The Lebanese state or the Ministate? This is the question

There is widespread chaos in Beirut today. The Lebanese state is facing the might and fury of the Syro-Iranian axis.

Seemingly alone.

MP Aoun at one of his rare lucid moments, while confronting the Christian Lebanese militias, asked the Christians of Lebanon an existential question:

Do you want the Lebanese state or the Christian ministate?

Years have passed on that rare lucid moment.

Now the question is for the Shia of Lebanon- about 30% of the population and the only community with a heavily armed militia:

Do you want the State or the Hizbullah ministate?

The steps the government of Saniora has taken that infuriated the Syro-Iranian axis are:

1. Removing the Shia head of airport security at the airport for suspicions of illegally collaborating with Hizbullah.

This relationship makes the airport a de facto Hizbullah run airport. The man could have easily been replaced by another Shia if the issue is whether a Shia heads that vital institution of the state. However, the violent reaction of the Hizbullah to this removal is irrefutable evidence of this unacceptable relationship between the head of airport security and the Hizbullah.

2. Deciding to remove the illegal phone network that the Iranians built for the Hizbullah and prosecute those responsible for this flagrant aggression on state power.

3. Investigating the army intelligence reports, shared with the media by MP Walid Jumblatt, about Hizbullah surveillance cameras that have been illegally installed to monitor airport traffic of the runway that is used by state dignitaries.

MP Jumblatt raised the possibility of this suveillance being a part of assassination plots against allies of the Saniora government and friendly foreign dignitaries.


These steps are supported by all the communities in Lebanon- most importantly by the Maronite Patriarch, the Sunni Mufti of the Republic and the Druze religious leadership- of course, except for the main leaders of the Shia community who rotate in the Syro-Iranian axis.

The international community should declare Lebanon a country facing open Iranian and Syrian aggression through their proxies and take any and all steps needed- including military intervention- to rescue the country from the plans to make it another Iraq.

This is an open conflict that the Lebanese State must win.

It will.

How big the cost is going to be is the question.

