Echo Lebanon

Israeli blogger Lisa Goldman in Beirut!

2007-07-12T23:21:00.000+03:00

The news came as a shock to some audiences: A Zionist agent roaming the streets of Beirut after successfully penetrating airport security! Down with the government!

It is a shame some people cannot make a distinction between politics and everyday life. I could have chosen to write this post on another day, but on the 1st anniversary of the July 2006 war, I – probably naively – prefer to salute a peaceful gesture, denoting normalcy (something that both Lebanese and Israelis crave for) rather than celebrate wars, victories, death or destruction.

It is time that we, in Lebanon, review some of our meaningless legislations, such as the one banning Israelis or people with Israeli stamps on their passport from entering the country. Do they seriously think that this is the best way to prevent Mossad agents from operating in the country? And if this law isn’t that effective in protecting us from the Mossad, what is it protecting us from? Israeli bloggers?

Lisa, just as you mentioned in your blog, "extremists always have the loudest voice". Those of us with a much more modest voice would like to tell you: Ahla w sahla! (As long as you don’t come in your olive-green uniform)

NBN presenter mocking Walid Eido shortly after he was assassinated!!

2007-06-14T18:25:00.000+03:00

An unidentified presenter was overheard on TV congratulating her colleague shortly after the assassination of MP Walid Eido. Annahar newspaper reported this morning that the presenter was fired. The video clearly shows her asking what took the criminals so long to kill Eido and wondering when it will be Ahmad Fatfat’s turn, confirming what has long been suspected: that human stupidity has no limit!

An amazing killing machine

2007-06-13T19:28:00.000+03:00

Few people have had to endure what the Lebanese are going through to gain and strengthen their independence. Unable to topple the government, they chose to assassinate a minister. Unable to overthrow the parliamentary majority, they resort to killing MPs: Gebran Tueni, Pierre Gemayel and now Walid Eido. Only a handful left in order to strip the alliance of 14 March of the absolute majority at the Parliament ahead of the Presidential elections in a few months.

There’s only one way to prevent more bloodshed: the 3 remaining parliamentary blocs – and in particular the Reform & Change bloc – are requested to finally show solidarity with their compatriots and announce that their MPs will assume their responsibilities and take part in the Presidential elections. This is much more than a patriotic duty, it is a moral obligation.

There it is, Resolution 1757

2007-05-30T18:36:00.000+03:00

I thought this day would never come! 27 months and 17 explosions later, the UN Security Council is going to adopt tonight resolution 1757, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, setting up an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In order to avoid a Russian veto, the French and American ambassadors included a “sunrise clause” in the resolution which delays the entry into force until June 10 to allow one last chance for the Lebanese to adopt the Tribunal through national institutions, under chapter VI. That explains Lahoud’s latest desperate attempt to obstruct the establishment of the Tribunal by suggesting a 6-member national salvation government “today before tomorrow”.

This is truly a historic day for Lebanon. For the first time in our long history of political assassinations the criminals are going to face Justice. But the importance of the Tribunal lies elsewhere: Beyond finding the killers of PM Hariri, the Tribunal is hoped to deter political assassinations and to consolidate the country’s fragile independence by keeping the pressure on the neighboring Baathist regime and its allies in Lebanon.

Update: Resolution 1757 was passed with 10 votes in favor (France, USA, UK, Belgium, Peru, Slovakia, Congo, Ghana, Italy & Panama) and 5 abstentions (Russia, China, Qatar, South Africa & Indonesia).

Update 2: According to Naharnet, a sound bomb exploded in front of Mar Mikhael church in Shiyyah. No casualties.

Chutzpah!

2007-05-26T10:24:00.000+03:00

While our soldiers are facing a fierce battle in the North and defending the very existence of the Republic, some, closer to the Capital, have found nothing better to do in these hard times except trying to score cheap points against the majority and the government. Talk about priorities! Solidarity in times of hardships? What an old fashioned concept!

And so, after planting bombs in its own regions, assassinating its own leaders, financing and arming Sunni extremists, March 14 is now out to get the Army. It seems this whole thing up there in the North is just a conspiracy to get rid of the Army, which stands in the way of implementing the “plan”.

March 14 is not capable to convene the parliament, to pass a law or to hold elections. March 14 is unable to replace a fallen minister, is absolutely helpless when it comes to monitoring the borders, barely has the guts to take decisions in a reduced yet perfectly legal government. But, it seems it has the ability to create, fund and arm extremist Sunni groups, dismantle the army, disarm Hezbollah and defeat Shiite insurgency in the Arab world as a prelude to attacking Iran in an effort to prevent it from acquiring the nuclear jewel. It turned out, this is all a conspiracy against the Resistance!

The whole story started with an article published in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh last February and quickly spread through newspapers and TV channels that are close to the opposition. Not only Hersh doesn’t provide any proof to back up his claims, but the whole article is based on “unidentified sources”. We are kindly requested to trust Hersh on this one. No need, at this point, to go over the article and deconstruct his theory and speculations. Others have done a good job. What is surprising, if we are to follow that logic, is the position of the opposition parties regarding the current conflict. Logically, we should see them offering an unconditional support to the army in its mission to eradicate Fatah Al-Islam. However, with the exception of the FPM, they are the ones that are most reluctant to the total destruction of the radical Sunni group and are the most hesitant when it comes to supporting the army. Coherence, it seems, is not a main concern when building conspiracy theories.

The silence of Hezbollah in particular, during the past week has been deafening. On the 1st day of the clashes, not a word was heard from the divine party, until they conveniently released a statement right before the end of the extraordinary Cabinet meeting, urging the Army not to escalate. In other words, they refused to cover the Army in case it decided it was necessary to attack the camp of Nahr el Bared which harbors the terrorists. Knowing perfectly well that invading a Palestinian camp requires unanimity among the main Lebanese factions, Hezbollah has deliberately pulled back the Shiite cover and in doing so, it has put the lives of our soldiers in danger.

If there was any misconception about that, Hezbollah took real good care to dissipate it through a televised speech by its Secretary General on Friday, once again on the eve of an important operation against the terrorists hiding in the camp. After blaming the government and the army of harming the tourist season by initiating the attacks, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah reiterated his opposition to invading or even attacking the camp. “The camp is a red line”, he said. A terrorist attack against civilians (Ain Alaq), a bank robbery in Amioun and the massacre of tens of helpless soldiers, many of them during their sleep, are apparently not enough to initiate a response from the Army.

