Another stupid "victory"

I wonder how the Arab delegation felt when it was greeted by a resigned minister and a dismissed security official dubbed the “Assad of the airport”. Did it seem OK to them to be received by anti-government figures instead of the country’s legitimate authority? The message Hizbullah tried to communicate was clear: we are now in charge.

The government’s decision today to revoke the decisions will be perceived as victory by Hizbullah. As with other victories claimed by the group, this alleged one cost many Lebanese lives. Nearly 70 people died. And now, more than ever before, the country’s unity and independence seem like far away dreams.

I am not sure if I can find solace in the anti-Hizbullah resistance that this has awakened, specifically what happened in the Jabal, not that I'm not glad someone somewhere checked their advances. The sectarian genie, as some of you put it, is out of the bottle. As a Lebanese Shia, it distresses me that Hizbullah has prevented my family from living at peace with their Sunni and Druze neighbors. My immediate family, once residents of a mixed neighborhood near Choueifat, were forced to flee south after Hizbullah gunmen invaded their neighborhood. They are now refugees in the south, forced to endure the verbal terrorism of Hizbullah supporters, and fearing retaliation and accusations of treason, should it come out that they supported March 14.

In my last conversation with my father, a Shia who hails from the south but grew up in Beirut, he said he didn’t know where to go. Thanks to Hizbullah, anti-Shia sentiments are at an all time high in most non-Shia areas.

Hizbullah, of course, has been investing this to boost resentment towards March 14. In many southern and Bekaa towns, young and old Shias have been brainwashed into believing that Hariri and Jumblatt want to kill them and sell them to the Israelis. Even before these recent events, the amount of anger built up against March 14 was unfathomable. Short of shutting down all Hizbullah media, and banning the militia from political and public life, there is no way out for the Shia community from this web of deceit.

What didn’t help was the army commander’s failure to at least instill a sense of rule of law in that community, which produced some of the hooligans who burned tires and blocked roads. Granted being an army commander and a presidential candidate at the same time is neither normal nor easy. And frankly, March 14 helped put him in that situation, regardless of the man’s true political leanings.

Only after some “40 pro-government officers” submitted their resignations in protest over his alleged “neutrality”, did Suleiman feel compelled to defend his decision to not intervene, and order his troops to use force against violators, something that remains to be seen, given the continued presence of Hizbullah in the city and in other areas.

Going after Suleiman at this point may seem counterproductive. Both Jumblatt and Hariri don’t see any wisdom in doing it. A weakened Suleiman is not in their best interest. On the one hand, rejecting him as a consensus candidate gives Hizbullah more maneuvering power and arguments to continue stalling the election of a president. On the other hand, backing him while the standoff continues also creates complexities, one of them being his inability to move against one of the parties to the alleged consensus—which is what happened last week when he found his hands tied and himself reluctant to upset the wavering and heavily armed “opposition”.

It is safe to say that Suleiman and with him the country has been stuck in Hizbullah’s web of deceit since the “party” lost its traditional theater of operations in the south after the 2006 war. The militia has obstructed everything from the presidential election to economic reform, and the reason is obvious: UNSC 1559 and 1701. Siniora probably does not regret helping putting an end to the people’s suffering in 2006, but there might be a tinge of regret in indirectly helping Hizbullah regroup and re-arm by softening the tone of the resolution. Much to his and the Lebanese people’s dismay, Hizbullah paid everyone back by taking the country and its executive authority hostage.

The options ahead are not many: civil war, partition, or a combination. I don’t believe the Arab League will be successful in its mission. Hizbullah, and I hope I am proven wrong, will continue to occupy downtown Beirut, and remain in control of the airport. March 14 will activate other ports of entry for safer travel, part of what Jumblatt described as “coexistence” with Hizbullah. March 14 might want the issue of Hizbullah’s weapons as first item in any dialogue, but I don’t think they truly believe they can succeed in placing conditions on their use. 

It became clear after the Hariri assassination and the July war that for Lebanon to survive, Hizbullah needs to cease to exist in its current form. Arabs had better spend their time putting pressure on Syria and Iran, and not wasting time sponsoring useless "dialogue" sessions between a militia and the state it’s terrorizing.

Comments

[Vodka]

JW

Lol...The guy who fled Halba is not my friend!
and I know God will forgive me ....I also hope he eats shit and spend all his f....life in Syria.

[danny]

Gus,

OK...Partition is possible only if all parties agree to decimate this little sliver of land further. In my mind, the best solution is the establishment of non sectarian country. However; this is contrary to the Islamic Party's (HA) core ideology and principles. In the event that a total separation ala Czechoslovakia is not possible, then a deal should be made whereas autonomous "states" coexist. People have to be given the freedom to make the choice. Unfortunately, they are unable to do that as Lebanon/Lebanese are not free. Hizb's guns are the biggest threat to the Shias in particular.
As for the use of the word “partition”; OK let’s call it sovereignty (like they call in Quebec, Canada). My friend let’s not parse it more…The problem is clear and the question simple: Does HA want to stay in Lebanon as a part of the watan, or do they want to continue with their “Iranian extension” program.

It is high time that all parties discuss these issues first. Screw with the “technical” issues. Formation of government and electoral law are sand in your eyes. There’s no better time than now for the Shia sect to stand up and voice its opinions and extract itself from the HA ideology. On the chance that they want to create a Shia state mirroring the Jewish state then let them have their sliver and leave the rest alone so that they can build a modern nation of institutions and laws!!!

