Munaeem's Blog

By Sawan al Atbah

Some analysts theorize that Syria is behind the latest crisis in Lebanon. Some say that the present crisis has arisen because of wrong polices of US and Saudi Arabia.

Theory 1:

Syria is behind the behind the Group that is fighting with the Lebanese forces.

People say they engineered the present crisis to disrupt the proceedings of Hariri Tribunal proceedings.

The Question is : Why would Syria want to destabilize Lebanon ?

They are already in good negotiating position.

Syria plays a major role to suppress the region´s most feared groups, al-Quaida and al-Quaida affiliated organizations. Syria since long is struggling with that problem internally and not only cracks down on somehow democratic groups in the country but more so on any kind of Sunni Muslim movements who have a highly mobilizing potential in Syria and of course consider the ruling Alawite class as heretics. Both are natural enemies.

Theory 2 :

According to reports , Iran wants that  US should stop supporting Sunnite groups in Lebanon, if it wants its help in stabilizing Iraq.

US has asked Lebanese government to dismantle the militia by force due to talks with Iran,  which is demanding a trust before acting in Iraq to calm down the situation.

In my opinion Lebanon is once again sliding towards civil war because of US policies.

The Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, one of Syria's most virulent critics, has alleged that Fatah al-Islam is a 'Syria's proxy,' while the exiled Abd al-Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice-president who now heads an opposition movement dedicated to the overthrow of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, has stated categorically that 'Syria is responsible.'

Proof, however, is lacking. Interrogation of captured members of Fatah al-Islam might yield some evidence of a Syrian connection but, for the moment at least, the evidence seems to point in quite another direction.

The aid is clearly aimed at strengthening the Lebanese government headed by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.

However, Politicians, diplomats and refugees have warned that violence might spread throughout Lebanon in the wake of the heavy-handed tactics of Lebanese forces in combating Fatah al-Islam.

Electronic Lebanon

A survey of US television and radio news over the last 24 hours has told me the following:

- Bombings and gunfights in Lebanon. Again.

- Breathless analyses on US news programs about Al-Qaida's spread to the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

- Analysts using the "cookie cutter" approach to this new development by citing the events of 1975-1976 and the tensions between Lebanese and Palestinian refugees.

- CNN's putative Lebanon analyst, Brent Sadler, characterized Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as "breeding grounds for terrorism," but now, according to Mr. Sadler, it's Islamic-flavored terrorism.

This is all very ominous, anxiety-provoking and compelling "infotainment" -- and completely in line with the distorted views of US foreign policy makers.

Such simplistic and knee-jerk reactions to Lebanon's current travails are too easy, and not up to the standards of good and responsible journalism.

I've spent much of the past 48 hours trying to get a better grasp on what is really going on in Tripoli. It's not easy to do, and it occured to me this morning that this may, in fact, be the story: the difficulty of interpreting these events stems from the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the ways that dramatic changes throughout the region, and indeed, the world, are echoing through Lebanon's war-damaged sociopolitical landscape.

Yesterday, Robert Fisk, the veteran war correspondent and author of the best book on Lebanon's decades of agony, Pity the Nation, observed in The Independent that:

"Not since the war -- yes, the Lebanese civil war that we are all still trying to forget -- have I heard this many bullets cracking across the streets of a Lebanese city. ... The bloody events in Lebanon yesterday passed so swiftly -- and so dangerously for those of us on the streets -- that I am still unsure what happened."

Well, if Robert Fisk is confused, how can Brent Sadler be so sure he knows what is going on in Lebanon? It's easy to point fingers at Syria, to invoke the shadowy and amorphous threat of Al-Qaida, to blame the Palestinians, or (in fine Lebanese fashion) to see a complex and nefarious plot underlying the bloodletting in Tripoli.

Any eruption of large-scale violence in Lebanon is cause for concern, since so many related regional crises are "hot-wired" through Lebanon, and the war that raged there during the last decades of the 20th century was in fact three wars: A local, regional, and international confrontation that intersected and metastasized in horrific ways. For those of us who have lived in, and love, Lebanon, the fear of the 1975-1991 war's return always lurks in the back of the mind.

The events of the last week, however, cannot be explained in relation to that earlier war, nor entirely in relation to the murky mysteries surrounding the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, or even last summer's brutal Israeli assault on Lebanon. Nor are the disturbing developments in Tripoli rooted in Palestinian-Lebanese tensions. Of course, US commentators have been quick to peg the Syrians and Palestinians as the culprits. But that is too simplistic.

