From Beirut to the Beltway

Nasrallah blames Lebanese state, panders to base

Nasrallah went all out defending Hizbullah's intervention in Syria today, vowing a "long battle" and telling the Syrian opposition that they will not succeed in toppling the Assad regime militarily.

 Most strikingly, he blamed the militia's intervention in Qusayr on the Lebanese state's alleged failure to protect Lebanese in Syria. This is the same excuse Hizbullah officials are using to placate their grieving supporters in funerals of fighters killed while fighting other Arabs in Syria.

 So once again, Nasrallah justifies his actions by blaming it on a weak Lebanese state, which, ironically, his group is responsible for weakening. This is a confirmation of Hizbullah's policies: By ensuring the state's institutions are weak, its foreign policy prisoner of Syria and Iran, and by denying democracy from taking its course, Hizbullah can continue to exist as a regional militia that allows itself to intervene military on behalf of Iran in any local, regional or world conflict.

 But if the above is a shameless admission of guilt, it's also a desperate attempt to placate their troops and their families, by pandering to long held beliefs of government neglect and Sunni disregard for Shia religious sensitivities.

 Nasrallah in his speech not only defined the US, Israel, the Arab League and the Syrian opposition as enemies, but also added the Lebanese state, which he said failed to protect Shias living in Syria and to bring back Shia abductees.  He is indirectly telling his followers that their actions in Syria are not dissimilar to kidnapping Israeli soldiers and starting a war over Lebanese prisoners held in Israel.

 This being an existential battle for Hizbullah, which is possibly facing growing resentment from many Shias losing their sons in a jihad they did not subscribe to, Nasrallah reverted to the good old scapegoat technique. It's the Shias vs. the rest, and "everyone else but us is to blame for our misery", which in this case, is self-inflicted. But that's not something Nasrallah will admit, though one hopes some Lebanese Shias will finally get. 

Related articles

Hizbullah's Syrian jihad and the irony of it all

Foreign Policy article misses the mark on Iranian Syrian relations

Interesting article about the rise and fall of Imad Mughniyeh. But I question the sources responsible for the part below.  Mark Perry tried to paint a complex Syrian/Iranian relationship. I get things weren't rosey during Hafez's reign. But after the 2005 Hariri assassination, the Hizbullah war of 2006 and the 2007 Syrian-sponsored Fateh al-Islam war on Lebanon, the following is really hard to swallow:

Relations soured further after the 2006 Lebanon war. Facing domestic economic pressures as a result of U.S.-imposed sanctions, the Syrian president pursued deeper ties with the West -- over Iranian objections. "I want to make this clear: Syria views itself as a Mediterranean country," Imad Moustapha, then Syria's ambassador to the United States, pointedly told me in 2007. "We look west -- not east. We look to America for leadership." The statement, shocking at the time, reflected Syria's desire to normalize relations with Washington -- a fact that discomfited Tehran.

Hezbollah had its own problems with Damascus. Movement leaders were bitter about Syria's February 2007 decision to open a communications channel with Israel through Turkey, and with Assad's decision to send the Sunni Islamist militants of Fatah al-Islam into the Lebanese city of Tripoli, where they sparked a bitter conflict in a Palestinian refugee camp in May 2007 that claimed hundreds of lives. Syria's move in Tripoli roiled Hezbollah leaders, who accused Assad of purposely attempting to destabilize the Lebanese government -- at their expense. "We know who's responsible for Tripoli, even if you and your journalist friends don't," a Hezbollah official told me at the time.

Ties between Damascus and Hezbollah reached a low point that September when Israeli jets bombed Syria's clandestine nuclear reactor under construction in the country's north and Assad's regime refused to respond militarily. In private, a senior Hezbollah leader with whom I spoke accused Syria of "flirting with the Zionists."

Yeah, no.

The Hariri assassination in 2005 ushered in a new era in the region: the complete transformation of the Assad regime into an Iranian satellite. Quoting Imad Mustapha is no evidence to the contrary. 

Hizbullah bitter about Fatah al-Islam because it "destabilized" the Lebanese government "at their expense"? 