Comments

Marion said…
Ahmad Fatfat and the rest. You need to watch Samir Ja`ja` (Ga`ga` in Egyptian accent) on Arabiyya TV today. He had a picture of Saint Sharbil behind him (he was canonized after evidence of his three miracles was presented to the Vatican, and one of them was Baba Ghannuj), and they arranged for a children encyclopedia near him, to make him look like an intellectual. But the most obscene discourse was the statement that this guy read yesterday on behalf of March 14th movement. Only As-Safir newspaper noted the irony: he paid tribute to Beirut it his statement when it suffered under Israeli occupation in 1982. As-Safir asked: where was Ja`ja` (Ga`ga` in Egyptian accent) at the time? He was a guide, like other Lebanese Forces commanders, with the Israeli occupation troops and they were bombarding the city, and his armed goons were implementing the siege of the city by banning food and water from entering West Beirut. The Lebanese Forces checkpoints imposed the (Israeli) siege of Beirut (of course, the people of Beirut managed to get in what they needed through smuggling and effective bribery of LF troops at checkpoints. I remember once we had great strawberries through a great bribery scheme at one LF checkpoint). But in commenting on the developments you have to say a word about Sa`d Hariri, who remains in hiding, and whose appearance two days ago ensured that his militia men would not fight against Hizbullah and Amal. He appeared a broken man and almost fainted while struggling through the statement that they wrote for him. But the racist discourse of the Hariri people is quite astounding: they refer to Shi`ites (civilians and armed ones) in Beirut as "invaders", although many of them were born in the city and not in South Lebanon, and yet most of the Hariri militia men were brought in from North Lebanon. I expressed fears about thuggish Amal militia men roaming the streets of Beirut, and today an Amal militia man presumably fired at a demonstration. But let me say this: the tense climate in the city, and the sectarian tensions in the city are largely the work of the Hariri Inc OVER THREE YEARS. They were the ones who incited and agitated along sectarian lines, and now both sides harbor suspicions and animosities against one another. The Hariri clerics from the North to the South have participated in the most blatant sectarian fitnah the likes of which the country has never known. This started in the parliamentary elections (arranged by Larsen) in 2005 and did not stop ever since. For the Hariri Mufti of the republic to do his best impersonation of Zarqawi is to try to steer Sunni public opinion toward Al-Qa`idah ideology, although Al-Qa`idah will not take root in a place like Lebanon despite the best efforts of the Hariri Inc. It looks like Fitnah will not occur because Hariri militia men will not fight and die for the Hariri family and for the Saudi royal family. The don't like Shi`ite militias but they will not fight them. Given the performance of Sa`d Hariri--not even speaking to his constituency, and not even speaking to his own journalists who were victims of the attacks on Hariri media throughout the city yesterday--I would not be surprised if the Saudi royal family is already discussing changes in the Hariri family leadership. Saudi media were rather cautious in the first day of clashes (don't you like how after the surrender of HUNDREDS of Hariri militia men to opposition armed groups the Hariri and Saudi propagandists are now denying that there was any Hariri militia--no, there were but they did not fight, get it?), but they got their marching orders from House of Saud yesterday, and the sectarian agitation began in earnest. At least Jumblat, unlike the hiding Hariri, continued to speak and to give interviews although he referred to the issues that HE HIMSELF help spark as "a misunderstanding." Make no mistake about it: if Amal and Hizbullah plan to rule the city, the horrific experience of the 1980s will be repeated, and the people of the city from all sects will quickly be fed up with them. They were so fed up with Druze and Shi`ite militias in 1987 that people started begging Syrian troops to come to Lebanon to save them from the militias. In fact, An-Nahar (the right-wing, sectarian Christian, anti-Syrian (people), anti-Palestinian (people) sheet) today said that the Syrian government is offering mediation in the Lebanese crisis. What? Is Rustum Ghazalah planning a comeback? He must be watching the developments in Lebanon while eating popcorn. I hate when the various sides in Lebanon invoke "democracy" or "the rule of law" or "the modern state" when fighting with one another. Lebanon is a country that never had any of that. Today, that Sanyurah guy (the anointed Dahlan guy in Lebanon), hoping to lift the burden from himself, transferred the decisions (the one referring to the chief security at airport and the Hizbullah communication system which sparked the crisis) from the government to the Lebanese Army. (And he made sure to insert Qur'anic citations in his speech, very much like Saddam Husayn in defeat). That is quite clearly unconstitutional. The Lebanese Army leadership is subordinate to the government, and not vice versa. But the very nomination (to the presidency) of the Lebanese army commander-in-chief is unconstitutional. And just yesterday Ahmad Fatfat (Minister of Ping Pong) stated that the Lebanese government wound not under any circumstances rescind its deicions. Today, Sanjyurah did just that. And let us face it: if you want to resist Israeli occupation in Lebanon you can't share power with the likes of Hariri, Jumblat, and Ja`ja`. Just as you can't resist Israeli occupation of Palestine while sharing power with Muhammad Dahlan. Yet, Hizbullah does not know that, it seems. And the Saudi-Qatari rapprochement may come to and end with this crisis: Qatar decided to take Syria's side (and consequently Hizbullah's side) in Lebanon. Saudi media are miffed. It remains a mystery as to why the Lebanese Army remained neutral--i.e., biased and sympathetic to Shi`ite militias in the city, during this crisis. It is either due to attempts by Michel Sulayman to win over Shi`ite support, or due to the sectarian composition of the Lebanese Army which has a Shi`ite majority. No many want solutions. Rudwan As-Sayyid was rather odd in his appearance on AlArabiya TV: at one point I am told he snapped at Rima Maktabi, and seemed to be issuing orders. That is the extent of the incestuous relationship between Hariri Inc and Saudi media. As-Sayyid spoke like a local Hariri militia commander who can't get his armed men back into positions. And is it not hilarious when Rudwan As-Sayyid complains about Hizbullah's loyalty to Iran and Syria--which is true of course, when As-Sayyid represents a movement that is loyal to Saudi Arabia/US/Israel? Both opposing movements in Lebanon have outside allegiances, so please don't preach--especially you who I have seen on TV crying over the death of King Fahd for one whole week. As you watch events unfold in Lebanon, you become more convinced that only secular (and preferably anti-clerical, a la French secularism) parties and leaders could steer the country toward unity, but that is unlikely and that is why Lebanon is not viable as a country. I love it when Saudi media bring (independent) Lebanese "analysts" (who just happen to be working for Saudi and Hariri media) and they always preface their remarks by praising the wisdom of Sa`d Hariri. Wisdom?

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
Marion said…
Due to a letter I wrote to the Detroit Free press today, which has not been published therefore I am not posting it here, in response to the 'Shi'ite Hizballah gunmen take over Sunni areas in Beirut', I received an email from Ihsan Alkhatib who obviously was not in agreement with it.

Ihsan's blog is revealing as to Ihsan's views and position in this current conflict, which is much different than mine.

While Ihsan is claiming that it is the opposition which has made this into a sectarian conflict, Ihsan obviously sees it as a sectarian conflict and writes about it as if it is a sectarian conflict in Ihsans' blog, for example:

Ihsan: '...Do you want the Lebanese state or the Christian ministate?

Years have passed on that rare lucid moment.

Now the question is for the Shia of Lebanon- about 30% of the population and the only community with a heavily armed militia:

Do you want the State or the Hizbullah ministate?...' .

I personally see this conflict as a political conflict being masked through the sectarian agitations of certain leaders.

According to Ihsans' blog, Ihsan has also taken issue with the Arab American's news coverage and position which is Ihsan's right. But what I do not appreciate is when the opposition in Lebanon and its ideological supporters such as myself are the ones being accused of making this into a sectarian conflict by one who is so obvioulsy making this political conflict into a sectarian conflict.

Marion

Popular posts from this blog

Imad Hamad's column in the Detroit News: Defending the human rights of police officers

United States v. Odeh: The 6th Circuit decision and its implications

Fear and loathing in Dearborn: The Osama phenomenon