by Marwan Kyriakos-Saad
As the United Nations force is dispatched to Lebanon, Marwan Kyriakos-Saad follows up on his Summer of ’82 story.
On October 23, 1983 a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove into the US marines compound at the Beirut International Airport. It was slightly before 6:30 am.
A few miles away and 20 seconds later, another truck drove in the parking under the Drakkar building housing the French contingent. The two earth shattering explosions were heard all over sleepy Beirut.
A surviving marine reported that the young driver of the Mercedes truck was smiling as he accelerated passed him into the compound.
That day, 241 American servicemen died as well as 58 French paratroopers. They had been part of a 5,000 men strong Multinational Force (MF) dispatched to separate the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) from the Lebanese population. They were Americans, French, Italians and British. The MF was also supposed to help the Lebanese army re-establish its authority over Beirut.
I had already gone back to school, the summer was over and the beach season was coming to an end. I was 14 now and no matter how often we thought that Lebanon was going to pull through, the slow slide into darker waters continued.
The summer of ’82, the election of Amine Gemayel and the arrival of the Multinational Force had generated immense hope. Expatriates had returned from abroad. My cousins, the infamous Nsouli boys had returned from Washington and life in our building of the Sanayeh neighbourhood had resumed it raucous course. Every morning my cousin Nadim and I would cycle to the good old College Protestant. We had one thing on our minds, girls! Brunettes, longhaired, French, spotty, we did not care. And yes of course, beautiful blonde, blue eyed ones. Every Saturday night, we would raid parties organised by friends and wait impatiently for slow time. Bonnie Tyler bellowed “Total eclipse of the heart” and we plotted, anguished and stuttered whilst they blushed, ducked and kept us at a 20cm distance.
I had picked up basketball, after my swimming coach Osman had been jailed and often we played other schools. Troublemakers International College and preppy College Louise Wegman were our main opponents. My team mates were my best friends, Mazen Attar, Ali Hallal, Jamal Kaddoura and of course Hilmi Harmouche. Christians, Sunnites, Shiites and Druze, we were all one tight gang. The “Boys of Summer” said Don Henley.
In that autumn of 1983, clouds were getting darker above Beirut. My parents fought often. My mother wanted to move to Paris whilst my father kept on hoping that the situation in Beirut would get better. The war had been going for 8 years, surely it was not going to last much longer! France and the US were our allies; surely they were going to put an end to a war that foreigners were waging in our country. Even the Israelis had started withdrawing. “Sweet dreams are made of this” whispered the Eurythmics.
And withdrew from the Chouf mountain they did. Within hours the Phalange Christian militia and the PSP Druze party were at each other throats trying to take control of the abandoned Israeli positions. Entire villages were “cleansed”. The army and the Multinational Force took side and bombed the PSP positions. In West Beirut, Amal, the Shiite militia, was getting bolder and bolder. They fought the Lebanese army and in a matter of days eradicated the Mourabitoun, a once mighty Sunnite militia. The Lebanese army disintegrated and Beirut was again divided in two.
In the South, resistance to the IDF was growing by the day. Suicide attacks as well as guerrilla operations were relentless. There was talk of a new secretive militia. Hezbollah. The name was whispered with respect, almost fear. People knew nothing about the “Hezb”. For the first time in Lebanese history, the voice of the Shiite community was starting to resonate loud and clear. The historical Maronite/Sunnite division of power was starting to be shaken.
The French carved Lebanon out in the 1920’s from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Different communities were lumped together into a state that gained independence from the French in 1943. The main proponents of an independent non-exclusively Muslim state were the Christian Maronites. The Muslim Sunnites were given just enough political power and therefore economic power to be convinced to join the new state and part ways with Greater Syria. The Shiites, a minority at the time, were given nothing. Rich landowner families, who exploited their fellows Shiites more then anybody else, represented them. Today, unofficial estimates put the Shiite community at 35% of the Lebanese population.
On February 7, 1984 President Ronald Reagan announce the “redeployment” of the Marines from Beirut to ships offshore. The French, the Italians, which by then constituted the largest contingent and the small British force, left as well.
Things were changing at the College Protestant. Slowly all the French teachers were leaving. Foreigners kidnapping was becoming a daily occurrence. Pictures of Michel Seurat, Jean-Paul Kauffman, Terry Waite and so many others would become permanent painful fixture of Western news channels. Christian students, pretty Karine, blonde Nicole, Bachir Gemayel look-alike Charbel, moved to East Beirut. My cousins left for good.
West Beirut slowly sank into darkness. Pictures of martyrs covered the walls, buildings bore the mark of nearly 10 years of war and mountains of domestic rubbish appeared at every corner. Militias ruled. Skirmishes erupted everywhere. A stray bullet hit Adam Hallal, Ali’s younger brother. He died three days later. All of the College Protestant mourned him. To this day, the school still organises a sport weekend that bares his name. My friend Zephyr Basiliou got shot through the heart whilst leaving a party.
Whilst driving my moped through Beirut I failed to stop at a militia check point. The leader armed his Kalashnikov and held me up against a wall for one hour. People that I had known for years passed by and looked away. I was let go. My father was kidnapped whilst crossing the green line between West and East Beirut. He was exchanged against other kidnapped people. Abu Hussein masterminded the operation. He was a friend of mine. He did not know that it was my father.
By 1987, when I left for Paris, Beirut was pitch black and the music had died a long time ago.
MKS
August 28th, 2006
An Independent Source of Analysis on The Middle East
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Summer of 82'
By Marwan Kyriakos-Saad
On the 4th June 1982 my parents took off from Beirut airport for a month and a half tour of the United States, leaving my sister, two brothers and myself in our flat in West Beirut.
I was nearly thirteen and it seemed like the beginning of a glorious summer. School at the College Protestant Francais was winding down, the scorching Beirut sun made the gardens of the College sparkle, we played all kind of ball games and God knows the girls were pretty. Especially one. The summer season at the Summerland, the sea resort where we would go every weekend was starting, and soon enough we would spend all our days there, by the sea without a care in the world. Snowy White sang “My bird of paradise…”
There was a world cup then too, we cheered for Zico, Socrates, Battiston, and then Rossi resurrected Italy.
On the 6th June 1982, Israel started the invasion of Lebanon.
We knew there had been some tensions in southern Lebanon, which was controlled by the Palestinian militias. Fateh and others regularly shelled northern Israel. But what did I care, that was a world away and I wished the Palestinians and the Israelis could keep quiet so I could enjoy my summer. The “incidents”, as we called the civil war, had started back in April 1975 and I had grown up with the war. I had developed a very simple philosophy. There is nothing I can do, so I will not worry and whenever I can, I would enjoy life to the full. Nothing would stand in my way to the beach, not an Israeli shell, not a Palestinian militiaman, not a car bomb. The Alan Parsons had an “Eye in the sky”.
After intensive air strikes on military targets as well as civilians, Tsahal entered Lebanon and the Israeli tanks started racing towards Beirut, barely 100km from the southern border.
The face of Beirut totally changed. The “chabab” were in control. RPG on the shoulder, Keffieh to the wind, 3-day stubble, they owned the streets. I could not contain my excitement, there was no more school, my parents were miles away, my city was the centre of the universe and I was living history. I was invincible!
At night the Israeli strikes were getting closer and we could barely sleep. Often at the beginning of the invasion, we would shuttle down to the shelter under the building, which one of our neighbour, a cosmetics importer, was using as a storage facility. After a while we could not be bothered anymore. If things got really bad, we would go down to the second floor. There, a great man called Fawzi Ghandour would welcome the whole building. Fawzi was the scion of a great shipping family and his mother was Turkish. He was the ultimate Levantine, with enormous charisma and an innate sense of hospitality. And he had books and he had movies. For hours, I would sit transfixed watching the Magnificent Seven, dreaming I was Yul Brynner. For hours, I would become Marcel Pagnol roaming an idealised Provence.
And the Israelis kept on shelling and old man Arafat swore that he would resist till the last drop of West Beirut’s blood and our Western friends stood by, idle.
My uncle then advised that we should not “put all our eggs in one basket” and my brother and I were shipped to the Christian part of Lebanon, to the sea village of Jounieh, where we stayed with my cousins in a tiny chalet by the sea. Imagine 6 kids, living in one room, with one shower outside and one toilet at the other end of the small resort. Basking in the never ending Lebanese sun, diving into the sea, falling asleep to the voice of a local crooner, at the nearby piano bar singing “you’re just too good to be true, can’t take my eyes off you …”. I could see that girl everywhere.
Then my parents came back, by boat via Cyprus and we all returned to West Beirut as the Israeli Blocus was closing in. My parents would not leave their house. Paris or London could wait.
The shelling intensified, electricity and hot water had long gone. We would never go out anymore. There was talk of unconventional weapons and phosphor bombs. But at Fawzi Ghandour the electric generator was on, the food plentiful and the supply of books never ending.