In 2007, and the years before and after, Hizbullah wasted no effort to destabilize and undermine the Lebanese government. It culminated in an invasion and occupation of downtown Beirut.  Just hit this blog's archives. 

Hizbullah cared about two things: its weapons, and role as "resistance". Was Nasrallah pissed off Assad did not respond after the Israeli strike?  

He did respond: through Hizbullah. 

Hizbullah's Syrian jihad and the irony of it all

Much to their chagrin, Hizbullah's jihad culture is no longer giving them "divine victory", but sprouting Arab enemies.

 Not far from where they once fought the Israeli occupiers, a pseudo Sheikh and Nasrallah wannabe declared it was the religious duty of every "Muslim" (read: every Sunni) to enter into Syria to wage jihad, and help them "defend" Syrians against Hizbullah's own jihad there.

 Hizbullah might not think much of this challenger. But the irony should not be lost on anyone. "Defense" has always been the name of their game. They had branded themselves as a "resistance" engaged in "defending" against enemies from a different creed.

 The events in Syria have reduced them into their essence: a militia taking orders from another state and selling them as "jihad".

 One wonders if it had entered their calculations that one day, this "jihad" will backfire. That the very people they claimed to defend against the far enemy would rise against them, using the same method.

 And one wonders if, when they lent a hand to al-Qaeda in the 1990s, to help them find their legs as they fought a common enemy, they thought that this very force will one day revert to seeing them as nothing but "rafidah".

 As the Assad regime implodes, so is the concept of jihad.  And as the Arab spring slowly shows Arabs in Egypt and Tunisia that theocracy is the way backward, not forward, the people of the Levant, with a little help from Jabhat al-Nusra, Hizbullah and their copycats, will begin to see jihad for what it's always been: a destructive force that catapults them backward.

 In 2006, a singer called Julia Boutros turned a Nasrallah speech into a music video showing children morphing into fighters.

 Those fighters are now dying in Syria, fighting other Arabs. 

 This must not have been the future Julia and Nasrallah had envisioned. But it is the result of the jihad and death culture they popularized.

 That Hizbullah is getting a taste of its own medicine. That Iran is having to explain how it could both harbor al-Qaeda at home and fight them abroad. That the Assad regime, which spent decades cultivating and nourishing extremists to use as cards against their foes, is now having to hide in the very holes it once buried people in, for fear of getting blown up to pieces. That all this is happening is very, very ironic.

 The other irony is Lebanon's role in all of this. The country, it seems, is turning from a stage for world conflicts, into a player in an inter-jihadist conflict, fielding fighters and weapons to feed warring parties.

 It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. But, and in many ways, it's "jihad" blowing up in the faces of those who thought it could deliver them a better future.

 Tough times are ahead. But as comedian Bassem Youssef said, "theocracy is like measles, you need to get it once to get immunity for life".

"Motivated by religion"

Boston holds a special place in my heart. For a long time, I called it my earthly heaven. It's where I matured intellectually and emotionally, and where I started to shed my faith in man-made religion. 

 You will never see me defend religion on this blog, especially not Islam, the religion with which I grew up.  Religions, in my opinion, deserve to be deconstructed and treated as man-made constructs, put in the context of history and never, ever, allowed to transpose values from a day long gone, to the present.

 Watching the media coverage of the Boston bombings was painful at times. Not only because this is my home city in so many ways, but because of phrases like "motivated by religion" thrown around like the answer to age old questions about what motivates violence.

 The two brothers were Muslim. They watched extremist videos. Therefore, they were motivated by Islam to blow up a child watching marathoners.

 Such reductionist logic is especially hard to bear by someone, though divorced from the daily practice of religion, was raised to use religion as a force to be "good" to one's family and neighbors, and as a guide to surviving the demands of traditional society. Back when my relatives loosely inflicted religious deterrents on me, I was never told that I should harm people. Even when I got caught in the middle of a sectarian war, I don't think I ever thought the reason Christians were kidnapping my relatives, or Muslims bombing Christian neighborhoods, was because they differed on how Jesus was crucified.  

 My point is: I learned, early on, to pin it on the people reading the book, not the book itself. 

