Every time Lebanon is steered in the direction of USrael it goes in the other direction. This artificial entity that is the Lebanese state is based on two tendencies: pro-western (which is now synonymous of USrael) and anti-western (which is now synonymous of resistance to USrael). The bitter taste US policies have left in the region and in Lebanon has increased anti-western sentiment and therefore sympathy for the resistance (i.e. Hezbollah), especially among christians.
I was in lebanon recently and I noticed a clear increase in support for Hassan Nasrallah among Lebanese christians. The riots that are being held in Tripoli to protest the ousting of Hariri and March 14th from forming the Lebanese government can only reinforce this anti March 14th and anti-USrael sentiment among christians. Christians in the north for example did not forget Nahr-el-Bared and the impact of sunni radicalization and its backing by Hariri, and christians in traditionally Lebanese Forces (formerly Phalanges) dominated areas are tired of Geagea and Gemayel leading the community to disaster by forming alliances with enemies of Lebanon (Israel), they see what happened to christians in Iraq and Egypt and know that the US won't lift a finger for them.
My guess also is that, here again, the region's new political equilibrium is being played before our eyes in Lebanon. Entangled in two wars, with an economic crisis, unemployment and social unrest, and devoid of a clear Middle East policy, except the one that is dictated by Israel, the US is becoming weak in the Middle East and its allies are noticing. Pro-US dictators are increasingly fragile and Hariri was probably let down by his Saudi mentors who, in turn, fear being let down by the US if their unpopular regime is threatened by the street (as in Tunisia). Saudi Arabia has been damaged by the recent revelations of wikileaks in which it appears as a staunch USrael ally and it cannot afford right now to be seen more USrael aligned, disconnected from Arab public opinion.
Hariri ignores Lebanon's history. He should know better, and the US should know better. No one can impose a unilateral direction to politics in Lebanon. Lebanon as an artificial entity created by the post Ottoman French mandate can live only by consensus, and Lebanon has always been the mirror of the power equation in the region. Instead of going to the streets young Hariri, the leader of March 14th, should learn his lesson from playing it along the US and Israel and against national Lebanese interests (which are survival by consensus). He should accept the new power equation.
Angry Arab: Mini-Hariri self-destructing before our eyes.
Foreign Policy on Lebanese Christian community's support for Hezbollah.
Showing posts with label March 14th movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label March 14th movement. Show all posts
21.9.07
Political Assassinations In Lebanon: Elementary my dear Watson ?
I was thinking about the latest assassination in Lebanon. What continues to puzzle me, as much as this assassination and the previous ones, is the reaction of March 14th movement, the movement that is the target of the assassinations after the death of Rafiq Hariri.
The reaction has the following scheme:
- Fingers publicly pointed at Syria;
- Appeal for help from the international community.
Generally, the immediate after murder condemnation comes from the US, president or department of state, never lower than that.
This pattern has been going crescendo at each assassination.
I don't consider this as an approach to finding the truth which should be the normal approach in such situations. I call this a gross instrumentalisation of the assassinations.
I am not including in these reactions the actual huge street protests in Beirut that led to the ousting of the Syrian army from Lebanon after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri that took place before the famous March 14th, 2005 protests, and which included protesters who followed a divergent path since, like general Michel Aoun's supporters.
The protests before March 14th, 2005 against the Syrian presence in Lebanon were mostly genuine, joined by people across the multiple sectarian divides which exist in Lebanon. It is only on March 14th that we saw the emergence of hi-tech politically planned street protests in Lebanon meant to influence, not only Lebanese and international public opinions, but also the course of the political process in Lebanon. And I think the name for March 14th is very adequate in this regard because it is on March 14th, 2005 that some people felt that political assassinations and the following protests are something that can pay off beyond their immediate impact.
What became different also from March 14, 2005 and on is the profile of the Politicians targeted. From high profile like Rafiq Hariri, assassinations started to target either low profile politicians or politicians who are not in the core of the March 14th movement. I will call them March 14th periphery politicians. Of course the Gemayels, a prominent Christian family and militia, were hit by the assassinations. But here again, the Gemayels still are periphery because they have a very low impact within the movement itself. The core of March 14th are Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, and Samir Gea'gea.
Moreover, the fact that March 14th's core leaders were never interested in alternative explanations, serious investigations on the assassinations that followed Hariri's (even though they asked that later assassinations should be included in the UN commission mandate on the assassination of Hariri), national dialogue or reconciliation, makes their claims, after each assassination, less credible. We are told that Syria is doing the assassinations and we are not told what actions the Lebanese government and March 14th are making to investigate or stop the assassinations other than their constant appeal to the international community. The Lebanese government is showing how much powerless and incompetent it is in stopping a string of assassinations targeting its own majority and want us at the same time to trust it.
I challenge March 14th to come up with a logical explanation for the assassinations other than Syria attempting to reduce the majority of March 14th. But if that's the case why not assassinate this majority at once and in a short time since nobody seems to be able or willing to identify the perpetrators or to stop them ? If nothing can stop them why not do the job in a short time and more efficient way, instead of following the 'Little Thumb' scenario leaving a trail of evidence ? A trail bizzarrely no one from March 14th seems to be willing to uncover or prove to strenghten their accusations ? Why is it taking Syrians so long, more than two years and going on now, to get rid of this 'anti-Syrian' (Pro-US I would say is more accurate) Lebanese 'majority' ?
Saad Hariri, as smart as he is, came up with this explanation of the latest assassination: Syria killed Ghanem in retaliation to the recent Israeli bombing of Syria ! Recognising hereby that March 14th are Israel's implicit allies while at the same time launching a not so implicit appeal to Israel to retaliate for Ghanem by striking Syrian territory. Lebanese Politicians were always good at one thing, not dialogue, not politics, not serving the people, not even war; they were always good at asking for foreign help. And the help comes now right away in the form of foreign interference from the US calling on opposition MPs who were going to boycott the presidential elections to reverse their decision.
The press release of the US embassy in Beirut reads:
"We hope that the shock of MP Ghanem's murder will persuade those Members of Parliament who were threatening to use a boycott of the presidential elections to honor the memory of their slain colleague by showing up for presidential elections as scheduled."
In all this we are left only with Holmesian logical deductions to untangle the mystery behind these assassinations if we reject the Syria hypothesis, at least for the assassinations that took place after Hariri died. But the Lebanese government and March 14th don't want us to resort to logic, they want us to swallow whatever they say as absolute truth without even attemting to shed a single light on this 'truth'. A Holmesian deduction one can make of the assassination pattern after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005 is that, even though we still aren't sure who killed Rafiq Hariri, it is clear that subsequent killings are different (I wrote about this when Pierre Gemayel was assassinated) and they have some of these goals or all of them at once:
Maintaining the outrage against Syria alive;
Preventing any internal dialogue in Lebanon and preventing any reasonable alternative to confrontation;
'Cleaning' the peripehry of the March 14th movement from potential challengers to its core or potential shifters. This is on the internal level where we are witnessing something bearing some resemblance to the Ten Little Indians scenario.
On the external level, regional and international, the pattern, as glanced at from Saad Hariri's remark, is nothing else than a build-up to more wars in the region and more divides. To Which March 14th are applauding, as if Lebanon and Lebanese did not already suffer from this dirty game before.
"...it is clear that the Arab region is undergoing yet another round of internationally-sponsored violence and perhaps even partition, redrawing the regional map along the line fantasized by some neocons. The objective of such policy is to establish a string of "pro-US" (and neoliberal) regimes across the region and punish the "bad guys," those state (e.g., Iran, Syria) or non-state (e.g., Hizbullah, Hamas) actors who reject Pax Americana and Israeli regional hegemony."
Elementary, my dear Watson.
The reaction has the following scheme:
- Fingers publicly pointed at Syria;
- Appeal for help from the international community.
Generally, the immediate after murder condemnation comes from the US, president or department of state, never lower than that.
This pattern has been going crescendo at each assassination.
I don't consider this as an approach to finding the truth which should be the normal approach in such situations. I call this a gross instrumentalisation of the assassinations.
I am not including in these reactions the actual huge street protests in Beirut that led to the ousting of the Syrian army from Lebanon after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri that took place before the famous March 14th, 2005 protests, and which included protesters who followed a divergent path since, like general Michel Aoun's supporters.
The protests before March 14th, 2005 against the Syrian presence in Lebanon were mostly genuine, joined by people across the multiple sectarian divides which exist in Lebanon. It is only on March 14th that we saw the emergence of hi-tech politically planned street protests in Lebanon meant to influence, not only Lebanese and international public opinions, but also the course of the political process in Lebanon. And I think the name for March 14th is very adequate in this regard because it is on March 14th, 2005 that some people felt that political assassinations and the following protests are something that can pay off beyond their immediate impact.
What became different also from March 14, 2005 and on is the profile of the Politicians targeted. From high profile like Rafiq Hariri, assassinations started to target either low profile politicians or politicians who are not in the core of the March 14th movement. I will call them March 14th periphery politicians. Of course the Gemayels, a prominent Christian family and militia, were hit by the assassinations. But here again, the Gemayels still are periphery because they have a very low impact within the movement itself. The core of March 14th are Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblatt, and Samir Gea'gea.