One morning after a night when we barely slept, I walked out on the balcony and a group of chabab were there, drinking tea after a long night of fighting. One of them waved, and then took his hood off; it was Osman, my swimming coach, who drove me every morning to the swimming practice. My mom said I should pick up basketball.
Then finally a cease-fire was agreed, the Palestinian fighters were evacuated to whatever Arab country would take them, leaving wives, parents and kids behind. Bachir Gemayel was elected. The war was over. Lebanon was going to be normal again, forever. I was going to see that girl again! And the Maisonettes kept on singing “ I found a place …on Heartache Avenue”.
On the 13th September 1982, Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. On the 16th the Phalange Christian militia walked into the Sabra and Chatilla Palestinian camps. The Lebanese “events” were only starting.
It’s 25 year later now, and Fawzi Ghandour has passed away. I still dream, sometimes. Maybe little boys of thirteen can still fall in love with little girls of 12, in quiet, sunny Beirut.
MKS
July 18th, 2006
On the 4th June 1982 my parents took off from Beirut airport for a month and a half tour of the United States, leaving my sister, two brothers and myself in our flat in West Beirut.
I was nearly thirteen and it seemed like the beginning of a glorious summer. School at the College Protestant Francais was winding down, the scorching Beirut sun made the gardens of the College sparkle, we played all kind of ball games and God knows the girls were pretty. Especially one. The summer season at the Summerland, the sea resort where we would go every weekend was starting, and soon enough we would spend all our days there, by the sea without a care in the world. Snowy White sang “My bird of paradise…”
There was a world cup then too, we cheered for Zico, Socrates, Battiston, and then Rossi resurrected Italy.
On the 6th June 1982, Israel started the invasion of Lebanon.
We knew there had been some tensions in southern Lebanon, which was controlled by the Palestinian militias. Fateh and others regularly shelled northern Israel. But what did I care, that was a world away and I wished the Palestinians and the Israelis could keep quiet so I could enjoy my summer. The “incidents”, as we called the civil war, had started back in April 1975 and I had grown up with the war. I had developed a very simple philosophy. There is nothing I can do, so I will not worry and whenever I can, I would enjoy life to the full. Nothing would stand in my way to the beach, not an Israeli shell, not a Palestinian militiaman, not a car bomb. The Alan Parsons had an “Eye in the sky”.
After intensive air strikes on military targets as well as civilians, Tsahal entered Lebanon and the Israeli tanks started racing towards Beirut, barely 100km from the southern border.
The face of Beirut totally changed. The “chabab” were in control. RPG on the shoulder, Keffieh to the wind, 3-day stubble, they owned the streets. I could not contain my excitement, there was no more school, my parents were miles away, my city was the centre of the universe and I was living history. I was invincible!
At night the Israeli strikes were getting closer and we could barely sleep. Often at the beginning of the invasion, we would shuttle down to the shelter under the building, which one of our neighbour, a cosmetics importer, was using as a storage facility. After a while we could not be bothered anymore. If things got really bad, we would go down to the second floor. There, a great man called Fawzi Ghandour would welcome the whole building. Fawzi was the scion of a great shipping family and his mother was Turkish. He was the ultimate Levantine, with enormous charisma and an innate sense of hospitality. And he had books and he had movies. For hours, I would sit transfixed watching the Magnificent Seven, dreaming I was Yul Brynner. For hours, I would become Marcel Pagnol roaming an idealised Provence.
And the Israelis kept on shelling and old man Arafat swore that he would resist till the last drop of West Beirut’s blood and our Western friends stood by, idle.
My uncle then advised that we should not “put all our eggs in one basket” and my brother and I were shipped to the Christian part of Lebanon, to the sea village of Jounieh, where we stayed with my cousins in a tiny chalet by the sea. Imagine 6 kids, living in one room, with one shower outside and one toilet at the other end of the small resort. Basking in the never ending Lebanese sun, diving into the sea, falling asleep to the voice of a local crooner, at the nearby piano bar singing “you’re just too good to be true, can’t take my eyes off you …”. I could see that girl everywhere.
Then my parents came back, by boat via Cyprus and we all returned to West Beirut as the Israeli Blocus was closing in. My parents would not leave their house. Paris or London could wait.
The shelling intensified, electricity and hot water had long gone. We would never go out anymore. There was talk of unconventional weapons and phosphor bombs. But at Fawzi Ghandour the electric generator was on, the food plentiful and the supply of books never ending.
One morning after a night when we barely slept, I walked out on the balcony and a group of chabab were there, drinking tea after a long night of fighting. One of them waved, and then took his hood off; it was Osman, my swimming coach, who drove me every morning to the swimming practice. My mom said I should pick up basketball.
Then finally a cease-fire was agreed, the Palestinian fighters were evacuated to whatever Arab country would take them, leaving wives, parents and kids behind. Bachir Gemayel was elected. The war was over. Lebanon was going to be normal again, forever. I was going to see that girl again! And the Maisonettes kept on singing “ I found a place …on Heartache Avenue”.
On the 13th September 1982, Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. On the 16th the Phalange Christian militia walked into the Sabra and Chatilla Palestinian camps. The Lebanese “events” were only starting.
It’s 25 year later now, and Fawzi Ghandour has passed away. I still dream, sometimes. Maybe little boys of thirteen can still fall in love with little girls of 12, in quiet, sunny Beirut.
MKS
July 18th, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Interview with Richard Armitage
An interesting interview in Al Jazeera.net with former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage about Hezbollah and Syria. Click here to read full transcript.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Riviera vs. Citadel: The Battle for Lebanon
by Nadim Shehadi
The United Nations Security Council resolution 1701 agreed in New York on 11 August 2006 was instrumental in facilitating the ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah that came into effect on the morning of 14 August, ending the war that had lasted thirty-three days. It is a real, but limited, achievement: the resolution ignores the regional and international aspects of the conflict, and assumes that the solution to the problem of Hizbollah's arsenal of weaponry within Lebanon can be a political rather than a military one.
Whether this wager can succeed will depend on the emerging power-balance between two visions of the country and how this has been affected by the war. The outcome of this political struggle will determine the deeper result of the battle for Lebanon.
For the past two decades, since the latter years of the 1975-90 civil war, two competing projects have been running in parallel in Lebanon. One aims at building a Riviera, a Monaco of the eastern Mediterranean; the other a Citadel or bunker, at the frontline of confrontation with Israel and the United States.
Each of these projects has both a local and a regional dimension, drawing a different lesson from the civil war while connecting Lebanon to one or other of its neighbours in particular ways. Each has adherents from all strands of Lebanese society, and neither is purely sectarian. Each has a different vision of how to rebuild the state and ensure the security and prosperity of the citizen. In the regional aspect, Saudi Arabia has been the main investor in the Riviera, and Iran the principal stakeholder in the Citadel.
The Riviera wants to revive the model of pre-war Lebanon, centred on Beirut as a cosmopolitan open society which relies for its prosperity on trade and services. This is protected by its alliance with the west and by being on the side of international legality. Investment, mainly in infrastructure, is sufficient to sustain the role that the country was destined to play, making the army and a military role for the country superfluous. On this basis of commerce plus tolerance, the rest takes care of itself.
The Riviera project believed in the success of the middle-east peace process and banked on Beirut coming to play a pivotal role as a financial and business centre. It would be a playground for the wealthy of the oil-rich Gulf states (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia) and a home base for returning Lebanese expatriates. The main architect of the Riviera reborn was former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, along with the Gulf states and those other Arab states (principally Egypt and Jordan) which had concluded peace treaties with Israel and were on good terms with the west, particularly France and the United States.
The Citadel project draws very different lessons from the past. In its vision, Lebanon's collapse into civil war was due to the country's weak state, a society lacking cohesion and a strong national identity, and too great an openness to foreign interference. The country thus needed a powerful army and security services to protect it, and a state able to provide services for the citizen and play an active role in the economy.
While the Riviera needed friends, the Citadel needed an external enemy in order to keep the nation united. The peace process – especially a separate peace between Lebanon and Israel – was taboo. Support for armed resistance against Israeli occupation of the south (between 1978 and 2000) compensated for not having participated in previous Arab-Israeli wars.
The end of eighteen years of Israeli occupation of the area south of the Litani river in May 2000 was a victory for the Citadel, but it also threatened to undercut its legitimacy by depriving it of a cause to struggle for; this made the issue of the Shebaa farms – a strip of territory on the Lebanese-Israeli border which Israel continued to occupy – a cause to maintain the project.
After 2000, the Citadel vision of Lebanon continued to propound the view that the west was an unreliable protector that had let Lebanon down on several occasions. Its main architect in the political sphere in recent years has been Emile Lahoud, first as commander of the army and then as president of the republic. His principal alliances are with Syria, Iran, Hizbollah, Hamas and in general the anti-US global front, from Venezuela to China.