The only solution according to Hezbollah’s leader is a political solution through negotiations with the terrorists. Nasrallah has just asked the army to turn the other cheek, with all the danger to the credibility of the State and to the deterrent power of the Army that would arise from such a humiliation.

Set them free!!!

2007-05-14T20:40:00.000+03:00

“But they will come back to learn, more than others, that the Arab Spring, when it flourishes in Beirut, it would be announcing the time for roses in Damascus” (Samir Kassir, March 4, 2005)

The Arab spring may not have flourished yet in Beirut, but it sure is knocking on the door. And you, Bashar, you know it more than anybody else. You can keep delaying it, you can interrupt it briefly, you can multiply the obstacles, you can jail, torture or kill… but try as you may, you will not be able to stop the process. You will not prevent change.

As fellow blogger R has mentioned in his latest post, the Syrian regime has sentenced to jail six opposition leaders for periods ranging from three to twelve years, in one of the worst crackdowns on civil liberties ever since Bashar came to power in June 2000: Michel Kilo, Mahmoud Issa, Sleiman Shummar, Khalil Hussein, Kamal Labwani and Anwar al-Bunni…adding to the tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience that are still held in Syrian prisons in total violation of the most basic human rights standards.

An Effective Media Strategy…

2007-05-06T14:20:00.000+03:00

…Is exactly what we need at the moment and from now until the election of a new President.
The Opposition has so far failed to achieve any of its objectives and is now focusing on the presidential elections, given that the issue of the Tribunal is considered by many now to be a “done deal”. Opposition leaders are deploying all their efforts to prevent the election of a president that does not have their blessing, hiding behind a twisted interpretation of Article 49-2 of the Constitution:

Article 49-2
The President of the Republic shall be elected by secret ballot and by a two thirds majority of the Chamber of Deputies. After a first ballot, an absolute majority shall be sufficient (…)

No where does the article mention a quorum. It only mentions the number of votes a candidate must have to be elected. The issue of the quorum of a parliamentary session is covered by Article 34 of the Constitution:

Article 34 [Quorum]
The Chamber is not validly constituted unless the majority of the total membership is present. Decisions are to be taken by a majority vote. Should the votes be equal, the question under consideration is deemed rejected.

As it is clearly mentioned in the above article, the quorum is constituted of “the majority of the total membership”, meaning half +1 of the MPs. So, unless otherwise noted, this is the legal quorum. It is widely assumed that the Legislator (المشرع) clearly states his intention and demands: When the Constitution requires a quorum of 2/3, it says so clearly, in no ambiguous terms, just like in Article 79-1:

Article 79-1
When a draft law dealing with a constitutional amendment is submitted to the Chamber, it cannot discuss it or vote upon it except when a majority of two thirds of the members lawfully composing the Chamber are present. Voting is by the same majority.

The battle for the Presidency has already started. In some cases, it is not enough to have the law by your side, popular support is the key. As is often the case in Lebanon, it doesn’t matter where the truth lies as long as you shape popular beliefs and opinion to suit your ambitions and make people believe that what you’re saying is true. Masses provide credibility. This is what the opposition is currently doing and this is where March 14 should counter its attacks. Some of the country’s most popular and influential media outlets are either owned by or are close to March 14 and what it represents. It is time they make use of this advantage and go beyond broadcasting emotional and/or sarcastic videos here and there, which does not contribute much at the end of the day. I want to see informative clips, legal experts and politicians educating the public. Let the coming months turn into an intensive course on constitutional law for the Lebanese.

March 14 retakes the lead

2007-04-06T12:22:00.000+03:00

Finally!!!

I don’t understand what took them so long, but March 14 has finally snatched the most important card that the opposition holds – blackmail – by removing the issue of the International Tribunal from the sphere of political bargaining.

March 14 has regained the upper hand in its confrontation with the opposition and it is up to them now to assume their responsibilities or sink again by putting themselves at the mercy of their opponents (as they have done so many times in the past).

Time is on their side. If they play it well, they will force their opponents to blink first by leaving them only 2 options: Either (1) the status quo followed by presidential elections at the end of summer where the Majority will chose its preferred candidate, and then form a government on its own, or (2) a compromise based on the 19-10-1 formula.

Of course, all the above supposes that the Security Council is ready to establish the International Tribunal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. None of the permanent members of the Council favor this option and some believe that Russia or China might use their Veto power. Recent observations though lead us to believe that they might refrain from doing so and simply abstain from voting. As was reported by Annahar this morning, the chances of adopting the Tribunal under Chapter VII are, in fact, getting higher.

March 14 also received a significant support from the Maronite Bishops yesterday. In one of their most important and powerful statements, the Bishops sent clear signals to the opposition, and mainly to its Christian components, that the presidential election should be held on time even if there’s no prior agreement on a candidate and warned that any attempt to prevent the electoral session from taking place will be unconstitutional and will not be tolerated by the Church.

But, let’s not get carried away. That was yesterday. As I (and many others) expected, March 14 has stepped back and has all but withdrawn their petition to the UN. Once again, it came on the hands of Nabih Berri, who never runs out of “brilliant” ideas. Makes you wonder if he’s a brilliant diplomat/manipulator or if March 14 are a bunch of amateurs. Just like he stole the momentum from the Majority after the huge demonstration on the 1st anniversary of Hariri’s assassination, where the leaders of March 14 have announced that they will oust Lahoud in a matter of weeks, by inviting them to a national dialogue that wore them down over the months, he is now doing the same by proposing…the same idea. Why change a winning strategy? Just present it in a different package: this time, the dialogue will take place in Saudi Arabia. The answer came faster than the speed of light: Hariri Jr. issued a statement last night welcoming Berri’s initiative and confirmed his readiness to attend such a dialogue in the Kingdom. Just when the opposition was starting to feel the heat, March 14 has (once again) jumped in, headfirst and extended their hand to drag them out of the deadlock they have created.

The idea behind the petition to the UN is most likely to pressure Berri and the opposition in order to try, one last time, to adopt the International Tribunal through Lebanese institutions. However, March 14 could have used this to consolidate its position vis-à-vis the opposition. But apparently, they are still not ready to take matters into their own hands.

Berri’s preemptive strategy

2007-03-21T12:47:00.000+02:00

When your name is Nabih Berri and you’ve done – or were forced to do - something you believe is wrong, you tend to strike first in order to avoid being blamed by your opponents. This is Berri’s preemptive strategy.