Moreover, the fact that March 14th's core leaders were never interested in alternative explanations, serious investigations on the assassinations that followed Hariri's (even though they asked that later assassinations should be included in the UN commission mandate on the assassination of Hariri), national dialogue or reconciliation, makes their claims, after each assassination, less credible. We are told that Syria is doing the assassinations and we are not told what actions the Lebanese government and March 14th are making to investigate or stop the assassinations other than their constant appeal to the international community. The Lebanese government is showing how much powerless and incompetent it is in stopping a string of assassinations targeting its own majority and want us at the same time to trust it.
I challenge March 14th to come up with a logical explanation for the assassinations other than Syria attempting to reduce the majority of March 14th. But if that's the case why not assassinate this majority at once and in a short time since nobody seems to be able or willing to identify the perpetrators or to stop them ? If nothing can stop them why not do the job in a short time and more efficient way, instead of following the 'Little Thumb' scenario leaving a trail of evidence ? A trail bizzarrely no one from March 14th seems to be willing to uncover or prove to strenghten their accusations ? Why is it taking Syrians so long, more than two years and going on now, to get rid of this 'anti-Syrian' (Pro-US I would say is more accurate) Lebanese 'majority' ?
Saad Hariri, as smart as he is, came up with this explanation of the latest assassination: Syria killed Ghanem in retaliation to the recent Israeli bombing of Syria ! Recognising hereby that March 14th are Israel's implicit allies while at the same time launching a not so implicit appeal to Israel to retaliate for Ghanem by striking Syrian territory. Lebanese Politicians were always good at one thing, not dialogue, not politics, not serving the people, not even war; they were always good at asking for foreign help. And the help comes now right away in the form of foreign interference from the US calling on opposition MPs who were going to boycott the presidential elections to reverse their decision.
The press release of the US embassy in Beirut reads:
"We hope that the shock of MP Ghanem's murder will persuade those Members of Parliament who were threatening to use a boycott of the presidential elections to honor the memory of their slain colleague by showing up for presidential elections as scheduled."
In all this we are left only with Holmesian logical deductions to untangle the mystery behind these assassinations if we reject the Syria hypothesis, at least for the assassinations that took place after Hariri died. But the Lebanese government and March 14th don't want us to resort to logic, they want us to swallow whatever they say as absolute truth without even attemting to shed a single light on this 'truth'. A Holmesian deduction one can make of the assassination pattern after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005 is that, even though we still aren't sure who killed Rafiq Hariri, it is clear that subsequent killings are different (I wrote about this when Pierre Gemayel was assassinated) and they have some of these goals or all of them at once:
Maintaining the outrage against Syria alive;
Preventing any internal dialogue in Lebanon and preventing any reasonable alternative to confrontation;
'Cleaning' the peripehry of the March 14th movement from potential challengers to its core or potential shifters. This is on the internal level where we are witnessing something bearing some resemblance to the Ten Little Indians scenario.
On the external level, regional and international, the pattern, as glanced at from Saad Hariri's remark, is nothing else than a build-up to more wars in the region and more divides. To Which March 14th are applauding, as if Lebanon and Lebanese did not already suffer from this dirty game before.
"...it is clear that the Arab region is undergoing yet another round of internationally-sponsored violence and perhaps even partition, redrawing the regional map along the line fantasized by some neocons. The objective of such policy is to establish a string of "pro-US" (and neoliberal) regimes across the region and punish the "bad guys," those state (e.g., Iran, Syria) or non-state (e.g., Hizbullah, Hamas) actors who reject Pax Americana and Israeli regional hegemony."
Elementary, my dear Watson.
5.8.07
Lebanon's Partial Parliamentary Elections: The Metn's Christians Say 'NO' to March 14th
Amin Gemayel was so afraid of loosing these elections that he adressed a request to the minister of interior asking him to post a public notice about the different titles the voters might add to his name when voting, in order not to invalidate the vote. The interior ministry complied, and it was contrary to the Lebanese electoral law.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
30.1.07
Lebanon: Sectarian Tensions are being exacerbated to hide an Ailing Economy and a Failed Governance
I read an interesting analysis posted at Loubnan Ya Loubnan on the state of the lebanese debt and economy and it gave me some ammunitions because I have been arguing, since the beginning of the recent escalation, that although Lebanese society is sectarian and sectarian tensions seem to be behind most of the invectives between supporters and opponents to the Sanyura government, the real tension stems from the new economic deal that was designed for lebanon by Hariri. The New Lebanese economy built after the Taif accords sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which ended the civil war in lebanon and litterally officialised the Syrian grip on the country, was not meant to profit all Lebanese but only a clique, those who were in power ever since Taif, Hariri, The Lebanese Forces, and Co. Thus, the present political confrontation will not die because there is wealth and there are privileges at stake if the present political clique were to be replaced, or at least immobilised by the opposition.
The article referenced above highlights, on the basis of figures, academic work and expert opinions (among them, Charbel Nahhas, Georges Corm and Alain Gresh), the source of the economic debt, and traces it back to Hariri days in office as well as his finance minister and present PM Sanyura. Although the civil war left lebanon in a dire economic situation, the article argues that the debt increased rapidly with the reconstruction projects that were to profit the new political elite, or former fighting militia, pacified from civil war by the promises of fresh money and a large scale theft of Lebanon's financial resources. It is this theft that is responsible for Lebanon's debt, a debt that is the burden of the Lebanese people now. In other terms, the present political elite, headed by Hariri, heavily borrowed, heavily stole money that was destined for reconstruction, and is now, not only asking Lebanese to make sacrifices to reduce the debt, but also asking them to shut up because if they protest there will be no more money and no more borrowing. This is a vicious cycle which makes me think that Lebanon is the new Banana republic on the world stage heading to a total collapse of an economy, otherwise traditionally healthy, thanks to the dishonesty and the greed of its western backed rulers.
I am not surprised to realise that the theft of government resources was in fact brought to us by the Saudi mentored government of Hariri. This practice is routine in Saudi Arabia, a country with so much wealth, concentrated within the few who are related to the ruling family, and so little development for its own people, a country where the ruling family taxes the country's revenues at the level of 40%, money that goes in the pockets of the royal family members and not in the coffers of the state. The practice of stealing the revenues of the country was not installed on a tabula rasa in matters of corruption. Lebanon was known, even before the war, for the corruption of its state apparatus but the new economic and political landscape created by Hariri, in the middle of the Syrian occupation years, were to bring theft and corruption to new highs, never reached before. I will not be surprised to see, if there will be a conclusion to the UN report on the death of Hariri, a 'business' motive for his murder which prompted a chain reaction of other assassinations, every one of them destined to cloud further the investigation into the motives of the former and to discard any possible suspicion for motives other than the one who were invented as a storyline and distributed to the press by the March 14th movement, the movement of Sanyura, Hariri, Jumblatt, and the Lebanese Forces.
In the present regional situation, armed confrontation in Lebanon is not suitable. Lebanese should then seize this opportunity to start looking at themselves and at what divides them critically and not fall into the sectarian trap. They have fallen in it in the past and it brought them 15 years of civil war, misery and hell. But resisting a civil war does not mean that we should accept the present state of things as imposed on us by the Sanyura government, we should not accept to be ruled by a dishonest minority, we should not accpet to look at war criminals mutated into statesmen dictate what we should do and think, we should not accept foreign interference, not only Syria and Iran, which are minor when compared to the interference of Sanyura's buddies, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US in order to change things in Lebanon to their liking.
I am a Christian maronite and I grew up in a multireligious community made of Sunnis and Greek Orthodox. As during the height of the civil war, I still believe that sectarianism is never the cause of what is happening in Lebanon, in Iraq, and even in Gaza. It is only a mean to achieve something else, it is a mean to terrorise people in their own communities by silencing the voices of moderation and reason so the incompetence, corruption and the theft of our rulers go unnoticed. Every time an extremist slogan is shouted, there are ten moderate voices unheard. Extremism eventually creates a state of fear inside a community because not adhering to the rules of the community is to become unprotected, not recognised by the other community, and rejected by his own. What is happening in Lebanon, as in other corrupted governments in the ME, is that the political elite refuses to serve the country, no matter its religion or political affiliation, uses sectarianism to create a state of fear helping to rally people around them and to divert their attention from the real problems of the country and from their bad governance. The political elite in many countries in the ME, and Lebanon is no exception, sees power as a way to enrich itself at the expense of the country and its people. Lebanese illness is not sectarianism, it is feodalism, or the contempt of the ruling elite for its people. I have seen young, smart and educated people in Lebanon desperate because the country is unable to offer them jobs, let alone qualified jobs. Lebanese 'economy' after the civil war was built to suit the rich and powerful, to make of Lebanon, the whole country, a source of income for its political elite, and Lebanon became, under the Hariri rule, a whore country that offered itself to anybody (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and is now sleeping with the neocons doctrine) who is willing to help maintain the political elite in place and keep the cash flowing into its pockets while the country 's economy was left rotting and dying...This is the kind of governance the US has been praising and encouraging for years and now implementing under the Bush doctrine and at the expense of US national security and the well being of US's inhabitants drafted to wage colonial wars disguised under th banner of 'democracy and freedom'...
Can anybody show me an ounce of patriotism and good governance among the members of the Sanyura government ? These people are only good at political and sectarian agitation and rethoric destined to feed the neocon hubris. But this will not last and the neocons will be history in 2008 and Lebanon will be forgotten again...having to offer itself to a less glamorous master...
