Saddam Executed

Well it happened. The end of a tyrant. An Arab tyrant for that matter. Only one of many. In a sense it might bring closure to the many people in the middle east whose lives Saddam destroyed one way or another. He has now paid with his life.

While I think that the man is one of the worst dictators - and there have been some pretty bad ones - that have ruled in the Arab world, he has long been out of the equation. From the day that the first American bomb fell on Baghdad, it's been curtains for him. The fact that it had to end in his execution seems natural in a place like Iraq, albeit - in my opinion - wrong on so many levels. Here are some reasons why.

1) He was tried and convicted for only one of sooo many crimes he has committed or authorized, and should have been tried for every one of his heinous acts.

2a) While the trial of Saddam was conducted by Iraqis and his execution performed by Iraqis, the fact that American army boots are still on the ground in Iraq does not give the proper feel of a sovereign action.
2b) It reeks of fear. It was a quick trial for one of many crimes with a speedy execution.

3) I don't believe in execution for reasons that have no place in this post.

4) The official videos released (and aired) of his hanging and of the moments before are in such bad taste. We would have taken your word for it. A picture of him dead - still distasteful but slightly less so - would have sufficed.

5) The unofficial video shot on some guy's cellphone that apparently made its way to the Internet (and to CNN) shows his executioners taunting him and cheering for Moqtada al-Sadr and Mohammad Baqer al-Sader (Moqtada's father in law, whom Saddam had tortured and executed). Ridiculously unprofessional and unnecessary. Reinforces 2b.

6) The fact that he was taunted so badly and obviously by his Shiite executioners, supporters of Sadr, is not gonna look good. How did they get there? And wayyyyyy more importantly, how are the Sunnis going to react?

I detested the man, his actions, and their impact on the lives and deaths of countless millions, but any which way you look at the execution, it just reeeeeks.

For one Iraqi perspective, check this out.

The End of a Bad Dream and The Beginning of a Bad Reality

I originally wrote this on August 11, 2006, I am posting it now untouched.

Too many days and too many lives lost after the beginning of the sad affair that we have all experienced one way or the other, the fighting is drawing to a close. For me and for countless others dispersed in countless cities all over the globe and more importantly in Lebanon, this signals the end of a bad dream, the end of a nightmare. We have witnessed systematic destruction, death, and the force of ruthless players who view us merely as pawns in a game much bigger than we are. Now, we are left to awaken only to find that in place of the bad dream, we are confronted with a bad reality.

We look at our Lebanon only to see all the lives lost and all the destruction we have been dealt. So we look beyond, and staring us in the face are monumental challenges. Challenges the likes of which the Lebanese have seen many times before. We have an economy that has been all but shattered, an environmental disaster on our coastline, and the threat of the spread of disease. We have at least tens of thousands of refugees with no homes to go back to, and whether we like it or not some threat of worsening sectarian strife. These are challenges that we have overcome before, and with some luck, hard work and international assistance, will overcome again.

But the biggest challenge of all, the challenge that Lebanon has failed to overcome time and time again is that of averting disaster. Our nation has failed to admit that we have an ailing socio-political system, and even when it has admitted that, it has failed to cure itself. Thus, on our shoulders lies a heavy burden, the burden of responsibility to ourselves and to our country. It is up to us to make sure that none of the conditions that set us on a collision course with each other are ever allowed to fester again. It is up to us to ensure that we will never again be tools used by others, be they "brotherly" neighbors, "friendly" countries, or flat out foes. It is up to us to alleviate the squalor, marginalization and poverty that allows fanatics and fundamentalists to fester in our midst. And it is up to us to realize that no one but us will do it.

There will be great difficulty as there as those amongst us that want us to fail. They will accuse us of breaking national unity and of serving foreign interests. They will do their best for us to fail, giving speeches about pride and honor, reneging on their promises and stalling for time. Meanwhile, they form or support militias, import weapons from foreign countries and devote themselves to the service of alien agendas. We are up against a battle for people's minds and loyalties, and the equation is simple. Formation of a modern state founded on the principles of rule of law, tolerance and diversity is victory. Anything short of that, and we are back to the Lebanon of the 1980s, if not now, then inevitably in the not so distant future.

The war was our bad dream, this is our bad reality, but the future is ours to shape!

Lebanon's Unanswered Questions

As 2007 approaches, Lebanon faces an identity crisis that its 60 years of formal independence could not resolve. It also obviously faces many other crises, economic and political, and it is part of larger regional conflicts as well. However, all of the latter ones are simply manifestations of the Lebanese people's failure to define what - other than geography and an imposed border- unites them under a common flag.

Question of identity

The question of identity is a natural one for a country with 18 recognized sects, among which are 5 major ones who don't necessarily share the same version of history or the same outlook towards the future. The Maronite and Greek Orthodox Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Druze have shared this piece of land for the decades that Lebanon has been a country and the many centuries before that it was not. Over different periods, both before Lebanon was created and after, the various communities clashed and co-existed, allied themselves with various external powers and tried to dominate one another. All of them have failed to establish long lasting hegemony. However, their communal experiences and alliances have shaped their sectarian identities in different manners and in sometimes opposing ways.