 This might not be the view of the majority of people, who like to categorize others by the religious views they hold, and judge them according to how they understand those views, which sometimes contradict their own.   This applies to both sides of this unfortunate "conflict". You have Islamist extremists thinking they are doing God a favor by justifying murder using his alleged words. And you got people on the other side with their selective reading of history, blinded by their perceived intellectual advancement, ready to blame an entire religion for the fault of the few who lack non-religious justification for essentially man-inspired evil.

 Blaming the Boston bombs on "religious motivation" only reinforces the ideas of the attackers. They espoused views that innocent civilians can be killed because they belonged to an evil nationality, or creed. So when we lump them with millions of others who have seen comparable tragedies, but who otherwise are peaceful, we prove the following true: that this world is nothing but tribes of differing faiths, and that thousands of years of technological advancement and sophisticated communications did little to erase human prejudice.

 When even The Huffington Post, a publication representing both the best and worst of online media, sees no shame in advancing "motivated by religion" explanations, it becomes apparent that this so called global village is failing to support a universal set of values. And this could be because technology, instead of helping us empathize with each other, has turned us into lazy individuals who allow one man's reading of the book to dominate our understanding of what it means to be human. 

The other delusion

Michael Young's latest editorial, "The Obama Delusion", on the US President's alleged unresponsiveness to events in the Middle East, Syria in particular, is one of many penned by Young and others recently, criticizing the US's supposed failure to "lead" in the region.

 I am not going to defend US foreign policy here. I do, however, take issue with the campaign to paint the US as inactive, uninterested, or "amoral".

 No self-respecting country in the world will look outwards without paying attention to its own interests. It is unrealistic of Lebanese, and others advocating a different policy approach, to expect this nation to "lead" or solve problems outside the scope of the national interest. 

 There is another kind of delusion rampant in some "expert" circles. The one that expects this nation to help people who will not help themselves, and who would rather wait for intervention, American or divine, to guide themselves and their people out of their own problems. The one that sees events through a defunct prism, in complete disregard of history and the realities of the world, where no one nation possesses a magic wand to cure wars and conflicts.

 There are many priorities a leader inherits. Many decisions have to be made, and none of them are made in isolation of others. I would like to see pundits aiming their loaded words at more difficult targets, and stop dreaming of the great wizard who in one flick of the wand, can change hearts and minds, and bring about peace outside the walls of his nation.  

Let Mikati fall

As tempting as it is to lambast March 14 over their lack of imagination, critics of the movement's demands to bring down the Mikati government need to take a chill pill.

While there's some validity to the argument that the alliance is alienating past and potential allies, everyone needs to take a step back and look at the big picture.

There really is nothing left for March 14 to do except call for the downfall of this government and Najib Mikati in particular. The last thing Saad Hariri wants is for Mikati to consolidate his status as both a Sunni leader and a front for Hizbullah's various plots.

Those who believe Mikati could potentially be useful for March 14 miss the point. Mikati is a facade. He is an impotent figure who is serving to castrate Saad Hariri and eliminate any opposition to Hizbullah. He also serves to further weaken Hariri's standing on the Sunni street, which is already angry over the unchecked trespasses of Hizbullah.

Hizbullah moved the goal post a long time ago: First when they baited Aoun, and then when spooked Jumblatt out of March 14 and successfully installed Mikati as PM. Saad Hariri had to leave the country and watch as the Lebanese government slipped away from March 14's reach.

After al-Hassan's killing, Hariri's only security lifeline in the capital was eliminated, and indeed, any real security opposition to Hizbullah. Saad's chances of ever going back are minimal, and he is now officially reduced to an angry Twitter user.

Hariri's Twitter outburst last week was telling. He feels cornered and betrayed. Jumblatt has chosen to temporarily protect himself and his region by agreeing to keep Mikati afloat, and consequently Hizbullah's cover. It is one thing to be critical of the Assad regime, but another to up the ante against the militia that controls your livelihood. These are Lebanon's new rules post Mikati, and Jumblatt is a good player.

Hariri, on the other hand, has nothing to gain from keeping Mikati, especially after losing al-Hassan. We would be mistaken to believe that the current prime minister and the president can offer Hariri a way back into the country, or that any agreement with them could bolster his chances to stay politically relevant.

