Since the June 7 Lebanese parliamentary elections, an alluring but simplistic narrative has emerged in the West: because Hezbollah and its allies were defeated at the polls, the militant group would lose some of its luster and a pro-American political coalition would rule Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah remains the country’s dominant military and political force. Moreover, it holds the key to both domestic and external stability — its actions will determine whether there is another war with Israel or if Lebanon will once again be wracked by internal conflict. By losing the election, Hezbollah also avoided being held accountable by Lebanon’s other sects — without power, there is little responsibility. [continued…]
Category Archives: Lebanon
Hariri says Hizbollah will be included in united front against Israel
Hariri says Hizbollah will be included in united front against Israel
Lebanon needs a unity government that includes a role for the Islamic resistance movement Hizbollah to effectively ward off Israeli aggression, according to the incoming prime minister-designate, Saad Hariri.
“I want to assure the Israeli enemy that Hizbollah will be in the government, whether the enemy likes it or not, because the interests of the country require that we all take part in this government,” he told supporters gathered for a Ramadan dinner at his Beirut home on Tuesday.
The new Israeli administration led by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said that should Hizbollah participate in the unity government Mr Hariri has been attempting to form since June, it would consider all Lebanese government infrastructure to be legitimate military targets. [continued…]
GUEST CONTRIBUTOR – John Robertson: The bullies converge
The bullies converge
By John Robertson, War in Context, March 3, 2008
28 and 29 February: the US parks the USS Cole off the shore of Lebanon. Uh-oh.
1 March: Israeli forces launch a major operation into Gaza, killing as many as 60 Palestinians, many of them civilians and children.
Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama daily wage verbal slugfests on national security, the US’s proper role in the Middle East, and which of them will be best prepared to defend “our strong ally” Israel. OK, business as usual in an election year?
Er, . . . wait a minute.
The timing here ought to be raising antennae here in the US. You can bet that the Arab and Iranian “street” will be taking due note.
The arrival of a US Navy vessel off the coast of Lebanon had to send chills up the spines of many Lebanese. As Roger Morris recently reminded us in his chronicle of the life of Hezbollah “engineer” Imad Mugnieh, the US Navy has pumped shells into Lebanese villages on several occasions (even rolling out a World War II era battleship, the USS New Jersey, on one occasion to use its huge shells to get maximum killing and intimidation effect on the unfortunate villagers on whom they rained down ). That was in the context of the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, which featured ongoing deadly scrums involving the IDF, the PLO, and various Lebanese militias – Christian and Muslim, including the newly established Hezbollah. In the summer of 2006, Israel and Hezbollah got into it again, with horrific toll in life and infrastructure (especially on the Lebanese side) while US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as a rather ghoulish birthing coach, urged on the IDF during what she then called the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” Now, in March 2008, the Lebanese government is mired in a parliamentary impasse, unable to elect a new president. Not yet a full-fledged civil war in Lebanon, but the US Navy lies offshore again, this time, we’re told, to signal to Hezbollah (which is now a legitimately constituted, democratically elected political party in Lebanon’s political structure) that the US will tolerate no stronger interference from them (or from Syria or Hezbollah’s ally and patron, Iran) as Lebanon’s struggles continue.
Yet the very next day, the IDF launched its deadly raid into Gaza, knowing that Hamas forces would resist with whatever means they could muster but would be ultimately powerless to change the outcome. Might they assume (dare we say, hope?) that Hezbollah and Iran might find this an unacceptable provocation and wish to retaliate against Israel? Except that – gosh, wouldn’t you know it? – the US Navy is parked right offshore. And wouldn’t you know it? It’s the USS Cole, the same USS Cole in whose side an al-Qaeda suicide boat blew a hole in those distant days before 9-11. The irony is palpable – indeed, dare we say, intended? Certainly, from the US perspective, delicious.
So, with the US looming in the wings, Israel can do what it wants to in Gaza. And if Hezbollah (and, by implication, Iran) decide not to respond to Israel’s wanton holocaust of innocent Palestinians in Gaza (whose lives had already been made miserable by Israel’s US-approved blockade), they run the risk of accusations of cowardice in the face of the Zionist bullies. If they were to rise to the bait and retaliate, they run the risk of the bullies turning against them and trying to flatten them. Israeli prime minister Olmert will jump at the chance to atone for the disaster of the summer 2006 war, and George Bush may get the military confrontation with Iran that he well may have been hoping for all along.
