The Clashes in Beirut: Is the Bush Administration Stirring the Pot?
The last time Hezbollah shut down the city of Beirut in January 2007 it was not an act of war. I was living there reporting for the English-Language daily newspaper the Daily Star.
Last night when I went to sleep in Brooklyn, after reading (the meager English-language) reports of "clashes" in the capital, I assumed this violence was not much different than last year's. There were images of men holding pieces of bread and placards near piles of smoldering rubber and garbage. I got the usual warning from the US Embassy to steer clear of large public gatherings a couple of days ago.
I woke up to e-mails from friends in Lebanon and news that the violence had gotten worse.
One e-mail said: "We're hearing gunfire everywhere in the streets..It's not fun or funny."
What began as a labor union protest--enforced by Hezbollah--to raise the minimum wage became what another friend called "an existential battle" for the party.
Rumored to be at US urging, on Tuesday Prime Minister Fouad Siniora threatened to have Lebanese Army troops shut down a telephone network operated by Hezbollah in South Lebanon and the Southern suburbs of Beirut. They also sacked an airport official tied to Hezbollah and accused the group of spying on the government through secret security cameras in the airport.
"Touching their phone network is tantamount to touching their weapons and they have to make that clear...They have to show their strength and to prove that they can't be pushed around," my friend wrote.
Hezbollah Secretary General Said Hassan Nasrallah must have agreed.
"This decision was a declaration of war and the start of war on the resistance and its weapons," he said at a press conference today.
"Our response to this decision is that whoever declares or starts a war, be it a brother or a father, then it is our right to defend ourselves and our existence."
Like a lot of things Hezbollah does, the de-facto travel embargo they imposed on the capital 18 months ago, as well as yesterday's, reflect the total powerlessness of the state and the party's own political opportunism.
Last year a source of mine from Hezbollah, Ali, called me the day before the demonstrations to warn me not to go into certain areas--he did not need to specify that he meant the mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods South of Sodeco Square, on the edge of Achrafieh--the Christian district that is the Beirut's equivalent to the Upper East Side. Earlier today I watched a CNN correspondent tell viewers that Sodeco is a likely flashpoint for violence to occur if it were to. This is where Hizbollah set up the first barricade to block the road to the airport about 18 months ago.
Ali does not look like the blind-folded militia fighter pictured in American movies. He looks like a bureaucrat with a wife and kids, which is incidentally exactly what he is. He had worked in the energy ministry when it was headed by fellow-party member Mohammad Fneish. After the Shiite Cabinet ministers resigned from government in November 2006, Ali started a law firm to help residents in the Shiite neighborhood of Dahiyeh claim government compensation for their homes damaged during the 2006 war with Israel. (This is the neighborhood that got pounded for a month straight between July and August. The one the Western media has misleadingly labeled a Hezbollah stronghold, implying that the government has actually attempted to assert a presence there. Hezbollah certainly keeps a tight grip over the area and provides residents with basic services. But the government has never tried to extend its authority over the Southern Suburbs, even when it has had the opportunity to).
Like many Hizbollah members Ali was educated at an American University so he speaks fluent, but quiet, English. The only overt signs of his sectarian affiliation are his name and his tendency to raise his hand to his heart and give a mini-bow when a woman tries to shake hands. He was just being a nice guy when he called a naïve, American foreigner unsolicited on January 23rd, to make sure I wouldn't go scampering off and get into trouble.
I ignored his advice because it did not seem dangerous then. Bands of teenagers were manning the makeshift barriers lining both highways linking Lebanon to the outside world. They were kids in plain clothes, with no uniforms or guns. That they could shut down the city, made the government look all the more weak.
A Lebanese girlfriend of mine who reports for an international newspaper did manage to get to the airport by bike. Hezbollah security was guarding the door and wouldn't let her in. They stole her notebook and pushed her.
As far as I know that is the worst it got. No one knows if this will be Lebanon's long-awaited second Civil War, but if the US does not stop stirring the pot by pressuring Siniora and the out-of-touch March 14th posse to assert their sovereignty--notice I don't use a "re" prefix--to counter Hezbollah, Bush is going to have another foreign policy debacle in the Middle East on his conscience.