The internal battle between the Riviera and the Citadel erupted in summer 2004 over the attempt by Lebanon's neighbour and would-be overlord, Syria, to extend the mandate of President Emile Lahoud. UN Security Council resolution 1559 of September 2004, sponsored by France and the US, can be understood as an assault on the Citadel in response; it called for the disarmament of all local and foreign militias, including Hizbollah, as well as a halt to Syrian interference in internal affairs.
From the perspective of the Riviera project, the resolution restored protection over Lebanon twenty years after the US marine barracks were blown up in October 1983 and had caused both the French and the US (then part of a multinational force to oversee the evacuation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation) to cut and run. What followed was a year of turmoil marked by the assassination of Rafiq Hariri on 14 February 2005. This dealt a heavy blow to the Riviera, and provoked a wave of populist outrage and muscle-flexing celebrated by some as the "cedar revolution".
Two demonstrations following Hariri's death symbolised this period of epic mobilisation and in effect supported the contrasting visions of Lebanon's future: one ("pro-Syrian") on 8 March 2005 attracted about half a million people, the other ("anti-Syrian") on 14 March claimed one and a half million. There followed the withdrawal of Syrian troops in April, elections in June in which the "14 March" camp won an overwhelming majority in parliament, and a series of assassinations and attempted assassinations which targeted journalists and politicians (among them Samir Kassir, George Hawi, May Chidiac and Gebran Tueni) associated with this camp. After a couple of changes in government, Lebanon by the end of 2005 ended up with a political compromise where the government was dominated by the majority faction but included two Hizbollah members in cabinet for the first time.
The tug-of-war between the two agendas in 2005-06 created political paralysis in Lebanon. The core debate was over the legitimacy of maintaining an armed resistance force outside government control. Those who favoured disarming Hizbollah claimed that Israel's withdrawal from the south had removed any need for Lebanon to have an armed resistance, that the country could rely on international alliances to protect itself from all threats, and that diplomacy and the UN were the means to regain the Shebaa farms and achieve other national demands.
By contrast, Hizbollah and its supporters claimed that Israel continues to be a dangerous and evil enemy intent on destroying Lebanon in revenge for the 2000 withdrawal, that armed resistance is needed because no one (Beirut government, Lebanon's international alliances or the UN) could protect you when Israel attacks, and that only armed resistance can recover occupied land and release prisoners.
This argument is highlighted by the twists of Lebanese politics and diplomacy that accompanied, but were also overshadowed by, Hizbollah's war with Israel. The Hizbollah cross-border operation on 12 July was regarded by many inside Lebanon's government as precipitating a virtual coup d'etat after Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the group's leader, had imposed his agenda on the country by dragging it into a war that was to lead to its destruction.
The mechanics of the coup are interesting. Lebanon's prime minister Fouad Siniora, the quintessential Riviera man, at first criticised Hizbollah and denounced its capture of the two Israeli soldiers. He went on to meet with his ally, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and two weeks into war proposed at the Rome conference a seven-point plan for a diplomatic settlement that might allow his government to regain control of the domestic political agenda.
The US's support for Israel's military operation and rejection of a ceasefire undermined Siniora's position. This left him with no option but to refuse to meet Rice on the day of the Qana massacre, to salute Hassan Nasrallah, and (in the following days) to receive visits from the foreign ministers of Iran (Manouchehr Mottaki) and Syria (Walid Moallem). Both Moallem and Mottaki revelled in their conquest of Lebanon and issued directions and instructions.
Meanwhile, the highest-ranking US visitor to Beirut was under-secretary of state David Welch, whose principal meeting was with the speaker of Lebanon's parliament Nabih Berri, whom Hizbollah had charged to represent it in negotiations. It was as if the combined effect of US and Israeli actions was to force Fouad Siniora from one camp to the other by making his position untenable.
The counter-coup arrived a few days later, when Arab League foreign ministers parachuted into Beirut, expelled their Syrian colleague from their counsels and dragged Siniora back into the fold by lobbying the UN Security Council to come more into line with the seven-point plan he had earlier outlined. It was a diplomatic tour de force by the Arab emissaries in favour of restoring legality.
It is also only one skirmish in a lengthy political battle that will far outlast the armed conflict of July-August 2006. In the short term, Hizbollah – representing the Citadel project – has emerged victorious from recent events, not so much because of the military outcome but because of the political messages that flow from it. The Israeli military campaign and the US support for it has – wholly against their professed intentions – certainly vindicated much of the Citadel's argument and dealt a heavy political blow to the Riviera.
At the same time, the political system in Lebanon works by consensus and a complete victory by one or other side is less likely than a new equilibrium between the two visions. A coherent intervention by the international community that offers the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Lebanon, supporting the country with both military and civil assistance, could help prevent another Israeli adventure impelled by unrealisable goals that produces exactly the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. It could also help shift the internal balance of forces in Lebanon back towards the Riviera camp.
What happens in the coming days and weeks in Lebanon is crucial to the country's long-term future. The real battle for Lebanon has only just begun.
The United Nations Security Council resolution 1701 agreed in New York on 11 August 2006 was instrumental in facilitating the ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah that came into effect on the morning of 14 August, ending the war that had lasted thirty-three days. It is a real, but limited, achievement: the resolution ignores the regional and international aspects of the conflict, and assumes that the solution to the problem of Hizbollah's arsenal of weaponry within Lebanon can be a political rather than a military one.
Whether this wager can succeed will depend on the emerging power-balance between two visions of the country and how this has been affected by the war. The outcome of this political struggle will determine the deeper result of the battle for Lebanon.
For the past two decades, since the latter years of the 1975-90 civil war, two competing projects have been running in parallel in Lebanon. One aims at building a Riviera, a Monaco of the eastern Mediterranean; the other a Citadel or bunker, at the frontline of confrontation with Israel and the United States.
Each of these projects has both a local and a regional dimension, drawing a different lesson from the civil war while connecting Lebanon to one or other of its neighbours in particular ways. Each has adherents from all strands of Lebanese society, and neither is purely sectarian. Each has a different vision of how to rebuild the state and ensure the security and prosperity of the citizen. In the regional aspect, Saudi Arabia has been the main investor in the Riviera, and Iran the principal stakeholder in the Citadel.
The Riviera wants to revive the model of pre-war Lebanon, centred on Beirut as a cosmopolitan open society which relies for its prosperity on trade and services. This is protected by its alliance with the west and by being on the side of international legality. Investment, mainly in infrastructure, is sufficient to sustain the role that the country was destined to play, making the army and a military role for the country superfluous. On this basis of commerce plus tolerance, the rest takes care of itself.
The Riviera project believed in the success of the middle-east peace process and banked on Beirut coming to play a pivotal role as a financial and business centre. It would be a playground for the wealthy of the oil-rich Gulf states (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia) and a home base for returning Lebanese expatriates. The main architect of the Riviera reborn was former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, along with the Gulf states and those other Arab states (principally Egypt and Jordan) which had concluded peace treaties with Israel and were on good terms with the west, particularly France and the United States.
The Citadel project draws very different lessons from the past. In its vision, Lebanon's collapse into civil war was due to the country's weak state, a society lacking cohesion and a strong national identity, and too great an openness to foreign interference. The country thus needed a powerful army and security services to protect it, and a state able to provide services for the citizen and play an active role in the economy.
While the Riviera needed friends, the Citadel needed an external enemy in order to keep the nation united. The peace process – especially a separate peace between Lebanon and Israel – was taboo. Support for armed resistance against Israeli occupation of the south (between 1978 and 2000) compensated for not having participated in previous Arab-Israeli wars.
The end of eighteen years of Israeli occupation of the area south of the Litani river in May 2000 was a victory for the Citadel, but it also threatened to undercut its legitimacy by depriving it of a cause to struggle for; this made the issue of the Shebaa farms – a strip of territory on the Lebanese-Israeli border which Israel continued to occupy – a cause to maintain the project.
After 2000, the Citadel vision of Lebanon continued to propound the view that the west was an unreliable protector that had let Lebanon down on several occasions. Its main architect in the political sphere in recent years has been Emile Lahoud, first as commander of the army and then as president of the republic. His principal alliances are with Syria, Iran, Hizbollah, Hamas and in general the anti-US global front, from Venezuela to China.
The internal battle between the Riviera and the Citadel erupted in summer 2004 over the attempt by Lebanon's neighbour and would-be overlord, Syria, to extend the mandate of President Emile Lahoud. UN Security Council resolution 1559 of September 2004, sponsored by France and the US, can be understood as an assault on the Citadel in response; it called for the disarmament of all local and foreign militias, including Hizbollah, as well as a halt to Syrian interference in internal affairs.
From the perspective of the Riviera project, the resolution restored protection over Lebanon twenty years after the US marine barracks were blown up in October 1983 and had caused both the French and the US (then part of a multinational force to oversee the evacuation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation) to cut and run. What followed was a year of turmoil marked by the assassination of Rafiq Hariri on 14 February 2005. This dealt a heavy blow to the Riviera, and provoked a wave of populist outrage and muscle-flexing celebrated by some as the "cedar revolution".