That explains the unexpected press conference he held yesterday, the day he – the Speaker of the Parliament – was supposed to convene the Parliament for the first ordinary session in 2007.

Of course, it does not come as a surprise, but it is revealing as such a move only proves that Syria is still unwilling to walk the extra mile to put an end to the crisis Lebanon is facing. Assad has clearly rejected the carrot that the EU High Representative Javier Solana has graciously presented to him during his visit to Damascus a week ago. Why would he when it is the West that is blinking first? As reported by William Harris in his article “Justice for Lebanon” published in the Wall Street Journal, the Syrian regime has interpreted the recent western “flexibility” as a triumph proving that Syrian policies were "correct and do not need to be changed . . . others should make the required change."

It is also not surprising that Berri’s conference came one day after the Syrian President had set a roadmap for the opposition in his interview to Saudi newspaper Al-Jazeera. According to Assad, the Lebanese only have 2 choices: The current crisis can only be solved by establishing a national unity cabinet or holding anticipated legislative elections, before adding, in an extremely arrogant and humiliating tone: “I believe this is the logical and constitutional solution”.

He, then, moved on to talk about the International Tribunal, describing the dispute among the different Lebanese factions as “internal” and claiming that some of them reject the tribunal's make-up and see it as “a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and ... a tool for foreign interference”. The signal for his allies is clear: the International Tribunal cannot and shall not pass, at least not in its current draft.

First step to implement the roadmap outlined by Assad: Disrupting any negotiation or deal between the Majority and the Opposition which does not give the latter veto powers to sabotage the Tribunal. Step 1: successfully accomplished by Nabih Berri.

REMINDER

2007-03-20T09:54:00.000+02:00

For those of us who tend to forget or those who treat State institutions as their own backyard:

Article 32 of the Constitution

The Chamber meets each year in two ordinary sessions. The first session opens on the first Tuesday following 15 March and continues until the end of May. The second session begins on the first Tuesday following 15 Oct; its meetings are reserved for the discussion of and voting on the budget before any other work. This session lasts until the end of the year.

Dangling a carrot for Assad

2007-03-15T14:57:00.000+02:00

Not that we didn’t expect this all along. However, will Assad accept the overly generous deal?

Un accord secret viserait à épargner à la famille du président Bachar al-Assad les poursuites d'un tribunal international, après l'assassinat de l'ancien premier ministre libanais Rafic Hariri.

En visite aujourd'hui à Damas pour une rencontre longtemps attendue avec le président Bachar al-Assad, le chef de la diplomatie européenne n'a pas une mission facile. Le mandat de Javier Solana est signé par 27 États membres, dont la France, qui, à la surprise générale, a accepté, dès avant le départ du président Jacques Chirac de l'Élysée, de lever son veto antisyrien. Dans un tel contexte, la marge de manoeuvre du haut représentant pour la politique étrangère de l'Union reste étroite. « La France le surveille de très près ! » (…)

(…) Sur la forme, cependant, le régime syrien a marqué un point : ce sont les Européens qui font le premier pas, aujourd'hui, alors que Damas n'a encore fait aucune concession. (…)

(…) Centrée sur la souveraineté du Liban et l'instauration d'un tribunal international pour juger les assassins de Rafic Hariri, la liste des exigences européennes à l'égard de la Syrie est longue, fondée sur différentes résolutions de l'ONU. Mais pour convaincre Damas de s'y associer, Bruxelles ne dispose que de maigres « carottes », comme la reprise d'un accord d'association entre la Syrie et l'UE, gelé en 2004.

Meanwhile, the opposition is busy twisting the news to fit its own agenda. So it seems that Olmert’s recent revelations to the Winograd Commission - about giving a green light in March for a military operation - only served to prove what Hassan Nasrallah and other Hezbollah officials have been saying since last summer: “They were going to attack us anyway!”. Oh yeah, in October, right? Ok.
Obviously too pleased with this piece of info, none of them bothered to read the rest of the sentence: IF Israeli soldiers are to be kidnapped.

Similarly, the opposition is busy drawing its own conclusions from the latest Brammertz report. Nothing official yet but according to New TV, Brammertz has identified the 10 non-cooperating countries. Among them: The US, Israel and France. That’s apparently good enough for some to exonerate Syria.

When you've tasted this...

2007-03-14T09:41:00.000+02:00

A solution in sight?

2007-03-06T13:56:00.000+02:00

The mood is joyful in Beirut these days. The leaders of two of the world’s most despotic regimes have apparently agreed to solve our problems, completely disregarding some of our “leaders” who continue to claim that the problem is internal in nature. Well, why else would Ahmadinejad bother to visit his Saudi counterpart if not for including a certain political faction in the government – namely the FPM –? Most notable though was the absence of one man: Bashar Al-Assad. Things are not what they used to be on the shores of the Barada.

Not much is being revealed about the latest initiative. But it has been reported that the deal that is being cooked includes the formation of a national unity government (that will be presented as a 19-10-1 government for March 14 supporters and as a 19-11 government for opposition supporters in an effort to please everybody) and an agreement on the international tribunal after introducing a number of amendments in order to please Syria and its Lebanese allies. No winners. No losers. All happy.

The Reform & Change bloc would be represented by 4 ministers: 2 ministers from Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement, a third from the Tashnag and a fourth from Elias Skaff’s Popular Bloc. Giving Michel Aoun 2 ministers will certainly not be well received by his rival Samir Geagea who has been working hard ever since he was freed from prison to prove his popular support and to regain parts of the “Christian street”. After the impressive and surprising LF turnout at the 2nd anniversary of Hariri’s assassination, it is hard to believe that they are going to settle for a mere minister of tourism. The LF is most likely going to take Yaacoub Sarraf’s position. One would hope that March 14 has learned from its mistake and would insist on nominating at least one Shiite minister, not only to avoid accusation of unconstitutionality in case of a similar crisis in the future but also to reach out to those Shiites who do not identify with Hezbollah or Amal. But let’s not get too ambitious.

Disturbing questions

2007-01-28T14:32:00.000+02:00

How long before it all crumbles and falls? How far can you go, inciting and radicalizing your masses and still expect them to abide by your red lines? When all hell breaks loose, how, for the love of god, do you think you’d still be able to control the most extremist among you?