Some facts about Lebanon published the day Rafiq Hariri died:
Population: 3.7 million
Life expectancy: 72 years
GDP: $17.8bn (£9.4bn) in 2003
GDP per head: $4,800 a year
28% of Lebanese below the poverty line
Source for the above: CIA World Factbook
There are now 65 Billion dollars in Lebanese banks in private accounts and the central bank has 10 billions. 72% of private accounts reflect only 4,3% of the total volume of money deposits while 9,2% of private accounts possess 82,7% of total money deposits. In other words, there is money in Lebanon but it is not for everyone and certainly not for the state, it is only for the privileged few.
The article referenced above highlights, on the basis of figures, academic work and expert opinions (among them, Charbel Nahhas, Georges Corm and Alain Gresh), the source of the economic debt, and traces it back to Hariri days in office as well as his finance minister and present PM Sanyura. Although the civil war left lebanon in a dire economic situation, the article argues that the debt increased rapidly with the reconstruction projects that were to profit the new political elite, or former fighting militia, pacified from civil war by the promises of fresh money and a large scale theft of Lebanon's financial resources. It is this theft that is responsible for Lebanon's debt, a debt that is the burden of the Lebanese people now. In other terms, the present political elite, headed by Hariri, heavily borrowed, heavily stole money that was destined for reconstruction, and is now, not only asking Lebanese to make sacrifices to reduce the debt, but also asking them to shut up because if they protest there will be no more money and no more borrowing. This is a vicious cycle which makes me think that Lebanon is the new Banana republic on the world stage heading to a total collapse of an economy, otherwise traditionally healthy, thanks to the dishonesty and the greed of its western backed rulers.
I am not surprised to realise that the theft of government resources was in fact brought to us by the Saudi mentored government of Hariri. This practice is routine in Saudi Arabia, a country with so much wealth, concentrated within the few who are related to the ruling family, and so little development for its own people, a country where the ruling family taxes the country's revenues at the level of 40%, money that goes in the pockets of the royal family members and not in the coffers of the state. The practice of stealing the revenues of the country was not installed on a tabula rasa in matters of corruption. Lebanon was known, even before the war, for the corruption of its state apparatus but the new economic and political landscape created by Hariri, in the middle of the Syrian occupation years, were to bring theft and corruption to new highs, never reached before. I will not be surprised to see, if there will be a conclusion to the UN report on the death of Hariri, a 'business' motive for his murder which prompted a chain reaction of other assassinations, every one of them destined to cloud further the investigation into the motives of the former and to discard any possible suspicion for motives other than the one who were invented as a storyline and distributed to the press by the March 14th movement, the movement of Sanyura, Hariri, Jumblatt, and the Lebanese Forces.
In the present regional situation, armed confrontation in Lebanon is not suitable. Lebanese should then seize this opportunity to start looking at themselves and at what divides them critically and not fall into the sectarian trap. They have fallen in it in the past and it brought them 15 years of civil war, misery and hell. But resisting a civil war does not mean that we should accept the present state of things as imposed on us by the Sanyura government, we should not accept to be ruled by a dishonest minority, we should not accpet to look at war criminals mutated into statesmen dictate what we should do and think, we should not accept foreign interference, not only Syria and Iran, which are minor when compared to the interference of Sanyura's buddies, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the US in order to change things in Lebanon to their liking.
I am a Christian maronite and I grew up in a multireligious community made of Sunnis and Greek Orthodox. As during the height of the civil war, I still believe that sectarianism is never the cause of what is happening in Lebanon, in Iraq, and even in Gaza. It is only a mean to achieve something else, it is a mean to terrorise people in their own communities by silencing the voices of moderation and reason so the incompetence, corruption and the theft of our rulers go unnoticed. Every time an extremist slogan is shouted, there are ten moderate voices unheard. Extremism eventually creates a state of fear inside a community because not adhering to the rules of the community is to become unprotected, not recognised by the other community, and rejected by his own. What is happening in Lebanon, as in other corrupted governments in the ME, is that the political elite refuses to serve the country, no matter its religion or political affiliation, uses sectarianism to create a state of fear helping to rally people around them and to divert their attention from the real problems of the country and from their bad governance. The political elite in many countries in the ME, and Lebanon is no exception, sees power as a way to enrich itself at the expense of the country and its people. Lebanese illness is not sectarianism, it is feodalism, or the contempt of the ruling elite for its people. I have seen young, smart and educated people in Lebanon desperate because the country is unable to offer them jobs, let alone qualified jobs. Lebanese 'economy' after the civil war was built to suit the rich and powerful, to make of Lebanon, the whole country, a source of income for its political elite, and Lebanon became, under the Hariri rule, a whore country that offered itself to anybody (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and is now sleeping with the neocons doctrine) who is willing to help maintain the political elite in place and keep the cash flowing into its pockets while the country 's economy was left rotting and dying...This is the kind of governance the US has been praising and encouraging for years and now implementing under the Bush doctrine and at the expense of US national security and the well being of US's inhabitants drafted to wage colonial wars disguised under th banner of 'democracy and freedom'...
Can anybody show me an ounce of patriotism and good governance among the members of the Sanyura government ? These people are only good at political and sectarian agitation and rethoric destined to feed the neocon hubris. But this will not last and the neocons will be history in 2008 and Lebanon will be forgotten again...having to offer itself to a less glamorous master...
Some facts about Lebanon published the day Rafiq Hariri died:
Population: 3.7 million
Life expectancy: 72 years
GDP: $17.8bn (£9.4bn) in 2003
GDP per head: $4,800 a year
28% of Lebanese below the poverty line
Source for the above: CIA World Factbook
There are now 65 Billion dollars in Lebanese banks in private accounts and the central bank has 10 billions. 72% of private accounts reflect only 4,3% of the total volume of money deposits while 9,2% of private accounts possess 82,7% of total money deposits. In other words, there is money in Lebanon but it is not for everyone and certainly not for the state, it is only for the privileged few.
24.1.07
Opposition Protests In Lebanon and the Paris III Conference: When the Global Economy Comes to the Rescue of the Bush Doctrine
Look at this picture, taken from Le Monde, showing the political forces in presence in Lebanon as well as the communities they represent. It si clear that Sanyura's government is not representative of the Lebanese people. But will western governments understand this fact ?The street protests of yesterday, accompanied by a general strike and lead by the opposition forces to Sanyura's government (A majority of the shias and a sizeable part of the Christians, as well as part of the Sunni and the Druze communities), have paralysed the country and resulted in the killing of five people and the wounding of more than hundred others. Although they may appear as having abruptly ended, they were meant to give a clear signal to western governments that their puppet government, the government of Fouad Sanyura and of the March 14th movement, does not control the country. But I am afraid western governments will not understand the signal.
What should western governments do if they were really commited to democracy in the middle east (commitment termed usually as the 'Bush Doctrine'*) ? They should call for early elections in Lebanon, with or without a newly crafted electoral law. The present electoral law was designed by the Syrians to give electoral majority to their old allies in Lebanon, Jumblatt, Hariri, and the Lebanese forces, those who are sitting in the Sanyura government now and call themselves anti-Syrian forces. Everybody recognises - including Sanyura himself who promised the opposition to change the electoral law, and later retracted - that the elections that gave way to the present government were made hastily after the Syrian withdrawal. The 2005 parliamentary elections were held less than two months after the Syrian withdrawal and were the first legislative elections to take place in 30 years in the absence of the Syrian military presence - given also the fact that during the 15 year civil war (1975-1990) there were no elections. But western governments are not committed to democracy in the Middle East. They are committed to maintaining submissive regimes and puppet head of governments and states. So the Paris conference, falsely called the Aid conference for Lebanon, while it is really made to impose on the puppet Lebanese government IMF's unsuccessful old practices in Latin American economies like in Argentina, will give money to a minority government, assorted with conditions that the present Lebanese economy will not be able to meet. The reason this government will not be able to meet the conditions for the economic reforms required by the 'aid' are obvious; absence of legitimacy to implement reforms, corruption of the political elite who is in the government, political instability, and extreme damage of infrastructure made during the last July agression on Lebanon.
The 'aid', if given in these circumstances, will harden the authoritarian stance of the Sanyura government because, having international creditors, he will feel protected by these creditors who trusted him with the task to implement the economic reforms and the return of investment on the money. Moreover, in this country riddled by corruption, it will concentrate the money in the hands of the few who are in the government and their protégés. This will not be money for the lebanese economy, neither for the Lebanese as a people, this will be the money of a clique who is more a militia than a government and who will rule Lebanon with the brutal authority given to it by international creditors, ignoring the legitimate demands of the opposition forces - as it is doing now - and the aspirations of the Lebanese people.
It is plainly obvious that lending to the Sanyura government is foreign political interference disguised under the banner of economic reforms and aid. Because, in the present climate of political instability in Lebanon, no reasonable investor would lend money to such an embattled government if it wasn't for political gain. The end result will be to take the country and its inhabitants as hostages to foreign investors, later justifying a more active military foreign interference to support the already embattled government.
Link to the document on economic reforms prepared by the Sanyura government for the paris III conference and rejected by the opposition. Taken from French Eagle.
