The Arab Street, Revisited

I don't know anything about the "Lebanese Development Network," but they have released a poll purportedly measuring the popularity of Lebanon's political parties, broken down by religious sect. I have expressed skepticism about the accuracy of polling in the Middle East before. The LDN poll asked respondents "What political party best represents your point of view?" It shows Hezbollah's popularity among the Shia community dropping from 64% in December 2006 to 40% in April 2008. Importantly, all polling was completed before the Hezbollah-led occupation of West Beirut in May.

Assuming these results are accurate (and that's a big assumption), they run counter to the results reached by Shibley Telhami's Brookings Institute poll of Arab public opinion, which showed widespread popular support for Nasrallah. The two polls' results are not, of course, mutually contradictory -- Hezbollah's popularity could conceivably be soaring in the Arab world at large and plummeting in Lebanon -- but it would make for a strange dynamic.

From the Telhami poll, the most interesting result came when Lebanese respondents were asked "Describe your attitude towards Israel's power." They were given the options of answering that Israel's power was expanding, that it was impossible to know if Israel would get stronger or weaker, or that Israel was weak and it was only a matter of time before it was defeated. Check out the growing divide between sects, from 2006 to 2008, in their perception of Israel's strength. It sure doesn't seem like a formula for different community's seeing eye to eye on a "national defense strategy."

The Rise of the Militias

Michael Totten is absolutely correct when he writes, "the incentive for communal re-armament is now greater than it has been since the [Lebanese] civil war ended." He points to Hezbollah's alleged purchase of land outside the Shia areas of Lebanon as a cause, and their role in last May's violence as the cause.

I don't know much about the land purchases, though these allegations have reappeared and disappeared for years in direct relation to the level of political tension. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah has proved itself to be an armed militia willing to use its weapons against their fellow citizens, and this will inevitably cause tensions no matter where they are located in Lebanon. After seeing what happened to their Druze and Sunni political allies, it's easy to see why Christian leaders like Amin Gemayel would be nervous about Hezbollah outposts in Sannine.

But if the Christians are assessing developments and starting to look out for their own skin, the process is even further along with the Sunnis. After being routed in Beirut by Hezbollah, after seeing the impotence of the state in protecting its citizens, and while still engaged in fighting in Tripoli, it is hard to blame them.

Even smooth, Western-educated Sunni MPs no longer have qualms about explaining to Western journalists that they will protect their own instead of waiting for the Lebanese army. "When...the Lebanese army fails to protect me or to disarm those who are attacking innocent Lebanese citizens, I cannot ask the Salafists to disarm because they also have the right to fight Israel and to protect themselves,” said Tripoli MP Misbah al-Ahdab. Ahdab says the only solution is to put the issue of Hezbollah's arms on the table, "otherwise, the whole North will become Salafists, and I can only sympathize with them."

How to separate right from wrong? One tends to slip into the passive voice. The re-militarization of Lebanon's sectarian communities is a direct response to their attempt to maintain their voice in Lebanese society, following Hezbollah's aggression and the state's impotence in protecting its people. At the same time, it is impossible to expect the breakdown of law and order to result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of Lebanon. So it goes. Fatalism is in vogue these days; so it goes.

The Rise of the Militias

Michael Totten is absolutely correct when he writes, "the incentive for communal re-armament is now greater than it has been since the [Lebanese] civil war ended." He points to Hezbollah's alleged purchase of land outside the Shia areas of Lebanon as a cause, and their role in last May's violence as the cause.

I don't know much about the land purchases, though these allegations have reappeared and disappeared for years in direct relation to the level of political tension. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah has proved itself to be an armed militia willing to use its weapons against their fellow citizens, and this will inevitably cause tensions no matter where they are located in Lebanon. After seeing what happened to their Druze and Sunni political allies, it's easy to see why Christian leaders like Amin Gemayel would be nervous about Hezbollah outposts in Sannine.

But if the Christians are assessing developments and starting to look out for their own skin, the process is even further along with the Sunnis. After being routed in Beirut by Hezbollah, after seeing the impotence of the state in protecting its citizens, and while still engaged in fighting in Tripoli, it is hard to blame them.

Even smooth, Western-educated Sunni MPs no longer have qualms about explaining to Western journalists that they will protect their own. "When...the Lebanese army fails to protect me or to disarm those who are attacking innocent Lebanese citizens, I cannot ask the Salafists to disarm because they also have the right to fight Israel and to protect themselves,” said Tripoli MP Misbah al-Ahdab. Ahdab says the only solution is to put the issue of Hezbollah's arms on the table, "otherwise, the whole North will become Salafists, and I can only sympathize with them."

How to separate right from wrong? One tends to slip into the passive voice. The re-militarization of Lebanon's sectarian communities is a direct response to their attempt to maintain their voice in Lebanese society, following Hezbollah's aggression and the state's impotence in protecting its people. At the same time, it is impossible to expect the breakdown of law and order to result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of Lebanon. Fatalism is in vogue these days; so it goes.

Hip, Hip, Al-Hurra!

I want to apologize for the month-long radio silence. However, I hope that I will have the time to return to regular posting habits as of now. I also want to apologize for the unbelievably hokey title. It proved irresistible.

Getting down to business: two recent articles about the American-funding Arabic news station Al-Hurra have recently made waves in Washington DC. The first appeared in the Washington Post, and the second was penned by ProPublica, as a joint production with CBS and 60 Minutes. Both pieces contain well-sourced charges that cronyism resulted in hiring low-quality journalists, who subsequently published low-quality reporting. I have no reason or desire to argue that point.

However, there are two more objections, in the longer ProPublica article especially, that are mutually contradictory. First, the author seems scandalized that al-Hurra sometimes broadcasts anti-Western rhetoric. "When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah railed against the U.S. government and threatened Israel, Alhurra carried it live and unedited," the piece says. "When U.S. combat deaths in Iraq surpassed 4,000 in March, Radio Sawa interviewed an anonymous militant who told listeners: 'Occupation is occupation. We need to resist them and kill more than 4,000.'"

Second, the piece criticizes al-Hurra for being a ratings flop. The article contends, rightly, that al-Hurra has made no impact whatsoever on Arab public opinion. But here's the problem: al-Hurra is unwatched precisely because it avoids engaging anti-Western speakers and topics. The news director was forced to resign when people in the States got wind of the fact that he had broadcast Nasrallah's speech, for God's sake. The embarrassment was when al-Hurra ignored the assassination of Sheikh Yassin in favor of a cooking show, not when it aired the full remarks of what is, like it or not, probably the most popular Middle East leader of the day.

If al-Hurra wants to be both well-watched and influential, it shouldn't shy away from the prevailing political currents in the region. It shouldn't be impossible to provide an honest portrayal of what is happening in the Middle East, and also explaining the American point of view on these developments. However, it would require two things which are not likely to exist any time soon: talented journalists at al-Hurra, and an appetite in the USA for giving airtime to our enemies. Oh well.

Memo To Sheikh Saad

Here's what the "Sunni street" is saying. From the LAT:

"'We are prepared to fight for a few hours but not more,' said one of the Sunni fighters in the waning moments of the battle. 'Where do we get ammunition and weapons from? We are blocked. The roads are blocked. Even Saad Hariri has left us to face our fate alone.'"

And this, from yesterday's New York Times:

"'Saad Hariri let us down,' said one young man in Tarik Jadideh, where the streets were still littered with broken glass on Friday, and blackened building facades bore witness to fierce battles the night before with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. 'We don't want the Future Movement any more, or the whole Hariri family.' The man refused to give his name, because Mr. Hariri is such an important figure in the area."

The army neglected to confront Hezbollah's militiamen, with the idea that letting one side run roughshod would limit casualties. This might have been true in the short term, but it is only going to ensure the recurrence of violence in the future.

There is no community in the world that will roll over meekly when its government or political leaders are unable to protect them. Since it seems to be a fantasy that the Lebanese army is going to do anything positive, Saad Hariri is going to be under intense pressure from his supporters to (re)build a stronger, larger, and better-trained militia. If he does not, he will no longer be the leader of Lebanese Sunnis. Simple as that.

Israel Watches

Israel announced that it will not intervene in the clashes currently occurring throughout Lebanon, but that they are "closely watching developments" there. Israeli jets flew over South Lebanon today, which just goes to show that Israel's idea of keeping an eye on developments isn't confined to watching CNN.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the Israelis aren't planning to take any immediate action. They don't have any major allies in this country, and any military campaign would only undermine the position of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL, which Israel depends on to keep Hezbollah away from its southern border.

However, there is increasing certainty in Israel that military action in Lebanon will be necessary sooner, rather than later. Haaretz is concerned that Hezbollah will use its bolstered domestic position to bully UNIFIL and re-establish its presence on Israel's northern border. That sounds plausible. After this confrontation, Hezbollah will want to show that it is holding onto its weapons for some greater purpose than marching around West Beirut. They also have not yet avenged the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, a fact that is raising recurring questions regarding Hezbollah's military capabilities.

YNet, meanwhile, focuses on the Iranian role in Hezbollah's belligerence. Because of their experience with Hamas, not many Israelis are going to have patience with a newly aggressive, Iranian-funded militia on their border. YNet's analysis of Lebanese politics is ridiculous -- they speak of how Hezbollah is poised to win the next Parliamentary elections and turn Lebanon into an "Iranian colony." Almost certainly, there will be fewer communities willing to ally themselves with Hezbollah after this fiasco. Nevertheless, this is how Israel perceives Lebanon today, a fact which is both ominous and entirely predictable.

Stop the Presses

Originally posted on The Weekly Standard blog:

Of all the scummy things the Hezbollah and its allies have done during their takeover of West Beirut, the burning of pro-government media outlets is one of the worst. Prominent anti-Syrian media figures have long been the target of political violence: journalists Samir Kassir and Gebran Tueni were assassinated during the 2005 Cedar Revolution, and the television anchor May Chidiac barely survived a car bomb assassination attempt.

This time around, Hezbollah militants have ransacked the media offices of the pro-government Future Movement, headed by Saad Hariri, throughout Beirut. Make no mistake: this is an orchestrated attack. Hezbollah's supporters have destroyed Future Movement TV antennas across the city and threatened pro-government journalists. Most egregiously, they invaded and set fire to the Future Movement newspaper, located in West Beirut. As has become routine, the Lebanese army stood by and watched while these offices were destroyed.

This shows that the pro-Syrian forces do have a perverse understanding of the importance of public relations. It is not enough to control the streets, each side is trying to win "hearts and minds." However, Hezbollah's actions have accomplished just the opposite. Their occupation of Beirut's Sunni areas has shattered whatever remaining goodwill the party retained among non-Shia Lebanese.

Fortunately for Lebanon, its journalists are a hardy breed. The Lebanese Press Club organized a march in solidarity of Future media outlets today -- including, among others, May Chidiac. Mustapha, who blogs at Beirut Spring, has also organized a campaign in solidarity of freedom of the press in Lebanon.

The Lebanese will not surrender without a fight.

Unlucky Seven

According to the wires, about seven people have been killed in Beirut, Bekaa, and the North in this latest round of fighting. That's obviously seven too many, but let me put this in perspective for those not in Beirut: for much of last night, the city was rattling until dawn with automatic weapons fire and RPG explosions. Frankly, it is surprising that much gunfire can occur in one place with only seven casualties.

Most of the people I've talked to have said that the vast majority of the gunfire is aimed towards the sky. When the militiamen hear gunfire coming from the other side, they direct their weapons in the air and fire in such a way that the bullets will land on their rivals' territory.

What does that tell us? Well, it means that both sides see a mutual interest in keeping the situation somewhat under control. And they're right. People remember the civil war; they know they have to live with each other. All signs from Ras Beirut suggest that Hezbollah is maintaining a professional, but firm, hold on their newly won territory. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from needlessly antagonizing the local population.

