[tadamon-l] Lebanon: Currents of Conflict. Broadcasts from Beirut II

[Tadamon!]

* Lebanon: Currents of Conflict
An interview with Bilal Elamine.

Broadcasts from Beirut: A Tadamon! interview project aiming to highlight 
progressive voices from the ground in Lebanon on the ongoing conflict, 
voices independent from major political parties...

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/post/1416

Conflict in Lebanon has spread this past week beyond Beirut, to mountain 
areas above the capital city, to Tripoli in Northern Lebanon. Throughout 
Lebanon a tense political stand-off remains between the U.S.-backed 
government lead-by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and a political opposition 
fronted by the armed Lebanese political party Hezbollah.

Fear concerning a return to the violence that defined the fifteen year 
Lebanese civil-war has spread across Lebanon and the entire Middle East. 
In recent days fighting has expanded beyond the capital as the death toll 
resulting from internal strife has sharply risen, including a gruesome 
killing carried out against Hezbollah supporters by pro-government 
militias in the mountains above Beirut. Events in recent days are 
intensifying fears that Lebanon will once again fall to the bloody 
violence common throughout the fifteen year civil conflict.

Current conflict in Lebanon is intimately tied to recent history, 
particularly the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon that left over 
one-thousand Lebanese civilians dead and wreaked major damage to the 
civilian infrastructure across the country. Despite Lebanon's major 
losses, resistance to Israel's attack lead by Hezbollah, severely 
undermined Israel's military image in the Middle East, after the Israel 
failed to wipe-out Hezbollah with strong U.S. backing for a war that ended 
with a U.N. brokered ceasefire in August 2006.

Disarming Hezbollah is a critical point to U.S. policy in the Middle East, 
a goal central to U.S. support for Israel.s attack on Lebanon in 2006 and 
defined in writing in the U.S.-French sponsored U.N. Resolution 1559. A 
recent move by the current Lebanese government to declare Hezbollah.s 
telecommunications network illegal, compliments U.S. aims to disarm 
Hezbollah in Lebanon. This government decision sparked the recent violence 
in Lebanon.

In this interview Bilal Elamine, currently living in Beirut, originally 
from Southern Lebanon, the former editor of Left Turn Magazine, offers 
reflections on recent events in Lebanon and their relation to the broader 
U.S.-driven policies in the Middle East.

Stefan Christoff: Since mid last week there has been fighting in Lebanon, 
first in the capital Beirut but now it has spread to other districts in 
Lebanon. Could you provide your perspective on the current situation in 
Lebanon?

Bilal Elamine: Beirut has now calmed down significantly. Fighting in 
Beirut created immediate ripples to the north where some ugly incidents 
took place. Hariri supporters in the north, who were seeking revenge after 
loosing the battle in Beirut, went around burning offices of opposition 
political parties in northern Lebanon, attacking an office for the Syrian 
Social Nationalist Party, which is involved with the opposition in 
Lebanon. In this attack eleven people from the Syrian Social Nationalist 
Party were killed, a pro-government militia attack with a high number of 
deaths.

Then fighting moved into the mountains, up above Beirut, an area that is 
heavily populated by Druze in Lebanon, an area traditionally dominated by 
the politician Walid Jumblat. Confrontations started in the mountains 
yesterday, including some civil-war type atrocities carried out by 
militias loyal to Walid Jumblat, when a small group from Hezbollah were 
kidnapped, then two were killed execution style, their bodies cut-up with 
knife blades. After this four civilians were killed in an attack on an 
area sympathetic to Hezbollah, carried out again by pro-government 
militias, which really ignited a battle up in the mountains.

This battle in the mountains ended after Druze leaders allied with the 
opposition stepped-in, engaging in negotiations with Jumblat and starting 
to work to disarm the mountain areas. A call was put out after these 
negotiations to halt any fighting within the Druze community split between 
opposing sides in this conflict. Although now opposition leaders are 
claiming that militias allied with Walid Jumblat still maintain heavy 
weaponry, that could be used to further sectarian violence. People in 
Lebanon are uneasy at the possibility that militias allied with Jumblat in 
the mountains maintain heavy weaponry and worry further if they plan to 
use this weaponry against the opposition. This situation in the mountains 
is much less stable compared to the situation in Beirut.

Today there was an Arab League meeting which doesn't seem to have resulted 
in any new developments. However the Arab League is sending a number of 
ministers to Lebanon for Wednesday to hold a marathon type negotiation to 
attempt to resolve the political crisis. Now concerning the Lebanese 
government which is currently under the lights, the government of Fouad 
Sinora, most people in Lebanon expected that the government would reverse 
their two decisions, which ignited this entire episode, however the 
government has postponed a decision on this until Wednesday. This suggests 
that the government may not even go back on these two decisions and that 
they are certainly not going to resign, however we will wait until the 
Arab League arrives to broker discussions.