Case in Point

The Sunnis have long considered themselves as mainstream Arabs and in fact- at one point- opposed the very creation of Lebanon in favour of unity with Syria and at times a greater Arab nation. On the other hand, the Maronites are a fiercely "nationalistic" bunch, in that many of them believe that they are non-Arab Christians (as opposed to many Orthodox Christians for example) allowing them to legitimize looking to the west for support... Similarly, the Druze have a strong tribal sentiment and share with the Maronites a strong geographic connection with the region (in that both Druze and Maronites are relatively localized in and around Lebanon). Moreover, several times in recent (and not so recent) history, the various sects have committed atrocities against one another in the name of honor, dignity and self preservation.

Strength in diversity? Not really !

The point here - and books can and have been written on the subject -is to highlight and remind that Lebanon is a House of Many Mansions. The founders of modern day Lebanon realized that and understood that there was a need to define what Lebanon was. Their first attempt at that was the unwritten National Pact, which basically identified what Lebanon was not but failed to give clear answers as to what it is, and moreover failed to define - in practice - the ideals that Lebanon would strive to live by. Consequently, less than 2 decades after its establishment, Lebanon faced its first major crisis in 1958 followed by many others in the coming years. Lebanon's troubles culminated in a civil war which started in 1975 and eventually ended with the signing of the Taif accord in 1989, namely calling for such things as secularization- albeit without specifying a time-frame... Post-Taif, Lebanon was dominated by a Syrian regime that stifled dialogue and prevented tackling the very questions that Lebanon to this day needs answered so that it may proceed as one country rather than an unwillingly bound cocktail of sects.

Is the past the future?

1943 came and went and so did 1958, 1975, 1989 and 2005. And now 2006 has come and will soon be gone. Over sixty years old now, Lebanon still faces an identity crisis. Seemingly trivial questions* and others that are not so trivial dealing with both identity and strategy continue to haunt the Lebanese and will do so, with disastrous consequences, until they face them once and for all.


*A very non-exclusive list of questions that 2007 will see the Lebanese fail miserably to answer is:

-Where do we stand on Arab issues (e.g. vis-a-vis various regimes), and to what extent are we willing to get involved (with their struggles against the west and oppression of their people)?

-Where do we stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to what extent are we willing to get involved (armed struggle, political support, neutrality)?

-Are we a secular country?

-If so, why is civil marriage not allowed and why aren't we proceeding with secularization?

-If not, why aren't we a federation of sects rather than a centrally governed country ?

-Can we agree on answers to these questions and if not, can we agree on how to proceed from there?

...

SSNP Arrests and Confiscation of Weapons

According to various news sources (e.g. reuters, naharnet and the bbc), Lebanese "police say they have arrested at least four people and seized a large amount of explosives from homes in Lebanon. Those detained were not named by police but security sources said they were members of a pro-Syrian Lebanese party, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party."

In short, illegal weapons and explosives were confiscated. There were also reports that a car that had been reported stolen by its SSNP owner was found painted with a different color and all its numbers changed. Interesting...

In response, the leader of the SSNP, Ali Kanso, warned the security forces not to "take their injustices too far" and threatened that the "patience of the Syrian nationalists has its limits" claiming that the weapons were for "resisting the Israeli enemy" and have been stored since the eighties, and accused the government of harassment. He also attempted diverting attention from the news by reminding people that an airplane from Israel had landed with 11 people on board and left with 9 on the day of Jemayyel's assassination.

Note: It turns out that the plane used Cypriot airspace and had the Portoguese foreign minister on board, and that the two people who remained were reporters. It was also confirmed by the ministry of interior that all of this had occurred under the auspices of the army aviation control.

In any case, for resistance purposes or not (I think not), the weapons should have been confiscated and the culprits arrested as they have been. Hopefully, for a change, they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and any such weapons caches belonging to any party be raided and their owners held accountable. It is high time that the law start being applied for a change. Of course, the recent actions of our speaker of Parliament do not bode well in that direction, but thats a different story.

Coup d'etat, Coup d'etat, Coup d'etat

There is no other reasonable explanation. None. In the context of the opposition's behaviour, i.e. upping the ante in the face of the "Arab initiative" of Amr Mousa, demanding early elections under a new law (to be drafted by which government and parliament pray tell?)

Naturally, the opposition leaders are not stupid. They realize full well that what they are asking for cannot be granted by the March 14'ers and that is the reason why they are asking for it.

Something is cooking in Tehran, and it sure don't smell good.