* What lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine is military intervention in foreign countries in order to install puppet governments, whenever the interests of the US and Israel are at stake. Look at Arab government and rulers who have the blessings of the Bush Doctrine: The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Sanyura's government, and so on...These are called 'moderates' by Bush and Rice. Extremism is not what Bush pretends 'They hate our freedoms' but rather 'They want their freedom from US' (to quote Robert Fisk) and from Israel.
6.12.06
Living Together: From Canada to Lebanon, A Lesson in Multiculturalism
Some of the commentators on this blog and on other blogs have expressed their disillusionment with the recent protest in Beyrouth. The Sanyura government against which the recent protest is being held is itself the product of a mass protest which took place in 2005 after the assassination of Rafik Hariri. I have expressed an opinion on this blog in which I have affirmed that the new divide in Lebanon, the economic divide brought upon a traditionally prosperous country by the civil war and by the disastrous management of the state by Hariri, is helping bridge the sectarian religious and ethnic divide. March 14th is the movement of the rich and the few who profited from the new economy while March 8th is the movement of the disgruntled and the numerous left behind by the new economy.
Those disillusioned who live in Lebanon are asking for a third option to Sanyura's government, usually also called March 14th, and the recent protest which is sometimes labeled March 8th. Those skeptics who live outside Lebanon are also asking for a third option. One of them, a much appreciated regular commentator on this blog, wrote the following:
Sophia ,
There are several dimensions to the Lebanese struggle and they overlap. The greatest dimension is that of sectarianism. As the class struggle heats up and the feudal order is challenged, the feudal lords and their clerical partners will resort to sectarian strife to maintain their domination and force their brethern back into the fold. Lebanon is not a state in the normal sense. It is collection of sects dominated by families and parties. The political order is undergoing a sectarian revolution. One sect ,the Shia, is asking for their rightful share of the pie. The Sunnis fear that any rearrangement will be at their expense since the Christians are unwilling to give up any of their 50% share. That is why there is a constant reference by the beneficiaries of the present order to the Taif accord which slightly rearranged the political order but maintained Sunni Maronite rule. That is the crux of the problem and we will have perpetual civil wars until the representational problem is addressed. I fear that we are all headed for a violent partition of Lebanon. People are unwilling to compromise and they are talking increasingly of "federalism". I talked to my cousin in Beirut yesterday and she said that she was just at AUB and that a Shia professor pointed out that professors are huddled in sectarian groups talking about the situation in hushed tones. She complained that her Sunni-Shia marriage is undergoing some strain because of the political situation. It is obvious that Lebanon is in preparation for another round of its civil war.
I wish there was a third way or alternative to save the Lebanese from March 8 and 14. On second thought it would not be enough because regional and international forces are aligned with each faction in Lebanon and are intent on pursuing their conflicts by proxy. I pray every day for some regional arrangement that will calm things down and give the Lebanese a chance to come to some arrangement.
Issam
I understand the concerns of these people. However, foreign influences on lebanese politics aside- foreign interference is efficient only when there are people inside the country willing to collaborate with an outside power against the interests of the country- I believe we have a third option for Lebanon and that this third option is being advanced by the recent alliance between Hezbollah and the free patriotic movement (FPM) led by general Michel Aoun who organised the recent protest and open-ended sit in. These are my premices:
- Those who criticise the recent protest are calling it March 8th in reference to the March 8th 2005 massive protest of Hezbollah as a Thank you for Syria who was leaving Lebanon. As a consequence, March 8th is seen as pro-Syrian while March 14th is seen as anti-Syrian. However there is a lot of confusion in these categorisations. First, as I wrote in a previous post, Syria is outside Lebanon and has little political leverage for now both inside Lebanon and in the region. In addition, March 14th politicians being, before the assassination of Hariri, all pro-Syrians, Hariri the first among them, it is difficult to label them as anti-Syrians when Syria is no longer in Lebanon and their opponents as pro-Syrians when one of them, general Michel Aoun fought a desperate war against the Syrians in 1990, when the Syrian army was actually in Lebanon, before leaving for an exile from which he returned only after the Syrian withdrawal. This leads me to the second confusion made in the characterisation of the two blocs. March 8th is different from the present December 1st alliance opposing Sanyura's government. March 8th was composed of Hezbollah and Amal alone, mainly Shias. The recent protest is a result of a year old alliance between FPM and Hezbollah, an alliance between Shias and Christians. The recent movement is then different from March 8th. While March 14th, since the assassination of rafik Hariri, was struggling to keep its unity along sectarian divides and special interests and has been ever since its formation " primarily fuelled by the assassination of its leaders," said Amal Saad Ghorayeb of Beirut's Carnegie Middle East Centre, March 8th was evolving in a less sectarian way and in a way based on the aspirations of Lebanese across the religious divide.
I am personally against March 8th alone, I am also against the FPM alone. But I am for an alliance of these movements and especially an extension of this alliance to other politcal movements and sects in Lebanon because the only solution for Lebanon is unity. It is only with unity that we can achieve independance from foreign powers.
- I believe that March 14th deceived the Lebanese and lost the popular support and the political capital it was sitting on since the assassination of Rafik Hariri as much as Bush has deceived the Americans and lost the political capital it was given by the American nation after 9/11. Why these movements have been unable to capitalise on their poltical successes ? Because they have great contempt for ordinary citizens. Not only March 14th have been unable to keep unity in their movement but they were being deaf to the aspirations of the Lebanese, only listening to the foreign powers who back them. They have betrayed Lebanon and the Lebanese, not only on the economic reforms and the promises of a better future but also on the notions they claim to fight for: freedom and democracy. Israel's agression on Lebanon was a crude test in the matter. It made March 14th insensitive to the plight of the Lebanese or worse, an implicit ally of this savage invasion. Can't anybody see total absurdity in the present cortège of foreign government officials from Saudi Arabia to the UK and the US visiting Sanyura in a show of support while these same people stayed deaf to the plight of the Lebanese in the middle of the Israeli agression, not asking for a ceasefire when they did not implicitly approve of the agression ? This is a clear proof that Sanyura's government is completely disconnected from Lebanese.
I think March 14th has discredited himself in the eyes of the majority of Lebanese and it has support only outside Lebanon or in the few fanatic and blind sectarian minds which are being endoctrined by Hariri paid clerics in Tripoli, Akkar, Saida and Beyrouth, those same ones who applaud Bin Laden, and the few Christians who are afraid to live with poor Muslim shias, out of fear of losing their Gucci identity, and the Christian leaders who exploit their fears. Moreover, the representation of Christians within March 14th is very biased, it is mainly a representation made of Christian leaders elected by sunni votes, thanks to the Syrian crafted electoral law that was meant to help those same leaders from March 14th, who used to collaborate with Syria, get elected and who represent only those wealthy christians who fear any association with anything poor, their identity being in their pocket and bank accounts. Therefore the interests of the increasingly economically hit Christians are poorly represented by March 14th which is mainly under Hariri leadership and Saudi money tutelage, backed locally by wealthy sunnis.
- The small representation of the alliance between Hezbollah and the free Patriotic Movement inside the government is hindering national dialogue. Both Aoun, the leader of the FPM and Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, along with Amal, the other Shia movement, represent more than 60 % of the population of Lebanon by all conservative estimates, yet they only have two ministers in the government. Why is the Sanyura government blocking a fair representation of this part of the Lebanese population in the government ? I think it is out of allegiance to Saudi Arabia who has emerged recently as the main crusader against the access of Muslim shias to important positions within state apparatus everywhere in the Arab world including Bahrain. No matter what they say, March 14th movement aapear in the eyes of Lebanese as serving external Arab and international interests, the US and Israel, more than those of Lebanese citizens.
- Shias from Hezbollah and Amal and the Christians of the FPM have to their credit shown us that Lebanese can unite across sectarian lines not on the basis of external interests but on the basis of an inclusive political and economic project for Lebanon. This project is written and was discussed and agreed upon by Aoun and Hezbollah before the July war. It was snubbed by Washington who does not want to see people in power in Lebanon who don't take orders from them or from their client Saudi Arabia. This project means that we can live together, not only form alliances for power sharing and electoral success like March 14th but out of a real desire to live together and to find solutions for a concerted way of life.
There are many possible solutions for Lebanon. Federalism, which is being advocated by March 14th, is a bad solution. Federalism in a small, poor and underdevelopped country is Apartheid. Federalism works only between equal entities and federal Lebanon will not be composed of economically equal entities. Even democratic Canadian federalism is struggling with the equality issue. Lebanese federalism will be a return to the ottoman feudal style of administration. This is why the feudal lords of March 14th are so enamoured with federalism. It means a return to their full and unbridled ottoman style feudal power . It means also: 'Chacun pour soi'. It means that we open the door large for foreign interference and this is not going to help us out of trouble because as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an open wound our little federated parts of the country under different foreign allegiances will be at risk of fighting each other. Who will stop Syria from providing weapons to Hezbollah in a small shia state ? And who will stop the US and Israel from providing weapons to Christians in a small Christian state ? And who will stop Saudi Arabia from providing weapons and logisitics for sunnis in a small sunni state ? In a united Lebanon we are invited to care for each other and to care in a way that take into account all the people and not only ourselves. For all these reasons, because it won't stop poverty and it won't stop wars, federalism is not a good option for Lebanese.