These guys have been holed up in the government headquarters at the Grand Serail behind coils of barbed wire and layer of tanks for a year-and-a-half. Once I went to use what had been a public bathroom on the third floor of building after an interview, and a security guard told me that the it was now a private bathroom for Finance Minister Jihad Azour, who was living across the hall.
A reporter I worked with back in Beirut just wrote in an e-mail: "It is, for me, a mystery as to why Siniora's rump cabinet decided to act upon the Hezbollah infrastructure around the airport...especially given that they knew abut the telephone system for the past
five years.
"It's had to believe they weren't acting upon pressure applied from outside, particularly given the speed with which Roed-Larsen went to the UN to deem the system a danger to the sovereignty and integrity of the Lebanese state."
This Western line might be reasonable if Siniora's government had ever had any sovereignty, let alone integrity, but his has always been a shell of a state not unlike many of his predecessors. No amount of prodding and "capacity building" assistance--that's code for military aid channeled to beleaguered US allies in the Middle East like Mahmoud Abbas--is going to change that.
Now I'm watching civilians firing machine guns on Hamra Street, the main commercial drag of West Beirut--and for those who need an American link to comprehend what's at stake, a stone's throw from the American University of Beirut.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hizbollah is a terrorist organization hell bent on implementing Iran’s will in Lebanon and in the Arab region. They use Iranian resources buying their way into the hearts of poor, historically abused Lebanese Shiaa. They use Iran’s money to build hospitals, schools, and distribute wads of cash for victimized Shiaa citizens. They also have built a formidable arsenal of weapons, terrorizing their opponents, and shamelessly imposing their will. They built an illegal telecommunication network that is suspect of being involved in political assassinations. They erected spy cameras to monitor airline traffic further heightening anxiety of their opponenets.
Iran, and Syria control Hizbollah and use it for different reasons. Iran’s goal is nuclear capability and regional power. Syria’s goal is the return of the Golan Heights.
You can thank the current administration for enabling this situation. The Shiaa genie is out of the bottle ever since gulf war II. The historically downtrodden Shiaa in general, and Hizbollah in particular have been empowered beyond control ever since the United Sates grabbing a tiger by the tail squashed the tyrannical Saddam Hussain regime.
The majority of Lebanese reject Hizbollah. Sunnis, majority of Christians, and some Shiaas want to see a free Lebanon that is no longer an arena for regional disputes.
I’m afraid allowing Hizbollah to further flourish in Lebanon is tantamount to delaying the inevitable. Ultimately, they have to be dealt with. And, when this happens, the amount of pain and ugliness is dependent on the time period Hizbollah allowed to fester.
It all depends on how you look at it. Hezbollah can just as easily be seen as a political party which has been able to protect the, generally poor and underclass Shia from the exploitation of the Sunni and Christian population. An exploitation that has been going on for years.
They can also be seen as the only effective fighting force to stand up the Israel. And oppose the illegal invasion and occupation of Lebanon's sovereign territory.
Hezbollah is a FACT in Lebanon. And must be dealt with. It does no good to simply label them as "terrorist" and seek to obliterate them. It is not going to happen.
And how does it serve US interests, let alone Lebannese interests or the world's interest to restart the Civil War?
On the other hand it is clear to me how it serves Israel's interest. Percieved interests. When Hezbollah comes out stronger than ever Israel's interests might be seen in a different light.
Lysandra - thank you for the insights. It seems we're seeing a lot of repercussions of Cheney's recent Middle East travels - from the siege and devastation killing the people of Sadr City to the stirring you mention. Let's hope someday we learn to respect the sovereignty of our brothers and sisters in the Middle East.
Siniora showed why he is not fit to lead.
"Bush is going to have another foreign policy debacle in the Middle East on his conscience"
This statement neglects the simple fact that George W. Bush is the textbook definition of a sociopath and, as such, he has no conscience.
Those who don't want a COMPREHENSIVE Mid East peace agreement are stirring the pot because only a comprehensive agreement can guarantee peace. That goes for everybody, including Lebanon.
There is a comprehensive Middle East strategy.
More war.
