Kouchner stormed out of a meeting with Hariri yesterday fuming. Efforts by France to push the two Lebanese camps to agree on a candidate has been blocked, leaving us further away from an agreement before the November 24th deadline.
The French FM couldn't keep his cool:
"I want to know who is blocking and who will take responsibility, but I say to you ... that the one who takes responsibility for having blocked this process agreed by everyone, will carry the responsibility for the destabilisation of Lebanon and its regional consequences," he said.
Kouchner stated that even the Syrians agreed to their compromise candidate, suggesting that Hizballah was in agreement also, so who blocked the consensus? Reuters hints at rival Christian leaders. We know Michel Aoun is angry about not being chosen president, but he wouldn't part from his alliance with Hizballah over it, or would he? Perhaps it was Samir Geagea, it's not the first time he has prevented his March 14 colleagues from reaching a deal with the Opposition. Or was it an external source, perhaps the US?
Again, it wouldn't be the first time the Bush administration would've faced accusations of hindering diplomatic efforts in Lebanon, but I'll hold my breath until more is revealed about les rendez-vous de Monsieur Kouchner du weekend.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Ban-ki-moon has his hands full in Lebanon
Image courtesy of the Blacksmiths of Lebanon.
The Blacksmiths have placed forward Charles Rizk as their preferred compromise candidate, stating that Rizk has the character "to preserve the Lebanese peoples' drive for sovereignty, to tackle the issues that will dominate that drive over the next six years, and to do so in a fashion which could, once and for all dispose of the tainting and sidelining that has plagued the Presidency since that fateful extension in 2004."
Perhaps, Rizk would be the ideal middle man. He was a close Syrian ally during the Baathist reign over Lebanon, but has demonstrated an even-handed approach under the pro-American Siniora.
I haven't exactly placed my preference for the Lebanese presidency, because essentially it's highly irrelevant. Neither the US nor Syria will get their preferred candidates in charge, which more than likely means a nobody who simply occupies the post for aesthetic purposes will assume the role.
Neither the US nor Syria are in the mood, or showing any willingness, to allow a president to test their patience. That suggests to me that any compromise candidate will do as advised, and keep his mouth shut.
Lebanon's so-called compromise
So much talk and fear has been instilled in Lebanon and world capitals as a result of this contentious presidential election.
Neither the US nor France will accept a candidate favoured to Syria or Iran, and vice versa. The Opposition will boycott parliament if it's not happy with the candidate, and the ruling coalition has warned it will simply ignore the constitution altogether and elect a president with a simple majority instead of a two-third quorum.
All this tension has raised the fear of renewed civil conflict, and world diplomats are flying in and out of Lebanon, to every regional capital, to Brussels, Paris, Washington, London, when a simple solution to this problem is staring us all right in the face.
Ever heard of the Lebanese people? Has anyone asked them who they would prefer as their president? It baffles me that the Western and Arab media, who have so extensively warned of the dangers if a president isn't decided by November 24th, have failed to raise this obvious solution.
Who is exactly doing the electing in this election? US, France, Syria, Iran, and the warlords of our country? Well it makes as much sense. Half of the Lebanese parliament represents the US and France, and the other half represents Syria and Iran ... there's no room in this "democratic" equation for the Lebanese people.
Neither the US nor France will accept a candidate favoured to Syria or Iran, and vice versa. The Opposition will boycott parliament if it's not happy with the candidate, and the ruling coalition has warned it will simply ignore the constitution altogether and elect a president with a simple majority instead of a two-third quorum.
All this tension has raised the fear of renewed civil conflict, and world diplomats are flying in and out of Lebanon, to every regional capital, to Brussels, Paris, Washington, London, when a simple solution to this problem is staring us all right in the face.
Ever heard of the Lebanese people? Has anyone asked them who they would prefer as their president? It baffles me that the Western and Arab media, who have so extensively warned of the dangers if a president isn't decided by November 24th, have failed to raise this obvious solution.
Who is exactly doing the electing in this election? US, France, Syria, Iran, and the warlords of our country? Well it makes as much sense. Half of the Lebanese parliament represents the US and France, and the other half represents Syria and Iran ... there's no room in this "democratic" equation for the Lebanese people.
