[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Fadi A Khalik
Date: 09 May 1999
Time: 09:06:46
Remote Name: 209.162.24.13
Remote User:
Dear Sir,
Phoenician?!!!
You must be veeery old then !!! Hence you have my respects.
I read your postings on this forum. Accordingly allow me to make the following observations:
1. Resources:
I followed your links and went to your site.
A lot of information, great.
Very few references (Not so great).
I think you would agree with me that any intelligent person would want to investigate the truth and not just take as is being fed to him/her. In order to do so, we need to trace the alleged truth to its original sources. It is only then that one can make an objective and intelligent judgement, Right?
I looked very hard and the only two sources of information I could detect on your site were:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
And, The Middle East Quarterly Bulletin.
I wouldn't blame you for that, though. You probably wanted to write about the history of our beloved land and people and the only resources you could find were American Think Tanks based in Washington. That might be due to the sad lack of other non-biased resources at your disposal. (Like Philip Hitti, Kamal Saliba, Assad Al Ashkar, and many others!!!)
Allow me to closely examine those two sources of information you relied upon to build your entire logic.
A. Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
One of the many so called "Think Tanks" in Washington. As most of the other think tanks, the Washington Institute is controlled and directed by a collection of Jewish scholars that are in direct link with the AIPAC organization in Washington D.C. (The Largest and most effective lobbying group for Israel).
The Institutes director, Robert Satloff, had many publications in which he tried to present a one sided biased opinion. In his team of esteemed researchers are:
Ze'ev Schiff (Ha'aretz) Ehud Ya'ari (Israeli TV)
Add to that list of Jewish scholars Michael Eisenstadt, Alan Makovsky and David Schenker.
B. The Middle East Quarterly:
Editor - Daniel Pipes, and who does not know Daniel Pipes. An adamant pro-Israel, anti Arab Ph.D. holder who never wastes a chance at playing down any idea of unity in the Middle East that would stand to pose a threat to the existence of Israel and its interests.
In his book, Greater Syria, Dr. Pipe's research methods lacked any field studies, source documents and basic references. Instead he relied in his accusations on false papers and confused several issues and subjects.
Joining Dr. Pipes in his esteemed publication are editors of the same caliber (Eliyahu Kanovsky, Fouad Ajami, etc..).
I don't blame you, however. Maybe the lack of other objective resources made you resort to the writing of people such as Kanovsky, Pipes, Eisenstadt, Makovsky, Schenker, Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari.
Now who would know better about the 7000 years of Lebanese history than these Jewish Scholars?
Who can better teach us about our Phoenician origin than a Ha'aretz reporter and an Israeli anchor?
Who can better explain the Fascism of the SSNP than a Polish Jew and an American Zionist?
2. History:
I hope that you would agree with me that, when reading history, you are never reading facts as they occurred in the past. You are instead a historian's interpretation of those facts.
Hence, when we talk about history, let us try and avoid taking things as matter of facts.
Let us rather examine these alleged facts, analyze them and then try to get a clearer picture of the situation and the related event.
3. Your School of Thought:
I noticed from your articles that you tend to adopt a school of thought that exists in Lebanon that calls for a "Lebanese Nation" and then goes and tries to collect bits and pieces here and there to support that claim.
Those who advocated this school, in their difficult attempt to find logical and historical grounds for their claims, have resorted, intentionally or not, to distorting History and twisting its facts to suit there desires.
"It is clear that the Lebanese question can only be sectionally justified. The Lebanese question is not based on the existence of Lebanon as something independent, nor on the existence of a separate Lebanese homeland, or even on an independent Lebanese history. Its only basis is religious party partisanship and theocracy." (Saada)
In that regard, please allow me to refer you to the following link (since you like links so much).
Saadeh and Lebanese Particularism (By Dr. Adel Beshara)
Finally, I thank you for allowing us to shed some light on these generally misleading issues that you brought up.
We are forever grateful.
Regards
Fadi A Khalik