How silly was it to go and provoke people in their own areas and expect them to welcome you with open arms? Or maybe it was neither silly nor did they expect a warm welcome? Another miscalculation maybe? Can anybody please convince me that they did not know their provocation will not be tolerated by the local population?

For God’s sake, who were those snipers?! How many of them were arrested? And what about those roadblocks? How did we get here? And for once, can we just accept our responsibilities and not blame it on the Syrians and Palestinians? Is it really unthinkable that a Lebanese would shoot another? Have we not done it over and over again in the past? Can we, for once, put aside our “holier than thou attitude”?

This week’s clashes brought out our own worst demons. Luckily, this week, we were able to put the genie back into the lamp…with a lot of effort and a lot of sacrifice. Until the next round of violence that is. And next time around, we might not be that lucky.

Disturbing questions indeed, because we already know the answer to many of them…

11 crucial days for the Tribunal

2006-12-21T11:43:00.000+02:00

Just as it did following the resignation of the Shiite ministers, March 14 should take the initiative once again in order to finalize the adoption of the international tribunal. It’s a race against time and the majority has only 11 days left to achieve it, before the end of the current parliamentary session on the last day of 2006. The next ordinary session won’t start before March 15 2007, and the opening of an extraordinary session might prove to be a bit complicated.

The problem, as it is clear to everybody now, is that the President of the Chamber, who calls the MPs for a meeting and sets the agenda, will most probably refuse to convene the parliament in the current situation. But this is not an insurmountable problem: According to legal expert Hassan Rifai , if the speaker refuses to convene the parliament, the vice-president not only has the right, but also the obligation to do it following a petition signed by a number of MPs:

أما عن اعادة مشروع المحكمة الدولية الى مجلس الوزراء بعد تعديل الحكومة ومن ثم احالته على رئيس الجمهورية كما تطالب المعارضة، فقال الرفاعي: "لست من هذا الرأي، وقد درست كل مسودات نظام المحكمة ووضعت دراسات حولها، ولا لزوم اطلاقاً لاعادتها حتى لو قبل بذلك مجلس الأمن. وأنا أرى ان تحال فوراً على مجلس النواب فاذا لم يجتمع يجب توقيع عريضة نيابية تطالب بانعقاده ويمكن انعقاده برئاسة نائب رئيس مجلس النواب. فهذه واجبات ولا يمكن تعطيلها بحجة دستورية أو عدم دستورية الحكومة، الامر الذي يعود بته الى المجلس الدستوري".

I understand March 14’s reluctance to go down that road as it would constitute a definitive break-up with Nabih Berri, but if this is the only way to pass the Tribunal then they have no other choice. The Tribunal is a priority. It is an essential instrument to consolidate Lebanon’s fragile independence and as such it should be left outside political settlements. March 14 should make it clear to all sides that no compromise is possible regarding the Tribunal. Let it pass and then be open to discuss virtually any other topic with the opposition.

We now have the chance to adopt the text of the tribunal and the opportunity might not present itself again in a few months, with the opening of a new parliamentary session, especially that March 14 won’t retain the 2/3rd majority in case of a cabinet reshuffle. Which means that if it’s not adopted in the next few days, the Tribunal might never see the light of day. Syria and Hezbollah, backed by Iran, have declared war against it. In an interview with the Egyptian Al-Araby magazine, Hassan Nasrallah openly announced what everybody knew anyway: that the reason they took to the streets is the international tribunal. The masks are down. March 14 knows who it is dealing with, it is now up to them to take the right decision and adopt the tribunal.

Farid Makari: You can now make history.

An impressive show of force: the ongoing process of isolating the Shiite community

2006-12-06T17:08:00.000+02:00

The opposition did not disappoint. Rallying hundreds of thousands and possibly a million people in downtown Beirut was not an easy task. It sure was an impressive show of force. But it wasn’t surprising; Hezbollah’s popularity and its ability to mobilize Shiite masses were never questioned.

However, just like on March 8, 2005, this huge crowd suffers a serious deficit: homogeneity. Friday’s demonstration was a Shiite demonstration par excellence. Despite the official presence of the FPM, general Aoun was not able to mobilize his constituency and Christian participation was below expectations. Sunni and Druze’ contribution was even weaker.

These observations should provoke serious efforts of self-criticism from both sides: On one hand, the majority should ask itself why was the opposition able to rally so many people against it? It should acknowledge the mistakes it has committed and reconsider some of its policies. It has repeatedly failed over the past year and a half to (1) retain many of its own supporters let alone to (2) attract supporters from the other side, particularly Shiites. The opposition on the other hand should ask itself why is it unable to rally considerable masses besides Shiites? It is much easier to answer that question: Hezbollah, by far the main opposition party, has so far failed to present itself as a Lebanese product and did not yet accomplish its conversion from an armed resistance to a strictly political party. In fact, the Hezbollah leadership never showed any sign it actually wants to achieve these two essential criteria and we shouldn’t hope it ever will: Resistance (little does it matter who the enemy is) is Hezbollah’s raison d’être, and the Shiite community is its reservoir of support. It doesn’t need to appeal to other Lebanese groups. And that also explains why it has constantly sought to isolate the Shiite community both culturally and politically to keep it under its own control. Some go as far as saying Hezbollah has hijacked the Shiite community. I personally don’t think it’s an exaggeration even though it is the complete absence of the State in Shiite areas that has encouraged the Iranian-backed party to take over.
As strange as it may seem, Shiites these days remind me, in a way, of the isolationist Maronites before the civil war. The process of political isolation was taken to a new level following the assassination of PM Rafic Hariri. Shiite masses were largely absent from the civil movement and the popular uprising that took place after the assassination. Hezbollah, who did not call on his supporters to participate, alongside their Lebanese compatriots, in the funerals of Hariri, was clearly disturbed by the popular movement that brought Sunnis, Christian and Druze together after February 14, 2005 and saw it as a threat to its own existence.
Instead of calling on his supporters to join their countrymen, Nasrallah later gathered them and isolated them in a nearby square in one of Lebanon’s most massive demonstrations, intended to thank the Syrian regime for its contribution during the 30 years of occupation. Nasrallah even went further in his provocative approach and honored the Syrian head of intelligence in Lebanon (highly suspected by the Lebanese to be implicated in the Hariri assassination) on the eve of the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon by offering him an Israeli riffle – captured in combat – as a farewell gift, completely ignoring the feelings of the majority of the Lebanese at that time. Over the past year, Hezbollah has multiplied its divisive approach on sensitive issues and has consolidated its grip on the Shiite community to a point where it became hard to make a distinction between the latter and Hezbollah.