In the context of the regional developments, tying in Lebanon with Palestine and Hamas's acceptance then refusal then acceptance then refusal... of a national unity government, followed by Abu Mazen's apparent intention to call for an early election and the infighting on the streets of Gaza that followed... In this context, added with Syria's apparent overtures towards Israel and Bashar's meeting with Putin and the Syro-Iranians apparently banking on the weakness of G.W.B domestically (i.e. in the States), it becomes apparent that the Syro-Iranians are negotiating, playing their own game of carrot and stick with the west. With GWB in particular. But they want a price.

In the subtle mix of chess and poker that the Syro-Iranians are playing with the West, it is not yet time for appeasement in Lebanon. For that would be a loss.

The name of the game: change the rules of the game

I have argued previously, and continue to argue that it is completely unacceptable to Syria and to Hizbulla and its allies that the March 14ers control government and parliament then elect a president and thus complete their revolution. Hence, the HISHee alliance cannot back down just yet. They need to change the rules of the game to something more favorable to them. One such way is a coup d'etat.

The March 14'ers better be ready for it, coz its coming.

Update (hat tip Abu Kais)
According to various news sources (e.g. reuters, naharnet and the bbc), Lebanese "police say they have arrested at least four people and seized a large amount of explosives from homes in Lebanon. Those detained were not named by police but security sources said they were members of a pro-Syrian Lebanese party, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party."

Now to all of you out there that are demonstrating against the government, thinking that this is nothing more than a democratic means of expression pleaaaaaase know full well that no matter how well meaning YOU might be, there are those among you that have different plans and that no matter how much you think that what you are doing is in the spirit of democracy, no democratic means can justify an undemocratic end.

Crosses, Crescents and the Curse of Lebanon

This post does not discuss present day politics in Lebanon for their own sake. Rather, I just want to highlight the behaviour of the various churches in Lebanon be they Muslim or Christian, their absurdity and their negative effect on the progress of democracy. Of course now that I have stated my goal, it seems like too monumental a task for one post, so I will stick to the "highlighting" part and add some commentary.

First, the Patriarch, ever so wise and calculating and capable of transcending the moment to capture eternal truths and policies that stand the test of time. Right... Well, his holiness - the same holiness that rejected a move to Baabda to topple the president in order to protect the precious right of the maronites to the presidency, thus legitimizing the Sunni mufti's move to lead prayer in the Seraille - has declared that family values are geopardized in the protests that the opposition is holding. His argument is that the protests are "mixed", mixed gender of course. God forbid that those boys and girls trying to topple Siniora should choose to take a break and have sex in one of those conveniently sturdy tents. How absurd!!!

Next, the Sunni Mufti - the same Mufti who would not stop singing the praises of the Syrian regime when they were around in Lebanon - recently decided that since it was ok for the maronite clerics to protect the president, then it must be his natural right (if not duty) to protect the Sunni prime minister from being toppled by Shiites and Christians.

As for the Shiite clerics, where do I begin. This particular brand of beardies has decided that it is both its natural right and divinely assigned duty to bear arms outside the realm of the state and to launch cross border operations that rain death and destruction on the Shiites and the other wonderful sects of Lebanon - all to protect the honor of the umma. Sheeeeeeeesh.

Of course that is not to say that the clerics of all the sects of Lebanon are not equally bad, they are. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the people of Lebanon have the right to practice religion and to follow whichever ugly bearded funnily dressed anachronistic clown that they choose. What the clerics do not have the right to do however, is trample upon the political realm issuing "advice" here and there and protecting politicians when convenient.

I think we have a right to a country where the churches and the state are separated. Where if Siniora's government is going to stand, then let it stand - just as long as the Sunni preachers of Friday noon are not the ones who save it. If the president in Baabda is going to stay in office, let him stay in office - just as long as the Sunday morning sermon in Bkirki isn't what saves him. And last but not least, if the people of Lebanon decide to wage war on Israel or not wage war on Israel, then let them make their decision freely - as long as it is not influenced by clerics schooled in Qom and Najaf.

The proper avenue for political debate is the institutions of the state. Namely parliament. Vote whomever you want to office, then topple them if they usurp power and break the constitution. Do it using democratic means, the ballot boxes, or demonstrations if need be. But do not let the clergy make your decisions for you, and do not let them have an influence on political matters. They are divisive, destructive and believe unwaveringly in ideas that were put forth over a thousand of years ago.

Why its going to get worse before it gets better

In no particular order, the top reasons why the situation in Lebanon is going to get worse before it gets better:

1 - Because Lahoud's term is not over till late 2007.
2 - Because Hizbulla has lost its resistance card and needs to redefine itself, and has so far failed.
3 - Because Brammertz's final report is not out yet and the tribunal has not been finalized and nobody has been charged.
4 - Because of reason 3, the Syrians are worried and will do their best to impede the government and hence (they believe) the tribunal.
5 - Because Hizbulla and its external allies need access to the government to impede both Unifil and the tribunal.
6 - Because March 14 has failed to be pro-active and has been on the defensive and reactive side ever since they won the parliamentary elections.
7 - Because the Arabs have started mediating and the mediators have immediately acknowledged (implicitly) Syria's role by visiting it.
8 - Because the Arabs have no interest in a prolonged standoff and may be willing to sell out on their March 14 allies to force an unfavorable deal.
9 - Because the nature of the sectarian beast in Lebanon has made the level with which the communities detest each other dangerously high, to the extent that any compromise is unacceptable to them.