And all the while, our senator-candidates must intone their often rehearsed mantra, “Israel has the right to defend itself against the terrorists.” The US Navy offshore, the US presidential candidates cowed by political realities in an election season — how much better cover could the bully have?
John Robertson is a professor of Middle East history at Central Michigan University and has his own blog, Chippshots.
Editor’s Comment — It’s worth recalling that less than two weeks before the beginning of the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel was in the middle of pounding Gaza in what Mahmoud Abbas described as an “unacceptable and barbaric collective punishment of civilians, including women, children and old people.”
GUEST CONTRIBUTOR – Roger Morris: America’s shadow in the Middle East
A death in Damascus
By Roger Morris, War in Context, February 24, 2008
It was another car bomb in the Middle East, the victim this time one of those “notorious terrorists” seemingly generic to the landscape. Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyeh died February 12 in Damascus as he lived most of his forty-five years, in that world of searing blast, mutilation, mayhem, and aftershock of cold fear.
Yet behind fleeting, often hackneyed reports of his death, he was no ordinary figure in the long blood-red line of killers and killed. Given a murderer’s good-riddance by Washington and Jerusalem while a martyr’s memorial from Gaza and Beirut to Baghdad and Tehran, Mughniyeh was emblematic of the gulf between worlds—of atrocities and abject failure of statesmanship on all sides, in which American policy has its own half-century share.
Millions on his head, Mughniyeh led a largely unseen life. But some of its milestones can be glimpsed from the archive of the past fifty years in the Middle East. It is in part the story of a man, a country, a region pitted against the United States in a shadow war of intervention and resistance, attack and reprisal, most Americans never saw.
No outrage or theology of the oppressed can rationalize the savagery of a Mughniyeh, spiraling vengeance that leaves the non-state terrorist—or the government practicing its own version in the guise of “special operations” or covert action—no better than the evil they claim as justification, and their cause ultimately no less betrayed. But there will be no end to reciprocal brutality and defeat in the Middle East until the history Mughniyeh embodies is understood.
Born in 1963 to Shiite peasant parents in Tayr Dibba, a village in impoverished southern Lebanon, he grew up in a cinder block house with no running water in a Levant of vast inequity, where pre-World War II French colonialism and then postwar U.S. support heedlessly fastened Western control with the proxy political-economic repression by the Maronite Christian minority with its avowedly fascist Phalangist party and militia. That client tyranny, masked by Beirut’s cosmopolitan façade, was perpetuated by the 1958 military intervention of US Marines and the ensuing CIA corruption of Lebanese politics through the 1970s, including millions in covert subsidies to the Phalange and numerous Lebanese politicians.
He was nine in July 1972 when near where he lived in south Beirut’s Shiite slums the city’s first car bomb, planted by the Israelis in retaliation for the recent Lod Airport massacre, blew up the spokesman of the group behind the Lod attack, Palestinian poet Ghassan Kanafani, along with his 17-year-old niece Lamees with him for a shopping trip.
Mughniyeh was thirteen in 1976 when the CIA and Israel covertly backed the invasion of Lebanon by Syria to thwart the emergence of a broad nationalist coalition representing the country’s Islamic majority and supported by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
He was an eighteen-year-old engineering student at the American University of Beirut in 1981 when the U.S. gave a “green light” to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in pursuit of the PLO.
He was nineteen in the summer of 1982 when the Israeli Army, with covert U.S. aid, laid siege to Beirut, raking the city with artillery, devastating Shiite neighborhoods. (Osama bin Laden would say later it was the attacks on Beirut’s high-rise apartment buildings that prompted him to retaliate against New York skyscrapers.)
By 1982, like several of his boyhood soccer team, teenage Mughniyeh joined the combined PLO and Lebanese nationalist resistance to the invasion, becoming a sniper along the Green Line. He watched that September as the West negotiated the PLO’s exit from Lebanon with guarantees that U.S. and other peacekeeping troops would protect Palestinian refugee camps from reprisal by hostile Lebanese factions—only to see the US Marine force swiftly withdrawn, leaving Lebanese militias to massacre helpless hundreds at the Shatila and Sabra camps as Israeli forces looked on. Even US officials, Secretary of State George Shultz and National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, would call the episode “treacherous” and “criminal.”