Two demonstrations following Hariri's death symbolised this period of epic mobilisation and in effect supported the contrasting visions of Lebanon's future: one ("pro-Syrian") on 8 March 2005 attracted about half a million people, the other ("anti-Syrian") on 14 March claimed one and a half million. There followed the withdrawal of Syrian troops in April, elections in June in which the "14 March" camp won an overwhelming majority in parliament, and a series of assassinations and attempted assassinations which targeted journalists and politicians (among them Samir Kassir, George Hawi, May Chidiac and Gebran Tueni) associated with this camp. After a couple of changes in government, Lebanon by the end of 2005 ended up with a political compromise where the government was dominated by the majority faction but included two Hizbollah members in cabinet for the first time.
The tug-of-war between the two agendas in 2005-06 created political paralysis in Lebanon. The core debate was over the legitimacy of maintaining an armed resistance force outside government control. Those who favoured disarming Hizbollah claimed that Israel's withdrawal from the south had removed any need for Lebanon to have an armed resistance, that the country could rely on international alliances to protect itself from all threats, and that diplomacy and the UN were the means to regain the Shebaa farms and achieve other national demands.
By contrast, Hizbollah and its supporters claimed that Israel continues to be a dangerous and evil enemy intent on destroying Lebanon in revenge for the 2000 withdrawal, that armed resistance is needed because no one (Beirut government, Lebanon's international alliances or the UN) could protect you when Israel attacks, and that only armed resistance can recover occupied land and release prisoners.
This argument is highlighted by the twists of Lebanese politics and diplomacy that accompanied, but were also overshadowed by, Hizbollah's war with Israel. The Hizbollah cross-border operation on 12 July was regarded by many inside Lebanon's government as precipitating a virtual coup d'etat after Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the group's leader, had imposed his agenda on the country by dragging it into a war that was to lead to its destruction.
The mechanics of the coup are interesting. Lebanon's prime minister Fouad Siniora, the quintessential Riviera man, at first criticised Hizbollah and denounced its capture of the two Israeli soldiers. He went on to meet with his ally, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, and two weeks into war proposed at the Rome conference a seven-point plan for a diplomatic settlement that might allow his government to regain control of the domestic political agenda.
The US's support for Israel's military operation and rejection of a ceasefire undermined Siniora's position. This left him with no option but to refuse to meet Rice on the day of the Qana massacre, to salute Hassan Nasrallah, and (in the following days) to receive visits from the foreign ministers of Iran (Manouchehr Mottaki) and Syria (Walid Moallem). Both Moallem and Mottaki revelled in their conquest of Lebanon and issued directions and instructions.
Meanwhile, the highest-ranking US visitor to Beirut was under-secretary of state David Welch, whose principal meeting was with the speaker of Lebanon's parliament Nabih Berri, whom Hizbollah had charged to represent it in negotiations. It was as if the combined effect of US and Israeli actions was to force Fouad Siniora from one camp to the other by making his position untenable.
The counter-coup arrived a few days later, when Arab League foreign ministers parachuted into Beirut, expelled their Syrian colleague from their counsels and dragged Siniora back into the fold by lobbying the UN Security Council to come more into line with the seven-point plan he had earlier outlined. It was a diplomatic tour de force by the Arab emissaries in favour of restoring legality.
It is also only one skirmish in a lengthy political battle that will far outlast the armed conflict of July-August 2006. In the short term, Hizbollah – representing the Citadel project – has emerged victorious from recent events, not so much because of the military outcome but because of the political messages that flow from it. The Israeli military campaign and the US support for it has – wholly against their professed intentions – certainly vindicated much of the Citadel's argument and dealt a heavy political blow to the Riviera.
At the same time, the political system in Lebanon works by consensus and a complete victory by one or other side is less likely than a new equilibrium between the two visions. A coherent intervention by the international community that offers the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Lebanon, supporting the country with both military and civil assistance, could help prevent another Israeli adventure impelled by unrealisable goals that produces exactly the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. It could also help shift the internal balance of forces in Lebanon back towards the Riviera camp.
What happens in the coming days and weeks in Lebanon is crucial to the country's long-term future. The real battle for Lebanon has only just begun.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Dear Mr Blair
by Marwan Kyriakos-Saad
In these times of trouble I thought you would appreciate a comforting voice. I first would like to thank you for your hospitality. I was born and raised in Beirut, studied in Paris, partied in NY and Saint Tropez and have been living in London for the past 13 years. I love it here, the succession of little villages, the cool indifference of the Brits, the freedom to believe, think, earn and spend are unique. In London, I am free to be the man I want; to love the person I want and lead the life I want. In London I’m free; and therefore I am alive.
My only issue is with my leaders, the so-called leaders of the free world. They also happen to be the best recruiting officers for the Hezbollah.
Mr Blair, the Hezbollah is not to be sniggered at. It is a worthy enemy and in the current battle for the heart and mind of the Arab people, they are winning. Why are they winning? Because the US, the UK and Israel are cooperating to produce droves of people, entire populations, who have nothing to lose. A person who has nothing to lose might as well be dead. How easy is it then to turn that person into a martyr candidate? How easy is it to convince him that the bliss of the afterlife is worth so much more then the hardships of the current one? How easy is it to convince the inhabitant of the Palestinian camp of Chatilla in Southern Beirut that to die in Iraq is nobler then the material appeal of the western society that he can see on TV but that he will never have?
As to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Hezbollah, he has proven over the last month that he is an articulate leader who does what he says. So please Dear Mr Blair do not fight him with empty rhetoric and formulas such as “axis of evil” or “terrorism”. Fight him with your mind. Fight him with the nobility of our cause.
The culture we share dear Mr Blair, me the Levantine of Muslim and Christian faith, and you, the British Prime minister, empowers the individual and respects life. Today. Now.
Hezbollah does not care for today’s life. Hezbollah does not care for the rolling hills of Tuscany and the Sunset over Beirut’s Raouche. Hezbollah emphasizes martyrdom. Life vs. death.
Dear Mr Blair, we need to help these people choose life.
You do not fight people who have nothing to lose by trying to wipe them out. You do not try to destroy Hezbollah by bombing the hell out of Lebanon. That only makes them stronger.
You fight Hezbollah by taking away the reason for their existence. You stop Israel from acting like the bully in the playground. You push a fair and balanced UN resolution. You give the desperate people of Palestine and the destitute people of Lebanon something to lose. You give them schools. You give them hospitals. You give them jobs. You give them hope and dreams. And you don’t give them rice. You let them grow it. Peacefully.
Dear Mr Blair, I beg you to do this fast because I am scared. This is not a localised conflict. This will come back to haunt us, from Beirut to London. People like myself will be the first victims of the current war. History has taught us that voices of reason and moderation are usually the first to drown in a sea of hatred.
Regards,
MKS
PS: Some of my friends would argue that I should send this letter to President Bush instead. I beg to differ. Mr Blair, I believe that the United Kingdom has now the opportunity to be the voice of reason and make a difference.
This letter was written on August 6th 2007
In these times of trouble I thought you would appreciate a comforting voice. I first would like to thank you for your hospitality. I was born and raised in Beirut, studied in Paris, partied in NY and Saint Tropez and have been living in London for the past 13 years. I love it here, the succession of little villages, the cool indifference of the Brits, the freedom to believe, think, earn and spend are unique. In London, I am free to be the man I want; to love the person I want and lead the life I want. In London I’m free; and therefore I am alive.
My only issue is with my leaders, the so-called leaders of the free world. They also happen to be the best recruiting officers for the Hezbollah.
Mr Blair, the Hezbollah is not to be sniggered at. It is a worthy enemy and in the current battle for the heart and mind of the Arab people, they are winning. Why are they winning? Because the US, the UK and Israel are cooperating to produce droves of people, entire populations, who have nothing to lose. A person who has nothing to lose might as well be dead. How easy is it then to turn that person into a martyr candidate? How easy is it to convince him that the bliss of the afterlife is worth so much more then the hardships of the current one? How easy is it to convince the inhabitant of the Palestinian camp of Chatilla in Southern Beirut that to die in Iraq is nobler then the material appeal of the western society that he can see on TV but that he will never have?
As to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Hezbollah, he has proven over the last month that he is an articulate leader who does what he says. So please Dear Mr Blair do not fight him with empty rhetoric and formulas such as “axis of evil” or “terrorism”. Fight him with your mind. Fight him with the nobility of our cause.
The culture we share dear Mr Blair, me the Levantine of Muslim and Christian faith, and you, the British Prime minister, empowers the individual and respects life. Today. Now.
Hezbollah does not care for today’s life. Hezbollah does not care for the rolling hills of Tuscany and the Sunset over Beirut’s Raouche. Hezbollah emphasizes martyrdom. Life vs. death.
Dear Mr Blair, we need to help these people choose life.
You do not fight people who have nothing to lose by trying to wipe them out. You do not try to destroy Hezbollah by bombing the hell out of Lebanon. That only makes them stronger.