Brave Iranian Students

From the BBC,

Iranian students have disrupted a speech President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was giving at a university by lighting fireworks and burning his portrait...
According to Iran's students' news agency, ISNA, the president responded by saying: "Everyone should know that Ahmadinejad is prepared to be burned in the path of true freedom, independence and justice."

Well, the Iranian president (and his buddies on the other side of Iraq, and across the border from there) should know that the only path to true freedom, independence and justice, might require them all burning... politically if possible.

Israel and Iran: More than meets the eye

From Haaretz's english online edition:

In spite of the belligerent declarations of Iran's leaders - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his mantra this week that he expects the Zionist entity to collapse in the near future - Iranian representatives are holding negotiations with Israeli representatives. These are not only indirect negotiations, but real meetings. These meetings have been going on for about two decades, and concern laborious international arbitration regarding the debts between the two nations.

There are three separate litigations, which are taking place simultaneously in several European countries, all of them pertaining to a complex legal and business entity called Trans-Asiatic Oil Limited, and relating to one of the biggest secrets between Israel and Iran: the past oil connections between the two countries. Three years ago one of the arbitrations ruled that Israeli fuel companies have to pay the Iranian National Oil Company tens of millions of dollars. All the parties made efforts to maintain the secrecy of the decision and every other detail connected to the subject.

Iraq Study Group Report on Syria

"Although the U.S.-Syrian relationship is at a low point, both countries have important interests in the region that could be enhanced if they were able to establish some common ground on how to move forward. This approach worked effectively
in the early 1990s. In this context, Syria’s national interests in the Arab-Israeli dispute are important and can be brought into play...

RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and
President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks—one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.
• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and
in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis
should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee
for Israel that could include an international force on the
border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties."

The faltering hopes for a Lebanese democracy

It's starting to dawn on me that Lebanon is not ready for modern democracy. While some of us aspire to the establishment of a true democratic system in which everybody is equally represented, at least a third of the Lebanese people not only have no faith in such a democracy, but are seeking their turn to dominate everybody else. Judging from several comments by Hizballah supporters in the blogosphere, which by the way are not solitary opinions but are rather widely shared within the shiite masses, the current events are viewed as:
1- A historic moment at which shiites will finally break sunni domination.
2- An opportunity to avenge the many years of marginalizing the shiite community in the Lebanese social and political arena.

The point to make here is that while the remaining two major communities, namely the maronites and sunnis, have had the opportunity to dominate, oppress and fail, the shiite community hasn't had its turn to oppress other communities or to be oppressed by other shiites.

Hizballah has a lot at stake here and the shia feel empowered by them. The alliance with Syria is not merely one of a master-slave relationship. Syria is a supply route, a regional power, and shares Hizballah's aspirations to perpetuate the state of war with Israel. So blocking the Hariri tribunal is a small cost they're willing to pay (assuming they had no hand in the murder) to maintain their relationship with the Syrian regime. To do so, Hizballah needed to mobilize the shiite masses against any agenda that conflicts with theirs and the approach they've chosen for this mobilization is one of sedition.

The question now is what are the other communities to do in the face of this new shiite coup? Blood has already been spilled with the death of the Amal supporter. It won't be long before we hear voices within the shiite camp crying against "an apartheid against the shiites" and the need for shia members to take up their hidden arms to protect and preserve the community.

One answer would have been to promote the culture of life instead of death (sounds a bit cliche now), but I think we're way beyond that point. The Shia are angry and they want revenge by blood and power, not only for the slain demonstrator, but for the thousand shia that were killed during the summer war (while the sunni controlled Arab states rightfully criticized the 'dignified and just' Hizballah for triggering the war), and for the last 60 years of being the underpriviledged community in Lebanon.

It's time for Hizballah to be discredited. Nasrallah has so far delivered on his promises. By foiling this coup, a memorable promise would be broken. Whether it's through international and mainly arab pressure on Iran, I'm still not clear about the means to end this standoff, but March 14 cannot give in. If this coup fails, I don't see the shia getting as excited about another one as they are about this one.
After all, broken promises are never forgotten.

They are not playing with fire... they are the fire!!!

According to naharnet, one person was killed (a shia) while others were wounded in clashes between sunnis and shias in a predominantly (poor)sunni area of beirut. The question that one must ask himself is why are the members of the opposition, namely HA so bent on playing with fire. They are fully aware that they are intimidating and antagonizing the Sunni areas of Beirut. They are fully aware that the Sunnis are extremely upset and feel like this is a Shia coup directed at them, otherwise why would the Sunni mufti lead prayer in the Seraille.