After taking over the Shiite community, Hezbollah and Nasrallah are now in a process of hijacking the whole country. The process culminated in summer 2006 when the Iranian-backed militia declared war on Israel with devastating effects on Lebanon and the Lebanese people. Today’s opposition campaign is a direct result of Hezbollah’s overall defeat last summer, despite its admirable resistance on the ground.

In that regards, many have noticed a surprising similarity in the strategies and modes of communication used by Hezbollah in war time, against the Israeli enemy, and the ones used recently against Lebanese factions, namely the March 14 alliance and the government of PM Fouad Siniora: Accusation of treason, intimidation, mobilization of its constituency mainly through Al-Manar TV propaganda, promising its supporters another victory similar to the one against Israel a few months earlier, thinly veiled threats of revolution and coups etc…and the most important feature: secrecy. As much as it is understandable in war time against an enemy, it becomes appalling and unacceptable when it is used against fellow citizens and national institutions as it has been lately when the leadership of the opposition refused to announce its program, the date and place of demonstrations until the last minute (and only following major efforts from the government and the army).

Hezbollah, as a military organization, is used to the logic of either victory of defeat and in the past years it has been very successful in its struggle against Israel. Accumulating victories means forgetting that compromise is sometimes essential, especially when dealing with fellow compatriots, and even more so in a country like Lebanon. An important part of Hezbollah’s conversion into Lebanese politics is its ability to put aside its winner-loser mentality at the national level. If only for the sake of a successful conversion, it is extremely important for Hezbollah to lose this “war”.

And now Pierre Gemayel…

2006-11-21T18:17:00.000+02:00

Two ministers…Two ministers are enough to topple the government and prevent the establishment of the International Tribunal. One was killed today. This is not a coincidence. RIP Pierre Gemayel.

This has Syria written all over it. This is no time for compromise. Any political maneuvering to disrupt the establishment of the international court, by any local political side, will be looked upon with a lot of suspicion. Neutrality is a privilege nobody can afford anymore.

The former Prime Ministers

2006-11-15T18:57:00.000+02:00

The former Prime Ministers seem to be very busy lately. Meetings, statements, public appearances etc… In fact, we’re seeing so much of them that it appears as if we’re witnessing the birth of a new institution in this country: the institution of Former Prime Ministers. Just when you thought we’re out of ideas!

Think about it, this is exactly what we need. Another institution…for former retired politicians who have yet to make peace with the fact that they are (or should be) retired! After the 14-knights-around-a-round-table (headed by a disinherited, do not underestimate such a detail), here comes the council of Former Prime Ministers, sort of a council of wise elders, selflessly providing guidance for a Nation constantly drifting away from the right path. Rejoice oh Lebanese!

March 8 resigned; March 14 puts its foot down

2006-11-13T03:33:00.000+02:00

I have mixed feelings about the resignation of Hezbollah and Amal ministers. I would have loved to say “good riddance!” but the situation is much more complicated than that and it is not yet clear how the situation will evolve.

A glimmer of light in all this chaos: March 14 have finally decided to take matters into their own hands and act as a Majority. In a statement released Sunday, March 14 leaders called on the government to approve the draft text of the International Court and PM Fouad Sanioura reiterated his call for an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Monday to endorse the U.N. draft text.

The current government is not expected to last for long. Despite Sanioura’s rejection of the resignation of the five Shiite ministers, the government will suffer a lack of legitimacy resulting from the non-participation of all of its Shiite members. Replacing the five ministers is virtually impossible since the signature of the President is needed on any decree appointing new ministers and I can’t find any reason that would make Lahoud sign such a decree.

As a result, the current government will soon have to be replaced or modified, unless the Shiite ministers withdraw their resignation. The formation of a new government granting a blocking minority to the opposition is likely in the near future. It is therefore crucial to speed up the adoption of the draft text of the International Court and avoid going through the risk of submitting it to a government granting veto powers to the opposition.

The Majority is under huge pressure to postpone the cabinet meeting and the debate over the U.N. draft text. Will it be able to stand firm and proceed with the adoption of the document?

Update: the Lebanese government convened today in the absence of the Shiite ministers and Environment Minister Yacoub Sarraf who resigned this morning. The draft text of the international court was unanimously approved by the government. “We tell the murderers that we will not give up our rights no matter what the difficulties and obstacles are”!

Let’s nationalize the Resistance!

2006-11-03T22:27:00.000+02:00

isn’t it amazing how the same people who recently discovered a sense of national unity and who have been repeating over and over again how this country can only be built on consensus between all sects; reminding everyone how it is contrary to the very essence of Lebanon that certain factions, despite being democratically elected, control the government; reaffirming on every possible occasion that the decisions - starting with the least important ones such as appointing civil servants - should be adopted unanimously… isn’t it amazing how such vigorous positions are not observed by the very same party that is so graciously distributing lessons to everyone else in the country? Unanimity, it seems, is essential when appointing low-ranked civil servants, or ministers from a certain sect. But it is absolutely unnecessary when it comes to more serious issues such as life or death, or declaring war or peace.

So I suggest we take advantage of this newly-found spirit of national unity among these people and ask them to take it a step further: Let’s nationalize the Resistance! Let the resistance reflect the national unity we all aspire to. Why should it be restricted to some people when it could embrace all citizens? Why should it be controlled by a certain sect if all others would be more than willing to take part in it? It is obvious that the implications of the resistance are felt by all the Lebanese, in every singly part of the country. It is only reasonable then that they have a word in it, that it represents them all, that it follows orders issued by leaders whose allegiance wouldn’t be questioned by their countrymen and not by a sectarian leader who is likely to be influenced by certain foreign actors.

Technical Unemployment

2006-10-25T12:37:00.000+03:00

"We are leading serious and strong efforts to form a national unity government”, (Hezbollah MP Kamil Rifai).
"When our withdrawal (from the cabinet) becomes a doorway for the formation of a national unity government, we will (pull out)" (Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad).
"We won't feel that the (Hezbollah) resistance is protected unless a national unity government was formed”, (Hezbollah chief in South Lebanon Nabil Qaouk).

And the list goes on. Calls for a national unity government have become a daily bread for Hezbollah officials…one wonders why?

