unity, shared fate, coexistence, etc.

There are no longer some who hide behind mutual lies such as consensus and middle-ground solutions to save the country. Destroying what remains of the country and breaking down what remains of the state’s bones has become an openly declared goal. The slogan of internal stability is no longer reinforced by keeping the country away from regional conflicts. In fact, the declared slogan has become that of getting dragged into such conflicts and driving towards them.

On the background of such declared division, does not Hezbollah, for example, ask itself what it would do if it were to succeed at taking control of the country, at a time when the Sunnis and half of the Christians oppose it? Does not the Future Movement, for example, ask itself how it can govern a country at a time when the Shiites and the other half of the Christians oppose it? Do not the Free Patriotic Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party, as well as other political groups that are engaged in this conflict, ask themselves about the role and the position they would have in case one side triumphs over the other?

Do they not ask themselves about the meaning of the merciless battles currently being waged and about their results? And do they not ask themselves in the first place about the meaning of burying the country’s constitution, the Taif Agreement, and after it the Doha Agreement as well as the National Dialogue Table and its decisions?

Because all of these questions find no answers among those parties, Lebanon is witnessing today this exceptional phenomenon of political debate turning from the complications of forming a new government cabinet to outbidding in stances towards Iran, denouncing or supporting it. In fact, such stances are turning into the nexus of internal division. There is nothing new about the Lebanese disagreeing over a stance on a foreign country, yet what is new this time is how exhausting what remains of the state and claiming to speak in the name of all the Lebanese are coinciding. Each side is now dealing with itself, and with both the domestic and foreign scene, as if it were the heir to the collapsed state.

The stance on Iran involves particular sensibilities, but there are those same parties quarrelling over these very same remnants, in dealing with the tragedy of the Lebanese community in the Ivory Coast as in dealing with the problem of Roumieh Prison. And with the same eagerness in which Iran was denounced or supported, accusations were exchanged on a sectarian background.

There is nothing new about sectarian disputes in Lebanon that have always been connected to a struggle over shares in the single state. And forms of compromise were often able to be found for these struggles. What is new this time is involving the struggle in this historical crisis across the region, making the compromises organically connected to it. In other words, it makes such compromises out of reach for this small country, in which any dominance becomes oppression that cannot bear its continued pluralism.

The region is leaning towards sectarian division and violence in expressing it, in a manner unprecedented in modern times. And Lebanon is likely to be the eye of the storm, since its citizens are racing to join such division, after they have abandoned all safety valves in order to safeguard their country’s stability.

‘Steps’ Taken To Protect Bahrain

By Ahmed al-Jarallah

This commentary was published in The Arab News on 11/03/2011

Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa has laid down a comprehensive national plan to reform the society. This came after a few wayward groups put the Kingdom of Bahrain to a series of difficult tests to implement the agenda of Iran. Tehran has been interfering in the internal affairs under the pretext of protecting Shiites in Bahrain as if it is an agent of this sect in the region. Maybe, it has failed to realize that the relationship of some political groups with the Mullahs regime does not mean all the Shiites are affiliated and loyal to the Persian government. Prince Salman shed light on the issue when he made a clear distinction between those who want to ruin the country and the ordinary people from all sections of the community. He has also emphasized the need to prevent division that weakens the country.

The greatest pain for the Crown Prince, the Bahrainis and the Gulf nationals is the barbaric conspiracy to drag the nation towards chaos and destruction, which are unacceptable for both the Bahrainis and non-Bahrainis. The Bahraini government, under the leadership of King Hamad bin Issa Al-Khalifa, has taken appropriate steps to protect the whole nation. The King used national loyalty as the basis in dealing with everybody and the law in dealing with the instigators of public revolt, because the unity and stability of Bahrain are greater than any other issue. The natural path of reform was defined through the initiatives of King Hamad 10 years ago and it remains the ultimate goal of the regime until now. He has empowered the national institutions to implement reforms.

The speech of Prince Salman came at a perfect time when a few destroyers have exhausted their agendas and tested their strength, thinking they can topple the King through their swords and lies to pave the way for Iran to invade Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. However, their scheme failed and Iran cannot do anything because their aspiration is bigger than the abilities and powers of Iran. The whole world has seen the truth clearly, especially the wise and responsible steps taken by the Bahraini leadership to prevent the minority from misleading the Bahrainis.

Some shortsighted people thought they can take advantage of the situation but the measures taken by the Bahraini leadership have foiled their schemes and shattered their dreams. Bahrain is now heading towards stability, as announced by the Crown Prince, to the utter dismay of Iran that thought Bahrain will be an easy prey.

After everything that happened, we want to ask those who have sold their countries in exchange for a paltry sum and an illusion: Will Iran send its army to invade Bahrain and GCC countries just to save three, ten or even hundreds of its agents? Or it will rather leave them on their own to face a similar fate as the other agents dumped by their masters?