Fair Lebanese Elections Petition
Another online Lebanese petition has been launched, not that any of the previous ones made much of a difference.
It does show, however, that there are Lebanese people out there who are aware of their democratic rights. Demonstrations, online petitions ... if only they could decide their own president.
Knock yourselves out!
http://www.fairlebanon.com/
It does show, however, that there are Lebanese people out there who are aware of their democratic rights. Demonstrations, online petitions ... if only they could decide their own president.
Knock yourselves out!
http://www.fairlebanon.com/
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Response to Alan Bock
Alan Bock gave a doom and gloom overview of the situation in Lebanon yesterday in his piece Lebanon: The Next Civil War?
Indeed, Lebanon's political crisis is giving many people cause for grave concern. Next week's presidential election is vital to ensuring Lebanon does not resort to a two-government situation, or worse, a civil war.
Despite all the talk of possible internal conflict in this tiny Middle Eastern entity, Bock's doomsday assessment seems rather stretched from the geopolitical and strategic realities. Much of Bock's article is valid and accurate in summarising Lebanon's current climate, bar for one crucial sentence that throws his overall contention out of balance:
"It is doubtful that the United States can do much beyond urging all factions not to resort to violence and urging Syria not to interfere too violently, as U.S. and European diplomats and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have been doing, probably to little effect."
Bock gravely understates the importance of the United States in Lebanon's internal politics. The US is so entrenched in Beirut that if it were possibly not for its intense backing of the Siniora Government, the Opposition would have overthrown the March 14 leadership last December during its mass popular protests and strikes.
Following the collapse of Syrian authority in Lebanon in 2005, the Americans have sifted through the country, expanded its intelligence operations, and assisted to form the current March 14 alliance, which encompasses once sworn enemies from Sunni, Christian and Druze corners. If neocon US policy in the Middle East has revealed anything post 9/11, it's that Lebanon is high on their agenda.
Lebanon has long been considered of strategic importance in the Israeli-Syrian equation. It has long suffered the role of being the proxy front between these two rivals. The control of Lebanon is crucial to the survival of both Israel and Syria. The Lebanese Civil War of 1975 - 1990 was as much about domination of Lebanon as it was about internal, sectarian rivalries. The scene has changed little since. Syria not only views Lebanon as historically part of its territory, ripped away from it by European colonialists, but it is also aware that the key road to Damascus starts in Beirut.
The Syrians will not allow a Lebanon hostile to its regime, for fear it would be used against it, something it fears the US will do if Lebanon completely falls into its orbit. The Americans and Israelis fought the Syrians between 1975- 1990 to turn Lebanon into that hostile, anti-Syrian state, and failed. Bush Snr's attention turned to Saddam Hussein in 1990, and abandoned the battle for Lebanon. Clinton continued this policy, but it appears the neocon hopefuls have revived the ambition to strike at Syria through its gateway ... Lebanon.
Syria withdrew from Lebanon, partly due to the mass demonstrations following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, but mostly due to the great pressure exerted on Damascus by Washington and its allies. It was when the US deemed Syria's presence in Lebanon unstable and unnecessary that the Syrian occupation of its smaller neighbour ended.
The Bush administration's engagement in Lebanon and support for the Siniora Government is pivotal to the survival of the March 14 grouping. An alliance that enlists Samir Geagea of the right-wing Maronite faction, the Lebanese Forces (LF), and Walid Jumblatt of the Druze left-wing Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) - and has survived intact for more than two years - could not have been achieved without magic from an external source. These two factions fought a bloody conflict in the 1980s that saw both sides commit ethnic cleansing and other unspeakable atrocities against each other. Today, they walk hand-in-hand, not as a result of a genuine forgiveness, but as a consequence of the interests of the United States.
The US is the cornerstone of the March 14 alliance. Without the backing of Washington, March 14, and indeed the Siniora Government, would have little raison d'etre. Much of the same can be said of Syria's proxies. It was the magic of Syria and Iran that pushed the two rival Shia factions, Amal and Hezballah, to put their differences aside and form a united front. Damascus has simply added to the Shia mix its other allies in Lebanon, including the Christian Marada faction of Sleiman Franjiyeh, the secular Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), and a variety of Palestinian, Druze and Sunni factions that profess loyalty to Syria. The only extra addition to the Syrian-backed Opposition is Lebanon's main Christian faction, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) led by Michel Aoun, who entered into an alliance with Hizballah after his relations with March 14 fell through following Syria's withdrawal.