As for the Future Movement and the PSP -- look, I'm perfectly willing to believe that, in the end, they would lose a confrontation with Hezbollah. But I'm not willing to believe that they would go down without punching someone in the mouth first. And we simply haven't seen any indication that they've attempted seriously to resist Hezbollah's invasion of their territory. That is the shoe that has yet to drop. But just wait a while.

Rout

It wasn't a battle, really. Hezbollah, and its hangers-on, simply strutted into all of West Beirut and the Future Movement supporters laid down their weapons. There doesn't seem to be enough casualties to suggest that anybody put up a very serious attempt to stop them.

Well -- what are the consequences of such a development? On the political level, it means that the central government is put in an increasingly untenable position. The power of bureaucrats issuing edicts from the Grand Serail is based on the assumption that someone, somewhere on the streets, is going to implement them. If they are just scribbling on pieces of paper, it is going to become increasingly hard to justify their hold on power.

On the other hand, Hezbollah is now occupying territory which is fundamentally hostile to their presence. There is going to be a lot of crowing in the next few days about Hezbollah's superior military capabilities. Very well. There was a lot of crowing in America in April 2003, when the military brought down Saddam Hussein's regime. I have no idea if the retaliation from the Sunni, Druze, and Christian communities will come tomorrow, or five years from now. But I am certain that the sanctity of the "Resistance," in the eyes of non-Shia Lebanese, has been lost forever.

All About History

Yes, I know, I've been negligent. But I don't want you to think that I have given up on Lebanon. I have been writing, just for NOW Lebanon, rather than here. Oh, the stories I could tell. But as a general rule, I am hesitant to write about people I interview for them in this space. I approach them as a journalist for NOW, and have a feeling that many sources might not take too kindly to their words ending up on this blog. So while I am sure that everyone is dying to read an MTV Cribs-esque description of Sami Gemayel's apartment, you're just going to have to do without.

I really enjoyed writing this story, on the difficulty of polling in the Arab world. The point that I wanted to drive home is that accurate polling is a very difficult feat, and the natural obstacles erected in the Arab world only make it more difficult. You can't correct for an unrepresentative sample by merely polling a whole slew of extra people. My favorite example of this is the story of The Literary Digest's presidential poll in 1936.

In that year, the magazine sent out surveys to over ten million Americans, asking them who they would vote for in the Presidential race between the Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Republican challenger Alf Landon. Based on the 2.3 million ballots that were returned, the Digest predicted confidently that Landon would win the election in a landslide. But when Election Day rolled around, it was Roosevelt who won a landslide -- receiving over 60% of the vote, to Landon’s 36%. The Digest’s survey size, though huge, was biased towards more wealthy individuals, who favored the Republican candidate.

See? You thought this blog was history. But, as it turns out, it is just about history.

Who Controls South Lebanon?

The folks over at Harvard University's Olin Institute for Middle Eastern Strategy want to know who rules South Lebanon. They even have a pretty map which delineates the positions and operational boundaries of each UNIFIL deployment, divided by country.

Despite looking like a governing force, I don't think there are any reliable indications that Hezbollah is losing its position of supremacy in the South. It is their country -- they just let UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army drive around. We are coming up on the two-year mark of the Lebanese Army's deployment to the South, and it is immensely disappointing that there hasn't been more progress in winning over the local population's trust and loyalty. It is a job that nobody, strangely, seems interested in accomplishing.

In Profile

Two very good profiles make for enjoyable Sunday reading: Rachel Cooke's profile of Robert Fisk in the Guardian, and Robert Worth's article on Syrian writer Khalid Khalifa's new book, "In Praise of Hatred," in the New York Times.

The Fisk article really is excellent, managing to describe what makes him at one time so admirable and at the other so infuriating. "'Have you read any Fisk?' he asks me on the telephone before I land in Beirut," Cooke writes, "a question that is insulting on so many levels." At the same time, Fisk comes across as intellectually curious, energetic, and courageous. Very well. These qualities are not necessarily contradictory. The same arrogance that can inspire somebody to write the only definitive history of the Lebanese civil war can, if given free reign, destroy good reporting.

The Khalifa article is not quite a profile -- perhaps it was pitched as a report on the Syrian censorship of "In Praise of Hatred" or a retrospective look at the violence between the Assad regime and the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1980s -- but Khalifa steals the show. Someone needs to write a profile of this guy. On why he started writing for television: “I needed a way to pay for alcohol."

At the same time, Khalifa has made his peace with making the compromises necessary in order to continue living in Syria. He is not an exile who comes out with all guns blazing against Syria's censorship of his work; he makes jokes about it, and even is a little peeved over Western moralizing over freedom of expression. How can Khalifa simultaneously possess the towering ambition to be a great author that Worth ascribes to him, and also make flippant jokes about the banning of the book which consumed 13 years of his life? That, at least, is the question I am left with. Maybe it will be answered in the next profile.

The Ivory Tower Crumbles

I wrote a largely pessimistic article on the prospects of Lebanon maintaining its reputation as one of the Middle East's educational hubs in the 21st century. My argument, essentially, is that the newly minted Western universities in the Gulf -- benefiting from a stable political environment and spectacular amounts of wealth -- will supersede institutions like AUB and LAU within a generation.

In fact, a first draft of the piece was even more pessimistic than the final version. The conclusion read something like (paraphrasing):

"Dean Reardon-Anderson credits 'an extraordinary amount of wealth, extraordinary vision, and extraordinary determination or power' for the expansion of the new Gulf universities. 'This combination does not exist everywhere,' he notes. He may as well have added: it does not exist in Lebanon."

Ouch. The center of the action for Western universities opening branches in the Gulf is in Qatar's capital of Doha. However, Dubai and Abu Dhabi have also sponsored new universities. Does the revelation that Dubai holds a massive amount of debt make me glad that we eventually went with a less bombastic conclusion? Well -- it makes me think, at least. In opinion journalism, as well as business, sometimes it is wise to hedge one's bets.