Look no further than Hizbullah's recent drone episode over Israel, which was admittedly used to spy on behalf of Iran. Here you have the Iranian-run militia continuing with its project without a single peep from the Mikati government. This confirms that Hizbullah sees this government, and the local politics that surround it, as conduits for their anti-Israel, pro-Iran agenda.

March 14 is undoubtedly in an extremely delicate position. They suddenly found themselves in a lose-lose situation.  For that, their critics need to keep an eye on the bigger picture.

If the aim is to weaken Hizbullah's grip, then bringing down this government is by all means a step in the right direction, albeit not a complete one.

But if folks want to maintain the status quo and hope for a solution through the current cabinet, then here's the risk they have to consider: the cabinet or a Mikati-led variation of it will continue to provide an official Lebanese government cover for Hizbullah's operations outside the country, both in Syria and Israel.

I am inclined to side with March 14 on this one: Let Mikati fall. The anti-Hizbullah opposition and its supporters need a psychological victory, and the Iranian-led militia needs to be forced to recalculate. 

Aoun surrogate calls FBI "intelligence agency"

This is ignorance you voted for, Lebanese people.

Change and Reform bloc MP Simon Abi Ramia said on Saturday the US FBI team that arrived in Beirut earlier this week could have been in Lebanon before Internal Security Forces intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan was assassinated on October 19. 

“The US intelligence agency, FBI, was present in Lebanon before Hassan was assassinated,” the lawmaker told OTV.  [Now Lebanon]

Not only is the FBI NOT an intelligence agency (that would be CIA), but Abi Ramia's insinuation that the FBI is useless or, if you want further interpret his remarks, played a role in the assassination, is just laughable, at a time his boss was caught on video threatning and predicting the death of the ISF official. 

Lebanese interior minister predicts outcome of al-Hassan investigation

With speculation rife in the Lebanese media about who killed Wissam al-Hassan, the ISF released a statement saying that most of the reported information is inaccurate and urging the media not to publish information that could disrupt the course of the investigation and cause citizen confusion. 

Tell this to the ISF's big boss, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel. According to Now Lebanon, here's what he said yesterday:

Lebanese Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said on Wednesday that the preliminary outcome of the inquiry into the assassination of Internal Security Forces intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan could be inconclusive.

“It is possible that the leads reached in the investigation [are inconclusive],” Charbel told MTV.

“The judiciary are not excluding any possibility, including Israel’s involvement or of those implicated in the case of ex-Information Minister Michel Samaha [who was arrested on charges of plotting terror attacks in Lebanon],” he added.

So instead of blaming the media, I suggest the ISF plug its own leaks, beginning with the minister, who is predicting that the investigation will fail and is listing Israel as a suspect. I mean if you're going to get candid with people, at least respect their intelligence and put matters in context, or just respect the investigation and speak when you have the facts. 

This is, mind you, days after some judge who arrived at the scene shortly after the explosion declared that the blast completely destroyed the evidence. 

I feel sorry for the FBI team that will travel to Lebanon to investigate. The only thing left for them to look at will be Charbel's crystal ball. 

 

Taliban justice in Lebanon [update: army claims fabrication]

Those of you who lived the Lebanese civil war might recall being stopped at checkpoints and asked about your religion. Many Lebanese were kidnapped or killed because they were born Christian or Muslim, or because their IDs reflected their religion. The Lebanese government has since removed religious affiliation from national ID cards, though sectarian tension never really went away. 

An-Nahar today reported the story of a young Shia man who was stopped by a few Taliban-style extremist gunmen in Tariq Jdideh in Beirut on his way to visit relatives in the southern suburb. According to Ihab al-Izzi, he was asked about his sect. When he answered "Lebanese",  one "long-bearded" militant noticed a necklace with an Imam Ali sword dangling from his neck, snatched it and took turns stepping on it along with the other militants.

"Then I was approached by someone wearing Afghan-style clothes, who pulled a long sword and started to want to cut my head off. I screamed 'no, not my head, don't kill me'. When I lifted my left hand to shield my head, he struck my hand and fled with his companions and left me bleeding..." 