Essentially, it very much comes down to the wishes and interests of the United States, as well as Israel and Syria. Lebanon's rivalries are intense, and irrational errors can cause a spark to explode, but an internal war will not last if the patron regional power brokers are not willing to play ball. It's quite clear that Hezballah is the most organised and sophisticated military organisation in Lebanon. March 14 acknowledge the obvious fact that they wouldn't stand a chance against Hezballah alone. The Shi'ite group has a strict policy of not attacking fellow Lebanese, thus any war would have to be instigated either by another Syrian proxy, such as the Palestinians or the SSNP, or by one of the March 14 factions, perhaps the LF or a Saudi-backed Salafist movement.
For March 14 to sustain an armed conflict against Hezballah - let alone the entire Opposition - it would require massive training, funding, recruiting and weapons supplies, which could only be sourced from the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia. Considering the US is the prime backer of March 14, no arms, no training, no funding, and no war will take place without the consent of Washington. Indeed, reports have consistently emerged over the past year of military training camps of March 14 militias, but a lot more than discreet training on a mountain top is required to confront Hezballah. Any war with the Iranian-backed guerrillas will require the military intervention of Israel. Only with the support of the Israeli air force, navy, and perhaps land forces, will March 14 have a possibility of defeating the Opposition. Therefore, consent from Tel Aviv is another prerequisite for a civil war in Lebanon.
Whether Israel is prepared to commit to another Lebanon war remains unknown. The Israelis have been giving mixed messages as to what its future plans are for its northern border. It launched a mysterious air strike against Syria in September, and recently conducted military manoeuvres on the Lebanon border. At the same time, it has confessed to have resumed secret negotiations with Damascus and has publicly expressed its willingness to engage in peace talks with Assad. It must also be factored in that the Olmert government is still struggling in local popularity as a result of last year's disastrous Lebanon War. It appears highly unlikely that the Israeli public would stomach another major offensive into Lebanon in the near future, particularly one that could drag on for years.
Negotiation and compromise persists as the only possibility to breaking the impasse in Lebanon's political crisis. The US, as the prime supporter of the March 14 alliance, has the power to decide whether compromise or war will prevail in Lebanon. If Israel's unprepared to participate in any internal Lebanese conflict, then all the odds will point to a Hezballah victory if war were to breakout. That is a possibility the US won't risk to take.
Indeed, Lebanon's political crisis is giving many people cause for grave concern. Next week's presidential election is vital to ensuring Lebanon does not resort to a two-government situation, or worse, a civil war.
Despite all the talk of possible internal conflict in this tiny Middle Eastern entity, Bock's doomsday assessment seems rather stretched from the geopolitical and strategic realities. Much of Bock's article is valid and accurate in summarising Lebanon's current climate, bar for one crucial sentence that throws his overall contention out of balance:
"It is doubtful that the United States can do much beyond urging all factions not to resort to violence and urging Syria not to interfere too violently, as U.S. and European diplomats and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have been doing, probably to little effect."
Bock gravely understates the importance of the United States in Lebanon's internal politics. The US is so entrenched in Beirut that if it were possibly not for its intense backing of the Siniora Government, the Opposition would have overthrown the March 14 leadership last December during its mass popular protests and strikes.
Following the collapse of Syrian authority in Lebanon in 2005, the Americans have sifted through the country, expanded its intelligence operations, and assisted to form the current March 14 alliance, which encompasses once sworn enemies from Sunni, Christian and Druze corners. If neocon US policy in the Middle East has revealed anything post 9/11, it's that Lebanon is high on their agenda.
Lebanon has long been considered of strategic importance in the Israeli-Syrian equation. It has long suffered the role of being the proxy front between these two rivals. The control of Lebanon is crucial to the survival of both Israel and Syria. The Lebanese Civil War of 1975 - 1990 was as much about domination of Lebanon as it was about internal, sectarian rivalries. The scene has changed little since. Syria not only views Lebanon as historically part of its territory, ripped away from it by European colonialists, but it is also aware that the key road to Damascus starts in Beirut.