[Abilama]

It is timely to quote Chrchills speech in The House of Commons after the 1938 Munich Agreement:

"And do not suppose this is the end," he warned. "This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

[Max Power]

Long time lurker, 1st. time poster. I find myself argreeing with most of the people who always make good points set in reality.

I'm Lebanese by birth and live in the US now. I remember being a high schooler and taking the day off to protest on behalf of Aoun and the "cause" that Syria leave Lebanon in the early 90's. I'm all grown up and contribute to Pro Lebanese politicians campaigns and do write my senators and congressman on Lebanon's behalf.

Who brought Aoun back from France? It's akin to whomever brought Khoemini from Paris, the goal seems the same and it's a radicalization of Lebanon to whose benefit really.

What perplexes me about the whole situation is after the Hariri assasination, this issue has lingered longer than anyone could imagine. After the 06 bombing when it seemed the loud majority was aganist the bombing and did help out the Shia community and their fellow Lebanese. That goodwill is gone I'm afraid.

My only ending to this situation has to be an emergance of a "moderate" Shia voice, however they seem all to speak (for the most part) in one voice. Shia pulls out the I word and traitor to anyone in the family that crosses them. Realistically speaking, the question of partition works for me. Partition those who want a Shia fifedom to the big one on the other of Iraq. Resettle them like the Jews who wanted back into Israel. Maybe they feel free over there.

Until the real issue at hand, Syria and Iran are dealt with, these guys will continue to linger longer and ask yourself, who benefites the most from such miscreets in power? It's no secret that Hiz is a major trafficker in counterfeit and stolen goods as well as Nacros and other pleasantries in the Western Hemisphere. Like someone said, they are a cancer and the Lebanese people allowed to spread.

Hiz. isn't winning any hearts or minds and the next time the big and bad evil Israelis come knocking, I will bet it won't be as pleasant and Hiz will not get a sympathy note from most Lebanese.

As for the Lebanese in Lebanon. Let's stop with the whole it's "Israel's fault". I know there is history between the two nations, however it's a bit much of the boy who called wolf. I get saddened when I hear M14 referring to the Israeli's as the "only enemy" Lebanon has, when the enemy is mostly from within. Funny how Lebanon is one of the countries along with Iran and Syria who have no lines of communications with her neighbor to the south.

Precisely, the reason why you won't see any boots from the US and other nations on the ground is because the Lebanese can't decide if they want their own set of balls or are happy sucking off other arab nations.

[Abilama]

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Winston Churchill 1938

[ghassan karam]

Danny,
If you expect others to take what you say seriously then you have to be clear about what you are advocating. Don't advocate for "partition" when you mean "decentralization" because the two just ain't the same. It makes a big difference whather you were attacked by a domestic cat or whether you were mauled by a tiger. Proper words are important and to ask for clear usage is not asking for much. If you believe seriously that this is a technicality then you are sadly mistaken.
BTW, it is true that some people in Quebec are asking for sovereignty i.e. for the creation of a separate state. I hope that this is not what you have in mind and if it isn't then for goodness sake stop talking about separation if you mean something else.

[danny]

Ghassan,

I repeat again, I am advocating along with others some kind of accomodation that HA (or the Shia commnunity) has to agree with. If the FREE Shia populace advocate a separate state whereas they want to live under "Islamic rules", then I'm all for it. We have to extracate ourselves from this mess!! If HA/Shias in Lebanon rather have a decentralized autonomous "region" or province or state; then fine. My point is we can not dictate to a 35-40% of the "lebanon"'s population on which way they want to go especially when they are armed to the teeth. Either way, Lebanon as is is not a viable state. It is NOT a state or a nation!!

Lebanese SHOULD Know that band aid solutions will not work. If it was the Sunnis at one point, or the Maronite another time and now the Shias...

I appologize bunching all the Shias of Lebanon under HA...However (as articulated above), let's be realistic; it seems that HA are speaking on behalf of the Shias, the exception being a few faint voices!!

[Bad Vilbel]

"we can not dictate to a 35-40% of the "lebanon"'s population on which way they want to go especially when they are armed to the teeth."

THIS IS MY POINT AS WELL.

This is something a lot of you are in denial about. You cannot "take on" 30% of your population and FORCE them into anything. You cannot win a civil war against such a large segment of a population. And you cannot forcibly enlist them into a national project if they are not interested in it.

People are still in denial about this facet of the problem.

[max power]

They already do what they want, I was just in Lebanon. They circumvent distribution channels, not pay for utilities when other have to. They are already live in a paralell bizarro world where the rules do not apply to them and they do as they please. They have a paralell underground economy as well as quasi government. They should set up a Federal system akin to Canada and be allowed a sliver of land near Basra on the other side of the Iranian border. I have no use for mullahs with their coming moral police and awesome laws like they do in the former Persia.

They flood the market with illegal goods with no ramifications as well as pay little or no attention to the duties. They have their own infrasturcture and clearly do not respect the rule of law as it stands now.

They have already partitioned themselves off and are now looking for the rest of it. Hiz ruined my summer vacation twice in three years, they can all go under the sea and live with Sponge Bob.

I know they don't share a vision for a better Lebanon that most RATIONAL people do. Becoming a Shia theocracy and a mini Syria satellite state ala Belarus to the USSR has zero appeal to me. The fact is they play the playbook well, they carve rational people into Zionist entities as well as traitors.

[Max Power]

BV is spot on in his thinking. Maybe they need another war with Israel to get more people in their frame of mind.

I would be interested in seeing and hearing what their EXACT intention is and they should spell it out now. Clearly, they have no respect for the rule of law.

If M14 were smart, they would call for elections now and they let the results show the world that Lebanon is worth fighting for.