What's now happening in Lebanon requires a much more subtle and fine-grained interpretation, one that takes on board the reverberations of political developments from Baghdad to Washington, while attending to emerging social and economic conditions in the Middle East. The situation is much more complicated, fluid, unbounded, and therefore ominous than CNN's "experts" seem to grasp. There are new aspects to the current violence, perhaps most noteworthy is the emergence of a militia in Lebanon that has no clearly delineated connection to any particular family or traditional ethno-confessional leadership in the Lebanese context. There is some new political logic or system at work here, but it is irresponsible to present simple or pat explanations.

Over the next few days, Electronic Lebanon will be providing more insights into, and analyses of, the latest outbreak of conflict in Lebanon. For now, however, I'd like to outline some issues and realities that any comprehensive and valid explanation of this week's events must include:

1. A huge demographic swell of youth is now coming into their majority, and they have no real leadership or clear focus for political action, nor do they see much hope or options in the current political and economic system.

2. Shifting global configurations are key to any explanation of what is happening in Lebanon. Although the US remains the world's leading military power, that is no longer relevant or important to the regional politial system. US influence is on the wane, its status and reputation completely sullied during the last six years of the Bush Administration's disastrous and delusional "War on Global Terror." In fact, the US has now become more of a pariah or liability for the region's elite, particularly in Lebanon, where the government is characterized as "Pro-American, pro-democracy," while the Opposition (led by Hizbullah) is deemed a dangerous terrorist force. Iraq, as well as the horrors in Occupied Palestine, are now "exhibits A and B" in how and why not to trust the US. The US has given not only itself, but the very concept of democracy, a bad name in the region.

3. Although al-Qaida makes the news a lot, I don't think it (whatever "it" is) commands the attention, respect and support in Lebanon or Palestine as does Hizbullah, the only group in the region to successfully challenge and defeat the Israeli Army.

4. Shifting regional oppositions are also key to understanding this week's events in Lebanon. The Palestinian movement as an institution, i.e., the movement-turned-establishment of the 1960s-mid-1990s, is no more, although people are still very moved and mobilized by the Palestinian tragedy. Hamas is no longer a unified organization. Leftist groups are weak. Rapidly growing gaps between rich and poor mean that there's not much chance of middle class, broad-based movements for change or reform. But then, those sorts of social movements are usually rooted in national identity and nation-state projects, and the nation state is no longer a big draw, or at least not as big a draw as religion, family, ethnicity -- or movements for justice, usually theologically defined (but not always; Egyptian secular and leftist activism is now back on the streets of Cairo).

5. The largely manufactured tensions between Shi'is and Sunnis in Iraq (or, to be more precise, the "Lebanonization" of Iraq encouraged by the United States) will ultimately reverberate elsewhere, probably to the detriment of US allies like Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Egypt. And for non-allies, or quasi-allies, like Lebanon and Syria, this poses real dangers.

6. The ability of groups like Al-Qaida (and again, I don't think that this group exists in the way that the US government or media present it as existing) to do seriously dramatic actions does not hinge upon grass-roots support. They are not a broad-based movement, but could do (or people claiming to be them could do) major attacks that could influence various players' moves in the region and beyond.

7. It's no longer an "either/or" situation, and maybe it never was. It is not as if people have a choice: pro-US or anti-US. The situation now seems fluid enough that some new groupings and ideologies could emerge, that don't look to either the West or various permutations of political Islam to design a new project.

A major political firestorm may overtake the Middle East this summer. It's hard to predict just how it might start, and harder to predict what it will devour. The time for preventing disasters, such as the one now emerging in Lebanon, is long past, though. The irresponsibility of the United States had a lot to do with this. Although it is hard to define the new forms of leadership and political projects emerging in the Middle East, one thing is certain: they won't be directed from, or funded by, Washington, DC. Nor will they be comprehensible to mainstream US news reporters and analysts who remain blinded by past events or official explanations that tie everything to "terrorism."

Laurie King-Irani is a cofounder of Electronic Lebanon. She teaches social anthropology in Washington, DC. Her blog is Zinjabeelah.

Editorial

dailystar.com.lb 

The violence in Lebanon over the past two days, including the clashes in the North and the bombing near a shopping mall in Beirut, ought to serve as a wakeup call to any Lebanese leader who harbors illusions about the state of affairs in this country. Any honest assessment would conclude that the domestic political context and the security situation have progressed well beyond what could appropriately be termed "difficult." Lebanon's institutions, which were already buckling under the weight of old crises, must now contend with the compounded pressures brought about by new ones. If something is not done soon to address the core political dispute that has weakened the institutions of the state, this country could soon find itself broken beyond repair.

