From Beirut to the Beltway

Hizbullah's existential dilemma and how Israel is providing it with a reprieve

I have touched on this theme before, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate, especially after Michael Young's excellent new article.

Nasrallah's defensive speech on Monday revealed an existential crisis that has worsened since the Doha agreement and Suleiman's coming to power. In his inauguration speech, Suleiman used the past tense to refer to the armed resistance Nasrallah so desperately tried to repackage and sell.

Here is an excerpt from Suleiman's speech, which has taken many by surprise for being closer to the stated March 14 line:

The emergence of the resistance was a necessity in light of the state’s disintegration, and its survival depended on the fact that the people rallied around it, and the state embraced it both as an entity and as an army. The resistance succeeded in forcing the occupier to withdraw thanks to the valor of its men and the greatness of its martyrs. However, the Shebaa Farms are still under occupation and the enemy persists in its threats and violations of [Lebanon’s] sovereignty, hence the need for us to develop a defensive strategy that preserves the nation in parallel to a calm dialogue so as to take advantage of the resistance’s energies and put them to the service of this strategy. The aim is for the resistance not to deplete its achievements in domestic disputes, thus preserving its value and national status. (translation: Now Lebanon)

In his opinion piece, Young said Nasrallah's defensive tone reaffirms that Hizbullah can no longer exist as a national resistance.  Suleiman's speech, and the Doha agreement, were, in fact, major setbacks to Hizbullah.

As Suleiman implied, the best thing that can happen now is for Hizbullah to share with the state its resistance expertise, which was a gentle way of saying that the party must integrate into the state.

Nasrallah's defensiveness also revealed something else, almost as worrying as his untenable position on Hizbullah's defense strategy. It revealed that the party views Doha as a setback. Nasrallah is right in that respect. The agreement negotiated by the Qataris was several things. It was, above all, a line drawn in the sand by the Sunni Arab world against Iran and Syria, telling them that Lebanon would not fall into their lap. In this the Qataris were part of an Arab consensus, and the Iranians, always pragmatic, backtracked when seeing how resolute the Arabs were. (The Daily Star)

All Nasrallah could do in his speech was use the disastrous summer 2006 war as a model for the defense strategy he is pushing. That war, as Young and many others have noted, resulted, in fact, in a rejection of Nasrallah strategy.

The only good thing that came out of the 2006 war, the only thing that both a majority of Lebanese and the Shiite community together approved of, was the deployment of the Lebanese Army to the South, the strengthening of UNIFIL, and the pacification of the border area. The Lebanese approved of this because it made less likely a return to Nasrallah's inane defense strategy.

Faced with this dilemma, Nasrallah could only do one thing: turn to Israel.

Thanks to the Israelis, who may soon hand a grand prisoner exchange to Hizbullah, Nasrallah may earn a brief reprieve for his "resistance." It's funny how Hizbullah and Syria, always the loudest in accusing others of being Israeli agents, are the ones who, when under pressure, look toward negotiations with Israel for an exit. Hizbullah has again done so to show that its "defense strategy" works and to deflect growing domestic insistence that the party place its weapons at the disposal of the state.

Chairs for tents

"Evil incarnate" Fouad Siniora will return to haunt the "opposition" as a prime minister of the national unity cabinet. Pro-Iranian and anti-Saudi rag al-Akhbar described the nomination of Siniora as a Saudi-American plot, and wondered in an editorial whether the Doha agreement was still "well" after this nomination.  Amin Gemayel today denied the accusation.

March 14 had named Siniora as a candidate late last night, ending speculations that Saad Hariri himself might head the new cabinet, and drawing criticism and vilification from Aoun and Hizbullah, who both said that naming Siniora will not keep them from participating in the cabinet and moving the opposition to inside the Serail.

During this "confrontation", however, Aoun, Nasrallah and their pro-Syrian pals will likely use chairs provided by taxpayers instead of camping out illegally in public squares.

With citizens celebrating Beirut's "return to life" downtown, the picture looks grim elsewhere in the country, with clashes erupting in mixed neighborhoods between Hizbullah/Amal supporters and Sunni residents. The acting government's ban on motorcycles and mobile demonstrations, may have received the blessings of all parties who have no interests in food delivery, and even Shia clerics, but will unlikely defuse the tension exacerbated by Nasrallah's speech, and by the astonishing absence of a decision banning the use and illegal ownership of fire weapons.  It also strikes me as odd, and perhaps telling of the true nature of the agreement reached between the two parties, that no one is explicitly calling for handing over illegal weapons to the Lebanese army.