One of the most severe consequences of Hezbollah’s summer adventure is the restrictions imposed on its resistance wing. For the 1st time in years the Shiite militant group has found itself in a technical unemployment situation. The leadership has been busy studying possible options for the coming phase and, I for one am eager to know more about their future strategy.

In the meantime we have to satisfy our thirst by listening to never ending calls to form a national unity government. While in theory, such calls deserve our utmost praise, we can only be skeptic towards this sudden and extremely vigorous position especially when the leader of Hezbollah’s parliamentary block, Mr. Mohammad Raad, clearly announces that the intention behind calls for a national unity government is not exactly national unity but acquiring a blocking minority.

Fair enough. These are the rules of the game. After all, the aim of every opposition force is to govern. I will not even go into what exactly they want to block. This is pretty obvious.
However, the key issue here is how will the Majority respond to these calls? So far, it has been frustratingly vulnerable to blackmail especially coming from Hezbollah. March 14 has a very small margin of maneuver: it goes from a complete refusal to a possible approval of expanding the current government to include FPM ministers without granting non-14 March’ers a blocking minority. Anything beyond that would represent the end of the Cedar Revolution.
March 14 has got to stand up to opposition forces, and that includes Hezbollah, even though it is well represented in the government, and FPM which, despite its role in the Cedar Revolution, decided to reconsider its positions hoping that it would maximize the chances of its leader to move to Baabda as of next year.

Almost a year and a half have passed since the 2005 elections that granted an absolute majority to the March 14 Alliance. The least we can say now is that it has not performed up to our expectations. The people that took to the streets following the death of ex-PM Rafik Hariri are tired of hearing the same excuses. It is time for March 14 to stop responding to blackmail and start governing. It is time to stop lamenting and start taking action.

On the eve of an important and decisive period, March 14 is expected to be up to the challenge. It should refrain from proceeding with any action that could hinder the establishment of the international Court and the success of the Paris III conference. It is time for action and not senseless and childish bashing and counter-bashing. It is also time for a real national dialogue (unlike the ridiculous 30 minutes-sessions held once in a blue moon earlier this year), but it is no time for compromise on the country’s most important challenges…Unless the Majority would like to find itself in a state of technical unemployment for the next few years.

This is yet another opportunity for March 14 to reconcile with its popular base. We can only hope that this time it will know how to seize it.

Lebanon and Pro-American orientation

2006-10-07T19:35:00.000+03:00

The Lebanese street has always witnessed a deep opposition between two major mainstreams: the pro-Western camp and the pro-Arab camp, that has lately diverted into a more pro-Islamic camp. Nowadays, Hezbollah supporters claim the defense of Arabist, Islamist and surely anti-Israeli values, while the "14 March" forces are expressing an obvious pro-American orientation. We won’t argue whether "14 March" are a pure "American product" or whether their political interests and projects simply get along with the current American administration's plans in the Greater Middle East lately called "New Middle East". Being pro-American is a simple fact regarding 14 March, no matter which definitions we adopt.

History has proved through several crises that, curiously, pro-American camps have NEVER succeeded in implimenting their political projects in Lebanon. The first serious crisis that Lebanon went trough was in 1958 and was caused by political and religious tensions in the country. Tensions with Egypt had escalated earlier, in 1956, when pro-western President Camille Chamoun, did not break diplomatic relations with the Western powers that attacked Egypt during the Suez Crisis, angering Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Lebanese Sunni Muslim Prime Minister Rashid Karami supported Nasser in 1956 and 1958.
Lebanese Muslims welcomed the creation of the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria), while the Christians wanted to keep Lebanon aligned with Western Powers, and President Chamoun did not hesitate to declare, during a visit to Turkey, that Lebanon will join the Baghdad Pact. The crisis had an internal dimension as well: Muslims were calling for more representation in the Lebanese Parliament so that Christians and Muslims get equally represented. But Chamoun, supported by the Parliament, refused to consider such changes. Chamoun also decided to run for a second mandate, a step considered unconstitutional by the Muslims.

Unrest was intensified by the assassination of Nassib Matni, the Maronite anti-Chamoun editor of At-Telegraph, a daily newspaper known for its outspoken pan-Arabism . A revolt quickly erupted and almost turned into a civil war. Chamoun officially asked for American military intervention, and U.S Marines entered Beirut in one of the most famous implementations of Eisenhower’s Doctrine: President Eisenhower authorized Operation Blue Bat on July 15, 1958. The goal of the operation was to bolster the pro-Western Lebanese government of President Camille Chamoun against internal opposition and threats from Syria and the United Arab Republic. Eisenhower’s decision was also influenced by another major event: this state of turmoil increased when, in the early hours of July 14, 1958, a revolution overthrew the monarchy in Iraq and the entire royal family was killed.

Despite American military intervention, the pro-Chamoun camp failed to accomplish any of its goals: Chamoun couldn’t run for Presidential elections and the Parliament elected the moderate Fouad Chehab as a President. The Pro-Arab camp claimed victory: Lebanon never joined a pro-American Pact.

The U.S.A also failed in their second confrontation in Lebanon. That was during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). Bashir's faith, the May 17 agreement and its repercussions provide the best illustration. Bashir Gemayel succeeded in convincing the Reagan administration to support his candidacy for Presidency.
Washington saw in Bashir an opportunity to generalize their peace plans in the M.E. Bashir's assassination by Syrian proxies was the first shock /obstacle for the American plans in Lebanon. Then came the May 17 agreement. It was a failed U.S.-backed attempt to create peace between Lebanon (President Amin Gemayel) and Israel. It was seen by Lebanese Muslims and leftists as an illegal agreement imposed while the country was under Israeli (and Syrian!) military occupation. Many Lebanese backed President Amin Gemayel, arguing that his close relations to the US could help create peace and restore Lebanese sovereignty, which they saw as threatened not only by the Israeli occupation but mainly by Syrian military control over much of the north of the country and the Bekaa. Once again, the American policy couldn’t impose itself in the Lebanese quagmire. Once again it couldn’t face Lebanon's pro-Arab orientation. Syria threw all its weight to defeat the American influence in Lebanon, and succeeded in becoming the main power broker in Lebanon.
Further downfall of American influence with the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut: many officials were killed, including several high CIA agents. Few weeks later, a new organization called "Al Jihad El Islami" bombed the U.S Marines building in Beirut: more than 300 Marines were killed. That was the bloodiest day in American history since The Second World War. Washington's policy in Lebanon was gradually collapsing. Then came the fatal blow: Intifadat 6 February led by Amal, the PSP, the Communist party and the Mourabitoun against President Amin el Gemayel and the May 17 Agreement. The Peace Accord collapsed. American Policy in Lebanon failed: US Marines pulled out of Lebanon, and Washington admitted that Syria is the real Master in Lebanon.