[danny]

Door number one: Lebanon stays in its current state. Prediction: Civil war.

Door number two: All the sects agree to a secular Lebanon and HA along with others lay their guns down and join in building of a modern nation. Prediction: Not happening

Door number three: Partition. Give the HA their sliver of land and whover wishes to live under the theocratical tyranny; should feel free. Prediction: As Ha will lose their freebees; slim to none

Door number four: Federalism, Sovereingnity association, decentralization, whatever you want to call. HA gets their regions of influence (as they do now) apply their laws and collect their taxes etc. The rest set up a secular state; everyone welcome. Prediction: best chance of succeeding

Currently HA says government has not been there for the Shias. Well allow them. They do not pay taxes, get free electricity and other utilities and all the goodies that an open Lebanon offers...What do they give back? destruction and fanaticism and a drag on the treasury and the economy!!

[ghassan karam]

Danny,
I do not doubt your intentions but you sound, at least to my ears, like a frustrated person who is coming up with all sorts of suggestions without giving these suggestions enough thought.
The idea of a federation is a splendid one and many have considered it many a time. Unfortunately this idea falls short of doing anything to the current Lebanese problem. Federations are great for maintaining local control on local issues. The Christians can have their night life and Casinos and HA can prohibit smoking, haisaloons, theaters and all alcoholic beverages. A Federation however has a central authority that legislates for the whole nation at least in national defense and foreign policy. As you can see what divides us in Lebanon is not only theroutine laws that govern every day life but the major obstacle seems to be that of foreign policy and national defense. So this option is not workable either. (I am glad though that you are no longer talking about "partition").
I have raised this issue before and I think that it is time to raise it again. It is so unfair to use the totally inaccurate description that if only the Shia would do this and if only the Shis would do that. Let me say briefly that maybe 1/3 of the opposition are not Shia. To stress: Emile Lahoud, Frangieh and his Marada'a, Aoun and his orange shirts, Arslan, Karami. Sa'ad., Wahab, Hoss ... Yes all of the HA members and fighters are Shiites but so what? The whole coalition is made up of inhabitants of Lebanon although they do not believe in the sovereignty of the Lebanese state. I am not so sure that all the non HA inhabitants( BTW, I do not use the term citizens on purpose) care that much about Lebanese sovereignty either. The eventual solution for the Lebanese problematic is not to look for an easy way out at any cost but to take a stand on principal, to pledge allegiance to an ideaand to act accordingly.
A state has to have a legislature, an executive and a judicial branch. Are we suggesting that the next Chamber in Lebanon is to pass two set of laws, that the executive is to issue two different policies and that the courts are to pass different judgements depending on where the court is located?
I believe that the matter is rather simple. If one believes in the idea and legitimacy of a Lebanese state then that would be a concept worth fighting for. If the idea is not worth it, and that might be the case, then go ahead and put an end to this experiment that is best judged so far as a failure. They do shoot horses don't they?

[ghassan karam]

Danny,
I do not doubt your intentions but you sound, at least to my ears, like a frustrated person who is coming up with all sorts of suggestions without giving these suggestions enough thought.
The idea of a federation is a splendid one and many have considered it many a time. Unfortunately this idea falls short of doing anything to the current Lebanese problem. Federations are great for maintaining local control on local issues. The Christians can have their night life and Casinos and HA can prohibit smoking, haisaloons, theaters and all alcoholic beverages. A Federation however has a central authority that legislates for the whole nation at least in national defense and foreign policy. As you can see what divides us in Lebanon is not only theroutine laws that govern every day life but the major obstacle seems to be that of foreign policy and national defense. So this option is not workable either. (I am glad though that you are no longer talking about "partition").
I have raised this issue before and I think that it is time to raise it again. It is so unfair to use the totally inaccurate description that if only the Shia would do this and if only the Shis would do that. Let me say briefly that maybe 1/3 of the opposition are not Shia. To stress: Emile Lahoud, Frangieh and his Marada'a, Aoun and his orange shirts, Arslan, Karami. Sa'ad., Wahab, Hoss ... Yes all of the HA members and fighters are Shiites but so what? The whole coalition is made up of inhabitants of Lebanon although they do not believe in the sovereignty of the Lebanese state. I am not so sure that all the non HA inhabitants( BTW, I do not use the term citizens on purpose) care that much about Lebanese sovereignty either. The eventual solution for the Lebanese problematic is not to look for an easy way out at any cost but to take a stand on principal, to pledge allegiance to an ideaand to act accordingly.
A state has to have a legislature, an executive and a judicial branch. Are we suggesting that the next Chamber in Lebanon is to pass two set of laws, that the executive is to issue two different policies and that the courts are to pass different judgements depending on where the court is located?
I believe that the matter is rather simple. If one believes in the idea and legitimacy of a Lebanese state then that would be a concept worth fighting for. If the idea is not worth it, and that might be the case, then go ahead and put an end to this experiment that is best judged so far as a failure. They do shoot horses don't they?

[Bad Vilbel]

Ghassan,

You might want to apply the advice you're giving Danny to your own narrative here.

Let's face it, just wishfully thinking and praying that all Lebanese people suddenly develop an allegiance to the state (and that appears to be the foundation on which you are basing your entire argument) is about as likely to happen as pigs are of flying.

Sure, on paper, it's nice to say "We need to stress allegiance to the state and build upon that." But that's not a concrete step. That is simply not going to happen. You can scream it from every rooftop, it ain't going to magically convince the HA followers (or other inhabitants) to suddenly drop their sectarianism.

I understand your criticism of Danny's post. And i agree with you that him and I are probably reacting in frustration. But your ivory tower ideals are about a far fetched as our "federalism" ideas.