With Nasrallah reminding Suleiman and the state not to touch his holy weapons, it is unlikely that this national unity government will take a decision to, say, disarm militias. Lebanese will unfortunately continue to be at the mercy of gunmen who take matters into their hands, at least until Nasrallah gets air-conditioning. 

Nasrallah knows best

Let me preface this by saying that I have always admired Ramses the Great and never appreciated the Bible's and Qur'an vilification of him. So when Hassan Nasrallah compares George W. Bush to my favorite pharaoh, this will not cause me to hate the US president, fear him, or participate in some mass exodus to some promised land where sacrificial death awaits me and my sons.

You know a man is desperate for glory when he tries to rewrite the history of the world. And I'm not just referring to Nasrallah's reading of Ramses' history, but the social history of occupied people. It turns out that only Nasrallah understands the timing of resistance, only his people have the courage to fight, and only his method is valid. And if you don't see it Nasrallah's way, it's OK, for Nasrallah sees it for you, and will fight for you, until you come to your senses and realize that Wilyat al-Faqih has decreed that pluralism in Lebanon should be preserved!

Nasrallah noted that, contrary to popular belief, Lebanon’s situation was far from exceptional. Drawing on the Israeli invasion of Beirut, Nasrallah said, “Throughout history, when a force invaded a country, the people of that country would divide. This was the state in Lebanon in 1982. … People break into numerous groups.”

One group stands by neutral and does … another group does not care … a third group is a group of conspirators, such as Lahad's army… a fourth group cooperates with the invaders due to common interests. A fifth group is a group of pathetic losers … works to limit national losses, and these are usually the elites. A sixth group rejects the occupation politically and throught the media but is not ready to pay the toll. And a last group considers that its humanitarian, ethical, religious and national duty  is to liberate the nation, and is willing to pay the price, no matter what religion or nation it defends. This is the resistance. (Now Lebanon with corrections/additions)

في مقابل استحقاق الاحتلال وكيفية التعاطي معه ينقسم الناس لمجموعات عديدة: مجموعة كبيرة من الناس تقف على الحياد  في المرحلة الأولى وتنتظر. مجموعة أخرى أساسا لا يعنيها ما يحصل، المهم أنها تأكل وتشرب و"تشم الهواء يوم الجمعة أو يوم الأحد"، السلطة والسيادة بيد من والبلد بأي موقع فهذا لا يعنيها بشيء. مجموعة ثالثة هم من  العملاء والأدوات كجيش أنطوان لحد رخيصون مرتزقة وهم لبنانيون أيضاً.  ومجموعة رابعة تتقاطع مصالحها مع مصالح الاحتلال فتتعاون معه نتيجة تقاطع المصالح. مجموعة خامسة هي مجموعة مهزومة من الداخل ويائسة ولكنها تُنظر للتعاون مع الاحتلال طبق نظرية الحد  من الخسائر الوطنية، وغالبا ما تكون هذه المجموعة من النخب. ومجموعة سادسة ترفض  الاحتلال سياسيا وإعلاميا ولكنها ليست حاضرة لدفع الثمن وضريبة الدم. ومجموعة أخيرة تعتبر أن واجبها الانساني والأخلاقي والديني والوطني هو تحرير بلدها من الاحتلال مهما كان الثمن وهي حاضرة لتدفع الثمن، وهذه المجموعة هي مجموعة المقاومة التي تؤمن بالمقاومة وتقاوم  بالفعل.