My guess is you are the one stirring the pot. Please explain to the ignorant masses here in "flyover country" exactly what our economic and/or political interests might amount to in Lebanon? Gosh, if I had to guess what countries or country might have a vital interest in Lebanon, it might be one of the two obvious ones you completely failed to mention in your little post. Folks, I know all of you despise GWB to the extent you might even try to blame WWII on him, but two close neighbors of Lebanon, both with obvious motives, could be the culprits. Instead of looking for outlaws (as most of you feel about GWB and the US), look at in-laws, such as Syria or possibly Israel. Hasn't Syria's tin-pan dictator been trying to influence Lebanese politics through assassination and intimidation? Now let's all take a deep breath and try to start thinking logically, shall we.
I don't think I would blame WWII on GWB - he wasn't even a fetus at the time. Prescott Bush, however, was close personal friends with Adolph Hitler and numerous other high ranking members of the Nazi government and funded Nazi activities here in the US for quite a while during the 1930s. He also supplied the Nazi regime with commercial ties long after the start of the war when such association was considered criminal.
To imply that the Bush administration HASN'T enacted policies designed to foment violence between Suni and Shiite groups throughout the middle east is the height of naivete.
So the sins of the father...o
What appears logical is not always true. I think many of the players in the present Middle East situation would love to have you as an opponent in a game of chess. For money.
You describe a nuanced reality,related to the need to compromise and survive,working towards the future as best they can.Bush/C
Hillary Clinton backed the Israeli war against Lebanon all the way to the bitter end, even after it was CLEAR that it was a pointless bloodbath . Like Iraq, It achived none of its stated objectives.
What it DID do was destabilize the US friendly government after thousands were killed, Hundreds of thousands were displaced, and the Infrastructure of the ENTIRE COUNTRY was devastated. It also empowered Hamas, and made people there dramatically more receptive to their message.
Hillary needs to be given her walking papers, both for her senate seat and certainly for the nomination.
If our government had forced Israel to work this out with a prisoner swap, as it has been in the past, this would not be happening.
Piecemeal negotiations are worthless. Only a comprehensive agreement in the mid east will bring peace, lower oil prices, prosperity to the USA.
Sorry, I meant Hezbollah, not Hamas.
Speaking of stirring the pot, did anyone else notice Sec. of State Rice referring to Myanmar as Burma every chance she got?
It's hard to say with any of the Bush clowns if it's deliberate or just plain ignorance. That counts double for Rice, who's way out of her depth.
stanford loves her and rummy. want them both on their think tanks. even the elitist universities are in on this corp fascism and wars for profits.
gain control of the minds of the young. how corp media and education.
Another prime example of Bush style diplomacy.
Gratuitously insult other people every chance you get.
On his what? I don't think so. Dripping from his hands, maybe; those he has.
yes, of course... it's the prelude
Bu$h has a conscience? Since when?
Stirring the pot doesn't begin to describe the extent of this administration's influence in this volatile region. All of this to discredit a true diplomat and former president.
"Stirring the pot doesn't begin to describe the extent of this administration's influence in this volatile region."
Bush can't stir the pot fast enough, to prevent it from boiling over.
If only Bush had minded his own business. Well actually, he is minding his own business ... OIL! ... his pot of black gold at the end of the rapture!?
OBAMA '08! (IF it's not too late!)
HOPE & CHANGE!
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
Bush, and Conscience? Are we talking about the same man we have all come to know and love these past 7+ years?
Now, if the lead paragraph had put "Bush" and "ClusterF#*k" in the same sentence, that I would recognise and understand.
Every single decision the neocons made was wrong.
Don't tell Hillary though, because she supported them all, and doesn't handle reality well.
I wonder if the US corporate media will allow any debate about these policies when McCain finally has to answer questions?
"Every single decision the neocons made was wrong. Don't tell Hillary though, because she supported them all, and doesn't handle reality well."
Shouldn't we be attacking ONLY those who have attacked US? And yet Hillary intends to "handle reality" by chiefly commanding US to "totally obliterate" the Iranian population, if they attack ISRAEL with their imaginary WMDs.
We SHOULDN'T have attacked IRAQ ... We SHOULDN'T be threatening to attack IRAN...
We SHOULD drag Bin Laden out of PAKISTAN..
OBAMA '08! (IF it's not too late!)
HOPE & CHANGE!
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