Genuine loyalty will always be given to one’s country even if it has done nothing for its citizens. No one should betray his own country. Bahrainis fully understand this, except some groups that represent only themselves. This has prompted the Crown Prince to use the language of tolerance, forgiveness and motivation to build and complete the Bahraini movement towards reform in addressing his people. He has realized that this is the language the people understand, so he deals with all the children of the nation equally, but he does not tolerate those who have deviated from the right path and have nothing in mind but to divide Bahrain.

Some Arab Leaders In A State Of Denial

Fawaz Turki writes: Their people crave to live in communities similar to those around the world with an established rule of law
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 10/04/2011

The evident fact: In several countries in the Arab world, ordinary Arabs' alienation from their social, political and economic life had reached a critical mass. The end result: In an outpouring of this sentiment, these ordinary Arabs took to the streets demanding the ouster of regimes that had denied them their right to a decent life, liberty and, well yes, the pursuit of happiness.

The official explanation: The b***h set them up.  The b***h in question refers to the time back in 1990 when Mayor Marion Barry, caught red-handed, in an FBI sting operation, smoking crack cocaine with a lady friend (who had been cooperating with the Feds) exploded: "The b***h set me up". Never mind that Barry, the mayor of Washington, DC, the most influential capital in the world, was breaking the law by smoking crack, a felony offence. What mattered to him was that he was ‘set up'.

 So it is with a great many of these Arab leaders today whose regimes have been toppled, or are about to be, in this remarkable, indeed historic, Arab Spring, leaders who have opted to blame others for the spontaneous uprisings in their countries, rather than see them as genuine expressions of mass discontent and a call by their people for social justice and freedom.

Soon after Tunisians rose up in revolt against his regime, the now ousted Tunisian president Zine Al Abidine Bin Ali blamed the rebellion on ‘outside agitators' and ‘terrorists'. To former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, the mass of people gathered in Tahrir Square were organised by ‘Islamist radicals', hidden forces' and other shady characters with a nefarious agenda. In Yemen, according to the country's head of state, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the tens of thousands of demonstrators calling for the ouster of his regime, were in like manner ‘misguided elements', ‘foreigners' and ‘armed groups' who promoted ‘outside interests' inimical to Yemen's progress. And in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, ‘the brother leader', comically explained that the uprising in his country was fomented by ‘Al Qaida elements' who were distributing alcohol and hallucinogenic drugs to the rebels in Benghazi, presumably turning its streets into a latter-day Haight-Ashbury.

Now it is the Syrian regime's turn to give Syria's own nascent protest movement, which broke out in Daraa, Damascus, Hama, Latakia and other cities, its own brand name. In a much anticipated speech recently, delivered before assembled members of parliament, the Syrian president blamed the unrest on ‘dupes' and ‘plotters' who were conspiring with unnamed outside agents to ‘divide and weaken' Syria, the ‘champion of Arab nationalism'. He did not, as had been hoped by pro-democracy activists, announce the repeal of Syria's ‘emergency rules' that, for almost five decades, had stifled civil liberties, suppressed the public debate and guaranteed a monopoly on political life by the ruling Baath Party. About the demonstrations in Daraa, where dozens were killed by security forces, he told legislators, presumably with a straight face: "The people of Daraa are the people of patriotism and the people of pan-Arab nationalism, [for] they would not have risen up had they not been tricked." At this you simply roll your eyes.

Freedom of expression

One thing is plain: Arabs, especially those living in impoverished and repressed societies, have reached the limits of their human endurance. They crave to live in communities similar to those others around the world with an established rule of law, where political leaders are held to account for their actions, and where citizens need not fear retribution for openly expressing their views. Such societies acquiesce to the idea of free public discourse not only because it is guaranteed by the law of the land, but because their political culture values the notion that freedom of expression is a necessary function of a dynamic, strong and progressive polity. As Charles Bradlaugh, the 19th century activist and parliamentarian wrote: "Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech."

In the face of it all, these modern-day heads of state — long consumed by their self-image as indispensable ‘brother leaders' whose citizens are forever expected to obey rather than think — are in denial, a well-known affliction in therapy where a person, faced with a fact too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it outright, insisting that it is not true, despite what may be overwhelming evidence to support its verity.

These self-aggrandising rulers in question ("Brother Leader Muammar Gaddafi", a government spokesman in Tripoli grandiosely told foreign reporters last Sunday, "belongs not only to Libyans, he belongs to humankind") continue to want to deny that reality is real, that the Arab Spring has arrived, and that from it a thousand ideas will bloom, if not in this decade, then in the next generation.

Well, if these Arab leaders, who are in denial, can't swallow facts, let them eat fiction. And we'll see for how long that will sustain them.

Fawaz Turki is a journalist, lecturer and author based in Washington. He is the author of The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile.