Just Another Little Massacre

The Western narrative regarding the worst internal violence in Lebanon since the civil war differs significantly from what the Lebanese are saying, and the Lebanese narrative makes more sense.

First, the facts. There was a bank robbery in Amyoun (a town southeast of Tripoli) two days ago, and the robbers made off with $125,000. The police suspected members of Fatah Islam, an armed Sunni Islamist group based in the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli, of responsibility. They raided an apartment in Tripoli, looking to arrest the criminals. Then all hell broke loose. Fatah Islam fought back, and at the moment 21 people are dead, including 13 soldiers.

The Western media is framing this is as a battle between the Lebanese Army and Al Qaeda -- or alternatively, between the Lebanese Army and the Palestinians. "Islamic militants, security forces battle in Lebanon," reads CNN's headline. The article notes how the central government has difficulty dealing with "pockets of insecurity across the country that are haven for militants and troublemakers," a reference to the Palestinian refugee camps. Indeed, the camps are black holes for Lebanese sovereignty -- the army is not allowed to enter, which gives radical militias the chance to gestate.

It would be wonderful news if the Western media was right. Though Al Qaeda or Palestinian radicals killing Lebanese soldiers is obviously not optimal, neither conflict fits into the larger narrative of Lebanon's current problems. The country is not going to fall back into civil war over Al Qaeda or the Palestinians. There simply isn't a segment of the Lebanese population willing to go to bat for either group. If the Western storyline is to be believed, what we have is a tragic battle -- but one that is largely incidental to the larger forces currently at work in Lebanon.

But Lebanese politicians have a different explanation for the violence. Future politician Ahmad Fatfat had this to say: "There is someone trying to create security chaos to say to world public opinion: 'Look, if the tribunal is established, there will be security trouble in Lebanon'."

I don't think the identity of the "someone" that Mr. Fatfat refers to is all that difficult to determine. Certainly, it's not Osama bin Laden who is hellbent on stopping the formation of the international tribunal. No, it's Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government who the pro-government forces are accusing of causing the chaos in Tripoli. It's another reminder of the price Lebanon will pay if it continues with its ridiculous opposition to Syrian domination.

Stagnant (Lebanese vs. Palestinian) or previously non-existent (Lebanese vs. Al Qaeda) political conflicts do not normally erupt all at once into the worst internal violence Lebanon has seen in seventeen years. Violence usually simmers for a while, before reaching a boil. More likely, these attacks are part of the continuing Syrian effort to sow chaos across Lebanon. Different chapter, same book.

P.S: If any of you had heard me speak about Lebanon's "ridiculous opposition to Syrian domination," you would have recognized immediately that I was being sarcastic. As it is, sarcasm is much harder to convey in print than it is in the spoken word. Nevertheless, please read that sentence in the tongue-in-cheek manner it deserves and requires.