The U.S.A always saw in Lebanon a fertile land that could form a base for American Policy in the Middle East. History shows us that, despite all the armed conflicts and devastating wars, Lebanon always ends up adopting a pro-Arab orientation. Lebanon's geography conditions its political life: the Eisenhower Doctrine and the Marines’ landing in 1958 weren't simply enough and efficient to face all the Middle Eastern political reflexion in Lebanon: From Nasser's Power, to Syria's influence and the Iraqi Revolution. The forced Peace agreement in 1983 was too immature, not taking into consideration Lebanon's geography or internal confessional composition.
Today Lebanon is living, once again, a deep division between pro-American and anti-American choices. The confrontation is between a neo-conservative US administration, which spreads the values of a new pro-Zionist Christianity, and two regimes refusing American hegemony over the Middle East and its plan to reconstruct the Middle East according to its own definition. These two regimes are, just like the Nasser's Egypt and Hafez El Assad's Syria, reputed for being either despotic (Syria) or too conservative (Iran).

So will History repeat itself?

Ya hala bel shabeib!

2006-10-02T22:44:00.000+03:00

The Lebanese Army deploys along the borders for the 1st time in decades marking an essential step towards the return of the State to the South and the return of the South to the State.

Irresponsibility or ignorance?

2006-09-28T21:14:00.000+03:00

Ever since Kesrewan-Jbeil MP Naamtallah Abi Nasr issued his famous “Call to the Maronites” (read it here in Arabic) I was wondering how the head of the presumably secular Free Patriotic Movement would react to such a sectarian tone coming from one of the MPs in his Reform & Change block. Assuming of course he did not know about it before its publication, I waited - in vain - for a condemnation only to read in today’s edition of Annahar (see here) that the General actually congratulated him!

Sometimes I wonder if our politicians are aware of what they say and of the consequences it might have on the people. Is it irresponsibility or ignorance? In an already radicalized society the logical thing to do is to refrain from instilling baseless fears among your constituency and – falsely - blame all their problems on the “others”. Fear leads to hate. Do they know that? Do they want that?

The expression “al-sunniya al-siyassiya” (roughly translated as Political Sunnism) has made its way to the top of a Christian fear factor list after more than a year of constant brainwashing that Christian masses were subject to. Amazingly enough, this fear coincides with the realignment of Sunni Muslims to what was always perceived as “Christian demands” (i.e. Independence, Lubnan Awwalan, establishing the authority of the State on all its territory by disarming Lebanese and non-Lebanese armed groups etc…).

After years of “fermentation”, Lebanese Sunnis have finally completed their conversion and joined the “Lebanese project” following the assassination of former PM Rafic Hariri on February 14, 2005. But what would keep them from changing their position once again? Obviously, this won’t happen under the current Baathist regime in Syria but the possibility exists in the event of a regime change that would restore Sunni representation in our neighboring country. And in case that happens, will it be in the interest of the Christians knowing that the two other available alternatives for Lebanese Sunnis are pan-Arab nationalism and political Islam? Something for Christian leaders to ponder about…

The divine victory?

2006-09-26T23:44:00.000+03:00

Dima wrote : 26-09-2006

Two opposed positions control the current debate in Lebanon concerning the July 2006 War: For some it is a Divine and absolute victory, and for others it is a complete defeat. The late popular rallies led respectively by Hassan Nasrallah on Friday and Samir Jajaa on Sunday reflect perfectly the actual division that Lebanon is witnessing nowadays.

It is somehow absurd to talk about a defeat. The HA party’s opponents have constructed the "defeat theory" upon a major argument: the huge destruction that has devastated the country, and obviously the high number of casualties among civilians. Indeed, the War cost Lebanon more than a 1ooo deaths, and it was a real disaster for the Lebanese infrastructure.

Meanwhile, this argument couldn't be adopted as a scale reference for victory or defeat.
Never in War History have the human and material losses been considered a reference to evaluate the war's outcome. Examples are numerous: The Vietnam War had a very high toll on the Vietnam, whereas 'mainland' USA was spared. Although, Vietnam War remains a remarkable illustration for Victory. The Algerian revolution provides another example, despite its 1 Million martyrs. And we shouldn't forget that the World Word II 50 Million victims were divided among all the nations including the victorious ones: GB, S.U and France.

Thus, despite its enormous moral importance, casualties are not a gauge for Victory or Defeat.

This leads us to 'the question whether socio-political achievements are better indicators to define War's outcome.

The first argument supporting the Victory's theory resides in the "destruction of the myth of the invincible army". An argument generously exposed by my colleague M., so no need to develop it more.

This argument leads us to Hezbollah's biggest achievement: the Party Of God gained indisputably an unprecedented respect and support all around the Arab and Muslim world. A popularity almost comparable to former Egyptian President Jamal Abdel Nasser status, the only and unique ARAB leader since the 50 's. Hassan Nassrallah has become an Icon for millions of disillusioned Arabs and Muslims, who knew nothing but defeat and oppression. Whether we like him or not, we must admit that Nasrallah's myth is a fact. After 5 decades of hopelessness, dictatorship, not to forget the growing anti-Israeli feelings, the oppressed millions found a ray of hope in Nasrallah's successful resistance.

Nasrallah's popularity in itself is an invaluable milestone in Hizbollah's political career. This could not have happened without this war.

On a Lebanese level, HA came out of this war as the main Shiite political representative with an even more solid Shiite base. It was thought that this war would erode the Shiite social base and turn it against HA. Events proved that even those Shiite who were neutral became pro-HA. This reinforces the Party of God political weight: with such an increased popular support it will be an illusion to consider that HA was weakened, politically or socially, by this War.

Regarding its military power, we should not be fooled: it is true that the resolution 1701 has imposed the entrance of the Lebanese army to the South, but it is also very true that HA is maintaining excellent relations with the Lebanese Army, which raises questions about how efficient the Army's role will be against HA....

