November 22, 2006
Lebanon on the brink
The murder of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon seems to support some of the darker predictions for the Middle East that I have been hearing over the past month. As I reported in my blog on November 9, even members of what might be called the “international peacemaking fraternity” are very gloomy. Several of those who have been predicting a new crisis have been pointing to Lebanon as the place where it will erupt.
Lebanon is not just divided on sectarian lines. It also once again has the misfortune of being the battleground for regional conflicts fought out between more powerful neighbours. Syria is clearly fighting to retain its influence in the country and has been directly accused by several parties of being behind the Gemayel murder. Saad Hariri, the son of the murdered Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, put the accusations most directly when he said on Tuesday: “The Cedar Revolution is under attack. Today one of our main believers in a free democratic Lebanon has been killed. We believe the hands of Syria are all over the place.“
Iran is also a big player in Lebanon. Like Syria it is a major backer and supporter of Hizbollah. And, of course, Israel invaded southern Lebanon over the summer to take on Hizbollah. Behind Israel stands the United States, which is also anxious about expanding Iranian influence. The moderate Arab states also have their own interests. The Israelis and their supporters argue that they are tacitly behind any attempt to cut down Hizbollah and, by extension, Iran. And caught in the middle of all this are the Lebanese – with their own bitter sectarian divisions flaring up again, under the pressure of events.
The fear now is of open confrontation between the Christian and Shia communities on the streets of Beirut, leading to a civil conflict which could suck in regional powers. One experienced international diplomat describes the war in Lebanon over the summer as the "first Iran-Israel war", adding that there will be others. One problem is that the summer conflict was inconclusive enough for the Iranians and Syrians to feel emboldened, and for the Israelis to feel the need to re-establish their military credibility.
One central question is what to do about the UN tribunal looking into the Hariri murder. Some argue that by cornering the Syrians, who are widely assumed to be behind the killing in February 2005, the tribunal may actually be de-stabilising Lebanon. John Bolton, the American ambassador to the UN argued strongly on Tuesday for pressing ahead with the tribunal his view seems to be prevailing. Personally, I feel ambivalent about many of these international tribunals. Of course, it’s important to see justice done. But the pursuit of justice can prolong conflicts. Take Sudan - at the UN in New York recently, I heard it argued that one reason why the Sudanese are fighting so hard to prevent a proper UN force being deployed in Darfur, is because they fear that such a force would gather evidence for a war crimes tribunal.
But back to Lebanon. Might we still pull back from the brink? Well - yes, we might. Some of the reaction of leading Lebanese Christians has been impressively restrained. And there are some slim positive developments - such as the re-opening of diplomatic relations between Syria and Iraq, as well as the hope that the Baker commission on Iraq might herald a new American diplomatic effort in the region. But so far the pessimists’ predictions seem to be unpleasantly accurate.
And a final postscript - in reply to the Iranian correspondent who accused me of promoting neo-con claptrap on Iran’s role in the region in my posting of November 9. As I tried to say, the whole point of that reported conversation was precisely that it did not come from the usual neo-con suspects, but from someone with impeccable peacenik credentials. Over the past months I’ve heard similar views not just from the Americans and the Israelis, but from the French and from non-aligned diplomats involved in peace efforts. They may be wrong; they may be alarmist. But they are important players, so I thought their views were worth reporting.
If one follows the money as to who really benefits from this assassination, the finger would be pointed not at Tehran, Damascus or the Hezbollah (all of whom are smart enough to know that a civil war in Lebanon is not in their interests), but at Tel Aviv and its sponsor, Washington.
After all, it was entirely evident in July / August that Israel was trying to instigate the non-Shia parties, particularly the Christian Maronites, to move against the Hezbollah and it was quite amazing that the Lebanese united in the face of the foreign aggressor and were not tempted into civil war.
This is yet another bait by the USraelis to see if they can continue to divide and rule the region.
It is to be hoped that the Lebanese themselves can see through this latest USraeli intrigue and stand firm, together.
Posted by: Nom de Plume | November 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I am a Lebanese Citizen and I really don’t know how to thank you because you are transmitting the correct and exact message about my country. I feel devastated after yesterday’s murder. Pierre Gemayel was a great man, planning to do great things for Lebanon. Who is the killer? Off course one answer: Syria, Syria and Syria. Why Christians? Because they want to eliminate us. They dominated Lebanon for more than 15 years and they know each corner of my country. Moreover they have their employees Hezbollah implementing their decisions and orders.
So, Syria and Iran decide and Hezbollah acts. It is really very clear; I don’t understand why some people want to hide this truth. Lebanon is a Fight-Land for Syria and Iran vs. Israel and USA. If Syria really wants to fight Israel, let her start a war and attack. But those cowards initiated the war only and only from a Lebanese territory.