هذا الانقسام هو انقسام طبيعي وتاريخي واجتماعي وليس حكرا على لبنان، ومن نتائجه فقدان الاجماع الشعبي والوطني على أي خيار. البعض يقول ليس هناك إجماع وطني على المقاومة في العام 1982، أو ليس هناك اجماع وطني على المقاومة في فلسطين وليس هناك إجماع وطني على المقاومة في العراق، ولكن ليس هناك إجماع وطني على الحياد ولا على العمالة ولا على التعاون ولا على اللامبالاة، إذا أي خيار لا  يحظى باجماع وطني، وكل مجموعة تأخذ خيارها وتمضي وتمشي، وهذا ما  حصل في لبنان. وأنا أقول لأي شعب تحتل أرضه كما في الماضي، لا تنتظر المقاومة إجماعا وطنيا  ولا شعبيا، وإنما يجب أن تحمل السلاح وتمضي لتؤدي واجب التحرير، تحرير الأرض والانسان والأسرى واستعادة الكرامة والعزة  بالسلاح والدم والتضحيات الغالية

By saying this, Nasrallah is admitting that we do not need to buy into his apologetics about the role of resistance in warding off the evils of neo-Egyptians and thwarting alleged American plots. But that didn't stop him from defending it. For didn't you know? If it hadn't been for the Hizbullah's "divine victory" in 2006, the US would have attacked Iran and Syria, and Israel would have finished off Lebanon.

Not a single word was uttered on Syria's negotiations with Israel. Not a single mention of the assassinations that probably originated in areas under his control. Nasrallah, however, challenged the Future Movement to follow in the footsteps of Rafik Hariri, whom Nasrallah claimed was able to reconcile his vision for Lebanon with the "resistance". Nasrallah apparently wants Saad Hariri, who came close to being killed by this "resistance", to commit suicide.

Ozymandias-wannabes like Nasrallah come by often. Salvation through destruction is the mantra of washed up fighters who wake up on thousands of rockets and no clear targets. So they're in the government, "united", under "consensus" with others. Big deal. Nasrallah is not a happy man. His speech, delivered to a huge crowd through a giant TV screen, used anger to mask defeat. Not military defeat, and not even political, but the defeat of his expired ideology of "resistance". Even President Suleiman used the past tense when referring to this resistance. Nasrallah is on the defensive, trying to construct models and apply them to Iraq and Palestine, while at the same time claiming a commitment to Lebanon.

So Nasrallah told us he had never tried to usurp power, and that he offered the south to the state in 2000 after he finished the liberation. Where has the state been in the past 8 years? Good question. Form 2000 to 2005, the Syrians ran the show. And when people tried to take over and spread the authority of the state over Lebanese territories, what did Hassan do? He unleashed his mob, paid them dollars to sabotage the building of the state, launched a war without consulting anyone, trained militias from other sects, and laid siege to the very government he claimed was lax. And yes, he rejected government help after July 2006, the same way he rejected Rafik Hariri's numerous attempts to bring prosperity to Shia areas. Prosperous people cannot be brainwashed into believing their brethren are the enemy.

But they can do this:

Amal and Hezbollah gunmen opened fire and hurled rocks in the direction of Tarik al-Jedideh and Corniche al-Mazraa earlier today, coinciding with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech. RPGs were also fired at the Abed an-Nasser mosque. The Lebanese army has been deployed and has cut off the roads between Corniche al-Mazraa, Barbour and Tarik al-Jedideh. The wounded have been transferred to nearby hospitals. (Now Lebanon)

A Lebanese citizen, Muriel Choueiri, is injured by celebratory gunfire during Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech. (Now Lebanon)

Maqassed Hospital reports 18 civilians wounded by Hizbullah and AMAL fire in Beirut. Some of the injured were in critical conditions. (Naharnet)

Read the Arabic transcript here.  Now Lebanon's translation is not accurate. Naharnet's less impressive summary is here. Or just skip and read about the King of Kings.

The votes that didn't count... and the speech that did

Berri noted that today coincides with the 8th anniversary of the Israeli withdrawal, and the end of the Nahr el Bared battle. After claiming that parliament was "never closed", citing the sacrifices those assassinated, and going over the events of the past 18th months, thanking all dignitaries and world leaders in attendance, including the Emir of Qatar and the Unites States "which seems to have come to the conclusion that Lebanon cannot be the birthplace of its Middle East project", and after a long speech,  he swore in Michel Suleiman as the republic's 12th president.

Suleiman was elected by 118 votes out of 127. One vote went to Nassib Lahoud, once one of March 14's candidates. One vote went to MP Jean Obeid.

And one vote went to "Rafik Hariri and the martyr MPs".

There were six blank votes.

Update. A good part of Suleiman's speech focused on youth, and the need to let them lead the way and build a nation they can be proud of. He also called for recognizing the rights of immigrants. He said immigrants are more deserving of citizenship than some of those who received it. He also talked about the importance of decentralization

He affirmed his commitment to the Hariri tribunal to bring the killers of Hariri and others to justice.