The Syrians will not allow a Lebanon hostile to its regime, for fear it would be used against it, something it fears the US will do if Lebanon completely falls into its orbit. The Americans and Israelis fought the Syrians between 1975- 1990 to turn Lebanon into that hostile, anti-Syrian state, and failed. Bush Snr's attention turned to Saddam Hussein in 1990, and abandoned the battle for Lebanon. Clinton continued this policy, but it appears the neocon hopefuls have revived the ambition to strike at Syria through its gateway ... Lebanon.
Syria withdrew from Lebanon, partly due to the mass demonstrations following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, but mostly due to the great pressure exerted on Damascus by Washington and its allies. It was when the US deemed Syria's presence in Lebanon unstable and unnecessary that the Syrian occupation of its smaller neighbour ended.
The Bush administration's engagement in Lebanon and support for the Siniora Government is pivotal to the survival of the March 14 grouping. An alliance that enlists Samir Geagea of the right-wing Maronite faction, the Lebanese Forces (LF), and Walid Jumblatt of the Druze left-wing Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) - and has survived intact for more than two years - could not have been achieved without magic from an external source. These two factions fought a bloody conflict in the 1980s that saw both sides commit ethnic cleansing and other unspeakable atrocities against each other. Today, they walk hand-in-hand, not as a result of a genuine forgiveness, but as a consequence of the interests of the United States.
The US is the cornerstone of the March 14 alliance. Without the backing of Washington, March 14, and indeed the Siniora Government, would have little raison d'etre. Much of the same can be said of Syria's proxies. It was the magic of Syria and Iran that pushed the two rival Shia factions, Amal and Hezballah, to put their differences aside and form a united front. Damascus has simply added to the Shia mix its other allies in Lebanon, including the Christian Marada faction of Sleiman Franjiyeh, the secular Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), and a variety of Palestinian, Druze and Sunni factions that profess loyalty to Syria. The only extra addition to the Syrian-backed Opposition is Lebanon's main Christian faction, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) led by Michel Aoun, who entered into an alliance with Hizballah after his relations with March 14 fell through following Syria's withdrawal.
Essentially, it very much comes down to the wishes and interests of the United States, as well as Israel and Syria. Lebanon's rivalries are intense, and irrational errors can cause a spark to explode, but an internal war will not last if the patron regional power brokers are not willing to play ball. It's quite clear that Hezballah is the most organised and sophisticated military organisation in Lebanon. March 14 acknowledge the obvious fact that they wouldn't stand a chance against Hezballah alone. The Shi'ite group has a strict policy of not attacking fellow Lebanese, thus any war would have to be instigated either by another Syrian proxy, such as the Palestinians or the SSNP, or by one of the March 14 factions, perhaps the LF or a Saudi-backed Salafist movement.
For March 14 to sustain an armed conflict against Hezballah - let alone the entire Opposition - it would require massive training, funding, recruiting and weapons supplies, which could only be sourced from the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia. Considering the US is the prime backer of March 14, no arms, no training, no funding, and no war will take place without the consent of Washington. Indeed, reports have consistently emerged over the past year of military training camps of March 14 militias, but a lot more than discreet training on a mountain top is required to confront Hezballah. Any war with the Iranian-backed guerrillas will require the military intervention of Israel. Only with the support of the Israeli air force, navy, and perhaps land forces, will March 14 have a possibility of defeating the Opposition. Therefore, consent from Tel Aviv is another prerequisite for a civil war in Lebanon.
Whether Israel is prepared to commit to another Lebanon war remains unknown. The Israelis have been giving mixed messages as to what its future plans are for its northern border. It launched a mysterious air strike against Syria in September, and recently conducted military manoeuvres on the Lebanon border. At the same time, it has confessed to have resumed secret negotiations with Damascus and has publicly expressed its willingness to engage in peace talks with Assad. It must also be factored in that the Olmert government is still struggling in local popularity as a result of last year's disastrous Lebanon War. It appears highly unlikely that the Israeli public would stomach another major offensive into Lebanon in the near future, particularly one that could drag on for years.