Syria is killing one depute, minister after the other in order to bring down the current Anti-Syrian government so that the International Investigation for R. Hariri’s murder be halted.
I have met an Israeli in Boston and we went out clubbing together, he told me: “I really can’t believe that I am with a Lebanese; I never met any Lebanese before. I hope that I will be able to come to Beirut one day”. But if I meet a Syrian, he will say ” You are not with Hezbollah? Then you are an American, Israeli, British and French Agent. You are a traitor!” It is true that we are on the boundaries with Syria but there is such a difference in education, understanding and mentality! Why should we be against Israel and not against Syria? Why does Hezbollah kidnaps Israelis soldiers and not Syrians? I will be the first one to fight Syrians in case of a war in Lebanon.
Finally I must say for those blood-lovers” WE ARE HERE TO STAY! MAY GOD BE WITH US!”
Posted by: Proud to be lebanese | November 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 am | Report this commentI am very fond of the Lebanese people, or those who call themselves Lebanese. They are optimistic regardless, dreaming of a life in peace and a beautiful country no matter if it has to be rebuilt one hundred times. I am confused because I do not know anymore who to call Lebanese, if Lebanon is one country or as many different countries as sects of self called Lebanese fighting against each other. I don’t understand what Syria has to win by killing Lebanese. I don’t understand what Hezbollah asks for. I can’t believe there is a desire for peace in the region among the international community. A dream of peace between all neighbors with boundaries agreed would render Israel to a minor role in the Middle East, a relatively prosperous, westernized but tiny country facing no threats anymore. No role for the US. Not a role anymore. No influence. Not a word to say on oil matters. Lebanese people want to leave in peace. But why would anyone else want peace anyway? So confused.
Posted by: confused | November 23rd, 2006 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentI am very fond of the Lebanese people, or those who call themselves Lebanese. They are optimistic regardless, dreaming of a life in peace and a beautiful country no matter if it has to be rebuilt one hundred times. I am confused because I do not know anymore who to call Lebanese, if Lebanon is one country or as many different countries as sects of self called Lebanese fighting against each other. I don’t understand what Syria has to win by killing Lebanese. I don’t understand what Hezbollah asks for. I can’t believe there is a desire for peace in the region among the international community. A dream of peace between all neighbors with boundaries agreed would render Israel to a minor role in the Middle East, a relatively prosperous, westernized but tiny country facing no threats anymore. No role for the US. Not a role anymore. No influence. Not a word to say on oil matters. Lebanese people want to leave in peace. But why would anyone else want peace anyway? So confused.
Posted by: confused | November 23rd, 2006 at 11:16 pm | Report this commentI am reacting to your comments about the setting up of an international tribunal in Lebanon. In the past 2 years, five anti-Syrian figures, mostly Crhistians, have been assassinated as well as Hariri, the last of whom was cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel on November 21. Not only is it important to see justice done, but if one sees Syria’s hand behind all these assassinations, it is mostly an opportunity to have Syria’s influence removed in Lebanon, and Hezbollah weakened. Indeed, Hezbollah will not disarm until Syria and Iran are under enough International pressure.
Posted by: Jean Torbey | December 4th, 2006 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentHowever, some argue that the cancellation of the U.N. tribunal was the price the US agreed to pay for Syria’s help in Iraq. In such case, it is only a matter of time before we see a Hezbollah-run government in Lebanon.
I am very upset about what is going on in Lebanon. I have been reading and viewing videoat “Ya Libnan” on and off all day ….It is bloodless (almost) putsch. Hezbollah have practically took over Lebanon. It is the beginning of a new civil war. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are doomed if they allow this ..Syria is stupid also …they will regret someday being squeezed between a Shia Lebanon and a Shia Iran.
Nasrallah reminds be of Nasser …only a RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST Nasser…and that’s not good.
I do not believe the Lebanese government went after Nasrallah’s communications system without prompting from the US…what goes around… comes around Mr. Abrams…you would think you would know that by now…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am | Report this commentThe difference is that now a great part of Lebanese Christians led by Michael Aoun are allies of Hezbollah, considered much more patriotic than the Sunnies supported by Al-Qaeda and Israel…
It was an embarresment for Christiandom the way Israel used several hundreds of Lebanese Christians to undertake the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in which 2,000 civilians were killed in front of the Israeli guards who didn´t move a finger.
Posted by: Enrique | May 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am | Report this commentAoun is a self serving corrupt b–t–d. He divided the Christian community. He represents himself not the Christian community of Lebanon. Hezbollah has been operating as a state within a state…something had to give…but to provoke them without a gameplan was stupid…the Lebanon army is weak …Nasrallah is very respected in the street, his forces are well trained and strong and many …He is known that he lost a son the “cause” …He is the religious extremist Pan Arabist leader that some have been waiting for…he is a creation of US and Israel’s foreign policy many lost opportunities….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this comment