Poof

Muhammad Zouhair Al-Siddiq, one of the key witnesses in the Hariri assassination case, has apparently disappeared, notes Bernard Kouchner. Siddiq was apparently under house arrest in Paris. I suppose that the French prison system generally cajoles its inmates into staying with croissants and tea.

That said, the Siddiq disappearance points to a larger danger facing the Hariri investigation: there is no indication that the UN detectives are any closer at building a case against the assassins than they were two years ago. The utter blandness of the Bellemare report was not disappointing because it failed to give the March 14 forces some sort of confidence boost, but because sooner or later this information will find its way into a courtroom and will have to convince an nonpartisan panel of judges. Now, they have also lost a key witness. So it goes.

Sloppy Writing, Sloppy Thinking

In the pantheon of bland phrases, "a pox on both their houses" must occupy a prominent pedestal. With that in mind, I've been meaning to write about the mind-numbing nature of most Daily Star editorials for a while. And along comes this inevitable piece, accusing Lebanese politicians of being "obtuse," and I could not resist.

What does it say? Well, not much of anything. It stakes out the brave ground that Lebanese politicians should talk, and that they should compromise. It criticizes the "invincible stupidity," whatever that might be, of March 8 and March 14 pols. It asserts the gooey proposition that Lebanon's "irretrievably stubborn politicians [must] be made to understand that however gargantuan their egos, they are meaningless compared to the lives and livelihoods of more than 4 million people." It employs adjectives that do not quite mean what the author seems to believe they mean.

Substantively, I am annoyed by the assumption that all of Lebanon's problems were created by the individual stupidity of Lebanon's political class. It is almost as if the great and wise Lebanese people, whom the Daily Star dares not criticize, did not vote their representatives into office. It ignores that there are important differences between the rivals' vision of Lebanon's future which compromise cannot easily resolve, and that the continuation of the crisis is driven by this division.

Look, if the Daily Star wants to have a pro-opposition editorial page -- well, fine. If they want to offer the Siniora government qualified praise, great. But this sort of writing is worse than wrong. It is boring.

P.S: I am aware that comments are currently broken. My apologies. This was most likely caused by a group of spambots that have been tormenting the site, weighing down old posts with approximately 20,000 useless comments. Anyway, I'm working on getting the problem fixed. For now, if anyone has anything they want to add, feel free to send me an e-mail and I will be happy to post your messages in a new entry. Note: offer does not apply to spambots.

A "Criminal Network"

Many, no doubt, will denigrate UN investigator Daniel Bellemare's first report, which contained the revelation that a "criminal network" was behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. This would be wrong. Mr. Bellemare's report has conclusively ruled out the much-debated theories that Hariri was the victim of an unfortunate gas line explosion, a freak asteroid impact, or a depressed trapeeze artist seeking to lash out at his social isolation from the rest of the circus troupe.

Seriously, the details are too depressing to go into right now. One hopes that investigators are holding back information until the tribunal is up and running, so Syria does not sabotage the investigation more than they are already attempting to. Meanwhile, we know someone in Turtle Bay is annoyed by this milquetoast report. An anonymous "senior diplomat" argued: "Nowhere in the report was it said or implied that Syria is innocent of direct involvement in planning Hariri's murder and carrying it out."

Well, of course. But, as far as the international tribunal is concerned, everyone -- even Syrian officials -- is innocent until proven guilty. And we're no closer to reaching that point than before Mr. Bellemare released his report.

In Praise Of Hamra's Cafes

Hemingway once wrote a great short story titled "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," a sort of love song to a good cafe. If I had it in front of me right now, I would quote from it, but all I have is the story of Brian Keenan's return to Beirut after seventeen years, in the Sunday Times.

Some of the descriptions of Beirut are horribly overwrought -- unforgiveable for any author except one writing about a place where he was imprisoned by terrorists for over four years (which, it turns out, is Keenan's relationship to the city). However, I did enjoy this description of the cafes in Hamra:

"For the next few days I walked around the streets of the Hamra area, with my feet hardly touching the ground. The street vendors and their stalls had gone. Incredibly, the bedlam of the traffic, with horns permanently depressed, had reduced in volume by several decibels. Nor were people screaming their conversations at one another. Instead, they retreated to trendy cafe bars, where they played chess or backgammon and conversed with an air of good-natured languor or passionate engagement.

I loved these places. There was a buzz and ease about them which made me feel like a regular as I listened to conversations moving effortlessly from Arabic to English or French. I looked at the young people around me and thought of my students at the university where I had taught. I wondered where they had gone and if any of them had not survived the Israeli air raids."

Enjoy your Easter Sunday, see your family, relax in a cafe -- for tomorrow, Nasrallah marks the fortieth day.

Boycott It Is

Justice Minister Charles Rizk announced that Lebanon will "most probably" boycott the Arab Summit.

Everyone in favor of the decision should probably enjoy this symbolic protest against Syria's (admittedly evil and appalling) interference in Lebanon now. Because next week Bashar al-Assad, Saud al-Faisal, and Manouchehr Mottaki are all going to be sitting in the same room, and we are all going to be worrying what's being said behind the back of the Lebanese government. Congratulations, I guess.

Unprepared

"Evidently they had never heard that an Arab soldier is supposed to run away after a short engagement with the Israelis," reads a quotation from an anonymous IDF soldier, in this US Army-sponsored report on the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war. If you have time, read the whole thing. While it doesn't say much that is new about the conflict, it provides a level of detail not often seen and compiles much of the available information into one source.

All in all, the report tells the story of a remarkably efficient Hezbollah fighters, coupled with a fickle and unprepared Israeli battle plan. Much of the blame falls to Chief of the General Staff Dan Halutz, whose "steadfast confidence in air power, coupled with his disdain for land warfare, increased the strength of the IAF at the expense of the ground forces." The ever-quotable Timor Goksel remarks that the IDF bulldozed to Beirut in one day in 1982, but in 2006 couldn't go more than a few miles in almost a week.

The report does not focus on what everyone in Lebanon wants to know -- namely, what Israel would do in the event of another confrontation with Hezbollah. However, the obvious failure of Israeli air power, coupled with limited ground incursions, to deal Hezbollah a fatal blow suggests that there would only be one option left on the table in the event of a reprise: a land, sea, and air invasion of South Lebanon, the Bekaa, and Beirut's southern suburbs.

Go East, Young Man

Diplomats, we know, love to play games. The Syrian Assistant Foreign Minister just happened to arrive in Beirut, invitation to the Arab summit in hand, when Prime Minister Siniora was away at Dakar. He just happened to present the invitation to resigned Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh. And now it's the Lebanese government's turn to decide how they want to play this game.

I would go to Damascus. Maybe Siniora himself shouldn't go, but perhaps acting Foreign Minister Tareq Mitri -- see, we can play games too. There will not be a better chance in the near future to legitimize the Siniora government in the Arab world. The Syrians are obviously leery about being in the same room as the Lebanese government. The March 14 leaders should make their presence felt by stating their case -- very loudly.

Critics argue that boycotting the summit will send a message to Syria for their terrorism in Lebanon. But if the summit is attended by the government's Arab allies, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia, this threat loses its salience. Amr Moussa is on record saying that Saudi will attend the summit, and other reports said that the Arab states were conditioning their response on whether Lebanon received an invitation. If the major Arab states do send representatives, does anyone really want them alone in a room with Syrian officials while Lebanon's leaders twiddle their thumbs in Beirut?

The 18th Sect

I apologize for not updating this blog more last week. I found myself at a loss for truly interesting news to cover. That said, this article in NOW Lebanon is well worth your time. I didn't write it, sadly, but I can claim credit for prodding the author into action and editing the piece.

Mr. Ronnie Chatah tracks the history of Jews in Lebanon, from their journey here following the 1948 war, to their persecution after the 1967 war, to their near-extinction today:

"When Israel invaded Lebanon and reached Beirut in the summer of 1982, the Israeli government offered the remaining Lebanese Jews Israeli citizenship. According to a report issued by British daily The Times in August of that year, not one Lebanese Jew accepted the offer. 'I was offered Israeli citizenship,' Liza confirmed, 'when [Ariel] Sharon came to Beirut. I wasn’t the only one then to simply turn it down. I am not, and will never be, Israeli.' Indeed, Zionism was largely unattractive even to many of the 500,000 Arab Jews that fled to Israel. However, there was no other country willing to accept them as refugees.

Read the whole thing.

What Gaza Means For Lebanon

In Lebanon, the issue of how to respond to Israel involves a constant weighing of the crimes of the Zionist regime on one hand, and fear of Israeli retribution on the other. When Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in 2000, there was a noticeable decline in support among non-Shia Lebanese for Hezbollah's possession of weapons. However, Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza could shift the balance back to a more favorable position for the Shia militia.

According to the IHT, Israeli aircraft and troops killed 54 people and wounded over 100 on Saturday. Hezbollah is already fuming over the assassination of Imad Mugniyah. However, convincing Lebanese to accept a repeat of the 2006 war over the death of a terrorist implicated in bombing Jewish cultural centers in South America is a hard sell. On the other hand, if Israel re-invades Gaza, the number of Lebanese who would publicly object to renewed attacks across the Blue Line would be considerably smaller.

We are also going to see a renewed effort by the opposition to tie the government to Israel, through their shared Western allies. After the USS Cole arrived, the opposition made two essential points: Siniora had asked for the presence of the US warship, and, pace Berri, "The American fleet is support for the completion of Israel's plan." The majority will try to defuse this by condemning the Israeli attacks as loudly as the opposition -- but that will paint them into a corner if they want to prevent Hezbollah for renewing its attacks on North Israel.

That's the thing about war. Those who try to stay in the middle of the road generally get run over.

Too Little, Too Late?

Do not ask me why the headline of every story on the USS Cole's deployment off Lebanon's coast focuses on Hezbollah's anger over its presence. It is the least interesting angle of the day's events.

What about, for example, the majority's response? Siniora's did not exactly welcome the return of the Americans with open arms, taking to television to assure the Lebanese that "[w]e did not ask anyone to send warships." Very well, I suppose. Nobody wants to play the role of the younger sibling who calls over the big brother when he is picked on. The reaction was different, I suspect, in private. And almost all of the reactions were in private; MPs who are normally quick to give a quote were suspiciously silent yesterday.

What about the fact that nobody seems to be taking this move particularly seriously? There is very little sense at the moment that the presence of the USS Cole represents an American intention to use force in the near to mid-term. It is just another message, another negotiating tactic in Lebanon's political deadlock. Last summer, when government leaders were looking, apparently in vain, for signs of international support for a President elected with an absolute majority, this may have been enough. At this stage of the game, without the addition of significantly more ships, I don't believe it will be met with anything more than a shrug.

Whatever You Do...

...don't create a spoof Facebook profile of Moroccan Prince Moulay Rachid. Because, you know, you'll be arrested, blindfolded, beaten unconscious, and then sentenced to three years in jail.

Just to be on the safe side, you probably shouldn't even poke the Prince, either.

Deal Or No Deal?

This is a story that has flown under the radar, at least in the English-language press. The March 14 forces have always suggested that Aoun cut a deal with Syria and its Lebanese allies before his return in 2005. The Syrians, the argument goes, believed that Aoun's return could fracture the March 14 alliance. On the other side of the aisle, high-ranking Aounists have give me an especially, well, categorical denial of this charge: "This is bullshit."

I believe the Aounists on this one. If there was a secret deal in 2005 between Damascus and Aoun, it doesn't explain Aoun's behavior for the past two and a half years. Nobody can offer a reasonable explanation for what leverage Syria would have over Aoun, after his return, to compel him to break his alliance with March 14 and sign the Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah. No, the more likely explanation is that he did that all by himself.

Nevertheless. Fayez Azzi, who would be in a position to know, believes differently. Azzi, who has ties both to the FPM and Damascus, served as an intermediary between Aoun and Syria in 2004 and 2005 -- before the Hariri assassination.