Negotiation and compromise persists as the only possibility to breaking the impasse in Lebanon's political crisis. The US, as the prime supporter of the March 14 alliance, has the power to decide whether compromise or war will prevail in Lebanon. If Israel's unprepared to participate in any internal Lebanese conflict, then all the odds will point to a Hezballah victory if war were to breakout. That is a possibility the US won't risk to take.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Tories cite "anti-Semitism" as reason to ban Lebanese journalist
Tories leader, David Cameron, has pressed the British Government to ban Ibrahim Moussawi, former editor of Hizballah's TV channel Al Manar, from entering the country for an anti-war event.
Moussawi had been invited by the Stop The War Coalition to attend the "World Against War" day in London on December 1. The former Al-Manar editor was also prohibited from participating in an anti-war event in Ireland after the country rejected his entry last month on similar grounds. The Daily Star reports that the US Government pressured Ireland to refuse Moussawi's entry, which outraged the Irish Anti-War Movement, who had organised the event.
Suppression of Hizballah's media affiliates has been a common scene in the Western world, largely attributed to the successful attempt by Jewish lobbies to censor the Shi'ite Party's perspective. In recent years, countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK have all followed the US in succumbing to the pressure of Jewish lobbies and banning media affiliated with Lebanon's largest and most popular political party.
The Irish decision was the most surprising, as Ireland has long sought the path of diplomacy and dialogue in the Middle East ... so long as that dialogue doesn't take place in Ireland it seems.
If Western governments aim to win the "hearts and minds" of Middle Easterners, then perhaps it would be wise to honour their own words. Hurls of hypocrisy are often the typical response by the Arab world each time the West gives its lecture on democracy, free speech and dialogue... and rightly so. It's a great pity that under the hawkish auspices of George W. Bush, democracy and free speech have become selective, almost hampered within the Occident.
Thank heavens that the internet was invented before Bush came to power.
I wonder what would have become of us simple Western taxpayers had total censorship of information taken place instead of a free world wide web ... perhaps something eeringly resembling the greatly censorsed and closed societies of the Arab and Islamic world?
Censorship has no rewards.
Meanwhile on the topic of racist attacks, here's an example of one that generally goes unnoticed:
Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them
A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.
Full story from Haaretz.
Moussawi had been invited by the Stop The War Coalition to attend the "World Against War" day in London on December 1. The former Al-Manar editor was also prohibited from participating in an anti-war event in Ireland after the country rejected his entry last month on similar grounds. The Daily Star reports that the US Government pressured Ireland to refuse Moussawi's entry, which outraged the Irish Anti-War Movement, who had organised the event.
Suppression of Hizballah's media affiliates has been a common scene in the Western world, largely attributed to the successful attempt by Jewish lobbies to censor the Shi'ite Party's perspective. In recent years, countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK have all followed the US in succumbing to the pressure of Jewish lobbies and banning media affiliated with Lebanon's largest and most popular political party.
The Irish decision was the most surprising, as Ireland has long sought the path of diplomacy and dialogue in the Middle East ... so long as that dialogue doesn't take place in Ireland it seems.
If Western governments aim to win the "hearts and minds" of Middle Easterners, then perhaps it would be wise to honour their own words. Hurls of hypocrisy are often the typical response by the Arab world each time the West gives its lecture on democracy, free speech and dialogue... and rightly so. It's a great pity that under the hawkish auspices of George W. Bush, democracy and free speech have become selective, almost hampered within the Occident.
Thank heavens that the internet was invented before Bush came to power.
I wonder what would have become of us simple Western taxpayers had total censorship of information taken place instead of a free world wide web ... perhaps something eeringly resembling the greatly censorsed and closed societies of the Arab and Islamic world?
Censorship has no rewards.
Meanwhile on the topic of racist attacks, here's an example of one that generally goes unnoticed:
Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them
A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.
Full story from Haaretz.
Return to Civil War unlikely ... for now
There has been a lot of diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing in the past week.
European ministers continue to fly in and out of Lebanon and Syria; UN head Ban-ki-moon dropped into Beirut; the Arab League's irrelevant leader Amr Moussa was in Damascus; Israel confessed that it's resumed secret dialogue with Syria.
I presume the UN, the Arab League and the EU all went to Damascus pleading, threatening or sweetening Assad in order to get him to compromise on Lebanon's presidency.
To make matters even more confusing, Hizballah has launched investigations into Al-Qaida's activities in Lebanon and its apparent assassination plot against their number one, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.
What a week!