You fight Hezbollah by taking away the reason for their existence. You stop Israel from acting like the bully in the playground. You push a fair and balanced UN resolution. You give the desperate people of Palestine and the destitute people of Lebanon something to lose. You give them schools. You give them hospitals. You give them jobs. You give them hope and dreams. And you don’t give them rice. You let them grow it. Peacefully.
Dear Mr Blair, I beg you to do this fast because I am scared. This is not a localised conflict. This will come back to haunt us, from Beirut to London. People like myself will be the first victims of the current war. History has taught us that voices of reason and moderation are usually the first to drown in a sea of hatred.
Regards,
MKS
PS: Some of my friends would argue that I should send this letter to President Bush instead. I beg to differ. Mr Blair, I believe that the United Kingdom has now the opportunity to be the voice of reason and make a difference.
This letter was written on August 6th 2007
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Israel should pack up and go
Ms Levantine contributor Nadim Shehadi just published an opinion piece about Israel in the Haaret'z newspaper:
What is the logic that will emerge from this war? If Israel can exist only by destroying the neighborhood, then it's time to declare it a failed state. The Zionist dream has turned into a nightmare and is not viable. If the future holds more of the same, then the time has come to reconsider the whole project. Every state has a duty to defend its citizens, but also it has a duty to provide them with security and the two are different. The prospects are for more destruction, fanaticism, violence and hatred. No unilateral separation can isolate Israel from this, nor can the region or the world live with the consequences. This seems to be the only choice, and Israel must do itself and others a favor and go away.
The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza shows a country deprived of all humanity. The West Bank is unliveable, the population strangled into three prison clusters. Concrete barriers, barbed wires, bypass roads, human beings emerging like rats from underground tunnels, daily humiliation from hundreds of checkpoints. Gaza has been under siege since the population dared to elect Hamas, its infrastructure has been obliterated and its population has been driven to despair in what now seems like a dress rehearsal for what was to come in Lebanon.
Lebanon woke up on July 12 to a reality that can destroy the very fabric of society. Divided between those who believe in a "riviera" with consensus politics, power sharing and a weak state, and those who, like Hezbollah, see the necessity of having a fortress to resist an evil and dangerous enemy. Israel's behavior will see the logic of the latter prevail.
Yet the Lebanese system is resilient. PM Fouad Siniora, under the bombs, was able to extract a consensus for a seven-point plan where the victorious fortress accepted to go back to the political process to resolve the crisis. Lebanon still managed to challenge the U.S. and Israel through sheer persistence, and in a diplomatic tour de force it was successful in steering the UN Security Council toward a political rather than military solution. For the first time, Arab foreign ministers have been mobilized and actively lobbied international legality.
There is deliberate targeting of civilians: Israel can deny it, but at the very least, those Israelis who are doing it know it is true. Over 17,000 people were killed in the invasion of 1982, and the net result was the creation of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is a doctrine that says Arabs need to be crushed, that they can be bombed into submission, that they will eventually fall on their knees. It is the doctrine, not its application, that is flawed. It says that by terrorizing the population, they will respect us and make peace; it says that those who dare resist need to be eradicated through targeted assassination and their supporters annihilated no matter what the cost. The only lessons Israel learned is that it should do it better next time.
Three Arab countries have peace treaties or diplomatic relations with Israel, most of the Gulf states have or had commercial bureaus, Saudi Arabia came up with the King Abdallah plan offering Israel normalization - something that was not achieved in nearly 30 years of peace with Egypt. Tunisia and Morocco have excellent relations with Israel. Even rogues like Syria and Libya give out positive vibes - the former desperate to resume peace talks unconditionally. The region has a history of tolerance and coexistence; minorities, including Jews, have survived and prospered for centuries. Israel is blind to any positive developments, and this will soon make these positions and those who hold them disappear, their stance untenable.
Lebanon can reconstruct airports, roads, bridges, and factories; bury and mourn the dead, rebuild shattered lives. Israel has barely been there for 60 years, a millisecond in history, but enough time to judge the results. If the fundamental moral logic is flawed, then it is time to give up, pack up and go.
The writer, a Lebanese economist, is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Program at Chatham House
What is the logic that will emerge from this war? If Israel can exist only by destroying the neighborhood, then it's time to declare it a failed state. The Zionist dream has turned into a nightmare and is not viable. If the future holds more of the same, then the time has come to reconsider the whole project. Every state has a duty to defend its citizens, but also it has a duty to provide them with security and the two are different. The prospects are for more destruction, fanaticism, violence and hatred. No unilateral separation can isolate Israel from this, nor can the region or the world live with the consequences. This seems to be the only choice, and Israel must do itself and others a favor and go away.
The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza shows a country deprived of all humanity. The West Bank is unliveable, the population strangled into three prison clusters. Concrete barriers, barbed wires, bypass roads, human beings emerging like rats from underground tunnels, daily humiliation from hundreds of checkpoints. Gaza has been under siege since the population dared to elect Hamas, its infrastructure has been obliterated and its population has been driven to despair in what now seems like a dress rehearsal for what was to come in Lebanon.
Lebanon woke up on July 12 to a reality that can destroy the very fabric of society. Divided between those who believe in a "riviera" with consensus politics, power sharing and a weak state, and those who, like Hezbollah, see the necessity of having a fortress to resist an evil and dangerous enemy. Israel's behavior will see the logic of the latter prevail.
Yet the Lebanese system is resilient. PM Fouad Siniora, under the bombs, was able to extract a consensus for a seven-point plan where the victorious fortress accepted to go back to the political process to resolve the crisis. Lebanon still managed to challenge the U.S. and Israel through sheer persistence, and in a diplomatic tour de force it was successful in steering the UN Security Council toward a political rather than military solution. For the first time, Arab foreign ministers have been mobilized and actively lobbied international legality.
There is deliberate targeting of civilians: Israel can deny it, but at the very least, those Israelis who are doing it know it is true. Over 17,000 people were killed in the invasion of 1982, and the net result was the creation of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is a doctrine that says Arabs need to be crushed, that they can be bombed into submission, that they will eventually fall on their knees. It is the doctrine, not its application, that is flawed. It says that by terrorizing the population, they will respect us and make peace; it says that those who dare resist need to be eradicated through targeted assassination and their supporters annihilated no matter what the cost. The only lessons Israel learned is that it should do it better next time.
Three Arab countries have peace treaties or diplomatic relations with Israel, most of the Gulf states have or had commercial bureaus, Saudi Arabia came up with the King Abdallah plan offering Israel normalization - something that was not achieved in nearly 30 years of peace with Egypt. Tunisia and Morocco have excellent relations with Israel. Even rogues like Syria and Libya give out positive vibes - the former desperate to resume peace talks unconditionally. The region has a history of tolerance and coexistence; minorities, including Jews, have survived and prospered for centuries. Israel is blind to any positive developments, and this will soon make these positions and those who hold them disappear, their stance untenable.
Lebanon can reconstruct airports, roads, bridges, and factories; bury and mourn the dead, rebuild shattered lives. Israel has barely been there for 60 years, a millisecond in history, but enough time to judge the results. If the fundamental moral logic is flawed, then it is time to give up, pack up and go.
The writer, a Lebanese economist, is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Program at Chatham House
Monday, August 14, 2006
Ahmadinejad's Blog.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, has started his own blog.
In his first entry Ahmadinejad wrote about his childhood, the country's Islamic revolution and Iran's war with Iraq.
The blog which is translated into English, French and Arabic also asks readers to participate in an online poll which asks if they think the United States and Israel are "pulling the trigger for another world war".
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
In his first entry Ahmadinejad wrote about his childhood, the country's Islamic revolution and Iran's war with Iraq.
The blog which is translated into English, French and Arabic also asks readers to participate in an online poll which asks if they think the United States and Israel are "pulling the trigger for another world war".
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
Friday, August 11, 2006
Is Lebanon a farce?
By Walid Moukarzel
Can the invasion by Israel and the death of hundreds of civilians and destruction of the country’s infrastructure be defined as Lebanon’s worst nightmare? No. it does not even come close.
Lebanon’s worst nightmare is that the nightmares will continue well into the future. The odds of this being true are very high. The evidence for such odds is none other than the continual occupation of Lebanon by a political class that has survived every effort to displace it, serving only its self interest at the expense of Lebanon and the Lebanese.
If you are Lebanese then you know all about our disease. You maybe tired of hearing it.
I too get a headache every time I think about It., but it is our disease.
If you are not Lebanese than you will begin to understand when I tell you that the attention and compassion Lebanon is receiving at present, even though it has not led to an end of the suffering , is more compassion and care than Lebanon gets from its rulers on a good day . For all the cunning Hezbollah is showing and all the might the Israelis have, neither have moved one inch towards helping Lebanon rid itself of this disease.
It is difficult to look ahead when so many people are suffering. It gets even more difficult when you are not sure why they are suffering or worse still if their suffering will ever prove to have been a necessary step in bringing peace and security to Lebanon.