"He claimed that in December 2004, Aoun had cut a deal with the Syrian regime to facilitate his return. 'The Syrians agreed on General Aoun’s return to Lebanon and would contribute to ending all financial and judicial pursuits against him,' said Azzi. 'In return, he would scale down his political rhetoric regarding a sovereign, free and independent Lebanon...and strike no alliance with Rafik Hariri or Walid Jumblatt.' While Syria would not impose its allies on his electoral lists, he would be forced to participate in parliamentary elections as an independent force. (Emphasis mine)

As Azzi said, the killing of Hariri changed everything. He was replaced as mediator, and doesn't know what happened after that date. But, for those looking for evidence of a Syrian-FPM alliance before Aoun's return, it certainly is interesting circumstantial evidence.

Remember the Tent Camp?

I cut through the tent camp last night, at around 8pm. There could not have been more than two dozen people total staying there, and that's being generous. Each of the smaller parties -- SSNP, Marada -- seemed to keep one guy each there, as a sort of symbolic contribution. There were a few more FPM and Hezbollah protesters. Most of them were gathered at the entrance near the road which leads up to Sodeco. I didn't wander through the back part of Hezbollah's section, which contains a long line of tents, so maybe there were more people back there. But I doubt it.

Okay, the right to protest is sacred. But the right to pitch long lines of empty tents in the city center, paralyzing one of Beirut's major economic districts? Not so much. If the government wants to add teeth to their rhetorical escalation, they should tell the opposition: You are more than welcome to protest in downtown. But all those tents that are unoccupied at night will be removed, and the remaining protesters will be consolidated in a smaller area around the Serail. If Hezbollah and Amal want to keep their camp, at least let them pour the resources into keeping it at capacity.

While we're on the subject: if the tent camp is on life support, the Place de l'Etoile has flatlined. There was not one person in the square, excepting soldiers, at the prime dinner hour on Friday night. It is not quite clear why a couple of dozen opposition supporters can shut down the entire district.

Headline Lies

Walid Jumblatt's recent remarks referred to Hezbollah as a "militia," and said to the opposition, "If you want chaos, we welcome chaos. If you want war, we welcome one." I'd like to talk about the reason for these remarks at a later time, but for now I'd just like to point attention to the Daily Star's grossly misleading headline to their story: "Jumblatt welcomes return to 'war and chaos' in Lebanon."

That's a flat-out lie, as anybody who saw Jumblatt's remarks would know. Even the Daily Star should be able to understand a simple "If X, then Y" statement. Jumblatt also said that "if they [the opposition] want peace, the March 14 Forces are ready for that as well." But I guess turning that into a headline wouldn't sell as many papers.

The Mystery Continues

His Lebanon reporting aside, I have a lot of respect for Seymour Hersh. He's undeniably skilled at getting the story surrounding complex national security issues. He has shown the ability to do it, even when entire governments are seemingly united in their determination to prevent him from getting the story. So when such a skilled investigative reporter blatantly strikes out on uncovering what happened in northern Syria on the night of September 6, 2007, you know that some secret is being well-kept.

What we know is that four Israeli planes bombed some Syrian military installation on that date. After what was essentially an act of war, all the major parties -- Syria included -- played down the attack and refused to say exactly what was targeted. Strange stuff. And after interviewing high-ranking figures in Damascus and Tel Aviv, Hersh doesn't really uncover any information that wouldn't already have been available to him by a Google search. His working theory is that Israel might have hit a North Korean-built building that would have dealt with chemical weapons.

"In Syria, I was able to get some confirmation that North Koreans were at the target. A senior officer in Damascus with firsthand knowledge of the incident agreed to see me alone, at his home; my other interviews in Damascus took place in government offices. According to his account, North Koreans were present at the site, but only as paid construction workers. The senior officer said that the targeted building, when completed, would most likely have been used as a chemical-warfare facility. (Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention and has been believed, for decades, to have a substantial chemical-weapons arsenal.)"

I suppose it is as likely an explanation as the dozens of others out there. But the real news is Hersh's inability to come up with anything concrete. This might be a story that nobody ever reaches the bottom of.

Arrested Development

If I was going to be cynical about the arrest of eleven army soldiers and six civilians for the riots in Chiyah last week -- and it usually pays to be cynical about anything politics-related -- I would say that this is a wonderful way of splitting the difference between the opposition and the government. Hezbollah and Amal were obviously demanding blood (pardon the pun) for the killings of their supporters in Chiyah, and held their support for Suleiman's Presidential hopes as ammunition. The unpleasantness of throwing a few soldiers under the bus pales in comparison to the implosion of Suleiman's candidacy for President.

That said, there is no indication whatsoever that these soldiers weren't arrested for perfectly legitimate reasons. News reports quoted anonymous sources saying that some of the victims killed in the riots were hit with M-16 bullets -- the standard assault rifle of the Lebanese Army. Sometimes, fair investigations reach politically convenient results.

The past few weeks have told us a great deal about President-in-waiting Suleiman's political skills. He has shown himself to be proficient at treading the middle ground between the political poles. He knows how to send the proper signals to the opposition, without endangering his support from the majority. Take his declaration that the Winograd Report marked a victory for the Lebanese Army over Israel. That the Lebanese Army had anything to do with Israel's defeat is, of course, incorrect -- but it does signal the opposition that his anti-Israel views are sincere. Some in March 14 may roll their eyes, but they're not about to do anything else. Ridiculous statement, good politics.

Goodbye To All That

Lebanese-born BBC Reporter Kim Ghattas is leaving Beirut for Washington D.C. She penned a goodbye to the city that made her a reporter: "I still remember the day I decided to become a journalist. I was 13 and I was tired of my Dutch cousins asking me about whether I went to school and if we had enough food."

President Nasrallah?

Might as well rename Lebanon "Hezbollahland," according to the Western press

"At election time, Hezbollah and its allies regularly win the maximum number of parliamentary seats allocated to them under Lebanon's complicated and grossly unfair political system that divvies up seats among the major religious groups. If Lebanon were suddenly to liberalize its political system and hold a presidential election on the basis of one person, one vote, it's not a stretch to imagine President Hassan Nasrallah -- except that the Hezbollah leader doesn't want the job. Besides, the last two presidents were ardent supporters of Hezbollah, as were all the prime ministers before Siniora. Even Siniora himself probably supported Hezbollah's right to resist Israel in the south until its supporters started trying to force him from office." (emphasis mine)

This dodges the inconvenient fact of the Syrian occupation before 2005. Sure, all presidents and prime ministers supported Hezbollah before Siniora --and if they hadn't been, Syria would have blown them up. It's hypocritical to attack sectarianism, while describing the decades of Syrian occupation -- where their operatives worked nonstop to subvert Lebanese democracy -- as the true will of the people.

Nasrallah wouldn't come any closer to winning a free and fair Presidential election than Samir Geagea would. The sectarian system warps popular representation in Lebanon, but the fact remains that Hezbollah won only 14 seats out of 128 in the 2005 Parliamentary election. For all their weapons and external funding, their protest camp in downtown Beirut is currently nothing more than a ragged collection of tents and a few sullen kids trying to stay warm. Some majority.

No Victors

So the Winograd Commission has released its final report. The big news in Israel is that Ehud Olmert will probably survive. For Lebanon, it does not really matter. Other than schaudenfreude, it's not likely that Lebanon would get anything out of a different Israeli Prime Minister, than out of Olmert. The real effects of the war -- loss of life, destruction of Lebanese economic and civilian infrastructure, billions of dollars in damages and lost profits, the strengthening of Hizbullah -- were evident over a year ago. Nobody needed a report to tell them.

Meanwhile, Hizbullah took the opportunity to declare victory. It makes you wonder about how they see the world. They don't care about the economic destruction, about the possibility of perpetual war in the region -- how, after all, would Hizbullah be able to justify their weapons without perpetual war? If Israel lost the war, they must have won. And there will not be any peace in the region before Hezbollah and its allies destroy Israel fully, or Israel destroys them fully. There are many in Israel who agree with them, too.

Iran took the occassion to brag that it had completed over 400 projects since the end of the war. Meanwhile, the government's response to reconstruction has been sluggish. Most of the Paris III funds remained tied up in bureaucratic red tape. I wonder how long it took Iran and Syria to get money in the hands of its proxies; I wonder how concerned they were with the "absorbative capacity" of Lebanese institutions. This is the political face of the economic destruction: power slipping from those who offered normalcy and prosperity, the undermining of democracy, and a destruction of national institutions that is nearing completion. And again, this was clear to anybody paying attention over a year ago.

A Good Week For Syria

Two stories about Lebanon in the international press recently. Neither bring good news. The Economist tackles the killing of Wissam Eid, and notes the suspicious timing of the bombing:

"The timing of the attack -- two days before the Arab League was scheduled to discuss its as yet unfruitful effort to enable the election of Lebanon's army commander, General Michel Suleiman, as president -- also suggests a broader political motive. Syria and its Lebanese allies have hedged their acceptance of Mr Suleiman with conditions that would enable them to block policies advocated by the current parliamentary majority, which is led by the late Mr Hariri's son, Saad. These policies include a commitment to the Hariri tribunal."

An investigator into Hariri's assassination is killed. The opposition blocks any Arab mediation that would ensure government support for the international tribunal into Hariri's assassination. Not bad for a week's work. But wait, there's more.

Michael Young interviewed Detlev Mehlis for the Wall Street Journal, and wrote an article that is sure to warm Bashar al-Assad's heart (though I doubt this was Mr. Young's intention). European bureaucrats don't need Syrian thuggery to stall the international court at all -- they're perfectly capable of doing it by themselves. Mehlis remarks that "I haven't seen a word in [Serge Brammertz's] reports during the past two years confirming that he has moved forward" with the investigation. The tribunal, according to Mehlis, "appears to have lost the momentum it had until January 2006."

And then, with the riots yesterday -- well, it shouldn't be hard to guess the mood around here. I am busy today. There is more to write later. This will all get much worse before it gets better.

Laying Blame

Excuse me for being blunt, but this is unbelievable crap:

"With attack after attack taking out elements of Lebanon's anti-Syrian establishment, it is only natural for immediate shock and anger to point the finger at Damascus. But with Lebanon refusing to budge as proxy battle field for the region's numerous battles, there is equal weight in the Syrian counter-argument, that elements out to discredit the Asad regime are at play in Lebanon's continuing nightmare, clearly the worst since the end of the long civil war."

The people who keep peddling the "they're killing their own to discredit Syria!" line rarely give the impression that they're arguing in earnest, so it's hard to summon the energy to hit back at them. I suppose they continue with it because they're called on to say something, and it's not pleasant to admit that one is allied with murderers. Three March 14 MPs have been killed in the past year. Eid was the second ISF investigator to be targeted -- an attack in September 2006 wounded Col. Samir Shehadeh, who was also involved in the Hariri investigation. When the bomb exploded next to Captain Eid, which is the more logical conclusion: that the attack is part of some nefarious public relations scheme, or that someone wants him dead?

Who Was Wissam Eid?

In remarks following the explosion, Director-General of the Internal Security Forces Ashraf Riffi said that Captain Eid "possessed very sensitive files related to terrorist explosions that occurred in Lebanon." Captain Eid was apparently a key player into the investigations of the anti-Syrian figures assassinated in the past few years.

One report -- subsequently denied by Interior Minister Hassan al-Sabaa -- claimed that Eid was returning from a meeting with the International Investigation Committee. The IIC is investigating the recent assassinations, including the killing of former PM Rafiq Hariri in 2005. What does seem to be clear is that Eid had intimate knowledge of the investigation into Hariri's assassination.

Over at Beirut Spring, Mustapha lays blame for the attack at the feet of those trying to thwart the International Tribunal.

"The most insulting analysis one can come across is that Alqaeda is doing it. Those bearded idiots are definitely not the ones who read in today's newspaper that progress is being made in the international Tribunal, and then decided to eliminate an obscure key official in charge of sensitive data as a warning.

He was "in his 30s and had been working with the ISF for about eight years."

Explosion in Hazmieh

As of 11am, an explosion in the Beirut district of Hazmieh has reportedly killed 10 people. The bomb apparently killed Captain Wissam Eid, of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Services. More as the story develops.

Update: Al-Jazeera pushes the story ahead with more information about the neighborhood: "The explosion erupted in the the Furn al-Shebbak neighbourhood on Friday, a mainly Christian area housing several foreign embassies and homes of diplomats."

Meanwhile, NOW Lebanon reports that the victim, Eid, had been the target of an assassination attempt previously, in February 2006. Also, they have this: "Unconfirmed reports said that a high-ranking judge was killed in the explosion and that he could have been the target."

Mixed Emotions

So pro-Hezbollah figures have nothing but praise for Nasrallah's "I'm not talking about normal body parts" speech. This is not a surprise. The reaction from anti-Hezbollah people has been far more interesting. Pace Nick Blanford, in NOW Lebanon: "Nasrallah is a master of psychological manipulation, acknowledged even by the Israelis, and his words had a powerful effect in Israel."

The liberal Israeli daily Haaretz also got into the act, publishing an article that claims Hezbollah's omnipotence in everything from welfare services to -- I kid you not -- managing organic food markets:

"Hezbollah is the only real political party in Lebanon. The state does not exist: The public schools are terrible, and anyone who wants a decent education goes to private schools. There is zero health insurance. The other political parties exist on paper. In fact, these are one-family parties. Hezbollah, however, is everywhere; it provides education and welfare. Non-religious people also enjoy its services.

Me, I'm not so sure. To me, Nasrallah's remarks only made it more likely that Israel will decide that it is impossible to reach any sort of understanding with Hezbollah, and that their only option is to wipe them off the map. I can see a normal, non-Hezbollah Lebanese supporting "resistance" to liberate Lebanese territory. But a never-ending state of war against a technologically superior enemy, complete with the most grotesque rhetoric imaginable? Are FPM supporters comfortable with Aoun mounting a podium to brag about "a semi-complete body from the chest to the pelvis?" This was a misstep by Nasrallah. Some people just haven't realized it yet.

Hezbollah - Kataeb Spat Gets Ugly

As a general rule, Hassan Nasrallah is exempt from the sort of scorched-earth rhetoric that rival politicians hurl at each other. March 14 leaders will gleefully spend all day bashing Aoun, Franjieh, and Berri. But everyone becomes a little more circumspect when dealing with the Hezbollah chief. There is a tendency to lapse into the passive voice. Of course, this has nothing at all to do with the fact that Nasrallah has a private army at his disposal.

After Nasrallah's perverse remarks about the various Israeli body parts in his possession, here was Amin Gemayel's response: "We regret some of the terminology and some images that many Lebanese found disgusting in Sayyed Nasrallah's speech." Not exactly going for the jugular, is he?

Nevertheless, Gemayel's criticism caused Hezbollah to reach deep into their bag of tricks for a response. Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah delivered the blow: "We believed that the emotions and inclinations of his Excellency (Gemayel) have died with time and that he no longer had feelings for enemy leaders." Fadlallah is making a not-too-veiled reference to the Phalange's alliance with Israel during the civil war. Generally, these ghosts remain further under the surface. Resurrecting old disputes carries the risk of a return to open sectarian conflict.

But, after all, the Sayyed's honor must be preserved. No matter the cost. If you think this is the logic of a group that has reconciled itself to the democratic process, you're deluding yourself.

P.S. Every once and a while, some creative Lebanese will put together a piece of satire like this one, poking well-deserved fun at Lebanon's political class (Hat Tip: Sietske). The short-lived Douma game was another. If you get to looking at the various characters in both examples, you'll discover one key player was missing -- the good Sayyed. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Nasrallah has a private army at his disposal.

Middle Eastern Bagpipes!

Remarkz was wondering why the typically Scottish bagpipes were popping up at Palestinian and Hezbollah rallies. The only answer I could come up with was some sort of historical identification with the Scottish fight for independence against the English -- but that seemed to be stretching plausibility. And then I read what commenter "mo" had to say:

the myth that the bagpipes are of Scottish origin is as old as it is wrong. The Scots were introduced to the bagpipe by the Romans, who in turn were introduced to it in the Middle East. In fact, the bagpipe, whose origins can probably never be accurately placed, is believed to have been first used (invented?) in either Iraq or Syria.

Therefore the Arab claim to the bagpipes is far older and more apt than the clansman of the highlands and not so wrong for a Palestinian demonstration or Hizballah video. :)

Well, cool! Hummus, debka, and now bagpipes -- what's not to like about this part of the world?

(Facebook) Criminals Brought To Justice

There are, I suppose, good reasons to avoid sarcasm as a rhetorical device. It is not useful in bringing those who disagree around to your point of view. There also exists the practical difficulty of sarcasm being hard to impart with the written word. However, let me point out that it has been 1,069 days since the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, and it is unlikely that today will be the day his killers are brought to justice. The same can be said regarding the cases of, for example, Gebran Tueni, Samir Kassir, Pierre Gemayel, Walid Eido, Antoine Ghanem, the victims of this week's attack in Dawra-Karantina, and the other politicians and civilians targeted in recent years. Despite all this, you will be happy to know that the rule of law has finally returned to Lebanon:

"Four Lebanese university students have been jailed for a week for making crude remarks on the Facebook social networking site about the singing talents of a woman they met at a party, media reports said on Thursday.

...

The four were charged with slander and 'violating public morality' and were ordered to be held in preventive detention despite objections by human-rights groups."

Free speech includes the right to criticize others. It even includes the right to make stupid, petty attacks on one's classmates. In societies which do not treat its citizens like infants, the authorities assume that people can judge minor gossip for what it is, and draw their own conclusions about those who spread it. They also assume that those on the receiving end have thick enough skin to respond with a comment of their own, rather than requiring the protection of rifle-wielding policemen. Forgive me if, at the moment, the only feeling I can conjure up towards the Lebanese justice system is one of contempt.