Also recently, a Syrian national was arrested (source needed) after he had cursed at Nasralla in front of the latter's supporters and then fled towards the predominantly Christian are of Ashrafieh... I wonder what that was about.

Its time to wake up and smell the coffee, and the stench of a coupe d'etat... Its time to see the Syrian plot for what it really is: a plan to spread chaos to lebanon. What better way to escape all the troubles that they are facing, than to plunge Lebanon, after Iraq into chaos... I don't know if they are calculting properly or not, because I am not sure about the reaction in Syria, but thats a different story.

For the time being it is time for this coup d'etat/counter-revolution masquerading as a demonstration to end, in any way possible, while a war is still avoidable. If it doesn't end soon, march to baabda. It just might be the best way to direct the tension and turn the tables.

March 14, shape up or shut up...

Alright so Hizballa, Berri and Aoun have taken to the streets in huge numbers (regardless of the relative participation of each). They have shown what we already know, i.e. that they have the support of most of the Shia community and some of the Christian community.

I have previously argued, and continue to argue, that it is not politically intelligent for March 14 and government supporters to "stay home" as Jumblatt urged the March 14ers to do yesterday. A successful foreign initiative (doubtful) not withstanding, I have no doubt in my mind that the March 8 camp will continue to hold protests, camp out in downtown and escalate (as they themselves have promised numerous times) until Siniora's government falls.

You see, one has to be able to differentiate between the isolated demonstrations (even though they were huge) that March 14 organized after the Karami resignation and after each political assassination on one hand, and the sustained, continuous demonstrations, sit ins and political escalation that the aptly named current opposition (to everything not them) is planning and holding. March 14's post-Karami protests were just that, protests. This is sustained political pressure to achieve a well defined goal, and it is at its best.

At this rate, I don't think that Siniora's government will be able to hold for long if HA is to continue escalating. They look weak, and they look dependent on foreign support, and that is a recipe for failure. But the appearances are false. The Siniora government has the support of most of the Sunni and Druze communities and a lot of the Christians, it has the support of most of the upper middle class and of many of the seculars and academics, and it should show that to the world, and more importantly to the Lebanese. To the March 14 movement I say this:

If a million Lebanese people repeatedly took to the street to protest against the assassination of a person, why can't the same million people and more take to the streets to protest the assassination of hope, the prospect of democracy, and the dream of a stable prosperous future. The assassinated politicians were killed because, to their supporters, they were the symbols of that hope, now hope itself is being targetted. Is that not reason enough to mobilize? Have no doubt, this battle is for the future of Lebanon, and not taking action today will affect our tomorrow.

I still believe that if the opposition plan is to topple Siniora, then the best defence of the March 14 government is an offensive against the president. Bear in mind that if Siniora's government falls, then the country is indefinitely in the hands of the opposition, which also owns the positions of presidency and speaker of parliament, and thus practically no longer an opposition but a ruling party. Again that is simply unacceptable. If there is going to be a vacuum in the executive branch, then it should go all the way up. Prime minister for president, the simplest of equations. Then everything is in parliament's hands...

Restated briefly, there will be no civil war if March 14 takes to Baabda. The opposition is enforcing an equation: "Its my way or not at all". In response,
I think its time for March 14 to shape up and take action or shut up and abandon their cause, for good. The idea of a "Beirut Spring", a la Samir Kassir, is what gave me hope for the future, and I interpreted the independence uprising of March 14 partly as an embodiment of that hope. The so called opposition wants to hijack our future and align us with an axis of perpetual struggle. I prefer my struggles to be for a prosperous future, not ones initiated and sustained indefinitely by ideologues, demagogues, mullahs and dictators. If a peaceful future is the future that March 14 wants, then it is time to act. If the dystopia of "1984" is acceptable to them, then so be it, keep talking and don't take action. Either way, let us know, so we can abandon hope.

The cards have been dealt... Time for the showdown

In keeping with my tradition of diverging from the title of the post, I can't help but notice a convergence of the omens of doom, single file, in military formation under the leadership of the bearded one awaiting what has been dubbed the "zero hour"... On to the omens.

It seems that the flu of divine ligitimacy has spread to his holiness, general Aoun, who said (assafir) that they had reached the "stage of holy anger" (مرحلة الغضب المقدس) and added that "there will be no bloodletting, those who want to kill us can kill us, martyrdom is not only for Muslims" (wow and the guy is "secular"...), declaring that "our option is merge with our environment" (Syria? Iran? Political retro-Islam?) "because it protects everyone..."... Give me a break herr general...

Meanwhile, the other general, the one who sits at the helm of this wretched country of ours justified civil disobedience by government employees, citing disobedience in India at the time of Ghandi (So who exactly is Ghandi here? and who is the foreign oocupation? and since when has our beloved general turned president been a spiritual-intellectual figure?... Give me a break herr general...