Ihab lost fingers but also his faith in the Lebanese army, stationed some 150 metres away and watching the episode. According to al-Izzi, the soldiers did not respond to his calls for help. 

During the investigation at the hospital that finally accepted to admit him, he was told by the investigator that the army soldiers had "orders not to intervene".

Just on Monday, the army command vowed to "stop security breaches and maintain civil order", deploying troops to areas in Beirut and Tripoli.

It remains to be seen if this includes intervention to stop this Taliban-style justice from spreading in the country. 

Photo courtesy of An-Nahar.

Update. I guess this story ruffled some feathers in Lebanon. Future TV is claiming army intelligence arrested al-Izzi on charges of fabricating the story and is currently interrogating him. An-Nahar is also retracting the story.

The reported motive: to get free medical treatment for injuries sustained in a fight in the southern suburb.  

It's quite an elaborate tale to make up and then talk to a reporter about, but what do I know? 

Update 2. Future TV is spinning this as March 8 propaganda that An-Nahar fell for.  

 

On Mikati's resignation and Hizbullah's takeover of Lebanon

One of the tragic outcomes of Hizbullah's gradual takeover of Lebanese institutions since 2005, which became nearly complete with the Najib Mikati government, was the emasculation of the prime minster's post. Today, Mikati is no more influential than your local grocery store cashier.

When he took the post from Saad Hariri, it was clear that he had accepted to become what Michel Aoun became in 2005—a puppet figure, albeit with less return on investment because Mikati is arguably less hungry for power and cash than Aoun is.

So when some in March 14 ask for his resignation, they're going after a largely symbolic win at a time the country needs a more drastic shift in power balance. Whether Mikati stays or leaves, the situation in the country will not change.  The country's institutions, including security forces that are not under the direct command of ISF head Ashraf Rifi and previously Wissam al-Hassan, answer to different bosses. March 14 could return to the cabinet tomorrow, but little will change. Just remember what happened when a March 14 government last tried to challenge Hizbullah's stronghold over security: the Iran-funded militia launched a devastating attack on the capital and laid siege to the PM's headquarters, among other atrocities, and eventually forced the capitulation of Walid Jumblatt. 

Hizbullah acts slowly, and gradually, as opposed to March 14's short sighted knee jerk mode. And over the years, it has succeeded in neutralizing much of March 14's power. When hundreds of thousands of Lebanese took to the streets in 2005, the militia realized that it needed to counter any notion that peaceful change and protests can lead to change. Thus began the deployment of hundreds of thousands of their paid supporters to create the illusion of popular support.  By occupying downtown Beirut, they turned it from a symbol of freedom and unity, into a symbol of occupation and division. And to eliminate the peaceful nature of any counter-Hizbullah protests, they sponsored the arming of street militias like the SSNP and their own people, and launched military assaults on defenseless Lebanese citizens. Most of the ones who once believed in peaceful change now stay home, and those who would rather pick up a gun or throw a Molotov cocktail now go out to "protest". And with Hariri largely broke and out of the country, Sunni Islamists started to rise and take center stage, providing Hizbullah with a useful diversion from the real issues.

In other words, Hizbullah cultivated the sectarian tensions in the country and helped revive dormant militancy in the ranks of its opponents to win the argument against its own militant status.  And it successfully took over everything that matters to insulate itself and its "resistance" agenda.

Being as clueless as ever, March 14 fell into the trap of calling its supporters to the streets to protest the killing of al-Hassan, not realizing the changes that happened to those streets. Long gone are the days when Lebanese "protesters" can be trusted to independently deliver a message. Long gone are the days when the Lebanese "street" can be used to deliver change. It has been manipulated and corrupted beyond recognition. Thanks to Hizbullah's tactics and March 14's colossal electoral blunder in 2005 when they entered into an alliance with Hizbullah-backed Shias, the once peaceful movement of the so-called "Cedar Revolution" is now incapacitated, replaced by a few tire-burning nuts on wheels.