On the resistance: he said the occupation of Shebaa calls for a defense strategy and dialogue to make use of the resistance capacity and to make sure its accomplishments are not invested in the wrong place.

He called for diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria, to ensure good relations.

He said the Palestinian cause should not be used as a pretext to carry weapons, citing what happened in Nahr el Bared.

He called for a keeping a minimum of consensus to avoid the events of past weeks, when people started doubting the Lebanese army's abilities to maintain peace.

The speech was not bad. It is closer to a March 14 speech than Hizbullah, which is an encouraging sign.

Hate something, change something (with apologies to that Honda ad)

Thank you AK for the invitation to post this. This is nothing more than a cry from the heart.

On Tuesday afternoon, as the country began its plunge into the depths of depression, my CEO walked into my office. I knew what was coming. Ours is one of the few remaining multinational companies whose Middle East and North Africa headquarters, against commercial realities and pressure from global management, remains stubbornly based in Beirut, an aberration I thought was just about to be corrected. I waited for the Dubai blow. I was wrong. “We stay in Beirut”, he stated instead. There was a hint of a question, and somehow I heard myself reply: “we stay in Beirut”. Then we laughed. Boy, did we laugh. We laughed like schoolchildren who have just seen a far-fetched prank come off. We laughed like Robert De Niro laughed as he played Russian roulette in The Deer Hunter. We laughed like the idiots we knew we were.

Today we’re no longer laughing. Because now, that insane switch that controls Lebanon’s mood has been at work again and that potent mixture of euphoria and amnesia has been swallowed in one shot. We’re unapologetically drunk. Indeed I am as I write this.

When I left Lebanon during the Civil War, driven out by a collision between fresh-faced journalistic ideals and militia threats to my life, I left with a sense of disgust. A few years later, that disgust slowly metamorphosed into a latent desire to justify my absence from my country, a justification fueled by every possible  pragmatic reason one can think of. These reasons don’t differ much from those that have been exposed, ad nauseam, in the comments section of this blog. In fact I too have ranted against that collection of flaws that somehow contrive to make Lebanon what it is, more than any blog can handle. The corruption, the one-upmanship, the communities that dictate where love should be found, the families that strangle the rebel in every child until he or she is a child no more, the cronyism, the quality of the asphalt, damn it. You name it, I have ranted against it.

But rants do not nations make. The Jewish Lobby doesn't waste time sniggering about Hamas' lack of a long-term plan. The mullahs that hijacked the real Iranian revolution did not spend their time ranting against un-Islamic practices. Neither did the glorified thugs, camouflaged as they were in their divine resistance slogans, before they seized Beirut. In fact, I doubt very much that Steve Jobs had been bitching about the gargantuan power of the music industry when he was setting out to dismantle it with iTunes and iPods. Ranting, moaning and hand wringing is in my book the most fake-elegant antiseptic handwash for lazy intellectuals and the educated wastes as a whole. It is the real obstacle to progress, disguised as it is in the cloak of pseudo-knowledgeable analyses while being nothing more than a barricade of defeatism, manned by people who believe that history repeats itself rather than strive to avoid it doing so.

A lifelong card-carrying member of the live-it-to-the-max brigade, child of the who-knows-what-tomorrow-may-bring-so-lets-fuck-tonight generation of civil war epicurists, I may be one of the Beiruti liberal bourgeois former expats who believe that you shouldn’t have to do today what you can postpone until tomorrow. But I do not live in an ivory tower. Today, I genuinely feel that, as I happily soak in the now-traditional post-worry atmosphere that only Beirut can conjure up, we should raise our glasses not just to our resilient spirit, but to what we can do.