It is clear that the opposition has now created facts on the ground, which 
are going to be difficult to reverse, having tipped the power scales to 
where they should have been a long time ago between the government and the 
opposition. Clearly the opposition will win political gains from what they 
have done on the ground in Lebanon in recent days. If the violence doesn.t 
become carried away in the mountains, the opposition will have carried out 
a rather short and limited operation that avoided confrontation with the 
Lebanese army and major sectarian violence. Certainly sectarian tensions 
exist however the situation hasn't broken down into major sectarian 
violence between Lebanon's religious communities. Hopefully we will arrive 
at a political solution very soon, especially after these last horrible 
days. Casualties may rest at around sixty people dead with over 
one-hundred injuries.

Stefan Christoff: In Lebanon today parallel identities or political 
visions for the country exist. First the shadow of the former Lebanese 
government lead by Prime Minister Fouad Sinora and then the Hezbollah-lead 
opposition, which maintain very different visions for Lebanon. Could you 
highlight the key political differences between the two major forces in 
Lebanon today?

Bilal Elamine: Often the difference between these two political forces is 
characterized as being sectarian, however it's really a political 
disagreement. The cutting edge for this disagreement is related to the 
U.S. project in the Middle East, which began officially after the events 
of 9/11 in New York. This U.S. project in the Middle East is met with 
resistance from both political movements and government regimes in the 
region who are opposed to the U.S. project in the Middle East, who stand 
to oppose it and have everything to lose from the U.S. vision for the 
Middle East. This force includes the governments of Iran and Syria who 
have been openly targeted by the U.S., along with Hamas in Palestine and 
Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Often it's repeated that Hamas and Hezbollah are tools for Iran in the 
region, however a more accurate way to view the relationship are than 
these are all political forces that have a common opposition to U.S. 
interference in the Middle East. Also movements and governments that are 
opposed to Israel.

In Lebanon we are divided between these two separate visions for the 
Middle East, with one side represented by the current government who is 
attempting to implement the U.S. project for the region, from the adoption 
of a neo-liberal economy, to opening the door for concessions to Israel, 
or even the possibility to settle the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian 
refugees in Lebanon as a major concession to Israel in order to erase the 
Palestinian right to return.

So the other political force in Lebanon is openly trying to resist this 
U.S. vision for Lebanon and the Middle East, this side is lead by 
Hezbollah and a number of other political parties within the Lebanese 
opposition. It is clear today that the Lebanese opposition spans all sects 
in Lebanon and that the major difference spurring the current fighting in 
Lebanon is political not sectarian.

Stefan Christoff: Now concerning the current events in Lebanon there 
obviously exists a major fear within the country towards a return to the 
violence that defined the Lebanese civil-war between 1975 and 1990. Do you 
feel that people in Lebanon today who are politically sympathetic to the 
ideals represented by the opposition are also critical towards the recent 
actions taken by opposition forces in Beirut?

Bilal Elamine: Certainly it was a very dangerous undertaking, the recent 
actions from Hezbollah, a movement that has always had great fear to 
turning their weapons towards internal battles in Lebanon. Hezbollah 
turning their arms toward internal political battles could lead people to 
categorize Hezbollah as another militia and Lebanese are very fearful 
towards militias due to traumatic and violent experiences within the 
civil-war.

Also this recent move from Hezbollah is dangerous because it has the 
possibility to create sectarian strife in the country particularly between 
the Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim communities in Lebanon. Unfortunately 
sectarian civil strife has a long history, so once it starts it's 
difficult to reverse the tide.

For these reasons the Lebanese opposition has been reluctant to do 
anything for so long, to take any concrete action against the government 
despite continued provocations. It's been two years now for the opposition 
receiving blow after blow from the government, particularly Hezbollah, 
even the gunning down of Hezbollah supporters by the Lebanese army only 
months ago.

A decision from the Lebanese government last week to attempt to shut-down 
Hezbollah's communication network was a qualitative provocation from the 
government, in that the decision directly attacked a key element for the 
Lebanese resistance. This communication network is very important, it 
protects the Hezbollah leadership, it's an attempt from the government to 
uncover Hezbollah to an enemy that is dying to attack, which is Israel.

This move to enter Beirut by Hezbollah was taken in this context and this 
move from Hezbollah preempted what could have been a serious civil war 
because essentially pro-government forces have been using increasingly 
sectarian language in Lebanon. Last week the night prior to a major labor 
strike called by General Labor Confederation, the grand Mufti in Lebanon, 
the top Sunni cleric, delivered an extremely sectarian speech, that to any 
Lebanese should be a terrifying speech, which was openly using sectarian 
language. This speech illustrates that the pro-government forces were 
attempting to rally Sunni communities in Lebanon around the government on 
a sectarian not political basis, which is extremely dangerous.