The situation on the ground being what it is, there is no such thing as "allegiance to Lebanon" today, and there is no likely to be one from an overwhelming enough number of inhabitants to make enough of a difference any time soon.

As for your describing the opposition, I am sorry, but the events of the last week have shown that you are totally wrong on that. The opposition today is made up entirely of HA and HA alone.

Arslan's men fought alongside the PSP in the Chouf. Karami and Hoss both condemned HA's actions, and Karami went as far as to say that if the Sunnis of Tripoli were attacked, he'd side with his sect.
Guys like Wahab who have all of 3 followers are insignificant. You simply cannot bandy a few guys with no weight whatsoever (political or military) as proof that the opposition is more than just HA. That is about as disingenuous as saying Quisling was a fair representatives of the Norwegians, or that Tarek Aziz's presence besides Saddam means that the Iraqi Baath was not a "Sunni dominated" power structure.

You and I both know better.

[Bad Vilbel]

btw, i personally think this horse is indeed needing to be shot.

The question is, how do you do that exactly? Can we send a petition to the UN asking it to "unrecognize" Lebanon?

[Umm K.]

Welcome, Max!

[danny]

Ghassan,

I am more than frustrated. You are right. I think BV answered for me regarding the opposition...
As far as definitions of federalism or other forms of governance, my friend, I along thousands of others will try all we can even to CREATE a system whereas we can divest ourself from this malignant cancer called the party of God. Yesterday an analyst called them Hizb el Sillah. I agree. Now is a critical juncture in Lebanon's existance(as we dream of). All cards and ideas have to be put forth. Again, your assumption that we can deal with a theocratic and insanely fanatic Hizb (by thinking that their allegiance will be to the state of Lebanon) is a non- starter. Barring a civil war or a regional conflict whereas Iran is neutered, the options for Lebanese who seek to LIVE and LIVE with some semblance of peace are NONE. I think all these ideas have to be discussed openly!!!

[ghassan karam]

BV,
Just one more response. (Is that ever possible :-)). I think that we normally understand each other quite well. This time however you are reading more into my post than the intent is. I did not say that we can create with the flick of a finger an ideal society. You know as well as I do that such a society does not exist.Conflicts cease only at the end of history and the ME is very far away from that. I am merely refering to the general concept that if enough of us believe strongly in an idea then we must demonstrate that belief by being willing to fight for it. A big problem in many areas all over the world is due to precisely that. People speak about the importance of a concept but then they do nothing to further it.This disconnect between what we say and what we do is the basis for most problems. Back to Lebanon, if I truly believe in the idea of an open, democratic state then I have the moral obligation to fight for it. If on the other hand I do not hold a strong belief in the sanctity of the state and obviosly the opposition doesn't then we might as well shoot that horse :-)

[bad vilbel]

Gus,

You say:
"if I truly believe in the idea of an open, democratic state then I have the moral obligation to fight for it. If on the other hand I do not hold a strong belief in the sanctity of the state and obviosly the opposition doesn't then we might as well shoot that horse :-)"

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, as well as with the overall gist of your comment. HOWEVER, isn't this statement i just quoted in contradiction with your statements last week about how March 14's supporters should not fight back (militarily speaking) and how wise of a move it was for Jumblatt and Hariri to essentially call off their dogs?

PS: I am not debating whether it was the right move at the time or not, so let's not get into that sidebar. What I am asking here is how do you reconcile your above statement where you say we must be willing to fight for our beliefs, and your statement last week where you condemned people who were fighting back?

And I understand that when you say "fight" here, you don't necessarily mean fighting with arms, but you include peaceful ways of fighting back. But I still have to wonder, if my personal belief in a free and modern Lebanon and the rule of law dictates I not fight back when thugs are looting my neighborhood, because, let's say, i believe the army should be the one fighting them. But the army doesn't. What then? How do I "fight" for my belief if those my belief entrusts with my protection (the army) fail at doing their jobs? How do you define "Fighting for my belief" there? Taking the abuse and then peacefully trumpeting my faith in law and order while I cower in a basement, to avoid being shot at?

[pragmatism works]

Hello Guys,

The 14 March coalition is acting so weak.They already committed a deadly mistake by begging the international community to put pressure on Israel to stop bombing HZB. That is so unpragmatic and stupid...look where we are now.when Siniora will know that by appeasing the beast, he is giving him more time to pile up eapons, arms amnd so on...
Eventually, his weakness will cause every living being in Lebanon even chiken to rearm and that is a recipe for civil war..so what is he doing? it sucks really

[maverick]

We keep playing doves, pussy footing around the main issue. Why Lebanon is a " cockpit" or the battlefield for regional conflicts is because it is ripe with the perferct conditions. Yesterday, the Palestinians, today, Hizbollah, tomorrow, Jihadists of every colour....If Lebanon has any chance of becoming a modern free pluralistic state with a democratic system for all its " citizens", then LAW and ORDER must prevail with an ARMY that executes orders from government and a police force clamping down on dissidents and obstructionists.
The Lebanese pride themselves on coexistence and diversity, while hatred and sectarianism lurk in their conscious.Lets not kid ourselves, the world is globalising, I catch a train to the city here in Sydney, i see 50 different shades and colours in one carriage, no-one here is celebrating, and if someone does as much as burn the national flag, he would be deemed terrorist and tried.
I agree with Ghassan's formulating an idea and fighting for it,and we saw some glimpses of it in recent events with Pro-Gov figures calling their people not to resist and let the army do its job....well the army failed miserably and it was up to the civilians to repel the aggression. Had the army stood its ground and carried out its duty, this would have been a step in the road of building a modern democratic free Lebanon.
I believe the solution is with the army, the law, the police, and the courts...with a confident government to take steps to ensure a safety and prosperity of its citizens...anything else is ballony.

