Ayoon wa Azan (Differences are More Useful than Agreement)

I receive many letters from members of the Syrian opposition, and a smaller number from regime loyalists. The opposition holds the regime responsible for everything and would blame it even for bad weather, if possible, while the loyalists deny everything, as if the people who die every day have committed suicide! I will not try to change anyone's convictions, but I will try to do something useful. Let's start with corruption, which, as I have noticed, many dissidents talk about as if they discovered it only yesterday. There is the Corruption Perceptions Index, and while this is nothing sacred, it is close to the truth. Syria occupies 127th place of out of 178 countries (Lebanon has the same ranking, as we are united with Syria, it seems, even in corruption). The indicator shows that corruption is more widespread in poor Arab countries, and less in richer ones, which occupied the top four places. Reader Mohammed (his last name indicates that he is from Saudi Arabia) told me how he and his family members pay bribes to process their passports, or pay 50 or 100 Syrian Pounds to traffic policemen, to avoid tickets for violations that did not happen. This is the easy part of it. In Syria, there was someone responsible for the Customs Authority who "sold" the Syrian borders to smugglers for an hour or two, during which he would pull out customs officers, so that goods could enter freely, including drugs or weapons. More importantly, and I hope that this will be useful to readers, is the issue of having a difference in opinion; differences are more useful than agreement, because opinions are exchanged. If we are in agreement, there is no reason for me to write, and no one would need to read. I honestly welcome every difference of opinion, and also warn against attributing the other person's opinion to the person having been paid off. This is something that should be based on evidence, and the person making this claim should be held legally responsible. I have a clear example in mind. I saw an article written by Fadi Akkoum in Al-Watan newspaper and asked the secretary to search for the country of the newspaper in question. She told me it was from the United States, in California. The article did not require a response for me, except for a few words that should involve prosecution. The writer can have an opinion that differs from mine, or is completely opposed to mine. However, he does not have the right to say my relationship to the family of Asma Akhras and her father involves "intensive financial and social relations." This is not strange coming from "one of the people who get a white envelope at the airport" [i.e. one who receives cash bribes] Akkoum is a despicable liar. The former term represents my opinion, which is my right to express, where I live (London). But the word "liar" is information, which should be true. He says that my stance on Asma (Akhras) Assad is based on financial reasons, and that there is a white envelope at the airport. I say that he is a liar, and the British courts are eligible to decide. Everyone who wants to file a suit for libel and slander goes there; London has become known as the "capital of libel and slander tourism." Under either positive or divine law, the accuser must prove the charge. Akkoum should prove the existence of a financial relationship of any kind with Dr. Fawwaz Akhras. If he can, he will receive financial compensation, since I am accusing him of lying. More importantly, I will pay the court the costs borne by both sides, which usually run in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. If he loses, he will pay me compensation for the damage to my reputation, and the lawyers' fees. Thus, I challenge him, if he is a man, to sue me before British courts. They are known to lean always toward the plaintiff, and I allow these courts to decide who is lying and who is not. I do not think that the writer is a man, but rather a political and media adolescent. He has done the impossible in making an accusation that reflects his intentions. I work at a newspaper owned by Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdel-Aziz, and the prince is a personal friend, before the fact that I work with him. If I needed money, logic says that I would ask him. If I wanted to get involved in "business," the same logic would apply, namely that I would try to get involved with the prince, because if we lose, he will bear the losses, and if we win, I will get my share. I say to readers, I have never gotten involved in "business" of any kind, since I rely only on the income from my profession, journalism. When I go to the bank I take my daughter with me, so she can explain what they are telling me. And then this idiot comes along, making moral pronouncements about people and claiming I am involved in some sort of business, which exists only in his imagination. If he objects to what I have written, I welcome it. And if he publishes an opinion opposed to mine, this is his right. My only objection is to an accusation that is silly and hurtful to its author, to whom I say: Meet me in court, if you are a man.