One could argue that the only obstacle to Hizbullah's supreme dominance had been the Information Branch led by al-Hassan before his assassination. It's probably the only database that Hizbullah did not have access to. With Rifi said to leave his post as ISF head soon, it is not clear what will happen to it. Mikati had refused to remove Rifi and al-Hassan, realizing that he couldn't go to that extreme in upsetting the Sunni base. So someone came and took care of that for him, further proving the point that Mikati could only delay the transaction for a while, but ultimately he's not the manager of goods.  

So March 14 could seek another symbolic win by calling for a Mikati resignation. It's their right. Many will and should rightfully hold this government responsible. But selling this move as a pathway to change would be foolish, because the country needs a revolution that is hard to bring about without a major local and, I should add, regional power shift. And March 14 should start by reviewing its past (and recent) mistakes, and coming to terms with its own failures.

Beirut explosion: Wissam al-Hassan targeted? [updated]

The huge explosion that ripped through an Ashrafieh neighborhood may have targeted Wissam al-Hassan, the ISF's Information Branch chief, media reports are saying.

There are conflicting reports: some claim he was severely injured, and others that he was killed. 

Al-Hassan played a major role in the Hariri investigation. If true, Hizbullah will not be sorry to see him go, to say the least. 

Update: MTV reports that he was killed.  This will have wide repercussions in the country. Al-Hassan is Hariri's man in the ISF, and was involved in the arrest of former minister Michel Samaha, who was caught planning attacks on behalf of the Assad regime.

Update 2. And Hariri accuses Assad of killing al-Hassan. Junblatt: al-Hassan killing revenge for Samaha arrest.  Meanwhile, folks are blocking roads-- because this was proven to make Lebanese feel better in tough times. 

Aoun: Nasrallah enlightened us

Michel Aoun gets his enlightenment from a fundamentalist militia leader.

Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun rejected statements criticizing Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s recent speeches on the anti-Islam movie and said the Hezbollah chief enlightened public opinion about the intentions of those who made the movie.

However, Aoun was not enlightened enough to locate a member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon:

"Sometimes they spread [news] to distract people, like this story of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. If there are such guards [in Lebanon], let them show us. Has any Lebanese seen a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the [country]?”

Mind you, it was the the Guards commander Mohamad Ali Jafari himself spreading this distraction.

Nasrallah and defending the prophet

Finding himself increasingly irrelevant, Nasrallah wants to re-introduce himself as an Islamic leader by calling for protests against an anti-Islam film. The man who serves as Iran's military and ideological proxy in Lebanon, and who has been supporting the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslim civilians in Syria, has found a familiar calling: defending Islam against the self expression of an idiot.

The events of the past week were not surprising. Every time an unimaginative idiot in some country "insults Islam", we see hordes of angry and insecure young men deciding to fill their seemingly meaningless existence with violent protests. While their actions are arguably not representative, the vengeful sentiment is alarmingly prevalent and speaks of extreme backwardness and narrow mindedness that is probably the reason the so called "Arab Spring" in some countries hasn't given birth to hope and will never do.

When people seeking political gain and with venom in their hearts and minds decide to play with the fire of ignorance, instead of urging enlightenment, the orcs of hell are unleashed.  What's ironic about all this is that those protestors inadvertently proved the author of the video right by choosing violence. Had they digested that Islam preached peace (and there are examples), their reactions would have been different. People in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere instead acted upon the familiar method of former despots and fanatics, who believe in violence and oppression.

The violence of last week proves that the region has a long way to go before any truly "democratic" and peaceful mentality takes root, or whatever formula works for the region that could bring about the long-desired peace and prosperity. The "Arab Spring" now looks more like an overdue knee jerk reaction. What is the point of asking for change without a fundamental understanding of basic human values? How can you expect the "West" to support your cause when you kill the very western men who championed your cause for freedom from a despot?

These are confusing times for many in the Middle East. With the people jumping on the bandwagon of protests with no one illuminating their way forward, the Islamists have been winning the day by default. They have a vision, and others don't, mostly because average kids in many of those countries have not been brought up to believe in the power of the individual and in critical thinking. Instead, they are told to worship religious icons unconditionally. And if they do grow up believing in some liberating values, they look to apply them outside the confines of their geographic and societal borders. Meanwhile, at home, any success they achieve is never recognized or worshipped for values it applied, but for pride it allegedly brought an abandoned home.  When you have societies trained to view anything practiced in western societies with suspicion and through the prism of illogical conspiracy theories, it's a lot easier for the types of Nasrallah and his Sunni counterparts to recruit followers and advance their agendas, which were doubtfully inspired by the love or the defense of a prophet.