In April 1983, a bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut killed several CIA agents pivotal in past covert actions in Lebanon, an attack Mughniyeh was later accused of “masterminding.” But there would be no real evidence of his role—only that the bombing was in retaliation for the Marine withdrawal allowing the Shatila and Sabra slaughter as well as earlier interventions.
He was twenty in September 1983 when the U.S. Sixth Fleet intervened in the Lebanese Civil War by firing on rebel forces fighting the reactionary Phalangist regime, the USS Virginia and John Rodgers pounding hills above Beirut with 24,000 pounds of ordnance, soon followed by the battleship New Jersey’s small car-size 2,000-pound shells inflicting untold civilian as well as combatant casualties.
On October 23, 1983, a truck bomb with 12,000 pounds of explosives killed 241 Marines quartered at the Beirut Airport after being sent back to Lebanon. U.S. officials later accused Mughniyeh in the attack, though again there would be no evidence—only that the assault on the Marines was in retaliation for the U.S. naval shelling and other interference in Lebanon’s civil war. “We still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport,” Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense at the time, told PBS in 2001, “and we certainly didn’t then.”
A turning point came for Mughniyeh came in 1985 when he was a twenty-two-year-old bodyguard to Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. A fiery preacher, spiritual mentor to many in the rising political consciousness of Lebanon’s Shiite community, Fadlallah took no political role, opposed violence and sectarian division, and defied growing Iranian influence in Lebanon. But on March 8, 1985—in reprisal for the Marine barracks bombing, and in an operation goaded by the Israelis and funded by the Saudis, both of whom saw Fadlallah as a threat to their own interests in Lebanon—the CIA tried to car-bomb Fadlallah. By chance the cleric escaped harm, but the huge explosion ravaged the poor Shiite area where he lived, wounding 200 and killing 80, among them Fadlallah’s bodyguards and Mughniyeh’s close friends. The next day, a banner hung over the smoking ruins—“Made in the USA.”
With the Fadlallah bombing, Mughniyeh joined the terrorist arm of the increasingly militant political impulse among Lebanon’s Shiites from which Hezbollah soon emerged, and as the resistance movement’s chief of security and intelligence, he joined one of history’s more vicious chain reactions.
Later in 1985 he reportedly interrogated kidnapped CIA agent William Buckley who soon died in captivity, and whose abduction set in motion the Washington sequel of trading arms for hostages that led to the Iran-Contra scandal.
In July 1985 he was involved in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 with the brutal killing of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, for which Mughniyeh and others were indicted by an American court.
In 1988, he was implicated in the kidnapping and murder of Marine Colonel William Higgins serving with UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, a crime a U.S. official would describe as a “blood debt” driving Washington’s further intervention in Lebanon and the region.
Over the 1980s, Mughniyeh conducted much of the Middle East’s shadowy minuet with Washington in which dozens of Western hostages were taken and traded for American arms for the Palestinians and Iranians as well as Hezbollah—the U.S. feeding Iran weapons in its 1980s war with Iraq while supplying the Iraqis intelligence on Iran in a ruthless policy of bleeding both.
Mughniyeh evaded numerous U.S. and Israeli attempts to assassinate him, including a 1994 car bomb that killed his brother. Become mythic, in the West a faceless monster, in the Middle East a tall, handsome, well-dressed hero fluent in English and French, he was widely credited with historic feats, including the deployment of armor-piercing roadside bombs driving Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, and plaguing the U.S. occupation of Iraq. “When in doubt, and we are always in doubt about this,’ said an ex-CIA official, “blame Mughniyeh.”
His death, predictably, was shrouded in intrigue and menace. As Hezbollah threatened revenge, there were reports that he had been planning some retaliation for the recent Israeli bombing of Syria, that the headrest explosive in his SUV was triggered by satellite as only the U.S. or Israel could have managed, that some of his Syrian hosts may have conspired with the CIA in some new cabal, or even that the killing was faked so that he could go still deeper underground. In the old ceaseless, senseless cycle, reprisals were in the offing.