[VOR]

BV, Ghassan and Danny,

I really enjoyed your discussion above. I would like to suggest in addition to the ideas put forth above, a system based on cantons a la switzerland. The cantons do resemble more closely the model Lebanon finds itself in. Each canton or region would have its own set of laws and political system independently from any other authority. The canton is self sustaining and conducts its own affairs based on its own internal political system. Each canton has its own constitution, legislature, government and courts. Most of the cantons' legislatures act as a parliament. I think such a system would probably keep all communities focused on their own way of life without having to worry about the other's decisions. Such a system can work if agreed upon. I believe that accomodates and reconciles the idea of "partition" and that of federalism without the disadvantages that both represent. The problem here, is that once again, we will have to admit the failure of the one state concept and agree that "coexixtence" in its present form isn't a good solution any longer. Believe it or not, many people will still dispute that fact in the name of nationalism and patriotism etc...they will blame outsiders and not the untouchable and wonderful concept of coexistence that Lebanon represents to the world. Yeah right!

[bad vilbel]

VOR,

And what if one canton decides to launch a war against Israel? :)

As Ghassan pointed out. Federalism, Cantons, all those systems require a central government in charge of foreign policy, at the very least.

[ghassan karam]

VOR,
You have to be commended on your suggestion that the Swiss Canton system ought to be examined. Let me be candid, I have never spent more than 3 days at a time in Switzerland but I happen to have a relative of mine who is married to a Swiss lady and they live their for six months out of every year. I also have a colleague of mine who is Swiss and I have known many Swiss. All of the above is meant to show you that I have a decent amount of familiarity with the Swiss system and not only theoretical.
What is clear is that the Swiss system is arguably the most democratic in the world. I think a close second is the state of Vermont in the US followed by Scandinavia. Anyway , direct democracy works best in a small society and so Lebanon is tailor made for this. The different cantons, as you well describe are practically independent states except Foreign Policy and National Defense. So as you can see as good as the Canton system can be it does not suit the present day Lebanon because what divides us the most are the two items that the Federal Government is supposed to take care of.
BTW, I am not sure that the Lebanese people are ready for direct democracy. It takes lots of hard work by the individual citizen regarding all sorts of issues. But I am in agreement with you on the fact that if I had a magic wand then I will employ its power to transform Lebanon into a Swiss like Cantons or a Vermont style of government.

[Andre]

VOR/Ghassan,

Let each canton or region run its own foreign policy and let them have their individual relations with the outside world. They can have their own local police, army and the whole enchilada. All that is needed, is for a sort of a "general council" that meets one a year to talk about common issues among all the independent regions, but none of these issues would interfere or infringe on a single entity. Just a thought.

[Abilama]

Les dessous du réseau télécom du Hezbollah au Liban

http://www.geopolitique.com/ed...471-2.html

15.05.08 rédaction geopolitique.com

Le réseau de télécommunication réservé du Hezbollah au Liban, pomme de discorde des violences armées de ces derniers jours, n'est plus illégal. Les enjeux qu’il représentait pour la stabilité du Liban étaient, semble-t-il, connus depuis plusieurs mois des autorités françaises.
Le ministère des télécommunications du Liban aurait alerté le ministre français des affaires étrangères « avant le mois de mars dernier » sur ce réseau.

Selon des indications transmises par deux personnalités s’exprimant depuis Beyrouth, le ministre libanais des télécommunications Marwan Hamadé avait présenté à Bernard Kouchner, « avant le mois de mars », une carte de ce réseau et un rapport détaillé sur ses implantations.

Nous avons confirmation de l’existence de cette carte.

Un porte-parole du Quai d’Orsay, contacté par geopolitique.com à ce sujet, n’a pas été en mesure de confirmer ou de démentir officiellement à l’heure où nous publions. Ses services nous ont seulement précisés que Marwan Hamadé « se rendait souvent à Paris ».

[Abilama]

À partir de 2007, selon ces proches du PSP, des ingénieurs de Téhéran incorporés dans des équipes d'une importante organisation caritative iranienne ont supervisé des travaux pour déployer considérablement ce réseau.

[Max Power]

Thanks UMM K for the welcoming, like I said I have lurked here quite a while and decided to take a plunge.

Before we can talk about any type of Feudal/Canton or direct democracy, the basic rules of law must be followed. Also, the Central Government and it's army and internal security should be one that doesn't allow sectarian violence and heavily armed bandits saying they do it because they want to protect Lebanon. That's all poppycock. For any negiotation to happen, they must disarm and I don't see that happening anytime soon with Asaad and Ahmadnejad in power.

First off, the big pink gorilla that is Sheikh Hassan and his organization act above the law and have so. All other militas (for the most part) have politicized their parties and lay down their arms. We all know this. They can claim disenfranchisment all they want when they are having it both ways.

I think what he's trying to force is a defacto Shia control vis a vie the use of force. In an open market of ideas like Lebanon, the thought of a Shia Cleric and head of the Hizballah has zero appeal to about 60-70% of Lebanese. As a Catholic, I would never want to see a Bishop or Cardinal as President. They know this and they know that the "fight" for Lebanon can't be won on guns alone. If Hez ever did (perish the thought) they would be another rouge regime that would fall when their sponsors drop them.

Until then, this will be a dangerous game of chicken. They will continue to destroy the Lebanese economy and hope that a guy like Obama gets elected who will "talk" and "here" them out and he like Bill will make them a deal to look like they did something.