Sectarian strife in Lebanon has been avoided until now due to the methods 
behind Hezbollah's recent actions, which did include some serious mistakes 
including an attack on a pro-government T.V. station and newspaper by 
Hezbollah allies. Although overall the Hezbollah-lead actions were quick, 
clean, they avoided the type of sectarian violence that we all fear in 
Lebanon. Although clearly things are not settled especially in the 
mountain areas above Beirut.

Stefan Christoff: Can you comment on the role that media has played in the 
recent conflict in Lebanon, you mention that a pro-government T.V. 
network, Future T.V. was attacked by opposition forces. In this context 
could you expand on the political role that media in Lebanon and 
internationally has played concerning recent events in Lebanon?

Bilal Elamine: Most media networks in Lebanon are an extension from the 
various political parties, especially in such times this reality becomes 
more defined. There is one channel that is sympathetic to the opposition 
but that doesn.t belong to a political party, which is New T.V., which you 
can view for some semblance of balance. Today political news is passing 
over the T.V. channels 24 hours a day, without missing a second, even in 
calm periods there is heavy political coverage in Lebanon, many talk shows 
on the various networks debating political issues with politicians and 
analysts.

Concerning recent events many networks have been maintaining live coverage 
throughout the day, which allows one to follow the events closely, however 
you have to view a mix from all the channels to get a sense on what's 
really going on, to get a clear picture. One thing that stood out in these 
recent events, is that once opposition forces did attack the Future 
movement media outlets, Al-Arabia, a Saudi Arabia financed T.V. station 
attempting to compete with Al Jazeera T.V., played a nasty, vicious, Fox 
T.V. type role concerning the events in Lebanon by propagating rumors that 
have the potential to create massacres in Lebanon.

Last week an angry person, who doesn't belong to any political party, 
attacked a funeral in Beirut procession for a Sunni person who died in a 
very sensitive area in Beirut, killing a number of people at the funeral. 
After it was was clear that this person had no connection to the 
opposition, Al Arabia continued to broadcast that this person was from the 
opposition. In a sense Al Arabia was compensating for the type of 
broadcasting that is common on Future T.V., which is often sectarian and 
rumor based.

Also Al Arabia is currently preparing to air a program framed on the 
future for Sunni Muslims in Lebanon. For Lebanese clearly we are aware 
that sectarian sensitivities exist, sensitivities that are amplified in 
the context of the current political dispute, however Al Arabia is 
attempting to portray Lebanese society as more sectarian that it really 
is, which is extremely provocative.

Clearly the government throughout the past couple years has been 
attempting to contain the opposition movement as Shi'ite or 
Iranian-backed, attempting to tip the scales against the opposition. This 
same language is being heavily utilized by Al Arabia.

Today it's possible that the possibility for sectarian violence in Lebanon 
has been possibly thwarted by the recent actions from the opposition, who 
have successfully undermined the government that has been propelling 
sectarian strife in the country.

Stefan Christoff: Now let's focus on the way that you witnessed recent 
events. In Beirut you with friends operate an alternative café in the 
Hamra district, Taa Marbuuta, can you describe the recent events in 
Lebanon as you witnessed them?

Bilal Elamine: As the fighting started had all just finished watching the 
speech from Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, at the 
café. Within the hour after the speech, in the area surrounding the café 
became very tense. This is an area which is close to where opposition 
leader Saad Hariri lives, an area with major security. Despite claims from 
pro-government parties that they aren't harboring or creating militia 
forces it has became apparent that pro-government parties, mainly the 
Future movement, have been organizing groups of young unemployed men into 
militias throughout West Beirut.

Shortly after the speech from Hassan Nasrallah last week, men appeared in 
the area carrying large machine guns, with military vests, then suddenly 
these men working in pro-government militias started screaming and yelling 
then fire fighting broke out. By the next morning these elements had 
disappeared, the Hariri militias, who were completely routed out by 
Hezbollah, very quickly. Looking back it's easy to understand, as the 
Future movement militias were obviously very disorganized, meaning that 
they were very easy for Hezbollah and allies to disperse.

In Hamra, Hezbollah forces did come into the area however along with other 
armed groups that are based in the area, including the Syrian Social 
Nationalist Party, who in coordination took over the entire area 
throughout the night. The next morning in walking around it was clear that 
there were some battles that did take place but nothing major, as the 
death toll after the first night of fighting in Beirut was below a dozen 
people, which was surprising.

In this area, in Hamra, the two sides practically know each other, as we 
are talking about the Syrian Social Nationalist Party came from just a few 
blocks down the street to take this area. Most likely the people fighting 
on both sides had some level of familiarity which most certainly helped to 
diffuse the tensions very quickly. Since late last week people are weary, 
coming out from the house not often, just to stock-up on supplies, to get 
some fresh air.