The world has almost given up on finding a solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Yet even though I don’t have anymore of a clue that the rest of the world. I am certain that I am even more clueless about a solution for Lebanese politics.
It is difficult to think of a modern country that has been through what Lebanon has experienced in the last 60 years; From Independence to regional war, to civil war, to religious war , to inter religious war, to an invasion, to occupation, to a revolution , to an invasion and possibly one more occupation. It has offered safe havens to refugees, kidnappers, terrorists and despots. This is the same country that is known for its generous and hospitable nature, for its religious and cultural diversity, for its beautiful landscape and appeal to tourists, for its music and literary contributions, for its material and commercial successes.
Things don’t improve when we look at the main players. They have survived the last 30 years much better than the average citizen. Our political leaders have been responsible for spreading religious and sectarian hatred. They killed and ordered killings. They stole and corrupted others into stealing for them. They allied with Lebanon’s enemies and served its occupying masters. They handed sovereignty to external powers and placed the interests of foreign powers ahead of Lebanon’s. They profited handsomely from the coffers of the state and corrupt business deals. They range from the schizophrenic junky to the mad power hungry megalomaniac. Lebanon reserves its politics to its lowlifes.
We are reduced to choosing between one evil and another. We don’t even know which one is the lesser evil. Every time we think we know, they come back and surprise us. I don’t know about you but I am tired and unwilling to choose between two evils, lesser or greater. I just don’t want evil anymore.
Maybe we need a new constitution, a more secular society or maybe we need a heavy handed dictatorial rule or maybe we can delegate it to one of our neighbors and if all fails we can have a new revolution. Take your pick but my choice is for a leader to emerge from the rubble with no pockets to fill, no points to prove, no religious bias, no master to appease, no patience for the past. I look for a man who cares for his country and countrymen, a man who has felt the pain of the innocent and lost patience with the ruling elite. I look for the genuine deal not the manufactured kind, a Lebanese for the Lebanese. Lebanon has suffered enough over the years and it deserves a break .However until he steps forth Lebanon will continue to be a farce.
Can the invasion by Israel and the death of hundreds of civilians and destruction of the country’s infrastructure be defined as Lebanon’s worst nightmare? No. it does not even come close.
Lebanon’s worst nightmare is that the nightmares will continue well into the future. The odds of this being true are very high. The evidence for such odds is none other than the continual occupation of Lebanon by a political class that has survived every effort to displace it, serving only its self interest at the expense of Lebanon and the Lebanese.
If you are Lebanese then you know all about our disease. You maybe tired of hearing it.
I too get a headache every time I think about It., but it is our disease.
If you are not Lebanese than you will begin to understand when I tell you that the attention and compassion Lebanon is receiving at present, even though it has not led to an end of the suffering , is more compassion and care than Lebanon gets from its rulers on a good day . For all the cunning Hezbollah is showing and all the might the Israelis have, neither have moved one inch towards helping Lebanon rid itself of this disease.
It is difficult to look ahead when so many people are suffering. It gets even more difficult when you are not sure why they are suffering or worse still if their suffering will ever prove to have been a necessary step in bringing peace and security to Lebanon.
The world has almost given up on finding a solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Yet even though I don’t have anymore of a clue that the rest of the world. I am certain that I am even more clueless about a solution for Lebanese politics.
It is difficult to think of a modern country that has been through what Lebanon has experienced in the last 60 years; From Independence to regional war, to civil war, to religious war , to inter religious war, to an invasion, to occupation, to a revolution , to an invasion and possibly one more occupation. It has offered safe havens to refugees, kidnappers, terrorists and despots. This is the same country that is known for its generous and hospitable nature, for its religious and cultural diversity, for its beautiful landscape and appeal to tourists, for its music and literary contributions, for its material and commercial successes.
Things don’t improve when we look at the main players. They have survived the last 30 years much better than the average citizen. Our political leaders have been responsible for spreading religious and sectarian hatred. They killed and ordered killings. They stole and corrupted others into stealing for them. They allied with Lebanon’s enemies and served its occupying masters. They handed sovereignty to external powers and placed the interests of foreign powers ahead of Lebanon’s. They profited handsomely from the coffers of the state and corrupt business deals. They range from the schizophrenic junky to the mad power hungry megalomaniac. Lebanon reserves its politics to its lowlifes.
We are reduced to choosing between one evil and another. We don’t even know which one is the lesser evil. Every time we think we know, they come back and surprise us. I don’t know about you but I am tired and unwilling to choose between two evils, lesser or greater. I just don’t want evil anymore.
Maybe we need a new constitution, a more secular society or maybe we need a heavy handed dictatorial rule or maybe we can delegate it to one of our neighbors and if all fails we can have a new revolution. Take your pick but my choice is for a leader to emerge from the rubble with no pockets to fill, no points to prove, no religious bias, no master to appease, no patience for the past. I look for a man who cares for his country and countrymen, a man who has felt the pain of the innocent and lost patience with the ruling elite. I look for the genuine deal not the manufactured kind, a Lebanese for the Lebanese. Lebanon has suffered enough over the years and it deserves a break .However until he steps forth Lebanon will continue to be a farce.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sleeping with Elephants (while ignoring the elephants in the corner)
by Karim Emile Bitar
Speaking to an American audience in 1969, amid tensions between Canada and the US, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, arguably one of the 20th century’s most remarkable Western Statesmen, half-jokingly said: “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or temperate the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
The witty and mercurial Trudeau was right on target at a time when French and English Canadians were irritated by Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies and Conservative Americans were furious because the Ottawa Government opened Canadian borders to the American conscientious objectors, the so-called draft dodgers. In peace time, it would be tempting to apply Trudeau’s metaphor to Lebanese relations with our Israeli and Syrian neighbours, but today the situation is such that we can shrug it off and say: it is one thing to sleep with an elephant, it is another thing to have the creature walk all over you…
As hard as it is for Lebanese to admit, our share of responsibility in this dire state of affairs is quite important. If our neighbours have been walking all over us for the past 30 years, it is not the mere result of their imperial or strategic ambitions, as some pundits would have us believe. It is also the consequence of our consistent failure to address the political hot potatoes, letting the elephants in our own living room go unheeded, Hezbollah being but one, albeit the most conspicuous.
Masquerading as a “consociational democracy” the Lebanese political system is based on a malicious and institutionalized sharing of the spoils, but more ominously still, this system is rooted in a flawed philosophy of denial, as well as a “hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil” hypocritical attitude. Indeed, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”, it is also the permanent leitmotiv of Lebanon’s elites political culture.
In 1969, when the infamous Cairo agreement was brokered behind tightly closed doors by an overly confident Lebanese army general and one of Yasser Arafat’s corrupt and ruthless aides, the Lebanese establishment adopted a Chamberlain-like attitude and hailed this confidential agreement as a major accomplishment. The fact that they were not even allowed to read it didn’t seem to bother the short-sighted leaders of the ultranationalist right wing parties. Lebanese Parliamentarians endorsed the “agreement”, with the exception of the 6 MP’s of the National Bloc, the moderate Christian party headed by the late Raymond Edde, one of Lebanon’s few prescient, no-nonsense, law and order kind of Statesman.
We witnessed a similar conundrum when Hezbollah was allowed to keep its weapons after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. It is however of the utmost importance to realize that preaching a “get-tough-with-Hezbollah-and-take-away-their-weapons-forcefully” is not a solution. We need a package deal which would finally grant southerners and Shiites full protection and equal rights after decades of brutal Israeli aggressions as well as neglect by the Lebanese authorities. If more than 80 % of Lebanon’s Shiites supports Hezbollah, it is neither because they are inherently attracted to martyrdom, as obtuse neoorientalists have been telling us, nor because they wish to turn Lebanon into a permanent embattled Hanoi. To say it bluntly, they support Hezbollah because no one except Hezbollah has ever cared about them. With the exception of the Chehab administration, all Lebanese governments have treated Shiites with condescension. As for the so-called balanced development, it has never been more than empty slogans.
Throughout the world, globalization has empowered non-state actors. Some of the strongest States now seem to have lost control over turf and territories they used to claim. Within this context, weak States run the ever increasing risk of becoming failed States. Lebanon’s consensual democracy has reached its breaking point. Lebanon’s old style and flawed consociationalism has become obsolete, for it prevents the emergence of an effective central authority that would have the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, which is, according to Max Weber, the first and foremost attribute of sovereignty. Therefore, Lebanon’s consensual democracy needs to be entirely rethought and reformed. Otherwise, Lebanon is at great risks of simultaneously becoming a failed state while losing consociationalism’s positive accomplishments in the process, namely liberalism and pluralism. (1)
Once this tragically senseless war is over, it would be utterly irresponsible for the Lebanese to continue living in the frightening mix of delusions and hypocrisy they have espoused so far, or to continue turning a blind eye to every elephant in the corner. We need to acknowledge the inherent inadequacies of our form of government. The time has come to openly confront the all too obvious structural problems, the many social and economic taboos, the never-ending sectarian innuendos. Burying our heads in the sand in the name of consociationalism is no longer an option. A return to the status quo ante of political procrastination would be criminal. Rolling the dice and constantly differing solutions until time is supposedly ripe amounts to endangering the very existence and well-being of Lebanon’s future generations.