The Lebanese diaspora – and that includes many of you people – is one of the largest in the world. Some 11 million, I think. It may not compare in size and weight to the Jewish wordwide lobby, but damn it, it’s one hell of a body. What if, like our Jewish brethren (yes, and no apologies for that) we drew a plan? What if the thinking fraction of those millions turned rant and exodus apologies into action points, into suggestions at least, into idea kernels that can grow into the oaks they can be?  “All our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death”, said the Bard. Can we look forward rather than let our past experiences and learnings blight our possibilities? Today, several embryonic, forward-looking movements are trying to break through the Lebanese feudal media blanket. We, you guys abroad, and those of us with courage and conviction here should fuel them rather than drive them to despondency and flight. This blog is – and forgive me AK if I’m abusing – a perfect platform for a start. Ghassan Karam outlined once some points in what some saw as a naïve proposal for a better Lebanon. Well, hail naivete, I say. More, please. Lets turn this into a forum for what can be rather than an easy deconstruction of what we all know is. Regardless of what you may think of parliamentary elections in Lebanon, they do sometimes spring surprises. Hell, the 2000 law was supposed to thwart Hariri. Look what happened instead. We have just about enough time to make the 2009 elections a turning point. Not with some miraculous touch of a magic wand, of course not. But by planting a seed. Or at least by handing over a watering can to those who believe that there is a garden of hope out there, not just the pointless, self-serving disgust I was once guilty of. What say you?

Young on Lebanon after the Doha agreement

Many have jumped to the conclusion that the Doha agreement is a victory for Hizbullah and defeat for March 14. I couldn't disagree more with such a simplistic view. Here's Michael Young on the subject:

Can Hizbullah be pleased with the result? It will now be able to say that it received veto power in the government and that the matter of its weapons was not discussed in Doha. It will also be able to convince its supporters that this was its latest victory after the government's decision to withdraw the two decisions last week that Hizbullah found offensive. But that may be only half the story. By so foolishly taking over Beirut militarily, the party only scared the other communities into sustained hostility. The two decisions the government went back on were decisions it could never have implemented anyway, so Hizbullah effectively revealed its coup plan at an inopportune time and for little gain. The party also has lost two cards: It has dismantled its downtown protest camp and won't be able to close the airport road for some time. Its weapons have become a subject of legitimate national discussion. And what kind of war can Hizbullah hope to wage against Israel in South Lebanon when most Lebanese, and quite a few Shiites, have no desire for war? Most importantly, Hizbullah has been about the negation of the state. If the post-Doha process is about the building of a state, then the party and that state will eventually clash.

Young places the Doha agreement in the context of a regional package deal, and interprets it as failure by the Assad regime to take over the country without a military assault-- one which has failed, and created more obstacles for its allies, and for Hizbullah especially.

Like most compromises, the Doha agreement has created winners and losers on all sides - but remains nebulous enough so that the losers still feel they might gain from it. But it's difficult not to interpret what happened in Qatar as a definitive sign that Syria's return to Lebanon is no longer possible. No doubt the Syrians were in on the arrangement, and the suspicious delay in establishing the Hariri tribunal until early 2009 makes one wonder whether a quid pro quo is taking shape behind the scenes. Reports of a breakthrough on the Syrian-Israeli track, the Iraqi Army's entry into Sadr City, certainly with an Iranian green light, and signs that a truce may soon be agreed in Gaza, suggest a regional package deal may have oiled the Lebanese deal.

If there was one message emerging from the recent fighting, it was that Syria could not conceivably return its army to Lebanon without reconquering the country. Hizbullah committed several mistakes, of which two were especially egregious for Syria: The Sunni community, like the Druze and many Christians, are mobilized and will fight any Syrian comeback; and the Lebanese file is more than ever an Iranian one, because Hizbullah's destiny is at stake. Syria's allies, other than Hizbullah, were ineffective in Beirut and the mountains, in some cases even siding with the majority. This confirmed that Damascus has less leverage than ever when it comes to employing those smaller armed groups it completely controls.

Young sees the election of a president, something that Hizbullah wanted to avoid altogether, as opening a new phase in Lebanon.

The election of a president, even if he is the troubling Michel Suleiman, opens a new phase in Lebanon, one in which it is possible to imagine consolidating a state gradually breaking free from Syria's grip. That's the priority today, and has been the priority since April 2005 when the Syrian Army withdrew from the country. Whether Suleiman likes it or not, from now on he is a president, not a candidate maneuvering to become a president, which will require him to take a strong position on defending the sovereignty of the state both vis-ˆ-vis Syria and Hizbullah. That could either push him closer to the position favored by March 14 and most Lebanese, or it could damage him if he proves to be indecisive.

Read the entire thing here.

War, peace and the in-between

The jubilation of ordinary citizens happy to see the occupation of downtown Beirut ending failed to leave an impression on those who are convinced the Doha agreement was an act of surrender to Hizbullah.