About his life, as Churchill said of historical tragedy, the terrible ifs accumulate. If in a Lebanon free of any real cold war Russian threat the West had not so reflexively and so long colluded with the colonial oligarchs against a political-economic democracy bringing long-term stability. If there had been from any side an equitable peace between Palestinians and Israelis. And perhaps most decisively, if the U.S. had not continuously thrown its vast weight into the scales—furtively if not always openly—with so little knowledge and sensibility that it ended with enemies America and its Israeli client need never have made.
How history will see Mughniyeh—vicious killer, fierce patriot, or both—will depend, of course, on who writes it in the era’s clashing dogmas. If only his death could teach, this figure who killed so many might yet save lives. But so long as the world’s greatest power lacks the wisdom and courage to face its past culpability and change its course in the Middle East, the key to so much else in its policies at home as well as abroad, one outcome seems sure. In some cinder block hovel in south Beirut, the rubble of Gaza, or the walled-in ghettos of the West Bank, some young man, or woman, is waiting to take his place.
© Roger Morris
(A shorter version of this article ran in Canada’s Globe and Mail February 23.)
Roger Morris, who served on the Senior Staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Johnson and Nixon before resigning over the invasion of Cambodia, is an award-winning historian and author of several books, including Shadows of the Eagle a history of US policy and covert action in the Middle East and South Asia, forthcoming from Knopf in 2008.
NEWS: Bombing in Beirut
Beirut blast kills counterterror official
A ranking Lebanese counterterrorism official was killed today in a powerful car bomb explosion in a mostly Christian suburb of the capital that left at least four others dead and 20 injured, officials said.
Inspector Wissam Eid, who died along with his bodyguard in the explosion, was the intelligence officer responsible for investigating a recent spate of bombings throughout the country for Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces, which is considered close to U.S.-backed politician Saad Hariri.
“Today a very important officer in the ISF was targeted,” Gen. Achraf Rifi, head of the division, told reporters at the site. “We continue our mission of protecting the country, and we will not be scared or stopped by any attack. We got the message. It is a message of terror.” [complete article]
NEWS: Lebanon
Beirut bomb hits U.S. embassy car
A car bomb damaged a U.S. diplomatic car in Beirut on Tuesday, killing at least three people and wounding 16, and the U.S. State Department said no Americans died in the blast.
The bomb sent a column of smoke into the sky, tore masonry from buildings and destroyed at least six cars in a Christian suburb north of Beirut, as well as damaging the armored four-wheel-drive embassy car. [complete article]
Prez pick postponed again in Lebanon
To the surprise of no one, Lebanon’s political mess continues on and on. Parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri on Friday afternoon delayed Saturday’s session for choosing of a president until Jan. 21. It’s the 12th time the session has been postponed.
A jumble of foreign diplomats have tried and utterly failed to resolve a crisis that has left the country without a president for nearly two months. The latest would-be hero: the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. He’s held tens of meetings with feuding political parties, in Beirut and around.
His three-point plan: elect army chief General Michel Suleiman as a compromise president; form a national unity government with no one wielding veto power; start writing up some new election laws so there’s no repeat of the current stalemate. [complete article]
NEWS: Syria waiting for Bush to go; Egypt critical of Israel Lobby; Israel not planning to reprimand itself for use of cluster bombs
Israel’s Foreign Ministry: Syria feels peace must wait for next U.S. president
She Syrian administration is waiting out the Bush presidency, and only intends to enter a serious diplomatic process with Israel when the next United States administration takes over in 2009, according to the Foreign Ministry’s intelligence assessment.
“Damascus is interested in an agreement with Israel, but only according to Syria’s conditions and with American involvement,” Nimrod Barkan, who heads the ministry’s political research department, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.
“The Syrian surface-to-surface missile threat has increased in the past year,” he added. “Israel’s deterrence against Syria and Hezbollah still exists and even increased during 2007, but we must watch closely for the possibility that the deterrence could weaken.”