________________
1) For a more comprehensive analysis of consensual democracy and its discontents, check Lebanese American academics Joseph and Nancy Jabbra’s research paper, Consociational Democracy in Lebanon : a flawed system of governance, in Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, Brill Academic Publishers, 2001.
Karim Bitar is a Paris-based Consultant in Management and Editor of public affairs monthly magazine L’ENA hors les murs
Speaking to an American audience in 1969, amid tensions between Canada and the US, former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, arguably one of the 20th century’s most remarkable Western Statesmen, half-jokingly said: “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or temperate the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
The witty and mercurial Trudeau was right on target at a time when French and English Canadians were irritated by Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies and Conservative Americans were furious because the Ottawa Government opened Canadian borders to the American conscientious objectors, the so-called draft dodgers. In peace time, it would be tempting to apply Trudeau’s metaphor to Lebanese relations with our Israeli and Syrian neighbours, but today the situation is such that we can shrug it off and say: it is one thing to sleep with an elephant, it is another thing to have the creature walk all over you…
As hard as it is for Lebanese to admit, our share of responsibility in this dire state of affairs is quite important. If our neighbours have been walking all over us for the past 30 years, it is not the mere result of their imperial or strategic ambitions, as some pundits would have us believe. It is also the consequence of our consistent failure to address the political hot potatoes, letting the elephants in our own living room go unheeded, Hezbollah being but one, albeit the most conspicuous.
Masquerading as a “consociational democracy” the Lebanese political system is based on a malicious and institutionalized sharing of the spoils, but more ominously still, this system is rooted in a flawed philosophy of denial, as well as a “hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil” hypocritical attitude. Indeed, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”, it is also the permanent leitmotiv of Lebanon’s elites political culture.
In 1969, when the infamous Cairo agreement was brokered behind tightly closed doors by an overly confident Lebanese army general and one of Yasser Arafat’s corrupt and ruthless aides, the Lebanese establishment adopted a Chamberlain-like attitude and hailed this confidential agreement as a major accomplishment. The fact that they were not even allowed to read it didn’t seem to bother the short-sighted leaders of the ultranationalist right wing parties. Lebanese Parliamentarians endorsed the “agreement”, with the exception of the 6 MP’s of the National Bloc, the moderate Christian party headed by the late Raymond Edde, one of Lebanon’s few prescient, no-nonsense, law and order kind of Statesman.
We witnessed a similar conundrum when Hezbollah was allowed to keep its weapons after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. It is however of the utmost importance to realize that preaching a “get-tough-with-Hezbollah-and-take-away-their-weapons-forcefully” is not a solution. We need a package deal which would finally grant southerners and Shiites full protection and equal rights after decades of brutal Israeli aggressions as well as neglect by the Lebanese authorities. If more than 80 % of Lebanon’s Shiites supports Hezbollah, it is neither because they are inherently attracted to martyrdom, as obtuse neoorientalists have been telling us, nor because they wish to turn Lebanon into a permanent embattled Hanoi. To say it bluntly, they support Hezbollah because no one except Hezbollah has ever cared about them. With the exception of the Chehab administration, all Lebanese governments have treated Shiites with condescension. As for the so-called balanced development, it has never been more than empty slogans.
Throughout the world, globalization has empowered non-state actors. Some of the strongest States now seem to have lost control over turf and territories they used to claim. Within this context, weak States run the ever increasing risk of becoming failed States. Lebanon’s consensual democracy has reached its breaking point. Lebanon’s old style and flawed consociationalism has become obsolete, for it prevents the emergence of an effective central authority that would have the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, which is, according to Max Weber, the first and foremost attribute of sovereignty. Therefore, Lebanon’s consensual democracy needs to be entirely rethought and reformed. Otherwise, Lebanon is at great risks of simultaneously becoming a failed state while losing consociationalism’s positive accomplishments in the process, namely liberalism and pluralism. (1)
Once this tragically senseless war is over, it would be utterly irresponsible for the Lebanese to continue living in the frightening mix of delusions and hypocrisy they have espoused so far, or to continue turning a blind eye to every elephant in the corner. We need to acknowledge the inherent inadequacies of our form of government. The time has come to openly confront the all too obvious structural problems, the many social and economic taboos, the never-ending sectarian innuendos. Burying our heads in the sand in the name of consociationalism is no longer an option. A return to the status quo ante of political procrastination would be criminal. Rolling the dice and constantly differing solutions until time is supposedly ripe amounts to endangering the very existence and well-being of Lebanon’s future generations.
________________
1) For a more comprehensive analysis of consensual democracy and its discontents, check Lebanese American academics Joseph and Nancy Jabbra’s research paper, Consociational Democracy in Lebanon : a flawed system of governance, in Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, Brill Academic Publishers, 2001.
Karim Bitar is a Paris-based Consultant in Management and Editor of public affairs monthly magazine L’ENA hors les murs
Friday, August 04, 2006
I don't want to walk
By Marwan Kyriakos -Saad
Letter from the sidelines to a young fellow Lebanese who wants me to march in London’s Parliament Square on Saturday.
My Dear Boutros,
First of all let me praise your enthusiasm for walking. It is a very healthy activity, even though I prefer jogging myself. I find it a very good way to keep fit and stay slim ahead of the beach season. On your march on Saturday I beg you, order your fellow marcher to sing songs such as “We will rock you” or “November Rain”. We could make a CD and make some money out of it, because that is all your march is ever going to achieve.
You say, in capital letters, “after the Quana massacre its high time we stop living life as if everything was normal, it is high time we show solidarity! There is going to be a protest on Saturday and yes there is going to be Hezbollah flags and yes there is going to be Palestinian flags but I think it’s about time we unite all together for the greater good! We all love Lebanon”.
See I am old now and I don’t like to be shouted at and ordered into things even in the name of the greater good.
You talk about Lebanon? But my dear Boutros, Lebanon does not exist! True there are 4 or 5 communities slumped together in a common state, with more or less common frontiers, that Shebaa farm joke!, but not even a common flag or common enemies. Now, one of these communities decided to destroy your dream. It’s their prerogative. Marching in London with Hezbollah and Palestinian flags is a good cardiovascular exercise, but it is not going to change much.
My Dear Boutros, do not get me wrong, I think that the Hezbollah have played their game beautifully. The only problem is that it is their game and not that of your Lebanese dream. And who can blame them? Since the lumping together of Lebanon, no other community was more ignored or exploited. Now it is their day in the sun. Shame it required 800 dead, and counting, and thousands of displaced. I urge you to send the CD proceeds to these suffering people. And please don’t call them martyrs, they never requested that honour.
So my Dear Boutros march away, make sure you drink a lot of water, and sign away and cry away and blame away.
The solution to the problem is elsewhere. It is in Lebanon. Disarm militias, unite people and make them forgive what happened during the war, so that they can forget. Create a nation in Lebanon, rather then a succession of communities who fear and hate each other and battle each other for power and positions. And stop blaming others for the fate of Lebanon. The problem is not in Tel Aviv, Damascus or Teheran. It is in Achrafieh, Ras Beirut and Ghobeiry. And do not force me to go march with a bunch of excitable people; I prefer to smoke my cigar from the sidelines.
I have lost hope in the trenches of West Beirut in the 80’s. Nurture yours! But point your energy in the right direction.
And life goes on, one day at a time. I hope it will be sunny on Saturday.
Regards,
MKS
Letter from the sidelines to a young fellow Lebanese who wants me to march in London’s Parliament Square on Saturday.
My Dear Boutros,
First of all let me praise your enthusiasm for walking. It is a very healthy activity, even though I prefer jogging myself. I find it a very good way to keep fit and stay slim ahead of the beach season. On your march on Saturday I beg you, order your fellow marcher to sing songs such as “We will rock you” or “November Rain”. We could make a CD and make some money out of it, because that is all your march is ever going to achieve.
You say, in capital letters, “after the Quana massacre its high time we stop living life as if everything was normal, it is high time we show solidarity! There is going to be a protest on Saturday and yes there is going to be Hezbollah flags and yes there is going to be Palestinian flags but I think it’s about time we unite all together for the greater good! We all love Lebanon”.
See I am old now and I don’t like to be shouted at and ordered into things even in the name of the greater good.
You talk about Lebanon? But my dear Boutros, Lebanon does not exist! True there are 4 or 5 communities slumped together in a common state, with more or less common frontiers, that Shebaa farm joke!, but not even a common flag or common enemies. Now, one of these communities decided to destroy your dream. It’s their prerogative. Marching in London with Hezbollah and Palestinian flags is a good cardiovascular exercise, but it is not going to change much.