Future Movement praising Berri; will they ever learn?

I wanted to write about this ever since I heard former Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora praising Nabih Berri's latest speech. Today, when Bahia Hariri did the same, it became obvious that the Hariri camp will never learn.

Many in the Future Movement are praising the parliament speaker as a "patriotic" leader, slobbering over his words, which supposedly contained "reassuring" messages.  

Berri on Friday spoke against sectarian strife, called for "unity", and lavished the Saudi King with praise over his call to establish a center for dialog among sects.

Berri was careful not to come across as too conciliatory in his speech, delivered in commemoration of the disappearance of Imam Moussa Sadr some 34 years ago in Libya. His speech contained the usual nonsense about international conspiracies to divide Syria (another "Sykes-Picot") and destroy that country's "regional role" in safeguarding "resistance" movements.

However, because Berri "did not describe the Syrian revolution as terrorism, and did not say that Bashar Assad is here to stay", Sinioria saw in this a "very bold" position.

The Hariri camp would probably prefer to deal with Berri and Amal over Hizbullah any day, but I was hoping (against hope) that their political advisors had finally learned that positive reinforcement in Lebanese politics is equivalent to being pushovers.

Just look at who got pushed out of the country, and into Twitter. It wasn't Berri or other lackeys feeding the Shia public lessons from a vanished Imam. It was the head of the Hariri establishment himself.

One person said it like it is: former MP and former Amal member, Mohammad Abdel Hamid Baydoun. In an interview with a radio station, he warned March 14 and the Future Movement against getting deceived again by Berri, calling him a "deceptive politician and one of the symbols of the Syrian tutelage over Lebanon and the period during which Hariri was assassinated".

Baydoun reminded March 14 of Berri's accomplishments: shutting down parliament, the May 7 2008 events, and turning against Saad Hariri. He accused Berri's Amal and Hizbullah of tarnishing the image of the Shia community in the Arab world after they tied the fate of Lebanese Shias to that of the Syrian regime, and after they wrecked relations with Sunnis and the Syrian opposition.

March 14: 'revolution' to kick Syrian ambassador out

I am not sure I've ever heard of a "revolution" targeting an ambassador, but sure, why not.

Hariri's al-Mustaqbal paper is headlining, "March 14 youth: Revolution until the Syrian ambassador is expelled".

Again, why not. The "post-Assad period" has begun, the paper announced, with even Aoun "defecting" (according to the paper) by evading a question (from his own TV station) on whether a solution in Syria is tied to Bashar Assad staying in power. The Syrian people will make that call, Aoun said, calling the Syrian revolution an "intifada", and adding that he had always called for change in Syria. All this, of course, is a departure from past speeches in which he fiercely defended the Assad regime and lashed out at the Syrian protestors.

With Michel Samaha, once untouchable, confessing to plotting terrorist attacks on behalf of his Syrian masters, some March 14 leaders must be reveling in the confusion of their foes, especially Hizbullah, which must be in recalculation overdrive these days as they watch their buffer against the rest of the Arab world crumble. The events in Tripoli and the emergence of Sunni fire power there, must also be painting a different picture in the minds of many who once banked on the supremacy of the Iranian-Syrian system. Arab countries and freelance jihadists are coming to the rescue of the Syrian Sunnis against the regime, so let no one in Hizbullah or the pro-Assad camp think they can keep on bullying the Sunnis of Lebanon. 

Much like assassinations, confused regional calculations, and general lack of imagination had rendered March 14 ineffective and unbalanced in the years that followed the Cedar Revolution, the "March 8" camp that rode March 14 weakness to eventually grabbing power in Lebanon is now feeling the heat of a changing power balance in the region.

That's not to say it will soon be over. March 14 is no longer the popular movement it once was, and it's going to take a lot more to shake the state-within-a-state that is Hizbullah.

But I guess you have to start (or restart) somewhere.