About the same time, more signs whats to come "emanated" from Berri, who has shown his true colors and mettle yet another time, by declaring that there is no way now "to avoid the street even if its unwanted" (Really? Last I heard, free will was key, but then again that presupposes that you have it, and that you really don't want to hit the streets. I think both presuppositions are wrong...)

At this time, my only hope is in one of the institutions that I have a strong dislike for, the army. It is up to them to hold the peace, prevent rioting, clashes, and protect the government. What doesn't go for Lahoud, can't go for Siniora. Plain and simple. In the meantime, March 14 should finally grow a pair other than Jumblatt's and act rather than keep reacting, usually to murder, and by mass demonstrations whose numbers keep dwindling and by international whining. Enough!!!

The lines are drawn, and its obvious who is about to cross them. I suggest that March 14 pre-empt any "opposition" moves and mobilize its own public to camp in downtown, in defence of the Siniora government. The Siniora government should prove that it is worth defending, by appointing new ministers to replace the resigned 6 and murdered 1 and then wait for the general in baabda to sign, which he won't. At that point, it would be time to march to baabda... Take the initiative goddamnit...

Brinkmanship: you blink you lose...

A recent post, "To hell in a handbasket..." by Raja from lebanesebloggers, macabrely argues that the scenario by which Syria strikes a deal with the west and many prominent heads from the March 14 movement roll, may be the best for Lebanon's future. Such a conclusion pre-assumes that the alternative is nothing short of "tectonic plates colliding", i.e. civil war.

That in turn assumes that the parties involved, or some parties involved, are willing to take the country down that road. Ok, so lets look at who the parties involved are, and why none of them stand to gain from a civil war in Lebanon. If one agrees with the analysis that noone will take the last step towards such a bloodbath then you will also agree that the party that blinks first in this standoff, loses. But I am jumping the gun, so lets see why no-one wants a war:

Internal Forces

March 14 Unarmed, recently succesful at kicking the Syrian army out, looking forward to a stable country that they can rule, massively outgunned and outtrained by HA, has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a war.

Hizb Despite having a militia and hence the capability to wage war on the internal front, such a tactic would detract from their image in the arab world as freedom fighters and all that jazz and put them on the Shia side of a Sunni-Shia civil war. Moreover, this will take away precious resources that they would prefer to allocate to their "struggle" with their sworn enemy. It would embarass their lifelines in Iran and especially Syria and as I mentioned, isolate them in the arab world... On the other hand their "totalitarian" style ideology which seems incapable of adapting to or accepting the confessioanal nature of Lebanon, has put them in a situation where they cannot strategically gain without breaking March 14 completely. The question is how far can they go, and how clearly are they thinking...

Michel Aoun Ever the presidential wannabe, his entire polity is directed and governed by that dream. I do not see him gaining anything from a civil war.

Syria's Cronies It is completely pointless to analyze them individually, as they will simply follow Syrian orders.

External Forces

The US I cannot think of a reason whereby they would want to destabilize Lebanon, thereby increasing the chaos in the region especially with their pridicament in Iraq. Add to that I don't think they would want their ally Israel to have to deal with a volatile Lebanon where their northern border would be "uncontrolled"...

France The Chirac administration has proved to be an invaluable ally to the March 14 movement and whoever wins the election might be less enthusiastic towards supporting Lebanon, but in any case the fact that they have troops in teh South indicates that they would be genuinely interested in preserving a stable and safe environment there.

Syria Another Sunni-Shiite civil war on another of their borders, with them on the Shiite side and 70% of their population being Sunni, is nothing short of signing their own death sentence.
Moreover, in my opinion, their eggs are all in one basket. Killing the investigation and/or toppling the government and/or killing the March 14 leadership while trying to avoid a civil war that might be too much to handle and to check. In short desperate obstructionism... However the rationality of their decisions and the extent to which they are cornered might prove decisive in how crazy they might behave. Still history has shown them to be masters of brinkmanship without ever crossing the line. They realize that once the line is crossed, there is no turning back.

Iran The great unknown... also definitely the most influential player governing HA's decisions along with Syria. Notably however, they are the ideological parents of Hizb while Syria is onlt a strategic partner, a very crucial one though. That said, I wonder how connected are the timings of the G8 summit discussions on Iran and HA's cross border operation to capture the 2 israeli soldiers. Also, one has to wonder how cohesive the Iranian leadership is in its treatment of HA and how far they are willing to go in using HA as a pressure card against the west. Of course, I am sure they realize that by actually accepting a civil war in Lebanon, their card is burnt. So here again assuming a rational decision process implies that this player has stakes in avoiding the turmoils of internal war in Lebanon...

In Short

Under the very crucial assumption that all the internal and external players on the Lebanese arena are relatively rational and reasonable, the chances of any one of them pushing towards an escalation and a civil war is relatively small.