After more than 18 months of occupation and recently, use of force against citizens, some critics are telling Lebanese people that their government has just signed their country away to the Iranian-Syrian axis. The culpable party, March 14, is accused of selling out, whether out of weakness, or sheer stupidity.

In July 2006, this blog was fiercely anti-war, and anti-Hizbullah. When this last war broke out, my first impulse, which remained unpublished, was to call for the resignation of the Siniora cabinet, and holding new elections, in order to avoid an unnecessary and foolish war, and to produce fresh options. Today, I cannot but note March 14's success in steering the country away from the trap that was laid by the warmongers.

Over the past weeks, Jumblatt and Hariri, and others, were driven by a single idea: avoiding war. This country, folks, cannot survive another civil war between its communities. Your commitment to an independent and free Lebanon cannot exist in vacuum. The agreement they signed was not ideal, it was the best possible solution, to paraphrase Geagea. Its perceived weakness may have been in giving in to Hizbullah and giving them veto power. But its strength is in deferring to the state's institutions, and committing parties to never resorting to violence to achieve political gains. Whether or not they will honor this commitment is another story that is worthy of follow up, and also worthy of turning into a fresh starting point. 

The battle for Lebanon is not over, but at least it's off the streets. If you subscribe to the notion that Hizbullah suffered political defeat by using their guns domestically, then you have to allow yourself to also believe that they will think long and hard before they venture into another occupation and assault on Lebanese citizens.

March 14 was stuck, as was Lebanon, between regional existential battles (and in its own). This isn't in defense of the politicians who make up the coalition. But going to war was never an option. And if peace isn't achievable, then truce and "coexistence" is good enough, until those around us, friends and foes, figure out their place in this universe, and settle their scores outside our border. We are not alone, nor are we free. Look at Iraq, Syria and Israel, and quit thinking that the world revolves around Lebanon. We're too small, too divided, and too weak to have the kind of superheroes that other, more advanced, cultures sold us in fairy tales. The best we can do, at this time, is to avoid killing each other in the name of a battle that will bring defeat if it ever becomes red in tooth and claw.

The Doha accord

According to As-Safir and al-Akhbar, an agreement has been reached between March 14 and the “opposition”. It is not clear whether the agreement has the consensus of all parties involved, but it appears that Hariri, Jumblatt and Hizbullah, and the Qatari backers, have given their approval. 

According to as-Safir, Berri will call parliament into session in 48 hours to elect Suleiman. The agreement stipulates a 3-11-16 composition of the new "national unity" cabinet, with 16 going to the parliament’s majority, 11 to the "opposition" and 3 to the president. The majority will still hold the right to name the premiere, according to as-Safir, although Siniora’s chances of returning are slim, considering that he was pretty much left on the cutting room floor during the making of this episode.

The bottleneck, the electoral law, will be largely based on the 1960 law, with one exception: Beirut, which will be divided into three districts reportedly guaranteeing a chance for Hariri to win a majority of seats, and Aoun to conveniently use the Armenian vote.

Reportedly, the agreement will include a part about the use of weapons to settle political scores. The president, once elected, will call for dialogue to define the relationship between the state and the armed groups.

The prince of Qatar had to intervene personally to force the two parties, and especially the opposition, to pick a solution. According to the pro-March 14 media, the Qataris and the Arab delegation were upset with the opposition for rejecting two proposals, describing them as “non existing” at some point, and going out of their way to sabotage the talks. The opposition was then reportedly given 24 hours to “take it or leave it”.

Regardless, by the time you read this, and if the reports are true and the opposition does not shift the goal posts again, this act of the Lebanese drama will be over.

Samir Geagea, who is probably the least excited about all this, did well to remind everyone earlier tonight that Hizbullah’s weapons are the real issue, and that people like Aoun lie when they claim to defend the Christian vote. Sadly, it was Aoun whose ego the Qatar prince had to massage, not Geagea, and not the Christians of March 14, who appear to have lost again. But that's another story. Let's wait for the full details first.

Update. Suleiman will be "elected" Sunday. As to how an army commander can just waltz into this post without a constitutional amendment, it is not clear, but I am sure they'll figure it out.

Michel Aoun was interviewed by Future TV, and Saad Hariri was photographed kissing Mohamad Raad of Hizbullah.