My Dear Boutros, do not get me wrong, I think that the Hezbollah have played their game beautifully. The only problem is that it is their game and not that of your Lebanese dream. And who can blame them? Since the lumping together of Lebanon, no other community was more ignored or exploited. Now it is their day in the sun. Shame it required 800 dead, and counting, and thousands of displaced. I urge you to send the CD proceeds to these suffering people. And please don’t call them martyrs, they never requested that honour.
So my Dear Boutros march away, make sure you drink a lot of water, and sign away and cry away and blame away.
The solution to the problem is elsewhere. It is in Lebanon. Disarm militias, unite people and make them forgive what happened during the war, so that they can forget. Create a nation in Lebanon, rather then a succession of communities who fear and hate each other and battle each other for power and positions. And stop blaming others for the fate of Lebanon. The problem is not in Tel Aviv, Damascus or Teheran. It is in Achrafieh, Ras Beirut and Ghobeiry. And do not force me to go march with a bunch of excitable people; I prefer to smoke my cigar from the sidelines.
I have lost hope in the trenches of West Beirut in the 80’s. Nurture yours! But point your energy in the right direction.
And life goes on, one day at a time. I hope it will be sunny on Saturday.
Regards,
MKS
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
How Lebanon can survive (as a democracy with Israel as a neighbor)
By Nadim Shehadi
Who was it that said that democracies would not fight each other? Well, Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority are the only places in that region to have had what resembles proper elections - and look where they are.
The ideas underlying the Lebanese and Israeli systems are contradictory; if one is right, then it follows that the other is definitely wrong. Each one’s method of solving problems poses a threat to the other. Both states originated with a minority in the Middle East facing the same question: is co-existence with a Muslim majority viable? The initial answer in both contexts was “yes and no.”
Between the two world wars, there were those in Lebanon who were in favour of keeping Mount Lebanon autonomous and not expanding it to what became known as Greater Lebanon in order to have a secure Christian majority. Others believed in the possibility of co-existence, and that of inclusion by annexing areas that were predominantly Muslim. There were parallel ideas within the Zionist movement, which contemplated the integration of Jews into the whole of geographic Syria on the one hand, and having a secure, predominantly Jewish state on the other.
While Israel evolved into a citadel, Lebanon became the last outpost of a Levantine multicultural oasis. Lebanon was an open society with power shared between religious groups, leaving the state weak and the economy laissez faire. Israel became a socialist, heavily militarised society dominated for a long time by one party. The Jewish state had much more in common with its authoritarian neighbours than with Lebanon and was more comfortable in dealing with them.
But where they differ most is in the manner of dealing with threats. The apparent doctrine in Israel is akin to the biblical “smiting” of opponents. In doing so, it has failed. It did not succeed in expelling all the Arabs from Palestine in 1948, nor in destroying the PLO in 1982. Neither has it succeeded in eradicating Hamas by targeted assassinations and now it is also failing to finish off Hizbollah. On the basis that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, the result is a gradual growth in radical and militant ideas throughout the region. Such an atmosphere of extremism increases the threat to Lebanon.
The Lebanese way is to avoid confrontation and go into dialogue and compromise, giving groups some freedom and bargaining with them for inclusion within the system. The aim is to integrate them. The PLO could not have flourished without the freedom afforded it in Lebanon and would have been crushed within any of the authoritarian countries in the region.
The Lebanese system also collapsed and resulted in a bloody civil war with certain Christians reverting to the idea of having a smaller area ethnically cleansed of their enemies.
The Hizbollah phenomenon is a perfect example. Radicalised by a Israeli invasion and occupation, gaining legitimacy as a resistance movement, it took credit for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Hizbollah has been integrating in Lebanon, where it was gradually being persuaded to join the system and disarm. The Israeli threat made the integration more difficult and the freedom it had made them more of a threat to Israel. The two systems created insoluble problems and this is where we are now.
The aftermath of this war could transform both societies. Will Lebanon end up adopting Israeli methods or will Israel move towards Lebanese ones?
Nadim Shehadi is a fellow at London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs
Who was it that said that democracies would not fight each other? Well, Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority are the only places in that region to have had what resembles proper elections - and look where they are.
The ideas underlying the Lebanese and Israeli systems are contradictory; if one is right, then it follows that the other is definitely wrong. Each one’s method of solving problems poses a threat to the other. Both states originated with a minority in the Middle East facing the same question: is co-existence with a Muslim majority viable? The initial answer in both contexts was “yes and no.”
Between the two world wars, there were those in Lebanon who were in favour of keeping Mount Lebanon autonomous and not expanding it to what became known as Greater Lebanon in order to have a secure Christian majority. Others believed in the possibility of co-existence, and that of inclusion by annexing areas that were predominantly Muslim. There were parallel ideas within the Zionist movement, which contemplated the integration of Jews into the whole of geographic Syria on the one hand, and having a secure, predominantly Jewish state on the other.
While Israel evolved into a citadel, Lebanon became the last outpost of a Levantine multicultural oasis. Lebanon was an open society with power shared between religious groups, leaving the state weak and the economy laissez faire. Israel became a socialist, heavily militarised society dominated for a long time by one party. The Jewish state had much more in common with its authoritarian neighbours than with Lebanon and was more comfortable in dealing with them.
But where they differ most is in the manner of dealing with threats. The apparent doctrine in Israel is akin to the biblical “smiting” of opponents. In doing so, it has failed. It did not succeed in expelling all the Arabs from Palestine in 1948, nor in destroying the PLO in 1982. Neither has it succeeded in eradicating Hamas by targeted assassinations and now it is also failing to finish off Hizbollah. On the basis that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, the result is a gradual growth in radical and militant ideas throughout the region. Such an atmosphere of extremism increases the threat to Lebanon.
The Lebanese way is to avoid confrontation and go into dialogue and compromise, giving groups some freedom and bargaining with them for inclusion within the system. The aim is to integrate them. The PLO could not have flourished without the freedom afforded it in Lebanon and would have been crushed within any of the authoritarian countries in the region.
The Lebanese system also collapsed and resulted in a bloody civil war with certain Christians reverting to the idea of having a smaller area ethnically cleansed of their enemies.
The Hizbollah phenomenon is a perfect example. Radicalised by a Israeli invasion and occupation, gaining legitimacy as a resistance movement, it took credit for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Hizbollah has been integrating in Lebanon, where it was gradually being persuaded to join the system and disarm. The Israeli threat made the integration more difficult and the freedom it had made them more of a threat to Israel. The two systems created insoluble problems and this is where we are now.
The aftermath of this war could transform both societies. Will Lebanon end up adopting Israeli methods or will Israel move towards Lebanese ones?
Nadim Shehadi is a fellow at London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs
Latest Scores - Part 2
by Walid Moukarzel
The latest news from the bookies is that Lebanon has withdrawn from the tournament as it can no longer field any players . Israel has also announced it will pull out of the tournament after its few remaining players chose to join the IDF. This news means the playoffs for the next stage will be between Hezbollah and the IDF .
Latest score : Hezbollah 2 IDF 2
IDF has substituted the heavy brigade for its younger players and has opted for a more physical game . Due to the disinformation and usual propaganda we are calling the match a draw at this point .
The New players
Syria , Iran and the USA are considering joining the next stage of the tournament .
We review their chances below:
Syria
This team has a new manager who has failed to impress so far . The previous manager could ,by himself , scare off pretty much any team . But his protégé will have to rely on the troops . Sadly for him the Syrian troops are currently rated as ' roadkill' by the bookies .
Iran
This team promises much and especially if they choose to field the new Persian Maradona 'Nuke Al Yehud' . We have not been told how they will travel to the Stadium . Rumours are abound that long range missiles may be used to transport the players .
USA
The big favourite which fields all the most expensive players in the world, is sitting on the fence and watching developments. We are told they may step up to the plate if Iran proves to be a worthy opponent.However as we know from previous tournaments money and power do not always guarantee a win.
The latest news from the bookies is that Lebanon has withdrawn from the tournament as it can no longer field any players . Israel has also announced it will pull out of the tournament after its few remaining players chose to join the IDF. This news means the playoffs for the next stage will be between Hezbollah and the IDF .
Latest score : Hezbollah 2 IDF 2
IDF has substituted the heavy brigade for its younger players and has opted for a more physical game . Due to the disinformation and usual propaganda we are calling the match a draw at this point .
The New players
Syria , Iran and the USA are considering joining the next stage of the tournament .
We review their chances below:
Syria
This team has a new manager who has failed to impress so far . The previous manager could ,by himself , scare off pretty much any team . But his protégé will have to rely on the troops . Sadly for him the Syrian troops are currently rated as ' roadkill' by the bookies .
Iran
This team promises much and especially if they choose to field the new Persian Maradona 'Nuke Al Yehud' . We have not been told how they will travel to the Stadium . Rumours are abound that long range missiles may be used to transport the players .
USA
The big favourite which fields all the most expensive players in the world, is sitting on the fence and watching developments. We are told they may step up to the plate if Iran proves to be a worthy opponent.However as we know from previous tournaments money and power do not always guarantee a win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive