Eye on Lebanon: Hizbullah makes history

Hizbullah makes history - that is the claim of  Nawaf Moussawi, the party's public relations officer. I'd say that Hizballah is on the verge of burning down the house. The downside is that the party itself will also be trapped between the walls.

UNIFIL admitted publicly that Hizbullah continues to smuggle weapons and armament south of the Litani. That in itself is not news, because Hizbullah never stopped doing it.  

I went to the Blue Line, and truth be told, UNIFIL or no UNIFIL around, that is a Hizbullah area. Period. Due to UNIFIL's presence Hizbullah is more careful, but UNIFIL alone cannot do a thing against Hizbullah, and the state through the army is not willing to take actions.

First, let me remind you that the feeble state is run by feudal war lords, most likely corrupt to the bone (or the money just happens to evaporate in Lebanon), who focus on their own interest, and to be fair to Jumblatt,  that of the sect as well.

They are politically impotent. The public line is that in the name of consociational democracy, which is neither consociational nor democracy, the Sunni, Christians and Druse cannot act against a whole sect now dominated and to some extent taken hostage by Hizbullah. For Hizbullah business is as usual.

When Minister Ghazi Aridi signaled in the Western media what everyone knew for years in Lebanon, that Hizballah has set up parallel telecommunication lines, I expected to hear next that the lines have been shut down. It did not happen.

Why? Fuad Siniora knows that the army may split if he asks them to take drastic measures. Actually the army was asked to do something about it, and what happened? They asked Hizballah to take the lines down, Hizballah refused and the conversation ended. That happened because the army has Shia supporters of Amal and Hizballah within its ranks. Actually, at the border, most of the soldiers deployed are Shias. There are no official statistics, as you can imagine, but it is a plausible piece of information. Both parties used their influence to deploy alongside Sunni, Christians and Druze some 5,000 Shias. Overall the Shias make up to 40% of the army, if not more. That is what I was told. They won't stand up against their own.

Additionally, the smear campaign in force accusing Fuad Siniora and the government of being pro-Zionists and promoting American imperialism who dare to question the godly resistance is not helping the situation. Now, how in the world do you deal with such a message? You cannot use reason, and if you are too afraid of the consequences to use force, you get stuck. The Lebanese government is stuck.

Consider the following:

"United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) spokesperson in Lebanon Yasmina Bouziane announced that an international forces' patrol was intercepted by two cars carrying five armed men on the night between March 30-31. The UNIFIL patrol was following a suspect-looking pickup truck carrying arms in the Lebanese southeastern region when the two cars blocked the route. The peacekeeping forces were unable to identify the armed men. Bouziane noted that the Lebanese army was unable to locate the truck and gunmen. She said the presence of armed factions in the south was a flagrant defiance of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and a violation of UNIFIL freedom.  Bouziance demanded that Lebanese authorities take the necessary measures to identify those responsible for the violation and ensure it did not recur." (April 23, 2008 http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=39750

Now read the same story from Hizballah's perspective. That is a sign that their propaganda machine works 24/7.

I recommend, a long, yet interesting interview with Timur Goksel about UNIFIL's history in Lebanon, the interaction between UNIFIL, Israel and the Palestinians, and the emergence of Hizballah.

"What if the Israelis kill Nasrallah?" asks Goksel. "[They] would start looking for a new one.... Hizbullah will probably go to four or five different pieces, but everybody will keep their guns with them. Now, there is definitely a sense of control over the firing of thoseguns," says Goksel. "But look at that force that is fighting: Do you want [it] to be without a leader?" http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p01s02-wome.html

No doubt, the Shias were oppressed and discriminated against since the very beginning of the Republic. Nasrallah broke the vicious cycle, and they became partners in Lebanon. Before July 2006 war, the Shias thought they were protected by the military wing of the party. They were trained, organized and sent to schools. They stayed away from provoking a civil war. They were far more insidious than that.

They wanted to take over the state by using the rules of the game. Fight the others indirectly with their own (figuratively) weapons. It worked. Hizballah rules over the South, Beqaa Valley and the southern neighborhood of the capital. If it were not for the regional games of Iran and Syria, Hizbullah's next move would have been to promote democracy; their own view of it. Meaning, that they are ready to lobby for a change of the electoral law. Why not let the people decide who to be President? And if we are at it, why should a certain sect impose a Prime Minister? Why not let the best man win, regardless of the sect he belongs to? Why should we all be not partners in our country? I agree with this line of reasoning. Just that coming from Hizbullah which is in essence an Iranian proxy in Lebanon, it sends shivers down my spine. If they were representing solely the Lebanese, it would have been a different story.

I don't see why the Christians and specifically the Maronites should get the higher jobs, why the Sunni s have greater influence in the government, and why the Shias rule the Parliament. Is it a God given right for all involved? This is a dark ages mentality and we were supposed to have developed. What about meritocracy?

The Daily Star's staffer Michael Young has put it best:

Writing in 1944, the banker and journalist Michel Chiha, in many ways the preeminent theoretician of the Lebanese system, made an observation that remains grimly relevant today: "The history of modern Lebanon has shown in the most extreme way that every time that Parliament disappeared, every time the principle of representation died a violent death, specifically confessional authority substituted itself for Parliament and automatically one or several Sanhedrins were born."

"There have been three prongs in the opposition's strategy since December 2006, when it escalated its actions against the Siniora government: First, resorting to civil disorder, whether through the creation of the tent city and its transformation into a closed-off security zone or the blocking of roads in January 2007 and January 2008; second, leveling accusations of treason against members of the parliamentary majority; and third, shutting down Parliament to prevent a presidential election. Each of these steps speaks to the repudiation of the state and of national solidarity."

I agree with Michael Young. Now, what is the state going to do about it? Look the other way as in the past? That brought Lebanon where it is today.