Hizbullah has started dismantling the tents in downtown Beirut. Solidere stocks are up through the roof. Both Syria and Iran have blessed the agreement.

Speaking of Syria, note the timing of this announcement:

Syria said it was conducting indirect peace talks with Israel through Turkey, confirming an earlier announcement by the Jewish state.
   
"Syria has started indirect peace talks with Israel under Turkish auspices. Both sides have expressed their desire to conduct the talks in goodwill and decided to continue dialogue with seriousness to achieve comprehensive peace," a foreign ministry statement said.

The real issue

Hizbullah MP Mohammed Raad, who is in Doha engaging in dialogue with people he went to war against last week, has said that discussing the resistance weapons is "out of the question". He and his pal Hussein Hajj Hassan categorically denied that the issue is even on the Doha talks agenda, accusing the "ruling team" of "making up this issue to mislead domestic, Arab and international public opinion into thinking there is an issue on the discussion table called the resistance weapons or weapons in general".

Hizbullah has been selling its assault on Beirut and Mount Lebanon as an attempt to foil a "conspiracy similar to the July 2006 conspiracy", marketing the dead Hizbullah fighters who were butchered by the Druze as "martyrs who fell in a great war and who foiled great conspiracies… manufactured by Bush and his allies in the West and Israel ".

اعتبر رئيس المجلس السياسي في حزب الله سماحة السيد إبراهيم أمين السيد أن ما حصل في الآونة الأخيرة في لبنان أسقط مؤامرة شبيهة بمؤامرة حرب تموز، وقال في أسبوع الشهيد عباس مصطفى الهبش في حي السلم: "من جهة المؤامرة هناك تشابه مع حرب تموز لأن المعركة على المقاومة وسلاحها التي حصلت كانت مقررة لاحقاً، ويمكن أن يكونوا أخطأوا  في التقدير والحسابات وأخذوا قرارات لم يكونوا يعتقدون أن المقاومة ستأخذ هذا القرار بالدفاع عن سلاحها. لكن في النهاية، تعطلت هذه المؤامرة كما تعطلت مؤامرة حرب تموز لأن الإسرائيليين كانوا قد خططوا لشن حرب على المقاومة ليس في تموز وإنما بعد تموز، وفي هذا المعنى فإن الشهداء الذين سقطوا ، سقطوا في حرب كبرى وأسقطوا مؤامرات كبرى، وحموا بدمائهم هذه المقاومة العظيمة وشهداء تموز حموا دمائهم، حموا نصرهم كما حموا لبنان واللبنانيين. إن ما حصل سقط فيه من صَنع هذه المؤامرة وهو بوش ومن معه في العالم الغربي وإسرائيل"

I have no doubt in my mind that many Shias will buy this rubbish. In fact, in Hizbullah controlled mosques, funerals turned into anti-government festivals, attended by representatives of the militia, and of Michel Aoun's party, the FPM. 

Back in Doha, the Prince of Qatar, seeing that March 14 will not quit talking about those weapons, and realizing that even he does not fathom how they killing other Lebanese is foiling a great conspiracy, has vowed to come up with a "formula", says Future TV. One hopes the prince doesn't borrow from the Cairo agreement, which legitimized the PLO's weapons, and established security "islands" within the country where the army has no authority.

So far, there is no indication that this issue will be resolved in Doha, although March 14 seems determined to at least get guarantees that the weapons will not be used domestically, and that their fate will be discussed at a later point. Other issues seem to be taking precedence anyway, such as the electoral law and the makeup of the cabinet. We're told that agreement over these two matters will lead to the immediate election of Michel Suleiman. MP Michel Murr has even predicted that Suleiman will be elected by "Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest". 

It is not clear to me how a new cabinet, a new electoral law and a new president will make Hizbullah's weapons disappear. Hizbullah has pretty much emasculated Suleiman, and a cabinet where the "opposition" has increased power will never rule in favor of putting an end to Hizbullah's weapons. And has someone pondered how a militia can be allowed to not only field candidates, but also dictate how the country should be districted? Here's Geagea in an excerpt from his opening speech on the first day of the talks, as leaked by the media.

