February is Lebanon’s Cruelest Month
February in Lebanon has always been an auspicious time of the year.
Before it’s ’05 edition, Valentine’s Day was looked upon with anticipation by Lebanese lovers as is anywhere else, until February 14th, 2005, when the assassination of Rafik Hariri shook up a complacent world, horrifying even his staunchest opponents.
As long as the assassins are free, jilted lovers and lonely hearts will not be the only ones to dread the anniversary.
While it is true that since that fateful February, the geopolitical alignment did change to Lebanon’s (small) advantage, Lebanese are all too aware that the power balance could all shift again to our detriment.
At the deepest level, all Lebanese agree in their mistrust of their neighbours’ motivations and of the world’s sincerity. Indeed, in spite of our “Cedar Revolution”, chancelleries continue to echo with calls to “engage” with murderers and terrorists.
The parade of Western officials to Damascus continues unabated; this Valentine saw Barack Obama adviser Zbig calling on to “Sisterly Syria”. In spite of the obvious stupidity of such “engagement”, only the Lebanese have to withstand the car bombs, assassinations, and muscle flexing by the Syrian-backed “opposition”. Most of us will not easily forget how, during the First Gulf War, Lebanese independence was sacrificed on the altar of a grand regional deal between the United States and Syria. And many can only see Israeli “overtures” with suspicion, mindful of the useful idiots who maybe be willing to accept a deal to trade “Syrian influence over Lebanon” for Israel’s “strategic interests in the Golan”. In such a context, when Saad Hariri returned the insult to Assad by calling his regime an “Israeli product”, it rang true to quite a few.
And so it has been a February fraught with dangers, as the Syrian-led “opposition”, camped in its “tent city”, was just across Martyr Square and Hariri’s tomb, and could count of the support of the Parliament Guards (most of whom are recruited by Berri, Hezb’ ally). Some were reassured by the army’s show of force, and the police’s ban on motorbikes also helped bring a measure of control over crowds. But the army power of dissuasion has been much reduced after this past “Black Sunday” and the ensuing “unbiased” inquiry…
Valentine’s Day came and went without major headaches, with many enjoying the evening of insouciance that followed.
It seemed the calm was a result of the fact that most “key players” were still too “stunned” by the assassination of Imad Mughnieh. Regardless of the whodunit and why, such a high precision attack, in such a high security location may have perversely “stabilized” the “internal front” for a short while.
A strange debate emerged over the comparative sizes of the crowd gathered to commemorate Rafik Hariri by his son, wealthy Lebanese parliament leader Saad Hariri – and the mourners who paid their respects to Mughnieh.
However, in this context, size really didn’t matter as much as the makeup of the rival crowds.
The numbers gathered to pay their respects to the slain Hariri were surely bolstered by Saad Hariri’s pledges of support and funding in Northern Lebanon. It was indeed a welcome boost in a depressed economy, hard hit by a “one-two punch”. The first blow had been delivered during the 2006 war by Israel who, under the guise of “destroying” an elusive “terrorist infrastructure”, wipe out much of the country’s economic structure. The second blow came from by a Syrian-backed “opposition” who, feeling protected by Hezb’s “holy weapons”, used a “divine victory” to smother one of the economy’s last lungs with its tents and protests.
But Saad Hariri’s support has to do with much more than money. On some level, his opponents’ mistakes secured the support many, and tacit backing of many more. One sign is the appearance of large groups of Christians on that day, more of whom now back Samir Geagea, which gives the lie to Michel Aoun’s claim of exclusive representation of their community. As much as his rivals within the March 14th movement, the General misunderstands the complexities of the Christian community, and the deep commitment to secular values of many a Lebanese. An as Aoun overstepped his mandate, his blind attachment to an alliance with the local chapter of Iran’s Pasdaran has lost him the support of quite a few. His increased closeness to Syria has lost him even more, especially when so many Lebanese citizens (among them many of his early partisans) still languish in Assad’s dungeons, forgotten by all except grieving families. For now, Aoun’s support does not extend much beyond a (sizeable) constituency blinded to his mistakes by other’s dirty linen…
Most Lebanese are eager for normalcy, back to the old days when our mercantile race lived “a good business environment”. For all the rhetoric, nobody really wants to see the return the day of tutelage to return. Indeed, in the aftermath of 2005, all the attacks against Syrian workers were carried out in pro-Syrian “areas”… However, in our centralized “winner takes all” political system, many find it easier to “leverage” their Syrian support rather than cultivate local constituencies.