However, federalism is a good option for Israel for example. Israel always feared 200 million Arabs 'who will drive Israel into the sea', a convenient zionist propaganda. Israel destroyed Arab nationalism which was secular and staunchly pro-palestinian with the help of Saudi Arabia. One cannot imagine how much Israel is indebted to Saudi Arabia. Actually it was a Hijazi king who signed an agreement with Weismann accepting the Balfour declaration in exchange for the kingdoms of Jordan and Irak given by colonial England to the Hijazi family. Surely, a federalism based on the partition of Lebanon will result in the partition of other middle eastern countries where sectarian tensions are exacerbated , producing ethnically and religion based states exactly at the image of Israel. The partition of the ME is an old zionist dream and it is being accomplished now in Irak and Lebanon. Again, any kind of federalism partitioning states in the Arab world is seen by Israel and its allies and those who want to control the Arab masses as a gain. federalism is the continuation of the destruction of Arab nationalism and when Arab countries will be no more than a pack of small states based on the special interests of their small ethnies, the palestinian question will be dead for good and will be no more an issue for the Arab world.
Don't underestimate the power of the neo-cons or the AAWSII (Alliance of Americans Working Inside the US government for the Special Interests of Israel). Surely, the war in Iraq may appear as a mess and surely the partition of Lebanon and Iraq may appear as an avowal of defeat but they both serve the justification of the only ethnic state in the ME other than Saudi Arabia, Israel, while reinforcing the hegemony of Israel in the region.
I support an open alliance between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah because it is a workable solution for Lebanon. I support any alliance that is inclusive, the most possibly inclusive. I think other solutions for Lebanon will not work, I think we are bound to live together and we are bound to take care of each other and if we have to fulfill the promises that we made to the Lebanese, we are bound to live in dignity and deliver on economic development and social justice. Federalism will not deliver on these issues, neither civil war .
I think we are better when we are together. I don't know if I am a good person when I am alone but I know that I have to be good for my husband and my children and when I am not alone I know at least that I am a better person than when I am alone. And it is the same thing with cultures and religions. I know that purists and skeptics will dismiss this call for unity because the people who are supposed to unite in managing the Lebanese state are so different. But I believe if our politicians are interested in rescuing Lebanon and in giving Lebanese a future in their country, they can ultimately sit together. We lived together before and we can still live together. Sectarian tensions serve only those who exploit them for political leverage and political profit, they don't serve the people. We have to stop serving foreign interests and if we do stop we can start to live together.
I have been living in Canada for the last fifteen years and I learned a lot form this country. I value Canadian multiculturalism and I value the fact that I am respected as a minority in Canada without having to lose my identity. I know also that even when we keep our identity in a multicultural society we transform it into something else. I know that when we reach for the other we do it with the best part of ourselves and this is the virtue of multiculturalism and this is how one can keep his religious and cultural identity in a multicultural society; by living only with the better part of himself. I know also that democracies can adapt to their religions, cultures and minorities. We don't have to have a US style democracy in Lebanon neither a Canadian style democracy but we can learn from these democracies how to live together in justice and peace and these are the main issues in a democracy.
The December 1st protesters are asking the government to be inclusive, to be just and to be transparent and because I believe that living together is ultimately our destiny, I support the December 1st protest. And if the project of the December 1st protest wins it will be a tremendous gain not only for Lebanon but for the entire ME, which is threatened by sectarian tensions aggravated by Bush's and Israel's wars.
Living together is a reasonable third option. Lets work for this option and wish it every success...
UPDATE: An account of Nasrallah's adress to the December 1st protest in downtown Beyrouth (in French).
P.S: I would like you to read Frencheagle's post on the most prominent politician of March 14th, the interior minister Ahmad Fatfat. It will give you an idea on the kind of people which are running the country right now...
Those disillusioned who live in Lebanon are asking for a third option to Sanyura's government, usually also called March 14th, and the recent protest which is sometimes labeled March 8th. Those skeptics who live outside Lebanon are also asking for a third option. One of them, a much appreciated regular commentator on this blog, wrote the following:
Sophia ,
There are several dimensions to the Lebanese struggle and they overlap. The greatest dimension is that of sectarianism. As the class struggle heats up and the feudal order is challenged, the feudal lords and their clerical partners will resort to sectarian strife to maintain their domination and force their brethern back into the fold. Lebanon is not a state in the normal sense. It is collection of sects dominated by families and parties. The political order is undergoing a sectarian revolution. One sect ,the Shia, is asking for their rightful share of the pie. The Sunnis fear that any rearrangement will be at their expense since the Christians are unwilling to give up any of their 50% share. That is why there is a constant reference by the beneficiaries of the present order to the Taif accord which slightly rearranged the political order but maintained Sunni Maronite rule. That is the crux of the problem and we will have perpetual civil wars until the representational problem is addressed. I fear that we are all headed for a violent partition of Lebanon. People are unwilling to compromise and they are talking increasingly of "federalism". I talked to my cousin in Beirut yesterday and she said that she was just at AUB and that a Shia professor pointed out that professors are huddled in sectarian groups talking about the situation in hushed tones. She complained that her Sunni-Shia marriage is undergoing some strain because of the political situation. It is obvious that Lebanon is in preparation for another round of its civil war.
I wish there was a third way or alternative to save the Lebanese from March 8 and 14. On second thought it would not be enough because regional and international forces are aligned with each faction in Lebanon and are intent on pursuing their conflicts by proxy. I pray every day for some regional arrangement that will calm things down and give the Lebanese a chance to come to some arrangement.
Issam
I understand the concerns of these people. However, foreign influences on lebanese politics aside- foreign interference is efficient only when there are people inside the country willing to collaborate with an outside power against the interests of the country- I believe we have a third option for Lebanon and that this third option is being advanced by the recent alliance between Hezbollah and the free patriotic movement (FPM) led by general Michel Aoun who organised the recent protest and open-ended sit in. These are my premices:
- Those who criticise the recent protest are calling it March 8th in reference to the March 8th 2005 massive protest of Hezbollah as a Thank you for Syria who was leaving Lebanon. As a consequence, March 8th is seen as pro-Syrian while March 14th is seen as anti-Syrian. However there is a lot of confusion in these categorisations. First, as I wrote in a previous post, Syria is outside Lebanon and has little political leverage for now both inside Lebanon and in the region. In addition, March 14th politicians being, before the assassination of Hariri, all pro-Syrians, Hariri the first among them, it is difficult to label them as anti-Syrians when Syria is no longer in Lebanon and their opponents as pro-Syrians when one of them, general Michel Aoun fought a desperate war against the Syrians in 1990, when the Syrian army was actually in Lebanon, before leaving for an exile from which he returned only after the Syrian withdrawal. This leads me to the second confusion made in the characterisation of the two blocs. March 8th is different from the present December 1st alliance opposing Sanyura's government. March 8th was composed of Hezbollah and Amal alone, mainly Shias. The recent protest is a result of a year old alliance between FPM and Hezbollah, an alliance between Shias and Christians. The recent movement is then different from March 8th. While March 14th, since the assassination of rafik Hariri, was struggling to keep its unity along sectarian divides and special interests and has been ever since its formation " primarily fuelled by the assassination of its leaders," said Amal Saad Ghorayeb of Beirut's Carnegie Middle East Centre, March 8th was evolving in a less sectarian way and in a way based on the aspirations of Lebanese across the religious divide.
I am personally against March 8th alone, I am also against the FPM alone. But I am for an alliance of these movements and especially an extension of this alliance to other politcal movements and sects in Lebanon because the only solution for Lebanon is unity. It is only with unity that we can achieve independance from foreign powers.
- I believe that March 14th deceived the Lebanese and lost the popular support and the political capital it was sitting on since the assassination of Rafik Hariri as much as Bush has deceived the Americans and lost the political capital it was given by the American nation after 9/11. Why these movements have been unable to capitalise on their poltical successes ? Because they have great contempt for ordinary citizens. Not only March 14th have been unable to keep unity in their movement but they were being deaf to the aspirations of the Lebanese, only listening to the foreign powers who back them. They have betrayed Lebanon and the Lebanese, not only on the economic reforms and the promises of a better future but also on the notions they claim to fight for: freedom and democracy. Israel's agression on Lebanon was a crude test in the matter. It made March 14th insensitive to the plight of the Lebanese or worse, an implicit ally of this savage invasion. Can't anybody see total absurdity in the present cortège of foreign government officials from Saudi Arabia to the UK and the US visiting Sanyura in a show of support while these same people stayed deaf to the plight of the Lebanese in the middle of the Israeli agression, not asking for a ceasefire when they did not implicitly approve of the agression ? This is a clear proof that Sanyura's government is completely disconnected from Lebanese.
I think March 14th has discredited himself in the eyes of the majority of Lebanese and it has support only outside Lebanon or in the few fanatic and blind sectarian minds which are being endoctrined by Hariri paid clerics in Tripoli, Akkar, Saida and Beyrouth, those same ones who applaud Bin Laden, and the few Christians who are afraid to live with poor Muslim shias, out of fear of losing their Gucci identity, and the Christian leaders who exploit their fears. Moreover, the representation of Christians within March 14th is very biased, it is mainly a representation made of Christian leaders elected by sunni votes, thanks to the Syrian crafted electoral law that was meant to help those same leaders from March 14th, who used to collaborate with Syria, get elected and who represent only those wealthy christians who fear any association with anything poor, their identity being in their pocket and bank accounts. Therefore the interests of the increasingly economically hit Christians are poorly represented by March 14th which is mainly under Hariri leadership and Saudi money tutelage, backed locally by wealthy sunnis.