Barkan added that the U.S. twice tried to “open a door for Syria” in 2007, but Damascus failed to meet the administration’s demands regarding its continued involvement in Lebanon. [complete article]
Egypt FM: Pro-Israeli lobby is harming our relations with U.S.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Wednesday accused the Israeli lobby in Washington of straining its relations with the United States by using the issue of smuggling across the Gaza border as an excuse to cut U.S. military aid to Cairo.
The remarks came hours before a scheduled meeting between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik where they were expected to discuss the cross-border weapons smuggling to Gaza militants.
“The latest months have seen the Israeli lobby’s efforts to harm Egypt’s interests with the (U.S.)Congress,” Aboul Gheit told reporters. “The Israeli lobby inside the Congress was behind some positions adopted by Congress and the Israeli media campaign in the last few months falls within this trend.”
Another senior Egyptian official echoed Aboul Gheit’s comments, accusing Israel of trying to influence U.S. aid to Egypt. He referred to video footage that Israel passed to the United States in which Egyptian soldiers are seen taking part in the weapons smuggling. The official said that this is a “blatant attempt to interfere in internal Egyptian matters,” adding that “in the videos there is nothing” and that “the construction of settlements is very damaging the peace process”. [complete article]
Israel won’t prosecute for use of cluster bombs in Lebanon
Israeli military prosecutors announced Monday that they would not press charges over the army’s use of cluster bombs during the war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, actions that had been widely criticized by human rights organizations.
The announcement came as Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams met here Monday evening for the second time since the American-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Md.
Cluster bombs are not prohibited in warfare, but their use is criticized because they contain “bomblets” that explode over a wide area and may strike unintended targets. In addition, bomblets that fail to explode become, in effect, land mines that can be detonated by civilians long after fighting has stopped. More than 30 Lebanese are said to have been killed by munitions left behind after the monthlong war in 2006. [complete article]
NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Where should the finger point this time?
General killed in bomb attack in Lebanon
A powerful car bomb killed one of Lebanon’s top generals and his bodyguard in a suburb east of Beirut on Wednesday morning, striking an unexpected blow at the country’s most widely respected institution and further undermining Lebanon’s precarious stability.
The officer, Brig. Gen. François al-Hajj, was killed when a 77-pound bomb under a parked blue BMW sedan exploded as he drove past on his way to work at the Defense Ministry in the Baabda suburb.
General Hajj, 54, was a top contender to succeed Gen. Michel Suleiman, the army chief who is poised to become the country’s next president. He was also the operational commander in last summer’s three-month battle against Islamic militants holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon. [complete article]
Editor’s Comment — After every other bombing in recent months, fingers have instantly been pointed at Syria and its Lebanese allies. There’s no point doing that this time. And that begs the question: was it simply too easy to do that before?
ANALYSIS: Détente with Syria
The report of UN prosecutor Serge Brammertz on the Harriri assassination came out last week. Not only did it fail to name any Syrian suspects (contrary to original reports in 2005) but also praised Syria’s cooperation in the UN probe. Simultaneously, the US Department of State did not veto a United Nations technological grant to Syria, to be used for sophisticated surveillance by the Customs Department, knowing that the equipment will be coming from Cisco Systems. Cisco received a special export license from the US Department of Commerce to ship routers, switches, and high-tech equipment to Syria.
The US has been accusing Syria of supporting the insurgency in Iraq, destabilizing Lebanon, and honeymooning with Iran. Why the sudden change?
In fact, the thaw has been under way for some time. It started with a Syrian-US meeting at a regional conference on Iraq back in March 2006. The Americans reasoned that in order to achieve stability in Iraq, they had to deal with either Syria or Iran.
Dealing with both was too difficult for the Bush White House, and continuing to sideline both was equally destructive. It was easier to talk to Syria than Iran, the Americans reasoned, since Syria was reasonable and did not have a history of anti-Americanism. This new perception led to a groundbreaking encounter between Foreign Minister Moualem and his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice. [complete article]
EDITORIAL: Diplomacy on the ascent
A “different dynamic” in American diplomacy
If war follows the failure of diplomacy, it’s natural that the failure of war should lead to the resurrection of diplomacy. George Bush might not clearly grasp this, but there are strong indications that it is obvious to many of his closest advisers. The latest evidence comes from Lebanon.