Last but surely not least, comes the UNIFIL issue. Personally, I don t think we can currently discuss it, as we still don't know the exact nature of these troops or their mission. Thus, we’ll postpone this debate for later on.

So who won?

2006-09-25T01:47:00.000+03:00

For weeks the ordinary citizen has been watching Hezbollah and Israel alike claiming victory for a war that could only be won by a fatal blow. If victory can be measured by achievements, an equally important parameter one should take into consideration is the ability of a party to avoid being squeezed into uncomfortable situations, during and after a conflict, that might make it hard for the party in question to defend its positions and hold on to its principles. In that regard, the results of the July 2006 war turned out to be most embarrassing for both sides:

Israel’s inability to crush an organization of a few thousands – albeit very disciplined, well-equipped and trained – warriors pulverized what was thought to be an unshakable myth in the Arab world: the myth of the invincibility of the IDF, nurtured by Israel and the Arab regimes for decades and strongly verified on the ground after a series of wars of disastrous consequences for Arab countries. That myth had already received a heavy blow in April 2000 with the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon due, to a large extent, to the resistance. For the first time, the State of Israel unilaterally submits an Arab land without receiving anything in return: no peace treaty, no guarantees, not even a return to the 1949 armistice. Hezbollah, which masters public relations and war media, knew how to invest, spread and nurture this success to the eager Arab masses. Many believe that this event set the scene for the second Intifada in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which erupted in September 2000. For Israel, the current war seemed a wonderful opportunity to settle scores with Hezbollah. The growing influence of the Iranian-backed organization on the Palestinian struggle and regional events, coupled with Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah’s charisma posed a threat to Israel and the Israelis calmly waited for a faux-pas they could exploit to crush what they define as a “terrorist group”. That faux-pas would come on July 12, 2006 when Hezbollah militants crossed over the borders and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. It was certain, given the national, regional and international contexts which I will not go through in this post, that Israel’s response was going to be extremely harsh. Indeed it was. Israel launched an all out war with the aim of destroying Hezbollah and turning the Lebanese population, mainly the Shiite, against it by concentrating its attacks on Shiite areas. It was imperative for Israel to win this war. Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, went as far as declaring that it was a matter of life or death for the State of Israel. In fact, failing to achieve the goals would be interpreted as a weakness and Israel cannot afford to look weak in such a hostile environment. But as the days passed by, it was more and more evident that the Jewish State would not be able to achieve its objectives. Hezbollah militants resisted surprisingly well on the ground and Shiite support was growing, ironically, due to Israeli bombardments and the high number of civilian casualties. Israel had to rely on diplomatic efforts to get out of the Lebanese quagmire. What will be the consequences of such a military setback? Will it inspire the Arab masses elsewhere particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories or even the Golan Heights?
Just as much as the Israelis, if not more, Hezbollah is keen on presenting its military achievements as a success. Indeed, surviving a fierce attack from the mighty IDF could, at first, be interpreted as a success. But if we examine the situation more closely, we’ll find that Hezbollah is in no better position than Israel. The Iranian-backed group has made out of its arms a question of principle and honor. Needless to say that over the last few years Hezbollah has lost what little it once retained of the national consensus behind the “resistance” and its arms but that did not dissuade the Party to hold on to its arsenal and, as a result, recycle the organization into a strictly political party. In fact, feeling the growing international and national pressure to disarm, Hezbollah has taken it to a new level. In a fiery speech earlier this year its Secretary General declared “we shall cut the limbs of those who will try to disarm us and pull their souls out of their bodies”. For years, the organization kept lecturing the Lebanese about its defense strategy, the only one capable of protecting the country from Israeli aggression, having built, with the help of the Iranians and Syrians, an arsenal that would presumably deter any Israeli attack. As the events of the past month have shown, this theory has, to put it mildly, miserably failed. Not only did Hezbollah arsenal fail to deter the IDF, but the latter went on to literally destroy the very same country Hezbollah intended to protect. So if these arms were so ineffective, holding on to them will certainly prove to be a bit more complicated now. Even more so after sidelining the rest of the country with its unilateral decision to launch a war against a neighbor not exactly known for its self-restraint. The poorly planned operation - as acknowledged by the Secretary General himself – has put the Party of God in an uncomfortable situation forcing it to adopt certain decisions against its will, positions that the Party would have never taken if it wasn’t cornered for they will only tighten the grip on Hezbollah and weaken it on the long-term. That is why, it came as no surprise, in such circumstances, to see the Party adopting positions it fiercely opposed in the past, prior to the July-August war. Among these are the decision to finally send the Lebanese Army to the South, and the decision to adopt Security Council resolution 1701 leading to the strengthening of the UNIFIL and the monitoring of all entry points by the Lebanese army, assisted by the international forces, to prevent arms shipment to the Hezbollah or any other third party. The outcome of the war has created a context in the South which renders any act of resistance from the part of Hezbollah very difficult if not impossible with the presence of 15,000 Lebanese soldiers along with an equal number of foreign troops thereby leaving its arsenal obsolete to a large extent. The summer adventure has, indisputably, cost the Party of God a few cards and as such claiming victory can only be understood as a means to boost its constituency and to grab on to some segments of its supporters who might be reconsidering their position.

The third and final party directly involved in this war, Lebanon, has suffered considerable damage both on the humanitarian and material level and paid a heavy price for a war it did not declare: 1200 victims, mostly civilians, thousands of injured, a million displaced and economic losses amounting to billions of dollars. However, if we put all this aside, one could argue that the Lebanese State is better off after the war. For the first time in decades the State is taking the necessary procedures to extend its authority to the South by deploying the Lebanese Army and declaring that no other armed group will be tolerated. This step, along with the implementation of UN resolution 1701, will put an end to acts of resistance against Israel. This is in itself a historic event: It is the end of an era that lasted for 38 years and marked the total marginalization of the State in this region on virtually all levels. The containment of a resistance which, despite popular and official support, operates beyond State control, can only be good news for Lebanese legality. This is not to say, in any way, that this is a victory for the Lebanese State, however we can probably say that the State has scored a point or two during these events, which is not insignificant if we take into consideration the fact that the State in Lebanon hardly ever knows how to manage crisis situations. Prime Minister Fouad Sanioura seems to agree. In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV a few days ago he declared: The war allowed us to move forward in the direction of state-building and to deploy the army in the South after more than 35 years of absence. These steps now need to be confirmed and asserted on the ground. The hard part is yet to come.