- The small representation of the alliance between Hezbollah and the free Patriotic Movement inside the government is hindering national dialogue. Both Aoun, the leader of the FPM and Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, along with Amal, the other Shia movement, represent more than 60 % of the population of Lebanon by all conservative estimates, yet they only have two ministers in the government. Why is the Sanyura government blocking a fair representation of this part of the Lebanese population in the government ? I think it is out of allegiance to Saudi Arabia who has emerged recently as the main crusader against the access of Muslim shias to important positions within state apparatus everywhere in the Arab world including Bahrain. No matter what they say, March 14th movement aapear in the eyes of Lebanese as serving external Arab and international interests, the US and Israel, more than those of Lebanese citizens.
- Shias from Hezbollah and Amal and the Christians of the FPM have to their credit shown us that Lebanese can unite across sectarian lines not on the basis of external interests but on the basis of an inclusive political and economic project for Lebanon. This project is written and was discussed and agreed upon by Aoun and Hezbollah before the July war. It was snubbed by Washington who does not want to see people in power in Lebanon who don't take orders from them or from their client Saudi Arabia. This project means that we can live together, not only form alliances for power sharing and electoral success like March 14th but out of a real desire to live together and to find solutions for a concerted way of life.
There are many possible solutions for Lebanon. Federalism, which is being advocated by March 14th, is a bad solution. Federalism in a small, poor and underdevelopped country is Apartheid. Federalism works only between equal entities and federal Lebanon will not be composed of economically equal entities. Even democratic Canadian federalism is struggling with the equality issue. Lebanese federalism will be a return to the ottoman feudal style of administration. This is why the feudal lords of March 14th are so enamoured with federalism. It means a return to their full and unbridled ottoman style feudal power . It means also: 'Chacun pour soi'. It means that we open the door large for foreign interference and this is not going to help us out of trouble because as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an open wound our little federated parts of the country under different foreign allegiances will be at risk of fighting each other. Who will stop Syria from providing weapons to Hezbollah in a small shia state ? And who will stop the US and Israel from providing weapons to Christians in a small Christian state ? And who will stop Saudi Arabia from providing weapons and logisitics for sunnis in a small sunni state ? In a united Lebanon we are invited to care for each other and to care in a way that take into account all the people and not only ourselves. For all these reasons, because it won't stop poverty and it won't stop wars, federalism is not a good option for Lebanese.
However, federalism is a good option for Israel for example. Israel always feared 200 million Arabs 'who will drive Israel into the sea', a convenient zionist propaganda. Israel destroyed Arab nationalism which was secular and staunchly pro-palestinian with the help of Saudi Arabia. One cannot imagine how much Israel is indebted to Saudi Arabia. Actually it was a Hijazi king who signed an agreement with Weismann accepting the Balfour declaration in exchange for the kingdoms of Jordan and Irak given by colonial England to the Hijazi family. Surely, a federalism based on the partition of Lebanon will result in the partition of other middle eastern countries where sectarian tensions are exacerbated , producing ethnically and religion based states exactly at the image of Israel. The partition of the ME is an old zionist dream and it is being accomplished now in Irak and Lebanon. Again, any kind of federalism partitioning states in the Arab world is seen by Israel and its allies and those who want to control the Arab masses as a gain. federalism is the continuation of the destruction of Arab nationalism and when Arab countries will be no more than a pack of small states based on the special interests of their small ethnies, the palestinian question will be dead for good and will be no more an issue for the Arab world.
Don't underestimate the power of the neo-cons or the AAWSII (Alliance of Americans Working Inside the US government for the Special Interests of Israel). Surely, the war in Iraq may appear as a mess and surely the partition of Lebanon and Iraq may appear as an avowal of defeat but they both serve the justification of the only ethnic state in the ME other than Saudi Arabia, Israel, while reinforcing the hegemony of Israel in the region.
I support an open alliance between the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah because it is a workable solution for Lebanon. I support any alliance that is inclusive, the most possibly inclusive. I think other solutions for Lebanon will not work, I think we are bound to live together and we are bound to take care of each other and if we have to fulfill the promises that we made to the Lebanese, we are bound to live in dignity and deliver on economic development and social justice. Federalism will not deliver on these issues, neither civil war .
I think we are better when we are together. I don't know if I am a good person when I am alone but I know that I have to be good for my husband and my children and when I am not alone I know at least that I am a better person than when I am alone. And it is the same thing with cultures and religions. I know that purists and skeptics will dismiss this call for unity because the people who are supposed to unite in managing the Lebanese state are so different. But I believe if our politicians are interested in rescuing Lebanon and in giving Lebanese a future in their country, they can ultimately sit together. We lived together before and we can still live together. Sectarian tensions serve only those who exploit them for political leverage and political profit, they don't serve the people. We have to stop serving foreign interests and if we do stop we can start to live together.
I have been living in Canada for the last fifteen years and I learned a lot form this country. I value Canadian multiculturalism and I value the fact that I am respected as a minority in Canada without having to lose my identity. I know also that even when we keep our identity in a multicultural society we transform it into something else. I know that when we reach for the other we do it with the best part of ourselves and this is the virtue of multiculturalism and this is how one can keep his religious and cultural identity in a multicultural society; by living only with the better part of himself. I know also that democracies can adapt to their religions, cultures and minorities. We don't have to have a US style democracy in Lebanon neither a Canadian style democracy but we can learn from these democracies how to live together in justice and peace and these are the main issues in a democracy.
The December 1st protesters are asking the government to be inclusive, to be just and to be transparent and because I believe that living together is ultimately our destiny, I support the December 1st protest. And if the project of the December 1st protest wins it will be a tremendous gain not only for Lebanon but for the entire ME, which is threatened by sectarian tensions aggravated by Bush's and Israel's wars.
Living together is a reasonable third option. Lets work for this option and wish it every success...
UPDATE: An account of Nasrallah's adress to the December 1st protest in downtown Beyrouth (in French).
P.S: I would like you to read Frencheagle's post on the most prominent politician of March 14th, the interior minister Ahmad Fatfat. It will give you an idea on the kind of people which are running the country right now...
4.12.06
The anti-Sanyura protests and class struggle in Lebanon
Most of the time, Lebanon is portrayed as a sectarian country divided along religious and ehtnic lines and this is true. However, since the reconstruction of the country after the 15 year civil war, a new divide emerged between communities fueled by the increasing debt of the country and the absence of a real economic project for the Lebanese society, both brought by Hariri father who wanted to make Lebanon a country like Monaco or switzerland where Arab gulf states and Saudi Arabia can spend their money, spend, not invest. Consequently, the service sector increased while corruption reached incredible highs inside the state apparatus. An ambitious young professional friend of mine working for an NGO in Beyrouth during the Hariri years when Sanyura used to be minister of finances told me he was offered a high profile job but refused it because the corruption and incompetence in the government would have made any other professional move for him impossible if he would have accepted such a job.
The grim economic situation has reached now Christian communities who were usually relatively wealthy and the new economic divide is helping bridge old religious sectarian divides. Lebanon is traditionally an agrarian country. People possess their land and when they aren't able to have a job and a salary they could at least exploit their land and live in dignity. This is how it used to be. However, shiites were prevented from this dignified life, even before the civil war, due to the Israeli hostilities against Palestinian camps in the south and Israel's frequent invasions of the south since the seventies. Southern Lebanon could not sustain its villagers because of the perpetual state of war against which the Lebanese government did nothing, shiites being poorly represented within the government and the state apparatus. Shiites migrated to Beyrouth's southern suburbs and were the poorest in the country when all other communities enjoyed a relative wealth.
The civil war, its economic impact and the disastrous debt brought by Hariri, whose companies were heavily involved in the reconstruction of downtown Beyrouth, have contributed to the extension of economic distress to Christian communities. When I visited Lebanon in 2005 I was struck by the Disney land character of the new Beyrouth, a well reconstructed area that only the rich can reasonably access. Everything was expansive. I had promised my children, who were visiting for the first time, to take them to one of those ambulant restaurants on the seaside where we used to eat bountiful sandwishes of shawarma and falafel before the war but there was none. We had to walk to Raouché, a popular seaside, also invaded by Saudi money and a movenpick resort, to find only Kaak sellers (Lebanese bread with sesame), but there were no meals to eat on the go and one had to sit inside a restaurant to get some food. Everthing was so expansive, even by Canadian standards. I wondered how could poeople, whose salaries don't match those that are practised in a liberal economy, make ends meet ? I was told that Lebanese were living on their savings, working two to three jobs, borrowing and families were sticking together in a collective sort of household economy.