For the last week, Lebanon has been without a president but now, after a standoff that has lasted months, the political factions (always simplistically described in the Western media as being pro-Western or pro-Syrian) appear to have agreed on a compromise. Washington didn’t make it happen but it could have stood in the way. Instead, the administration is now willing to accept that Lebanon’s next president, Syria’s preferred candidate, will be General Michel Suleiman.
Some commentators predicted this outcome months ago. Back on August 15, a blogger calling himself, “Outlaw Josey Wales,” wrote, “The powers-that-be have decided General Michel Suleiman/Sleiman will be the next president of Lebanon.” Today, the Wall Street Journal (via Syria Comment) reports:
In recent days [pro-Western] March 14 politicians, with Washington’s consent, agreed to a compromise candidate for the presidency. Gen. Michel Suleiman, commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces, worked closely with Damascus during its military occupation of Lebanon and is already receiving support from some of Syria’s Lebanese political allies.
March 14 leaders say the general’s selection, while not their first choice, could help stabilize Lebanon, because of his leadership of a Lebanese military increasingly viewed as a unifying force in their country.
“Michel Suleiman is well-known to the Hezbollah and the Syrians,” said Walid Jumblatt, a key leader of March 14. “If the Syrians don’t want Suleiman, it means they don’t want stability in Lebanon.”
The concession on the Lebanese president comes amid a broader push by the U.S. and its allies to re-engage Damascus in other ways. American and Israeli strategists view this initiative as aimed at breaking Syria’s alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which have all increased their influence across the Middle East in recent years. It is also aimed at gaining greater support from Syria in cutting off militants infiltrating into Iraq.
The administration wants to characterize the Lebanese presidential choice as a concession by its allies:
A high-ranking US official was quoted by the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) as saying that Washington has no objections to agreements among the Lebanese on the election of army commander General Michel Suleiman for president. “The US did not strike any deal with Syria regarding Lebanon at the Annapolis conference,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity told KUNA. “We understand the concerns of the Lebanese on this issue,” he added. “The US is separating Lebanon from the other pending problems in the region.” The US official said that Lebanon is not up for negotiation, especially not with Syria. “We only refer to Lebanese-Syrian relations when we are calling on Damascus to stop meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs,” he said.
Mark those words carefully: If the US did not strike any deal with Syria regarding Lebanon at the Annapolis conference it was because the deal had been struck in advance. This is what the New York Times reports:
Syria, the most important outside influence over Lebanese politics, had hesitated until the last minute over whether to attend the conference.
Immediately after the talks, Syrian allies in Lebanon endorsed the first major political breakthrough. Analysts say the talks could thaw strained relations between Syria and the United States.
“The Syrians did not want to go to Annapolis, and without them the conference would have been a failure and would have weakened the Arabs,” said Talal Atrissi, a political analyst and sociologist at Lebanese University. “The Syrians traded their participation, which did not cost them anything, with a deal on the Lebanese presidency.”
Another breakthrough then came after the conference when on Thursday, Christian leader Michel Aoun, a retired general and a former army chief who was seeking the presidency himself and is backed by Syria, indicated that he is “open” to Suleiman becoming president. Lebanese commentator, Michael Young, that day had written, “Aoun will swallow poison before saying yes to Suleiman.” I guess the poison was less bitter than Young imagined.
So why should observers in the United States be surprised by the latest turn of events in the generally mystifying process of Lebanese politics? Here’s why. This is what the astute Syrian political analyst and journalist Sami Moubayed has to say:
…if the Syrians are able to get their way, they would opt for Michel Suleiman, the current army commander. Washington DC is not too enthusiastic about him because he is politically independent; too independent for Washington’s taste. He is committed to combating Israel, supporting Hizbullah, and friendship with Syria. His one slogan has been “Israel is the enemy”, something that greatly pleases Damascus but is frowned upon by 14 March. If elected, he would certainly work for a greater role for Hizbullah in the government, and might even turn a blind eye to their activities in south Lebanon, as did Elias Hrawi in the early 1990s, and Lahoud in 1998-2006. Also to the displeasure of 14 March was a recent remark by the army commander, “Fatah Al-Islam is linked to Al-Qaeda not Syria.”