The only danger in my opinion is in the alliance of Syria, Iran and Hizbullah, not because they want a civil war but more because they might not see an alternative to it. In the case of the Syrian regime, desparation might (in the medium to long-range future) lead them to a point where they might decide to bring Lebanon down with them, or to think that a burning Lebanon might for some reason salvage their anomalous control of Syria. In the case of Hizbulla, the fact that they have been pushed away from the borders with Israel and are separated from their arch-enemies by thousands of international and Lebanese troops might challenge their very "raison d'etre". Moreover, the fact that they are armed to the teeth with nowhere to use these weapons and no enemy to channel them against might lead to them redefining the enemy internally. We are already seeing signs of that. Which brings me to Iran. They are the side I am worried about most, simply because they are in a situation they have never been before, and we have never seen them act under similar situations. What I am referring to is their new-found regional superpower status. With influences in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Bahrain, and perhaps even Kuwait, the Mullocracy has the power to both create and destroy which had been previously always checked by Saddam. To what extent are they willing to use Hizb in Lebanon, and would they push to a civil war? Their experience in Lebanese politics is more limited than other players and this lack of experience might cause decisions that are not hampered by previous pains...

Michel Sleiman's "Order of the Day"

From Assafir
<أيها العسكريون، ثقوا بأن انتشاركم على امتداد الحدود اللبنانية، البرية والبحرية، إنما يسهم في اقفال الابواب أمام رياح الحروب التي عاناها اللبنانيون طويلا، ويشكل حافزا قويا لاستكمال تحرير ما تبقى من ارضنا المحتلة في مزارع شبعا وتلال كفرشوبا وبلدة الغجر، ويعكس تعزيزا للامن والاستقرار في الداخل، ويهيئ مساحة رحبة للتلاقي والحوار بين ابناء الوطن وتحصين وحدتهم الوطنية. وإذا تعذر على شعب يعاني الفتن ان يحرر ارضه ويحمي استقلاله، فمن المتعذر ايضا على اي شعب حدوده مستباحة وساحاته مفتوحة لمختلف الصراعات، ان ينعم بالسلام والطمأنينة والاستقرار>.
Translation:
"Soldiers, trust that your deployment along the Lebanese borders, land and sea, closes the doors against the winds of war that the Lebanese have suffered from for long, and forms a strong incentive for continuing the liberation of what remains of our occupied lands in Shebaa, Kfarshooba and Ghajar, and reflects a reinforcemnt of internal security and stability, and sets the stage for dialogue between our countrymen and reinforces their national unity. If it is not possible for a people that suffers from internal strife to liberate its land and protect its independence, then it is impossible also for a people whose borders are violated and its arenas open for various struggles to enjoy peace and stability."

In light of recent developments, I can't help but notice how much this sounds like nothing more than voices on the wind?

How many more to go? The Syrian Strategy in Lebanon

Yet another minister and member of the March 14 group in Lebanon, Pierre Jemayel, has been assassinated. Lebanese bloggers have picked up on the story and there is an abundance of posts on the calamity (see for example Abu Kais's entry or Doha's entry...). In the meantime the cycle continues.

What I want to focus on -assuming the obvious, i.e., that perpetrators are agents working for the Syrian regime or for their stooges in Lebanon- is the strategy that Syria seems to employing in Lebanon. For those who have offhandedly previously dismissed the regime as merely bloody and stupid, I beg to differ. The claim that it is bloody is obviously true; on the other hand, they may deserve more credit for strategy and tactics. This should perhaps lead to the Lebanese anti-Syrians to rethink their own strategy...

In any case, I believe that the Syrians are playing a very cynical game in Lebanon and Iraq, whereby in their smaller neighbour they harvest a policy of assassinations to weaken their enemies. The idea is to decapitate, debilitate and demoralize their Lebanese foes. Simultaneously, this strategy delivers a message to the international community that they are willing - and able - to outlast the "internationals" in Lebanon. They will do whatever it takes, bloodletting included. All the while, they meddle in Iraq, exporting Jihadis to their already volatile larger neighbor in an attempt to destabilize it. The goal you might ask?

As long as the Americans are tangled up in Iraq, and as long as they can eventually understand that they will not accomplish anything in Iraq without the Syrians (and Iranians) cooperating, the Syrian regime can eventually extract a price from a future US administration for said cooperation. That price is domination of Lebanon and possibly less importantly retrieval of the Golan and peace with Israel. To achieve that goal, the regime reckons that all it needs to do is outlast the US (and French) administration in Lebanon by maintaining a healthy arsenal of allies while systematically picking off its foes. If they can bring the Americans to a breaking point in Iraq, whereby Syrian cooperation is a must, then they can force their hand in Lebanon, making the Hariri tribunal disappear. With only a bloodied anti-Syrian group with no international support in Lebanon to oppose them, they will be in prime position for re-establishing hegemony and perpetuating their regime.

Perhaps it is not that stupid after all ?