Lebanese leaders simply can no longer afford the luxury of doing nothing to resolve the country's six-month old political crisis. The events in Tripoli and Beirut over the past two days have had repercussions on every aspect of the political sphere and will impact matters ranging from relations with Syria and the Palestinians to the regulation of weapons inside the country and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Even as leaders try to navigate their way through the minefield of these and other issues, the country is careening at full speed toward another crisis over the presidential elections. The situation therefore requires the creation of a united front with the active participation and support of all of the country's communities. In short, the time is long overdue for a unity government.

Christians are fleeing from Lebanon to escape the rise of radical Islam and growing fears that the trend will result in a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war, with minority Christians trapped in the middle.

Of these, more than 100,000 have submitted visa applications to foreign embassies, according to the poll. Their exodus could rob the country of an influential minority, which has acted as an important counterbalance to the forces of Islamic extremism.

About 60,000 Christians have left since the summer’s war between Israel and Hezbollah. Many who remain fear that a violent showdown between rival Sunni and Shi’ite factions is looming. …

There have been an increasing number of reports in the western press recently on Hezbollah's activities in southern Lebanon, specifically in the area north of the Litany River. One of these reports, published by the UK-based 'The Guardian', even cast doubt on the mission of the Lebanese army in the area, where 16,000 soldiers have been deployed.

The report implied that the army is patrolling areas 'off limits' to the international forces. One of Hezbollah's officials, who the paper called 'Ali', was quoted as saying that such areas were sensitive military zones, in which operations are being carried out under agreement between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah.

And while a UNIFIL official admitted that these forces conduct nearly 200 daily reconnaissance patrols in its zone of operations, in coordination with the Lebanese Army, where it was able to destroy rocket launch pads, fortifications, and underground shelters; he confirmed at the same time a marked surge in Hezbollah fighter's activities, especially in the area not covered by the mandate of the international forces These activities include training operations and construction works of new underground facilities.

In a similar report, the UK-based 'The Times' published a report of its correspondent Nicholas Blandford, who has been covering the border area for a long time and knows it well. Blandford quoted Milos Strugar, one of the UNIFIL officers as saying that there are continuous attempts of arms smuggling to the area, and that Hezbollah fighters are constructing a new array of fortifications and expanding facilities that existed before last summer's war.

The UNIFIL officer further said that upon trying to inspect one of these sites, he was challenged by two of Hezbollah's fighters armed with machine guns and equipped with wireless communications equipment. They asked him politely for identification before asking him to leave.

He added that in another spot he saw a sign up on the entrance of one of the fortifications that said: 'Warning. Restricted Access', signed 'Hezbollah'.

At the same time, Hezbollah does not make a secret of its preparations in the South. In an interview with the Associated Press, Hezbollah Deputy Undersecretary Sheikh Naim Kassem said that his fighters were laying down emergency plans in the event of a new Israeli offensive on Lebanon, as part of a potential US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Kassem also confirmed that Hezbollah is taking all the necessary measures to be ready and prepared, and is constantly changing its plans to prevent Israel from uncovering the truth about its true military capabilities, drawing on lessons learned from the experience of the last war.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah corroborated in his last public statement that Hezbollah was ready to back the Lebanese army in the last border clashes with the Israeli troops if it was asked to, which means that Hezbollah was present in advanced military posts in that area.

All this poses a question on the real role of the Lebanese army in the southern area and on the extent of commitment in observing the articles of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which Hezbollah has been saying was "imposed" on it under political circumstances similar to those that led to last summer's war.

The truth is that the Lebanese army is the one in charge in the South for enforcing the sovereignty of the State and eliminating any arms except for the legitimate ones.

The army's mission, however, is marred with sensitivities in this situation, as it is unable to enter into a confrontation and, at the same time, cannot leave the arena to Hezbollah. This role is as sensitive as the role being played in the streets of Beirut.

In an extended interview to Annahar newspaper, Army Chief Gen. Michel Suleiman complained about shortages of equipment and the absence of a defense policy. Speaking of the resistance's arms, he reiterated that 'The issue of the resistance is to be settled among the people of Lebanon'. Since the issue of the resistance's arms is controversial, the chief of the army, who reiterated in his statements his respect to the State's institutions, should have left the decisions on this issue to the political leadership.

Much has been circulated on the army's role in the recent clashes in Beirut, and over its 'leniency' toward the riots that took place. Regardless of the interpretations of this role, the situation in the South remains more complex and does not lend itself to subjecting the security situation there to the haggling over political agendas, since any new confrontation would be extremely costly for this country and may not end in a 'victory' similar to what happened last summer.