Washington has plenty of reasons not to like Suleiman. The fact that they have now given their consent to his becoming Lebanon’s next president makes it quite transparent: the realpolitik faction inside the administration is not simply ready to do business with Syria — business is already underway.
NEWS & OPINION: Rising fear in Lebanon
Darkness falls on the Middle East
It’s difficult to describe what it’s like to be in a country that sits on plate glass. It is impossible to be certain if the glass will break. When a constitution breaks – as it is beginning to break in Lebanon – you never know when the glass will give way.
People are moving out of their homes, just as they have moved out of their homes in Baghdad. I may not be frightened, because I’m a foreigner. But the Lebanese are frightened. I was not in Lebanon in 1975 when the civil war began, but I was in Lebanon in 1976 when it was under way. I see many young Lebanese who want to invest their lives in this country, who are frightened, and they are right to frightened. What can we do? [complete article]
Hezbollah raises specter of long Lebanon power void
Lebanese opposition group Hezbollah said on Sunday that failure to reach agreement on a new president in the week ahead could leave the divided country without a head of state for a long time.
Deputy Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Kassem also said the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora had no right to assume the powers of the presidency, which has been vacant since Friday when Emile Lahoud’s term ended. [complete article]
NEWS: Lebanon’s political limbo
Lebanese fail to elect president
Lebanese MPs have failed to convene to elect a new president as the term of the incumbent, Emile Lahoud, expires.
Members of the Western-backed majority had hoped to hold a vote, but the pro-Syrian opposition did not allow the session to achieve the quorum needed.
The crisis has raised fears of civil strife, including the possibility of rival administrations, as happened during the 15-year civil war. [complete article]
From hopeful to helpless at a protest in Lebanon
Squalls of rain lashed the offices of Carmen Geha and other young activists. Thunder rolling off the Mediterranean provided a cadence to their work. The weather was a little like politics this week in Lebanon — turbulent and baleful. And Geha, optimistic against the odds, was determined to provide a glimmer of hope.
Lebanon finds itself in a familiar place these days, facing the unknown. Its worst crisis since the 1975-90 civil war builds to a climax at midnight Friday, when the term of President Emile Lahoud ends. Despite weeks of French-led mediation, Lebanon’s factions appeared unlikely to reach a consensus on Lahoud’s replacement by the deadline, plunging the country into a constitutional limbo that sets up scenarios as diverse as the country’s problems: rival governments, military rule or a vacuum, along with the civil strife each option could bring.
Geha and her colleagues readily admit the confrontation is bigger than they are. But on Wednesday, they organized a protest outside the parliament, planning to deliver a blunt demand, in the hopes that others would join them. Enough of a crisis, they said, that has brought a country still scarred by one war to the brink of another. [complete article]
OPINION: Lebanon on the brink
While the eyes of the world are focused on the fading prospects of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the upcoming meeting in Annapolis, Md., an electoral deadlock in Lebanon grinds inexorably to a climax, threatening to upset an 18-year factional truce and ignite a new civil war that will add one more explosive ingredient to Middle East instability.
Lebanon’s problems are not new. They are rooted in the 1920s, when France’s colonial regime created the country out of Syrian territory and squeezed Christians, Druze and Muslims — Sunni and Shiite — into it. At that time, the Maronite Christians, whose close ties to France dated to the Middle Ages, were the colonial power’s political allies, so the constitution that France imparted required that Lebanon’s president, its most powerful official, be a Maronite. The prime minister, under the constitution, would be a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of the parliament would be a Shiite. The system, a peculiar form of democracy, is called “confessionalism.”
For most of the ensuing years, confessionalism enabled the sects to coexist in a fragile balance. The enormous exception was the horrible civil war that raged from 1975 to 1989, killing 100,000 and leaving much of the country in ruins. None of the sects wants a repetition. [complete article]
NEWS: Time running out for picking a president
What happens next in Lebanon is anyone’s guess
Despite frantic international mediation and declarations of a desire for consensus from both of Lebanon’s feuding political camps, it remains impossible to say what will happen in the few days remaining before the country risks sliding into a constitutional vacuum, a number of political analysts told The Daily Star on Tuesday.