I still think that W has a trick up his sleeve before he leaves office.

[Ace]

A Canton that runs it's own Foreign Policy is just another name for a separate state. All the talk about Cantons, Partitions and the like - what makes any of you think Hezbollah is going to settle for a small piece of the pie when he can have the whole thing? What about Iran? They want not only the entire Mid East but grandiose dreams of the world - you think they will settle for a small piece of the Lebanese pie?

I don't believe there is much (if any) hope for Democracy in Lebanon or perhaps anywhere in the Mid-East. It's not understood and until a form of "Democracy" is developed that incorporates what the people do understand (Tribalism) it's not going to happen. Nothing proves that more than the fact that the Lebanese would allow Parliament to be closed by ONE man for well over a year. There is absolutely no concept of Democracy when that sort of thing happens. I laugh (now that I understand) every time I read about "new elections" - new elections for what??? A Parliament that is irrelevant? What do elections matter when everything is decided based on Tribalism, biggest guns and what your neighbors want? It's all about the "deal". And the people allow it.

[ghassan karam]

Ace,
No truer words have been spoken for a long time. What most forget/deny is that there has never ever been an Arab democracy. So yes the concept is totally alien to the Arabic speaking world but yet if we are to stop trying then we might as well commit suicide.
We have to believe that eventually we will understand and embrace human dignity and the right of others. I am in agreement with you that there is no way that such a transformation is going to be imminent but we owe it to the future generations to keep on trying. We have no right to give up.
BTW, add to your list that Damascus, that center of Human Rights and Democratic practice, is the HQ for the Arab Parliament. What a joke !!!

[Max Power]

I think there is a hope for democracy, however it can't happen when your biggest adversary in it are heavily armed and their backers are playing a deadly game with arguably the two armies ready to strike at any given moment.

Lebanon really never got off the Ottoman mentality and the party bosses represent the Religious Communities. I think employment, job opportunities in Lebanon will lessen the grip on that to a larger degree. How much Brain Drain can it handle?

Democracy has a chance and the world has given Asaad too many lives in the name of "What if". A prosporous Lebanon is a threat to his regime and Israel to a degree. As long as Lebanon is allowed to be the nice weather weak central government nation. Keys issues like Neighbor relations as well as the Palestinian question can never be answered. Point is, Lebanon is probably the only chance of Democracy outside of Israel in the Middle East.

If anything, this is the time for the powers that be open the door to other nations to negiotate and have a life goes on mentality and ignore the mental midgets.
Why is Israel referred to as the "Enemy" and Syria a nation we want "normal" relations with. All of the garbage talk of we negiotate with Israel last and other foreign policy matters is a reason why Lebanon is where it is today.

Lebanon needs it's Alexander Haig moment. When Reagan was shot, Haig told the Cabinet he was in charge of the country at the moment and until Reagan got better. In the US Constitution there is a clause that allows the Military to take control to restore order. I don't know if Lebanon has a George Washington type General that puts Watan over Syria or any other foreign interests.
Maybe is lurking for the chance, I'm not impressed by Sleiman but see why he did what he did.

[Vox P.]

"Shias who live anywhere are welcomed to live ANYWHERE"

yeah right...

[Meghwar]

A Must read article by Ziad Makhoul in L'Orient ...
Ground zero
http://www.lorientlejour.com/page.aspx?page=article&id=372066

[Solomon2]

Guys, guys, I think we're all agreed that Hezbo doesn't want to be partitioned from Lebanon. But it does seem that most of YOU want to be partitioned from THEM. So why not give them a "Lebanon" of their own and declare a new, "Free Republic of Lebanon" to rule outside Hezbo-controlled areas and seek its recognition as a separate state?

[LebExile]

Solomon2..

Hizbo is not a seperate state.. they are a cancer imposed on the Lebanese and on the Shia of Lebanon in particular.

I'm not ready to give up one third of our population to appease Syria or Iran..

The Lebanese should stop discussing partition and seperation and think more about freeing the shia from the grip of the Ayotollah's.

Take the Shia mufti's house that is currently occupied by so called Amal fighters...

They are not Amal fighters, they are Hiz fighters, the hizb just dosent want to be seen occupying homes, so, the tell you it's Amal - once this is over, do you think the Mufti will be so oppenly against hiz... I'll bet they leave behind many threats not to cross them again...

[Max Power]

I say someone tickle Sheikh Hassan until he cracks a smile and says "you have just been punked" and Ashton Kutcher comes running out with a camera crew.

The Shia need to emerge with an alternative to the HA. They can't have it both ways, oh wait they are. However, if they are interested in being members of a collective banner akin to the Jim Jones Kool Aid party, they shall have to face the heat with them as well when the time comes.

[Solomon2]

"I'm not ready to give up one third of our population to appease Syria or Iran."

I think you're a little mixed-up here LebEx. Self-partition isn't a favor to Syria-Iran, but something they fear: they'd lose half of the Lebanese bitch they are now screwing for their own ends. For Syria it would be a depressing blow to their national myth of Greater Syria, and for Iran it would be a strategic nightmare because their Hezbollah proxies would be denied cover.

What's more, M14 isn't really dealing with Arabs at Doha, but their chess-playing, carpet-weaving Persian puppetmasters. I feel sure in my bones the Iranians aren't prepared for the idea of self-partition, and anything they haven't prepared for scares them. So at the very least, self-partition is a useful threat to be wielded by M14 at the bargaining table, if not something that should be considered seriously.

