As Lebanon moves closer to announcing its unity cabinet, a lot of people are complaining about the length of time it has taken to get this far.

It is now eight weeks since the most hotly fought elections in Lebanon’s history. The ruling March 14 coalition held on to power – winning by 55% to 45%. It was a shock win – the Hizbollah-led oppositon was widely expected to sweep to victory.

Hizbollah graciously conceded defeat and March 14′s Sa’ad Al-Hariri was chosen as Prime Minister-designate. And that is when the trouble began.

Before the election, he insisted that the opposition would not be given veto power, as they had before. Many of his surprised and newly-victorious supporters didn’t even want opposition members in the cabinet. What kind of democracy is it where the winners can’t rule the country, they moaned.

And whine and moan is all they have done since. Sore winners.

They hate the fact that Hasan Nasrallah and Michel Aoun seem to be demanding cabinet seats. And they blame THEM for the delay. Eight weeks, they tut.

But if these democracy-lovers looked abroad, they might actually be thankful that it has only taken eight weeks. Most European parliamentary democracies are elected on the basis of proportional representation. That forces winning parties into sometimes uncomfortable coalitions. Those coalitions often take weeks – sometimes months – to form. Some countries even impose a time limit on cabinet formation.

When these coalitions fall apart (normally when one party walks out of the cabinet), the government falls and fresh elections are held. That didn’t happen in Lebanon in 2006 when Hizbollah walked out. Hariri’s party stubbornly held on to power.

In their eight-week wait, the Lebanese democracy-lovers might actually question the nature of the democracy they worship. Lebanon may have one of the most developed political systems in the region (which probably isn’t saying much!) but it is still deeply flawed.

True, the opposition is demanding seats in government, even though they lost. But the opposition WON the popular vote. March 14 picked up fewer votes nationwide than March 8, under an ugly electoral law. It is true that Hizbollah supported that electoral law, but it drives a hole right through March 14′s claims to represent the majority of Lebanese.

The democracy-lovers might also like to question their ‘confessional democracy’. Set up by the French colonial power, the number of seats in parliament for each religious sect and the roles assigned to each sect, is based on the 1932 census. No-one has ever done a census since then because they know the results would be dramatically different.

Based on that terribly outdated study, Christians get half of the seats in Parliament and the office of President, even though today they form between 20% and 40% by even the most optimistic estimates.

The Sunnis get a commanding role too – holding the office of Prime Minister.

The Shia get a quarter of the seats in Parliament, and the token post of Speaker of the House. Which is strange, because the Shia represent a majority in Lebanon.

Hizbollah could demand a new census. Yes, that would give them an instant and permanent majority in parliament. But they are staying silent, and keeping Lebanon’s diverse religious make-up happy.

It’s all about unity. And unity is the reason Hariri is giving the Hizbollah-led opposition space in his government.

So when the democracy-lovers complain about how long it is taking Hariri to form a government. Or how Hizbollah and Michel Aoun are making unreasonable demands, maybe they should remember that March 14 is quite lucky to be the group forming the government.

Today, 15 May 2009, is Blog about Palestine day, marking 61 years since Israeli terrorists ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their homes.

I’m dedicating this post to those who devote their lives to peace and justice in Palestine.

But I want to make a distinction between peace campaigners and those fighting for justice.

Groups like Peace Now just want the fighting to stop. They don’t care too much about the underlying conditions. They are happy to see Gazans remain imprisoned, the massive colonial settlements in the West Bank to stay put, East Jerusalem to remain under military occupation and Palestinians living inside Israel to be treated as fourth-class citizens (after the European/American Jews, the Russian Jews and finally the Arab Jews).

But then there are those who want justice. A true end to the conflict. A withdrawal from land the Israeli Army illegally occupies – in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. A genuine democracy in Israel, where Palestinian Muslims and Christians are given the same rights as Jews. An end to the illegal blockade of Gaza. And the right for Palestinian refugees to return home.

Until there is justice, the least we can do is keep up the pressure for a massive boycott of Israel’s Apartheid. It worked against Apartheid South Africa, and it will work against Apartheid Israel.

Don’t buy Israeli products, call for your country to close their embassy in Tel Aviv, and demand sanctions on Israel now.

The decision by many broadcasters is not based on financial considerations, it is purely political. It can be seen almost anywhere on the planet – except in the home of global democracy.

The American fear all comes down to the pictures AJE broadcasts. They were the only English-language network in Gaza during the January war. 130 million people around the world saw these images – but only a handful in the States did.

There has been little pressure from American viewers to get access to AJE. In fact, some residents in the lucky town of Burlington – one of the few areas to have AJE – campaigned to get the channel taken off their screens.

The amazing thing is, most of these people are judging the network without even watching it. And even if viewers were so disgusted by what they saw – you know, things like Ehud Olmert being interviewed live, or Bush press conferences being broadcast – they could just switch the channel. But no, they want to deny all Americans their constitutional right.

Banning AJE is worse than McCarthyism. Al Jazeera reporters and cameramen have been hunted, jailed and tortured – all without trial – by America. The same America which was appalled to see their beauty queen Roxana Saberi charged and imprisoned in Iran. At least she had the pretense of due process. And was released unharmed a few weeks later.

It is time to free Al Jazeera. It is time to see what all the fuss is about. And then it will be time to make up your own mind.

You can make the difference. If you live in the US, and you want to get AJE, do something about it. They have set up a website which will hassle cable providers into putting AJE on to your screens. Click here, and tell the world – I WANT AL JAZEERA.

In the meantime, watch online.

So Queen Rania is on Twitter (

First Lady Asma Al-Assad may not be on Twitter, but she’s on Facebook. While her southern counterpart has been having fun doing acrobatics in helicopters and calling her husband a “real life action hero” (tell him to put the Playstation down then), Asma has been doing charity work.

She’s just launched the Massar-E project, which helps disadvantaged children learn about technology.

We know which of the two can be seen wondering around their city without hundreds of bodyguards.

I know Rania has just singed up for Twitter so maybe it’s not a fair comparison – but if numbers mean anything, Asma has 9000 fans, Rania has 4000.

He writes a short article for the Independent tonight. It is entitled “Is this the price of America’s new friendship with Syria?” – claiming that the four Lebanese generals were released, letting Syria off the hook, because Obama is getting friendly with Bashar.

But then Fisk says “[UN judge Daniel] Fransen declared – quite correctly in law, it has to be added – that there was, after a four year investigation, “insufficient evidence” to continue the detention of the men.”

So, Mr Fisk, if the decision to release them was “correct in law”, then there was no political fix.

It gets worse. Rime Allaf notices this one. Fisk, boasting of his knowledge of Lebanese politics, states: “Judge Daniel Fransen, of the UN tribunal, declared in the Hague yesterday that the Big Four – how well we know their names in Lebanon – should go free,” but then he spells Jamil As-Sayid’s name as “Jamel Sayed”. How well do we know their names then?

And to top it off, he can’t bring himself to refer to Michel Aoun by name – he is “a weird Christian ex-General”. If anyone is weird in Lebanese politics, surely it is Walid Jumblatt. But when you are so far up March 14′s ass, I guess you can’t see that.