“Nobody knows,” said Timur Goksel, former senior adviser to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). “I don’t know either.”
Legal expert Ziad Baroud echoed that sentiment.
“I simply don’t know,” he said. “Things are so complicated that you could hardly predict what could be the outcome. I don’t think that we have enough information. [complete article]
NEWS: Lebanon’s presidential election deadline looms
As presidential vote nears, Beirut’s residents sense they won’t be the winners
Mireille Adas took part in a march through downtown Beirut this week, demanding that Hezbollah end its yearlong occupation of the city’s commercial center. Her jewelry shop, steps away from the organization’s tent camp, has suffered major losses as a result of the power struggle between Hezbollah and the government, which has paralyzed the capital and brought Lebanese politics to a standstill for nearly a year.
Like most Lebanese, Ms. Adas has felt new heights of anxiety as the clock counted down to next Friday’s deadline for the country to choose a new president. Hezbollah and the pro-Western governing coalition have faced off in a game of brinkmanship over the selection of a president, the head of state, making no visible progress during two months of crisis negotiations that began when Parliament met to elect a president on Sept. 25 and promptly disbanded for lack of a quorum of two-thirds of its members.
Echoing many politicians and analysts here, Ms. Adas worries that the Friday deadline is likely to bring one of two outcomes, either of them bad: a deal that prolongs the current standoff, extending a long period of stagnation and malaise, or a catastrophic head-on clash between the governing coalition and the opposition led by Hezbollah, the Islamist Shiite faction. [complete article]
NEWS: Al-Qaeda cell tried to assassinate Nasrallah
Report: Al-Qaeda planned hit on Hizbullah chief
An al-Qaeda cell tried to assassinate Hizbullah Secretary-General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah last summer, the Lebanese, Arab-language newspaper As-Safir reported Thursday.
According to the report, the Lebanese security services are currently conducting a vast investigation into al-Qaeda’s activities in Lebanon. Several al-Qaeda cell members have been arrested, and have admitted – among other things – to firing Katyusha rockets at Israel on several occasions.
The cells are also investigated in connection with a conspiracy to attack UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. The attack, which failed to materialize, was meant to look link the Hizbullah’s handiwork, deterioration further the fragile relations between the two.
Lebanese security services, said As-Safir, have uncovered three al-Qaeda cells operating in southern Lebanon. Search and seizure operation in the region further uncovered some 150 pounds of cyanide and other chemicals used to make explosive devices; several hundred pounds of explosive, said the report, have already been shipped back to Iraq. [complete article]
NEWS: Hezbollah warns U.S. not to set up base
Hezbollah warns U.S. not to set up base
Hezbollah’s deputy leader warned the U.S. on Sunday against setting up a military base in Lebanon, saying the guerrilla group would consider such a move “a hostile act.”
Sheik Naim Kassem’s warning came days after a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. military would like to see a “strategic partnership” with Lebanon’s army to strengthen the country’s forces so that Hezbollah would have no excuse to bear arms.
Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, spoke on Lebanese television Thursday after holding talks on military cooperation with Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. He did not say the U.S. government wants to build a military base in Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and Lebanon’s opposition seized on Edelman’s comments as subtle confirmation of a pro-opposition newspaper’s claim that Washington was offering a treaty that provides for bases and training in the country. [complete article]
NEWS: Hezbollah slams U.S. call for ‘partnership’ with Lebanon army
Hezbollah slams U.S. call for ‘partnership’ with Lebanon army
Hezbollah on Friday denounced a senior Pentagon official’s call for a U.S. strategic partnership with Lebanon’s army, saying American attempts to boost military ties were a ploy for domination and could turn the country into another Iraq.
Washington has dramatically increased military aid to Lebanon’s pro-Western government over the past year. On Thursday, Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. wants to make military ties even closer, with a strategic partnership to strengthen the country’s forces.
Edelman said in an interview with Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. television that the building up of the military would mean the Shiite Muslim guerrilla group Hezbollah would have no excuse to bear arm. His comments came on the same day that a Lebanese newspaper reported that Washington is proposing a treaty with Lebanon that would make it a strategic partner and lead to the creation of American bases. [complete article]