When we were children, my father used to say that those who did not possess land are those who are poor even if they had big salaries and big money in the bank. This is why, despite us living outside Lebanon for more than twenty years now, we kept the land there, olive orchards land which is being exploited by other people who barely send us olive oil and who keep shrinking our share in the harvest out of greed. We kept the land out of respect for my father. My father used to tell us also that those who sell their land are those who are in great financial need. Even though selling the land and investing this money in the west could have brought us a fortune, we didn't do it out of respect for my father and his values which were and still profound Lebanese values. In 2005, I realised that many people from my village have sold their land in order to send their children to school and universities. The cruel irony in this is that the Lebanese economy, which Hariri built after the civil war and which was not human resources oriented but Las Vegas style oriented, was not able to meet the expectations of young educated Lebanese. Lebanese traditionally value education and higher education and in 2005 I met many young people educated at the university who were desperate because there were no well paid jobs or no jobs at all for them in the country.
This new economic context brought to us by Hariri and his mentors, the Saudis, has managed to install an additional divide in Lebanon, the rich and wealthy on one side and the poor and needy on the other. Lebanon has become a land of opportunity more and more for a restricted oligarchy and much less for the majority of its population. Along these lines, the March 14th movement that installed Sanyura as head of the government is the movement of rich sunnis and christians. Their protest against Syria in 2005 was called the Gucci revolution because women who marched were dressed with couturier wear and accessories and marched with their Sri Lankans maids. The alliance between Christians who support Aoun and the shiites of Hezbollah is the aliance of the disgruntled, of the people for whom the new lebanese economy brought poverty and more uncertainty about the future.
Recently, many analyses start pointing to this fact and to the fact that the Sanyura government and its supporters are treating these protesters with contempt...Read the following links:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 2 has its source in an LATimes article that requires a registration.
The grim economic situation has reached now Christian communities who were usually relatively wealthy and the new economic divide is helping bridge old religious sectarian divides. Lebanon is traditionally an agrarian country. People possess their land and when they aren't able to have a job and a salary they could at least exploit their land and live in dignity. This is how it used to be. However, shiites were prevented from this dignified life, even before the civil war, due to the Israeli hostilities against Palestinian camps in the south and Israel's frequent invasions of the south since the seventies. Southern Lebanon could not sustain its villagers because of the perpetual state of war against which the Lebanese government did nothing, shiites being poorly represented within the government and the state apparatus. Shiites migrated to Beyrouth's southern suburbs and were the poorest in the country when all other communities enjoyed a relative wealth.
The civil war, its economic impact and the disastrous debt brought by Hariri, whose companies were heavily involved in the reconstruction of downtown Beyrouth, have contributed to the extension of economic distress to Christian communities. When I visited Lebanon in 2005 I was struck by the Disney land character of the new Beyrouth, a well reconstructed area that only the rich can reasonably access. Everything was expansive. I had promised my children, who were visiting for the first time, to take them to one of those ambulant restaurants on the seaside where we used to eat bountiful sandwishes of shawarma and falafel before the war but there was none. We had to walk to Raouché, a popular seaside, also invaded by Saudi money and a movenpick resort, to find only Kaak sellers (Lebanese bread with sesame), but there were no meals to eat on the go and one had to sit inside a restaurant to get some food. Everthing was so expansive, even by Canadian standards. I wondered how could poeople, whose salaries don't match those that are practised in a liberal economy, make ends meet ? I was told that Lebanese were living on their savings, working two to three jobs, borrowing and families were sticking together in a collective sort of household economy.
When we were children, my father used to say that those who did not possess land are those who are poor even if they had big salaries and big money in the bank. This is why, despite us living outside Lebanon for more than twenty years now, we kept the land there, olive orchards land which is being exploited by other people who barely send us olive oil and who keep shrinking our share in the harvest out of greed. We kept the land out of respect for my father. My father used to tell us also that those who sell their land are those who are in great financial need. Even though selling the land and investing this money in the west could have brought us a fortune, we didn't do it out of respect for my father and his values which were and still profound Lebanese values. In 2005, I realised that many people from my village have sold their land in order to send their children to school and universities. The cruel irony in this is that the Lebanese economy, which Hariri built after the civil war and which was not human resources oriented but Las Vegas style oriented, was not able to meet the expectations of young educated Lebanese. Lebanese traditionally value education and higher education and in 2005 I met many young people educated at the university who were desperate because there were no well paid jobs or no jobs at all for them in the country.
This new economic context brought to us by Hariri and his mentors, the Saudis, has managed to install an additional divide in Lebanon, the rich and wealthy on one side and the poor and needy on the other. Lebanon has become a land of opportunity more and more for a restricted oligarchy and much less for the majority of its population. Along these lines, the March 14th movement that installed Sanyura as head of the government is the movement of rich sunnis and christians. Their protest against Syria in 2005 was called the Gucci revolution because women who marched were dressed with couturier wear and accessories and marched with their Sri Lankans maids. The alliance between Christians who support Aoun and the shiites of Hezbollah is the aliance of the disgruntled, of the people for whom the new lebanese economy brought poverty and more uncertainty about the future.
Recently, many analyses start pointing to this fact and to the fact that the Sanyura government and its supporters are treating these protesters with contempt...Read the following links:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 2 has its source in an LATimes article that requires a registration.
29.11.06
Change of Pattern in Political Assassinations in Lebanon related to Brammertz's Progress on the Initial Ones
Brian Whitaker from The Guardian is to my knowledge the only one who pointed out in his article 'The Smoking Gun' the relevance of the recent change in the method of political assassinations in Lebanon to the 'Who Did It' question:
''Spot the odd one out. Gemayel's killing was the only one that involved a gun. All the other attacks used explosives. In a report to the UN on June 10, Brammertz explained why, in his view, the first 15 cases were connected: there was linkage by motive and linkage by modus operandi.''
...''The modus operandi is much more problematic. Gemayel was followed, his car was rammed, then he and his bodyguard were shot at close range, apparently with silenced guns. The killer, or killers, then vanished. In most countries we would assume it was a professional hit job."
Then Whitaker examines under this perspective the links between the change of method and the progress UN commissioner Serge Brammertz has been making in the Hariri investigation recently" See Brammertz June and September reports.
The reports were not much publicised, contrary to the previous commissioner Mehlis reports, because they are based mostly on technical progress in the investigation rather than on empty accusations as Mehlis used to do when releasing his reports. Brammertz has been conducting his investigation like a maestro, in an real independant manner, unhampered by paid for lies, pressures, passions, attempts of blockades and acquaintances with high profile people from the March 14th movement. Is it because Brammertz comes from the country of Hercule Poirot ? Reading the reports one senses immediately that the man is into something.
I conclude that self protection might not have been the sole motive for a change of strategy. The other motive for a change of strategy might have been to confuse in two main ways, one internal, and the other external. Indeed by including in the mandate of the UN commission an additional assassination different in its planning and execution from the others , and the March 14th movement was quick in asking to inlcude the latest one, one can produce two or more intended or non intended effects on the Lebanese and international political scenes:
1- The change in the pattern of the killings, from planned bombings involving a group to what appears to be a hit job, signals a desire to continue to kill without giving further evidence to the continuing UN investigation by ending the initial trail followed by Brammertz , at least for this new assassination. Also, as Brammertz was pursuing two hypothseses, the group hypothesis and the isolated individuals hypothesis, the killers this time appear as if trying to avoid consolidating the group hypothesis. The group hypothesis means ramifications not only horizontal but also vertical in the planning of the assassinations.
2-Another effect of the new method used to assassinate Pierre Gemmayel is to point the accusation this time to parties inside Lebanon within the Christian camp. Indeed, this time the assassination took place in the heart of the Christian area. The fact that all the pressure was this time on Aoun confirms some shift of focus inside the March 14th movement from the outside, us against them, to the inside, 'Are you with them or with us ?'. People from March 14th are angry about Aoun because they feel that without him Hezbollah would be weaker.
3- By adding other paths of investigation to the initial one in which all assassinations were connected and the connections producing valuable informations like in a serial killer case, the other effect is not only to stop the trail of the initial investigation but also to weaken it by distributing its internal resources on a wider and less coherent network. Brammertz's team was not sufficient for the job he was asked to do even after the UN consented to add personnel to the team recently. There was and still acute shortage of personnel to conduct the UN investigation. Another close objective would be to slow the investigation on the initial assassinations in order to gain time.
From the above and within this context of analysis, it is easy to draw conclusions on who the perpetrators of Pierre Gemmayel might be:
-They are probably the same as those who started the recent (since Rafiq Hariri) political assassinations in lebanon;
-They have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the UN investigation and are close to the evidence Brammertz has been gathering and know probably where it will be leading.
I will let you draw the conclusions but I really fear where this ugly political game might lead.
''Spot the odd one out. Gemayel's killing was the only one that involved a gun. All the other attacks used explosives. In a report to the UN on June 10, Brammertz explained why, in his view, the first 15 cases were connected: there was linkage by motive and linkage by modus operandi.''
...''The modus operandi is much more problematic. Gemayel was followed, his car was rammed, then he and his bodyguard were shot at close range, apparently with silenced guns. The killer, or killers, then vanished. In most countries we would assume it was a professional hit job."
Then Whitaker examines under this perspective the links between the change of method and the progress UN commissioner Serge Brammertz has been making in the Hariri investigation recently" See Brammertz June and September reports.
The reports were not much publicised, contrary to the previous commissioner Mehlis reports, because they are based mostly on technical progress in the investigation rather than on empty accusations as Mehlis used to do when releasing his reports. Brammertz has been conducting his investigation like a maestro, in an real independant manner, unhampered by paid for lies, pressures, passions, attempts of blockades and acquaintances with high profile people from the March 14th movement. Is it because Brammertz comes from the country of Hercule Poirot ? Reading the reports one senses immediately that the man is into something.