Last week during the days of fighting I did see some armed men driving 
around in cars with arms hanging out the windows, a scary image 
reminiscent of the Lebanese civil-war, however by yesterday in Beirut most 
of the armed men were off the streets although there are still pockets 
around the city especially in sensitive areas.

Mainly now it's the military that is present, all around the Hamra area, 
near the café, which is very unusual for this area. At night people 
generally stay inside, many are waiting for the meetings to start this 
week, brokered by the Arab League, hoping that they will bring good news.

Stefan Christoff: Now let's talk about the regional context relating to 
the recent events in Lebanon, especially the war between Lebanon and 
Israel in 2006, especially given that you mentioned that many are awaiting 
to see the results from the upcoming visit from the Arab League to Beirut.

Bilal Elamine: Clearly the U.S. has a particular project to change the 
political face of the Middle East, a project that is facing some major 
opposition, often represented by the governments of Iran and Syria. In 
Lebanon resistance to the U.S. project for the Middle East has been lead 
by Hezbollah, now a targeted organization or movement.

Hezbollah has been faced with many obstacles in recent years, first U.N. 
Resolution 1559 that didn't really develop into anything concrete in 
Lebanon, it essentially failed, then after the assassination of former 
Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, the U.S. was able to increase the pressure by 
pressuring the Syrians to leave Lebanon, hoping to cut-off the links 
between Syria and Hezbollah.

Then the most serious attack on Hezbollah came in July 2006 as Israel 
attacked Lebanon. At this time it became quickly apparent that Israel 
after a couple weeks wanted to halt the attack on Lebanon, however the 
U.S. insisted, pushing Israel to continue the war until Hezbollah was 
finished. This scenario lead Israel into a military disaster in Lebanon.

Since 2006 pro-U.S. forces have been gathering in Lebanon, bringing 
together various parties that cut-across sectarian lines, lead by the 
Future movement represented by Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblat from the 
Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, to undermine Hezbollah internally 
in Lebanon through various attempts that until now have been unsuccessful.

For example the tragedy surrounding Nahr el-Bared, when the Lebanese army 
virtually destroyed a Palestinian refugee camp in North Lebanon in the 
past year, in a battle against the radical Sunni militia Fatah al-Islam. 
At one point the government had thought, which was outlined through 
various research conducted by journalists internationally, that Fatah 
al-Islam could be utilized a shock troops against Hezbollah. Clearly this 
plan exploded in the government's face.

Until now the pro-western government has tried many things to undermine 
Hezbollah which hasn't worked. Now the government moved to apply pressure 
on Hezbollah in declaring their communications network illegal, a move 
that provoked the fighting in recent days.

At one point it was clear that the U.S. was pushing to hit Iran with 
military strikes, however U.S. allies in the region, particularly the Arab 
Gulf states, argued correctly that at strike on Iran would be disastrous 
for their economies. The U.S. also moved to attempt to isolate Syria, to 
put pressures on the Syrian regime, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, a 
move toward Syria that eventually didn't go anywhere.

Also the U.S. has been developing ways with allies in the region and in 
Lebanon to apply serious pressure on Hezbollah, within the same campaign. 
Between the events in the past week and the 2006 war that Israel lost, the 
U.S. seems to have gotten their fingers burnt in Lebanon. Now the U.S. 
campaign in the Middle East has gotten another slap in the face.

Hopefully with a new administration in the U.S., some lessons will have 
been learned as a result of numerous serious set-backs to U.S. interests 
in the region and beyond, from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Palestine and now 
in Lebanon. Despite the failings for U.S. policy in Lebanon, other 
strategies are being attempted, now the U.S. has once again sent the USS 
Cole, a massive U.S. military ship, to patrol the coastal waters not far 
from Beirut.

Although I think that the movement from the U.S. to send the USS Cole is 
most likely an empty gesture. In a sense I think that the U.S. wasn't 
ready for the events that have taken place in Lebanon this past week, in 
any case the U.S. isn't reacting quickly, or at least don't know how to 
respond exactly to the situation today in Lebanon.

Until now the U.S. hasn't moved to address the current situation in 
Lebanon at the United Nations, hasn't threated anything serious in a 
unilateral sense, actually in comparison to other situations the U.S. 
statements have been mild, which perhaps means that the U.S. didn't expect 
Hezbollah to sweep Beirut in the way it did, it has taken the U.S. and 
their allies off guard.


* Bilal Elamine is currently living in Beirut, originally from Southern 
Lebanon, the former editor of Left Turn Magazine. In Beirut, Bilal works 
with the alternative café in the Hamra district, Taa Marbuuta...

''''''''''''''''''''''