Take note, however, that self-partitioning won't work if you wait too long to do it. The Lebanese government officially disapproved of Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israel's soldiers, but by then it was too late.

[Ace]

I'm a total outsider. Not Lebanese, not Jewish, not Muslim - just as "observer" trying to learn and Lebanon is a great window for that.

Simply put (from my observations) there are no "statesmen". There is nobody who either has the desire or the power (or both) to make it change. At the end of the day ..... it's all about "Me", my "Tribe", my "sect" and my "power". Those who can make the "change" don't really want to do it because it will effect one or all of these items. We all saw this happening after the Cedar Revolution. Hariri (FM) just could never make the necessary moves that would actually bring the change. I actually believe his Dad would perhaps have done it given the same chance(maybe not) and there is an outside chance that Jumblatt (in his old age) can now see the "forest". I think that Siniora has been hamstrung by Hariri from the beginning or he might have been able to do some real good.

Nobody should stop the efforts, but I don't see how it will ever happen until there is a Leader with both the "power" and the desire to become a Statesman. The "brain drain" hurts because the reality is that IF you don't accumulate the power base in Lebanon, you won't have a chance and every day - those who would fight for this "change" leave for a better life (who would blame them) and the conditions worsen and more babies are born into this mess that is called Lebanon.

[Bad Vilbel]

One comment above pretty much sums up the contradictions we are all facing in this discussion. So I will repeat it here:

"The Lebanese should stop discussing partition and seperation and think more about freeing the shia from the grip of the Ayotollah's."

I already asked Ghassan (and I'm waiting for an answer!) and now I'll ask LebExile, who made the comment I just quoted:

How do you propose to free the shia from the grip of HA if you're not willing to do it by force (all out civil war, possible foreign intervention on M14's side, etc.)

This opinion I keep hearing is a paradox of the largest magnitude. You want to free the shia from HA. They have guns. You don't. And you don't want to take up arms against your brethren, because, well, that's giving in to their schemes.

Riddle me this?

[Bad Vilbel]

So, uhm, with all these guys on the same plane to Qatar, what do you guys figure would happen if said plane were to have some kind of unforseen accident?

Sorry. I couldn't help but wonder.

[Solomon2]

BV: the answer to your riddle is, of course, for the Lebanese Government to fulfill UNSC 1559 and 1701 by calling for the mandatory cooperation of the Lebanese Army at assisting U.N. troops in disarming Hezbollah. UNIFIL needs no additional UN resolutions (or troops, IMO) to support such a task. Michael Totten's assessment is that Hezbollah would have no chance against such a combination.

But it seems no Lebanese citizen, whether they live at home or abroad, is currently willing to say out loud that destroying Israel should be valued less than a peaceful, unified, and prosperous Lebanese state. So Hezbo keeps its arms, and Lebanon remains under strain as a result.

[Bad Vilbel]

Solomon,

Plenty of Lebanese at home and abroad are willing to say just that. I have said it before, as have others around here. Let's not generalize, ok?

I don't give a rat's ass what Israel does as long as it lets me live in peace. I have no interest in destroying it or in seeing it destroyed by others. I am only interested in ONE thing and ONE thing only: A free and sovereign Lebanon.

And i'm not the only one.

There. Happy?

Your opinions are interesting and come from a different perspective than most of us here, and that's cool. But you need to knock off the generalities about all Lebanese or all Arabs being interested in destroying Israel. It simply is not the case.

[Solomon2]

BV: you are right. I apologize for unjustly offending you and others here.

[Max Power]

I'm with BV, my concern lies with Lebanon and I'm not interested in destroying Israel.

Lebanon should have normalized relations and meet on issues such as the Camps as well as broader security/economic issues as well as a movement towards some type of formal relationship. I'm not for either sides barking from behind the Arab fence. I'm not a believer in the "one voice" mentality that some Arabs espoused.

Count me out of the Jewish Bloodlust you may of had a perception of Lebanese having.

Solomon, which UN nation is going to send soliders to "disarm" HA? Spanish, Italian and French Soliders got the message last year to back off. I wouldn't trust the UN for anything.

[Solomon2]

They didn't exactly back off. I think what you noticed is that when UNIFIL was under French command they had a reputation for more aggressive operations than they do today. The Italian commander is a little more laid back about such things.

UNIFIL's immediate mission under UNSC 1701, as I perceive they interpret it, is to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon only with the cooperation of the Lebanese Army because of a lack of direction from higher Lebanese political authority. Disarmament operations may not occur elsewhere unless the Lebanese government actively requests and cooperates with U.N. forces, and the Secretary-General approves.

[Jay]

>> Subject: Obama on Hizballah

Sorry for posting the entire article rather a link for I received this as an email.

Interesting read, though the last part scares me. If he's part James Baker, then Lebanon is in deep shit, for Baker sold us out to the Syrians after Desert Storm!

May 16, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama Admires Bush
By DAVID BROOKS

Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon.

Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down.” Then he declared, “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”

That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described yesterday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?
If Obama believes all this, he’s not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He’s off in Noam Chomskyland.

That didn’t strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.

Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.

“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”

Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”

I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”

Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he’s part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.

[Min_Canada]

I can't believe so many of you are seriously talking about partition. I did write about it earlier when I thought it was a joke, but now I have to say to everyone here: Be real.

Two themes that are going on in this string of talk must me tempered with reality.