But the politicians may have dragged us too far down a dead end; through the “creeping normalcy” of the absence of the state. In spite of their great courage, men like Tyre’s Shiite Mufti Ali Al-Amin can do little in the face of Iranian-funded party.
As long as Hezb’ monopolizes Shiite “representation”, the country will creep into a “new normal” of sectarian division. In this context, the rival demonstrations became more than mere popularity contest. On one side, Saad Hariri’s cross-sectarian alliance did more than just clamour its eagerness for normalcy; it raised the bar when he reminded the Arab world that “there will be no value” to the upcoming summit “in the absence of a Lebanese president”. On the other side, the Shiite community now sees itself shanghaied into circling its wagons around Nasrallah’s calls for the effective destruction of Lebanon in his total war against the “Zionists”.
Even considering our bloody past, this sectarian brew makes for a uniquely dangerous cocktail. The stresses it exerts are too large for small Lebanon to withstand, and too volatile for our neighbours to handle.
Jeha lives in Beirut and blogs at Jeha’s Nail
I recently had the pleasure of an extended stay with an educated Lebanese/Syrian family (Christians as it happens, not that that should matter).
During that time, we watched a lot of Arabic satellite TV, and they explained the politics of Lebanon and Syria to me.
Oh, that on-line media could provide a fraction of the background and insight into such an interesting area. Like yourself, they worry about Lebanon’s security, but unlike the knee-jerk PJ-media editorial line, they had a much richer insight into the complexity of Lebanese society.
Just a few things among many:
Hareri is widely regarded as a criminal and large-scale swindler who most probably was murdered by his criminal associates;
Syria is undergoing a true renaissance at the moment, Bashir has gone a long way in liberalising society and sidelining the worst of his father’s associates, without losing his life, many who hated the father have glowing praise for the son;
and Hezbollah are in no way the only or the worst violent faction in the country — my hosts sympathised with Hezbollah, whose support extends well beyond the Shia (I politely disagreed but softenened my position a little), hated Israel (I support Israel in many of her historical struggles, but also perfectly hate what she did to Lebanon over the years), admired Aoun, but despised Geagea (beloved among many Lebanese of the West), to them a gangster and the worst of the faction heads.
Kip,
I am glad that you are trying to gather a deeper insight, beyond the media’s cliches. But I caution you against the perils of “anecdotal sampling”; you got only one side of a complex picture. A detailed side, but a partial picture; in this, the background of your hosts matters a lot, as it explains their “cultural lens”. a couple of books give a decent glimpse about this frame of mind; “Politique et Minorites au Proche Orient”, as well as “Minorities and the State”…
I caution anyone when evaluating an opinion in the Middle East; much of the support is “negative”, in the sense that it is opposition to one side that makes people flock to another. Kinda like supporting Obama just to spite Hillary. Such support does not extend beyond the short-term, immediate goal of “spite”, however.
1- Yes, Hariri did a few irregularities, most obviously the SOLIDERE swindle/real estate. However, his actions were not much different from the standard Lebanese fare. We often forget that the owners of the St. George, who loudly complained about him, got the St. George from the government on a rather shady deal back when their daddy ruled the roost… I would suggest Dib’s well researched book, “Warlords and Merchants”. A decent read for all its faults, and it give a good idea of the local “flavour”; no wonder the Greeks use the word “Levantino” as an insult. Hariri, however, was not a criminal; more than 25,000 families can attest to that. A few Lebanese professionals in the United States owe their success to his scholarship fund. Yes, he leverage that for politics, but at least he gave them books, not weapons.
2- Syria is far from enjoying a true renaissance. Aside from cosmetic changes and some economic loosening. It was so bad back then that any little change is an improvement; so, in relative terms, this may be perceived as a renaissance, or a golden age even… But those who recall the Damascus of the 40′s and early 50′s know otherwise, and this whole progress comes at a price. If you read the classic “A House of Many Mansions” about Lebanon, you will see how some of Lebanon’s ills creeping into Syria, under this veneer of progress.
3- Whether Hezb is the worst is immaterial to me… They are all bad, and herein lays our tragedy; we are being made to choose among bad options. And with limited choices, we tend to choose “against” someone rather than “for” someone.
I am glad that you were able to gather such a detailed picture of Lebanon. But I suggest you visit your hosts about year after we ever get a decent president. If we get one, that is… You’ll be surprised with the 180 turn… We Levantines are a complicated bunch, fed on a melting pot of cultures and languages. This brew makes for an interesting daily chore, but a far too “interesting” life, and a dysfunctional polity.