وتلاه جعجع الذي اعتبر ان القضية ليست قضية حكومة ولا قانون انتخاب ولا حتى رئاسة جمهورية بل ابعد واخطر من ذلك بكثير انها قضية وجود السلاح ونتائجه في الآونة الاخيرة وقال: "نريد ان نعرف ما هو مصير هذا السلاح قبل البحث في اي موضوع آخر، كما نريد ان نعرف حدود مسؤولية الدولة عن امن المواطن وعلاقة هذا السلاح بالدولة. لقد ادى ما حصل الى ما نخشى من حصوله على الدولة والجيش فما جرى كان خطيرا جدا ومن دون افق وتاليا فإن اي حل سياسي من دون تحديد افق للسلاح يبقى من دون جدوى".

Regardless, it seems the Prince of Qatar is finally getting some exercise. He has managed to bring the two sides together in one suite, and has expanded his talks to include Syria and Iran. The waiting game is on.

Finally, my parents are back in their home, for now.  Their immediate concern, as with all Lebanese, is security. The roads are open, but the future Hizbullah martyrs and their pals are still lurking in corners, waiting for the opportune moment to remind us, once again, that their weapons are the real issue.

Who will stand up for the anti-Hizbullah Mufti?

While March 14 and the Hizbullah-dominated "opposition" are engaging in "dialogue" in Doha, Hizbullah continues to muzzle its critics within the Shia community. The anti-Hizbullah Tyre Mufti Ali al-Amin, whose headquarters were vandalized and occupied by Amal gunmen, was removed from his post by the Amal- dominated Shia council, even though the council has no authority to do so. Muftis are appointed by the state following a recommendation from the council, which has been paralyzed since the death of Mohammad Mahdi Shamseddine many years ago.   

Al-Amin lashed out at the council, accusing it of having no authority to fire him, and pointing out that the council itself has lost legitimacy since Berri and Hizbullah refused to hold elections to choose new executive and legislative bodies.

The council had issued a statement supporting and legitimizing Hizbullah's May 7th attack on citizens and the state.   

The militia started a war after the government dismissed a Shia employee suspected of spying for Hizbullah. Will the government, which revoked its decision, stand up for the Mufti, who is, by his own definition, a Lebanese citizen first, and a Shia second?

Somehow, I doubt it. These are sad times for the Shia community in Lebanon.

Here is al-Amin's statement to An-Nahar in Arabic:

"الاخوة في جريدة "النهار"، قرأت في جريدتكم الغراء خبرا صادرا عن المجلس الشيعي يتعلق بادارة دار الافتاء الجعفري في صور والموجود فيها منزلي ومكاتبي والتي احتلها مسلحون من حركة "امل" الاسبوع الماضي واخرجوا اولادي والموظفين بقوة السلاح ولا يزالون فيها حتى كتابة هذا البيان.

يهمني القول ان المجلس الشيعي ليست له صلاحية قانونية وشرعية في هذه الامور لان التعيين في منصب الافتاء يكون من خلال الدولة اللبنانية بعد اقتراح الاسم من المؤسسة الدينية. وان مؤسسة المجلس الشيعي انتهت ولايتها القانونية بكل هيئاتها الشرعية والتنفيذية منذ وفاة الامام شمس الدين وقد امتنعت الجهات المهيمنة على المجلس الشيعي عن اجراء الانتخابات منذ ذلك الحين، ونحن نشهد لهم بقدرتهم على تعطيل الانتخابات في هذه المؤسسة الدينية المهمة، وان القادر على تعطيل انتخابات رئيس الجمهورية واغلاق مجلس النواب وفرض تراجع الحكومة عن قراراتها وقوانينها واجتياح بيروت بقوة السلاح هو قادر على تعطيل هذه المؤسسة التي تحولت مع الاسف الشديد اداة وغطاء لقوى الامر الواقع.

ونحن عندما اتخذنا مواقفنا الرافضة لسياسة هذه القوى التي اضرت بسمعة الطائفة الشيعية ومستقبلها ومكانتها في وطنها لبنان والعالم العربي لم نأخذ منصب الافتاء في الاعتبار والاهتمام لان المهم عندنا حريتنا واقتناعاتنا الدينية والوطنية بان مصلحة اهلنا في الجنوب والبقاع والضاحية هي في المحافظة على العيش المشترك مع كل الطوائف اللبنانية وفي انخراط كل الاحزاب في مشروع الدولة الواحدة التي تشكل وحدها الحماية والضمانة لكل اللبنانيين