Lebanon's Demographics Revealed

Last Monday, Annahar publishedan article reporting on a census conducted in Lebanon, revealing the changing demographics in a country, where the true numbers were previously held from the public. The census was conducted by a Yussef Shahid Aldweihy "يوسف شهيد الدويهي" by going through all the birth records (sijillat alnofous), leading to a clearer picture of how the Lebanese public is distributed according to age, religion, and geographical location. I personally can't wait to get my hands on Dweihy's complete results which are reported to contain 210 charts...
In the meantime, we have to settle for a summary of the results that annahar published.

Accordingly, Lebanon's population is 64.29% Muslim and 35.33% Christian.

Of the Christian population, the Maronites form the majority at 19.47% followed by the Orthodox Chrisitians at 6.85% and the Catholics at 4.55%, with Armenian Orthodox Christians at 2.27%.

On the other hand, among the Muslims, the Sunnis and Shias pretty much evenly split the pot at 29.6% and 29.5% respectively. In distant third are the Druze at %5.38, and then the Alawites with less than a percent.

The more telling statistic in Dweihy's report is that among those under the age of 20 , the Christians form only 23.31% compared to a whopping 76.59% for the Muslims.


Meanwhile, geographically, and using the traditional five Muhafazat, as opposed to the administrative eight currently used, Dweihy notes the following.
The Nabatieh and South Muhafaza contains 24.19% of all Lebanese, compared to Akkar and the North which contain 23.63%, and Mount Lebanon which contains 22.53%...


Which brings me back to an old point that I raised on this blog concerning sectarianism and minorities...

Samir Kassir's: "Being Arab". Will we get out of the "Malaise"?

Recently, a friend of mine and I were discussing the sad state of affairs that the cultural world of the arabs finds itself in. We noted how a vibrant nahda period around the late 19th and early 20th century when arab writers, poets and artists were extremely productive has become - 100 years later - nothing more than a thing of the past. We tried to understand what brought that sorry state of affairs about, and I suggested that the rise of Arabia (as in the gulf), after the discovery of oil, allowed countries that had previously been on the fringes of culture (and more or less political influence) to exert much more influence on their more cultured neighbours.

More recently, I started reading Samir Kassir's "Being Arab" (published after his death) which in one of its chapters forwards a similar argument. He supplies various examples of how the mini-renaissance (he doesnt call it that) that was being experienced in various arab cities around and after the late 19th century, was eventually turned back due to the rising "cultural" influence of the arabs of Arabia proper.

In any case, the moral of the story (if there is one) is that the rising tide of political Islam (a product exported largely from the gulf) is a danger that threatens to nip the cultural development of the arabs. In fact, it has already done extensive damage to all forms of expression, be it cinema, literature, music (to a lesser extent), theatre... However, it is not too late to salvage the dying renaissance and to present it as an alternative to the fanaticism of politicized religion on one hand, and to complete subjugation to the West on the other. The idea is to promote the evolution of a modern cultural identity that is not un-necessarily confrontational and simultaneously a source of pride to people. What better than a flurry of writers, painters, poets, directors, artists, and sculptors producing high quality works that appeals to people, to rid us of the backwardness and despair that political-religion brings.
So... pull out a piece of paper and start writing, or a canvas and start painting. Its time to get to work!

Beware the Sectarian Divide: The Jumblatt - Hizbulla Split Manifests in Inter-Sect Relations

According to Annahar, the new head of Druze religious establishment (the Sheikh El-Akel) was accepting congratulations on his new appointment.
Notably, representatives of the religious establishments of all the major sects -all but one that is- were present, and so were "rebel" Shiite clerics like the mufti of Tyre, Ali El-Amine. However, there was no one to be seen from the Shiite religious leadership (fadlallah, kabalan,...).
Such moves are inflammatory and even outright dangerous. It is completely acceptable and fully reasonable to expect that the political leadership of various Lebanese sects not see eye to eye, and even to completely disagree and as such be political opponents. On the other hand, it is completely not acceptable that such disagreements between the various "civilian" or "secular" sectarian leaders, reflect on the relationships between the political establishments. For that is when things can take a turn for the worse. The absence of the major Shiite clerics from such an event can only be seen as a slap in the face of the Druze establishment, which may cause a reciprocating slap in the face. This can easily get out of hand and with the political leaderships of these two sects at odds, no good can come out of the religious establishments boycotting each other. Beware...

Note: I am an ardent secularist, and believe in the separation of church (in all its forms) and state. Moreover, I believe in the separation of church and politics. On the other hand, I believe that Lebanon is far from this ideal and that the actions of the various churches have direct consequences on the polarization of the masses. As such, I am only warning against irresponsible behaviour on the part of the churches.

Irrelevant Update: "Suicided" Syrian minister Ghazi Kanaan (who was once in charge of the Lebanese file for a long period of time), apparently shares the bug with his brother Ali, who was recently found "suicided" as well - on railway tracks (Wow, how creative!). Give me a break.