''On reading the report, anyone involved in the earlier attacks might easily have concluded they were too complex for safety, giving far too many clues away in the planning stages. A straightforward shooting (almost impossible in the case of a highly protected figure like Hariri but practicable in the case of Gemayel) might therefore be a wiser option.''
And Whitaker concludes...nothing, merely that even if we should not exclude Syria we should also look at other possibilities.I conclude that self protection might not have been the sole motive for a change of strategy. The other motive for a change of strategy might have been to confuse in two main ways, one internal, and the other external. Indeed by including in the mandate of the UN commission an additional assassination different in its planning and execution from the others , and the March 14th movement was quick in asking to inlcude the latest one, one can produce two or more intended or non intended effects on the Lebanese and international political scenes:
1- The change in the pattern of the killings, from planned bombings involving a group to what appears to be a hit job, signals a desire to continue to kill without giving further evidence to the continuing UN investigation by ending the initial trail followed by Brammertz , at least for this new assassination. Also, as Brammertz was pursuing two hypothseses, the group hypothesis and the isolated individuals hypothesis, the killers this time appear as if trying to avoid consolidating the group hypothesis. The group hypothesis means ramifications not only horizontal but also vertical in the planning of the assassinations.
2-Another effect of the new method used to assassinate Pierre Gemmayel is to point the accusation this time to parties inside Lebanon within the Christian camp. Indeed, this time the assassination took place in the heart of the Christian area. The fact that all the pressure was this time on Aoun confirms some shift of focus inside the March 14th movement from the outside, us against them, to the inside, 'Are you with them or with us ?'. People from March 14th are angry about Aoun because they feel that without him Hezbollah would be weaker.
3- By adding other paths of investigation to the initial one in which all assassinations were connected and the connections producing valuable informations like in a serial killer case, the other effect is not only to stop the trail of the initial investigation but also to weaken it by distributing its internal resources on a wider and less coherent network. Brammertz's team was not sufficient for the job he was asked to do even after the UN consented to add personnel to the team recently. There was and still acute shortage of personnel to conduct the UN investigation. Another close objective would be to slow the investigation on the initial assassinations in order to gain time.
From the above and within this context of analysis, it is easy to draw conclusions on who the perpetrators of Pierre Gemmayel might be:
-They are probably the same as those who started the recent (since Rafiq Hariri) political assassinations in lebanon;
-They have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the UN investigation and are close to the evidence Brammertz has been gathering and know probably where it will be leading.
I will let you draw the conclusions but I really fear where this ugly political game might lead.
23.11.06
Brain storming for Lebanon's future: anything but civil war and martyrdom
Anybody with a creative and peaceful idea to stop the martyrdom of the March 14th politicians which is damaging irreversibly Lebanon's future and reputation ?
Please drop your suggestions in the comment section.
Also, some ethymological reflections on the term 'martyr' adored by middle eastern politicians, remember, Bashar's brother who is thought to have been killed by his uncle is also called a 'martyr' in Syria. The March 14th movement seems to like the term. Lets look at its ethymology form 'Le trésor informatisé de la langue française'.
a) 1050 «celui qui a souffert la torture et la mort pour attester la vérité de la religion chrétienne» 1690 (Martyr, se dit abusivement des Hérétiques et des Païens qui souffrent pour la deffense de leur fausse Religion)
b) 1690 «celui qui souffre beaucoup moralement ou physiquement» On dit qu'une personne est le martyr d'une autre pour dire qu'il souffre persecution à cause de luy.
Au Moy. Âge, on trouve également la forme martre, forme conservée dans Montmartre «mont des martyrs».
The use of this term by the March 14th is then borrowing a religious metaphor in order to describe a political situation in a region sensitive to these metaphors. It is inflating the meaning of the death. Moreover, except death and to my knowledge, the March 14th politicians didn't suffer persecutions and moral or physical torture. That does not lessen the tragedy but the term in itself is made to appeal to popular sympathy and to rally people to whatever cause the dead was defending. Moreover, martyrdom is a deliberate choice and a deliberate act, it is done willingly.
I am still wondering which cause worth a martyr Pierre Gemmayel was defending ? And did Pierre Gemmayel know that he was on the martyr path and why did he ask that specific day for a lessening in his personal security ? Martyrdom supposes also that one knows who will be his killer. Did the March 14th movement know all this ?
It is either a martyrdom or an assassination. It is difficult to talk of both at the same time.
So either the March 14th movement chooses the term 'martyrdom' with all what is attached to this notion and Pierre Gemmayel's death must have seemed inevitable. In this case, the march 14th movement is adopting tactics similar to the Palestinians or religious extremist organisations who believe in heaven and martyrdom. I mean aren't we critical of Palestinian suicide bombers martyrs ? You might tell me that suicide bombers kill others while killing themselves but the March 14th movement martyrdom have already killed countless poor syrian workers, national dialogue and conciliation and provoked a war of agression on Lebanon. I know that everybody believes it is Hezbollah that started the war and there may be some truth to this but Israel and the US acted in the beginning of the Israeli agression as if they had the blessings of the Sanyura government to inflict a definitve defeat on hezbollah and dismantle it and some members of the March 14th were openly drinking to Israel's victory before this victory turned to defeat both for Israel and for the March 14th. Judging from the funeral's speeches, March 14th is capitalising from Gemmayel's death just like in any other martyrdom defending a cause and wishing to rally around it. The March 14th movement who claim to be part of the civilised western world still defend martyrdom while the civilised western world condemns martyrdom. Is the March 14th movement then a backward movement ? Or is March 14th capitalising on a crime ?
Or Gemmayel's death is an assassination and not a martyrdom, in this case the March 14th movement should stop pointing fingers, doing political agitation and wait for an investigation. By the way the coverage of the assassination and especially the funeral by some Lebanese bloggers is unbridled and full of impatient expectations regarding the potential political fallouts for March 14th from this assassination/martyrdom, take a look at this one and scroll the site down to see the entire coverage, he is litteraly jubilating.
Please drop your suggestions in the comment section.
Also, some ethymological reflections on the term 'martyr' adored by middle eastern politicians, remember, Bashar's brother who is thought to have been killed by his uncle is also called a 'martyr' in Syria. The March 14th movement seems to like the term. Lets look at its ethymology form 'Le trésor informatisé de la langue française'.
a) 1050 «celui qui a souffert la torture et la mort pour attester la vérité de la religion chrétienne» 1690 (Martyr, se dit abusivement des Hérétiques et des Païens qui souffrent pour la deffense de leur fausse Religion)
b) 1690 «celui qui souffre beaucoup moralement ou physiquement» On dit qu'une personne est le martyr d'une autre pour dire qu'il souffre persecution à cause de luy.
Au Moy. Âge, on trouve également la forme martre, forme conservée dans Montmartre «mont des martyrs».
The use of this term by the March 14th is then borrowing a religious metaphor in order to describe a political situation in a region sensitive to these metaphors. It is inflating the meaning of the death. Moreover, except death and to my knowledge, the March 14th politicians didn't suffer persecutions and moral or physical torture. That does not lessen the tragedy but the term in itself is made to appeal to popular sympathy and to rally people to whatever cause the dead was defending. Moreover, martyrdom is a deliberate choice and a deliberate act, it is done willingly.
I am still wondering which cause worth a martyr Pierre Gemmayel was defending ? And did Pierre Gemmayel know that he was on the martyr path and why did he ask that specific day for a lessening in his personal security ? Martyrdom supposes also that one knows who will be his killer. Did the March 14th movement know all this ?
It is either a martyrdom or an assassination. It is difficult to talk of both at the same time.
So either the March 14th movement chooses the term 'martyrdom' with all what is attached to this notion and Pierre Gemmayel's death must have seemed inevitable. In this case, the march 14th movement is adopting tactics similar to the Palestinians or religious extremist organisations who believe in heaven and martyrdom. I mean aren't we critical of Palestinian suicide bombers martyrs ? You might tell me that suicide bombers kill others while killing themselves but the March 14th movement martyrdom have already killed countless poor syrian workers, national dialogue and conciliation and provoked a war of agression on Lebanon. I know that everybody believes it is Hezbollah that started the war and there may be some truth to this but Israel and the US acted in the beginning of the Israeli agression as if they had the blessings of the Sanyura government to inflict a definitve defeat on hezbollah and dismantle it and some members of the March 14th were openly drinking to Israel's victory before this victory turned to defeat both for Israel and for the March 14th. Judging from the funeral's speeches, March 14th is capitalising from Gemmayel's death just like in any other martyrdom defending a cause and wishing to rally around it. The March 14th movement who claim to be part of the civilised western world still defend martyrdom while the civilised western world condemns martyrdom. Is the March 14th movement then a backward movement ? Or is March 14th capitalising on a crime ?
Or Gemmayel's death is an assassination and not a martyrdom, in this case the March 14th movement should stop pointing fingers, doing political agitation and wait for an investigation. By the way the coverage of the assassination and especially the funeral by some Lebanese bloggers is unbridled and full of impatient expectations regarding the potential political fallouts for March 14th from this assassination/martyrdom, take a look at this one and scroll the site down to see the entire coverage, he is litteraly jubilating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006