1) Civil war is a suicide for M14 and Lebanon. You can beat your chest as much as you want and say you can build a militia in 24hrs or less, but the reality is that you are fighting a disciplined army that is prepared to take on one of the best armies in the world. Sure HA was beaten back in the mountains, but that was a scrimish not a war. And while we can all talk about the brave 300, I doubt that the citizens of Lebanon care much for the bravado and the "honor" of being one of the 300! They want to live. In dignity mind you, but they do want to live. So please. No more talk about civil war. It won't be one. It will be a brief losing battle. Trust that the M14 leaders who have been through civil wars before have done there calculations and they have seen the bottom line. That is why in the east, everyone was very quick to agree NOT to use force. The only losers here were the Beiruties. Thank you, but stop offering them as fodder for the gods of war.

The Americans and the Israelis who, let's face it, we were depending on to come to our aid, have their own agendas. While I am still convinced that Israel will strike and strike hard against HA and Iran in the near future, they will not do it to save us. They will do it to counter a threat to them ONLY. The Americans? Well I think we all know now where they stand. They have no more fight in them and they are in no position to take on anyone now. The Europeans have no interest either. You can fight HA if you want to, but please step up, pick up a gun and go stand first in line. Don't beat your chest and do the 3antariyyat from the comfort of your home.

2) Partition is not in the cards either. Partition is an option when you have two equal powers who know that neither side can win and want to move on. That is not the case here. You have a signle power that thinks it can have it all. Besides where would you draw the lines? Based on the old demarcation lines? Will West Beirut be part of Hizbdom? Will the shouf? What about Rabiyeh? Dhur el shouir? Hayda Akl Khara guys. Unless you are so childish that you can't think of all this in your anger.

Like it or not we are stuck with HA. We have to think outside the box to find a way we can live with them.

[Bad Vilbel]

Min_Canada,

Not to disagree with your assessment , because i actually think you're correct on all that, but I have yet to hear a single person here answer my very basic question:

1. We can't convince HA to disarm on their own, the only way is to "fight" for the establishment of law and order.
2. We don't want civil war.

How do you people reconcile (1) and (2)?

I've heard Ghassan make the same comments. As well as LebExile.

And I frankly don't understand how you are going to accomplish (1) without (2). If there's some other way, no one seems to have suggested it yet.

This glaring contradiction in pretty much all of the comments I'm reading here are the hear of the matter. You want a sovereign Lebanon, you want to disarm or neutralize HA, save the Shia community from HA's grips, but you don't want a civil war. How is that going to work?

[pragmatism works]

Hello

Hizb knows that Syria is having negotiations with Israel and yet he accuses 14 March of being Zionists. Deep inside, they know that eventually the enemy of my enemy is my friend which means if the Lebanese government dares signing a peace treaty with Israel like Egypt did decades ago...then the core justification of MUQAWAMA vanishes.
By the way i am impressed by the level of conversations this site which makes me feel proud that i am lebanese
Good job

[Min Canada]

The reality is that 1701 is a UN resolution that was never possible for the Lebanese to implement. The arms pored in across the boarder as soon as the fighting stopped in 2006 and the whole world sat and watched. Where were the sponsors of the resolution? Why didn't they enforce it? They expect an army that had to wait for bullets to be flown in at the time they were cleaning up Nahr al-Barid, to take care of a group armed to the teeth and able to withstand the Israeli Army????
1701 had no teeth and HA was emboldened by that. Now comes the most serious attempt at the state of Lebanon by this rouge entity and with an aircraft carrier and a number of US naval units just next door, the best Bush can muster is to expedite the transfer of bullets and jeeps to the Lebanese army!! I say go to hell. Let's call it as it is. HA was right. We were sold for a song.
I am furious with the Americans and the French. Support the Gov of Lebanon HOW? With words? Strong condemnation? BS! And the Egyptians and the Saudis can saber rattle as much as they want. No one believes they will do anything. When we needed them (as usual) no one was there.
I hate to say this, but perhaps HA bet on the better partner. I am disgusted with our partners. They are a shame to even call partners. They are all (US, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc...) emasculated and disingenuous.
I totally support Sineora brushing off Bush to stay at the conference. Who needs him that piece of shit?! And I am glad the Saudis told him to take a hike! In this part of the world, you either stand up to your enemies, or you make them bolder. He is making them bolder and at our expense. I am totally disgusted with the Americans.
Now what? Well let us all be realistic on what we can do. We do not have a sovereign state. We are an entity that is a balance of power point between two warring states. We will not have sovereignty unfortunately because we will not be allowed to do so. We have to reset our expectations and salvage an entente that will keep us going until the balance of power shifts again. At that point, we will face a similar situation and we will go through the same issues and another status quo will develop and another entente will take place until the next quake. we had it in 1955, 1973, 1975, 1982, 1990, 2005, 2008. Nothing is going to change. Someone will always gain the upper hand somewhat but not definitely, and the other group will bide their time until a change in the status quo affords them an opportunity to shuffle the deck again. They may gain the upper hand then, but again it will not be a crushing blow to the other side and they live to change the status quo another day. THIS IS LEBANON folks. Like it or not, this is our history and it WILL be repeated.
I had really hoped that this time it will be different. That this time we will form a nation, but the reality is that our people don't have the sense of country that is needed to do that. Our nature is to see advantage and take it. Thinking short term gain and never the greater good. When push comes to shove, we turn to our tribal nature. We retreat into our 3asabiyya instead of uniting as a nation.
While I am at it, let me clear my "dameer". I am not only disappointed by the actions of the west. I am also disappointed by the actions of the M14 members from the east side. Let's call a spade a spade. In the face of the capture of West Beirut IN ONE DAY by HA, LF and the rest of the Irta out there just cut their own deal and saved themselves. Basita, we all do what we have to do to protect the people, but that is no less a shame than what the Army did.
Sorry for the long Post...more later.