1. A true anti-syrian stand would not have depended on Hariri’s assassination, and would not have waited till 2005 to show itself. The Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement is the only one that opposed that occupation since 1989, for reasons of integrity and national sentiment and not because they’re avenging a feudal lord like Hariri. This is why it’s blasphemy to accuse The Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement of being pro-syrian. You claim that the March 14th coalition did not forget how Lebanon’s independence was sacrificed in 1989, during the Gulf War. This sacrifice was protested by the Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement and no one else. None of today’s March 14 members opposed this sacrifice of Lebanon to Syria, but The Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement campaigned against it form 1989 to 2005.
2. Just as the world politicians are not to be trusted, why then trust the ex-syrian puppet government – now March 14th coalition – which they support?
3. Western diplomacy were not “scary” when Rice offered her support to the ex-syrian puppet Saniora, but they are when the visits of officials to Syria might reverse that, and more importantly avoid more bloodshed?!
4. The Lebanese army is the one that defeated the Saniora-sponsored sunnite terrorists, fatah-el-islam, as they tried to provoke a civil war in Lebanon. That is why it is the March 14th coalition that is murderous and unscrupulous, and the Lebanese army and the opposition that inspire safety from them. Geagea, the one you claim as a Hariri ally, fits perfectly among the March 14th people and he is no feat for any Christian to have on his side. He has a gut-wrenching list of sectarian and environmental crimes to his name, and he’s a convicted war criminal. They are listed here: http://www.geocities.com/geagea_crimes
5. The size of people who vote with their feet is not a strange thing to discuss; in a democratic society, and not a blindly mercantile society like the one Hariri advocates, it is the number of voters that settles an issue.
6. Praising Hariri for his money is a feudal attitude, and an anti-democratic one. In a democracy the success of a society is not subject to donations from a feudal lord. Hariri’s father and the Saniora government have in fact driven the economy into the ground, long before tent city was set up.
7. It’s not “normal” to live in a mercantile society, with no higher principles. This is exactly the argument the now-March 14 members gave to the Free Lebanese Patriotic Movement when they refused to protest the Syrian occupation until 2005. They were satisfied merchandising under the Syrian occupation, and were oblivious to the human rights sacrificed under an occupation. They called the Syrian occupation, until 2005, “stability”, and only the Free Lebanese Patriotic Movement opposed that mercantile idea.
8. The sectarian labeling of Lebanese communities is inappropriate. it seems that being too mercantile blinds some to the effort made by the Free Patriotic Movement to educate the Lebanese people on evolving beyond sectarianism, and treating all Lebanese citizens as equals.
9. The threat of another fabricated civil war comes only from the March 14 coalition. They are actively working towards one: Saniora hired the Sunnite terrorists Fatah el Islam in Summer 2007 to provoke one (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh). It’s the Free Lebanese Patriotic Movement and the Hezbollah they’re now mentoring to turn from a religious clan to members of a Lebanese democracy, that resisted being dragged into it.
Hala,
Thank you for proving the point I made in my follow up comment.
1 and 2 – You are factually right, and I agree on the basic premise. However, you go on to make distinctions between “true stands” and others. Alas, politics remains about opportunism as much as principle, so pardon me for not looking a gift horse in the mouth.
3- this point is moot; I did not even make any argument that invites such comparison. You’re welcome to court controversy, but I won’t bite.
4- Here we go again. That tired dead horse has been beaten far too much; For one, the theory you propose has been debunked successfully by Tony at Beirut2Bayside. However, as in all lies, there is a grain of truth that your opposition to Siniora is missing, and it lies in the affair of the Danish embassy and Fatfat’s link there. For another, Yes, Geagea is a criminal, but so is Berri, Assad… They are all criminals, and Aoun betrayed his followers who are still in Syrian jails. Talking about half the facts will get you nowhere fast.
5-6- I do not understand this point; We have always been an emigrant society. Hariri had his faults, but at least he offered scholarships, hence helping to raise the profile of the Lebanese in the diaspora. He is no less “feudal” than the others.
7- I am not advocating that. RFT…AA, please.
8- thanks for the “effort made by the Free Patriotic Movement to educate”… Now how about leading by example? What with this alliance with a the most sectarian group of all, one that calls itself “party of God”? I can understand the political need for it, but that denies the FPM any secular claim.
9- The threat of civil war comes from the miscalculations of all; it takes a few to dabke. And in this regard, I do not see how peace-inducing can be actions like cutting roads, occupying downtown, and forcing people to “strike”.
We’re all in this mess together; each side’s partisans have done a lot for Lebanon, but they also have done a lot against Lebanon. No one is a saint, Aoun no less or more than the others. No one has a claim over God, Hezb’O no less or more than the others.