In the meantime, Lebanon's constitutional (not that the Lebanese revere their constitution) deadline to appoint a new president is rapidly approaching, and a chosen candidate for November 24th remains elusive. The most neglected aspect of the puzzle, the Lebanese people, are baffled, yet still remain in fear of what may occur should consultations to elect a new president fail. Reports (or allegations) of Lebanese factions re-arming themselves in anticipation of an internal conflict have been emerging for the past year, and the Lebanese people wonder how many more assassinations and bombs the fragile state can sustain before one of these factions explodes.
However, whilst many are looking inwards to find a solution, my concentration is fixed on where Lebanon's key decision-makers lie ... beyond Lebanon's borders.
Critics have already voiced their scepticism of the looming Annapolis Conference, especially from the Arabs, with obviously good reason. The Israelis and the US have on several occasions before invited Arab states for "serious" negotiations, which have often ended up as mere PR stunts. Syria's insistence that the Golan Heights be placed on the agenda - with the backing of America's Arab allies - alludes to the great cynicism of Arab states when it comes to negotiating with Israel.
But Lebanese ought to be focusing on Annapolis and other diplomatic initiatives for key reasons. Whether every Lebanese faction is armed to the teeth or not, guns will remain silent so long as the US, Israel and Syria want them to. The latest expression of willingness from Israel and Syria to resume some kind of dialogue (despite the high possibility of no fruitful outcome being achieved) signals that neither side is interested in embarking on another military initiative in the meantime. Of course, tensions still remain high after Israel's mysterious airstrike on Syria in September, but it is possible that the Israelis and the West are trying to soften Assad's stance to win a few compromises.
Arab critics are probably accurate in their pessimism at achieving a peace agreement at Annapolis, but is this conference really designed to bring peace, or to simply calm the waters? Is this conference a sign that - behind-the-scenes - the US and Israel are willing to conduct a dialogue with Syria over Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinians?
The speeches of Nasrallah, Aoun, Geagea or Hariri deliver little more than affirmation of the status quo. We are incapable of making our own decisions, otherwise I'm sure we would have a new president by now. There will be no president so long as the US, Israel and Syria are not satisfied. Let us not forget that it was a consensus between the US, Israel and Syria that ended the Lebanese Civil War in 1990. Regretfully, our deep inter and intra-religious divisions ensure that we are not the bearers of our own destiny.
Until the Lebanese learn to take initiative in their internal matters, my eyes remain fixed on regional developments and for the time being, Annapolis.
US-Israel divisions begin to surface
Israel to US: We want dialogue with Syria, and action against Iran. Give Lebanon to Syria in exchange for severing alliance with Iran, but keep Golan Heights
US to Israel: We want dialogue with Iran, and action against Syria. You're wasting your time with Damascus, they won't accept anything less than the Golan ... And get used to an Iranian bomb.
From Haaretz, full article here.
European ministers continue to fly in and out of Lebanon and Syria; UN head Ban-ki-moon dropped into Beirut; the Arab League's irrelevant leader Amr Moussa was in Damascus; Israel confessed that it's resumed secret dialogue with Syria.
I presume the UN, the Arab League and the EU all went to Damascus pleading, threatening or sweetening Assad in order to get him to compromise on Lebanon's presidency.
To make matters even more confusing, Hizballah has launched investigations into Al-Qaida's activities in Lebanon and its apparent assassination plot against their number one, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.
What a week!
In the meantime, Lebanon's constitutional (not that the Lebanese revere their constitution) deadline to appoint a new president is rapidly approaching, and a chosen candidate for November 24th remains elusive. The most neglected aspect of the puzzle, the Lebanese people, are baffled, yet still remain in fear of what may occur should consultations to elect a new president fail. Reports (or allegations) of Lebanese factions re-arming themselves in anticipation of an internal conflict have been emerging for the past year, and the Lebanese people wonder how many more assassinations and bombs the fragile state can sustain before one of these factions explodes.
However, whilst many are looking inwards to find a solution, my concentration is fixed on where Lebanon's key decision-makers lie ... beyond Lebanon's borders.
Critics have already voiced their scepticism of the looming Annapolis Conference, especially from the Arabs, with obviously good reason. The Israelis and the US have on several occasions before invited Arab states for "serious" negotiations, which have often ended up as mere PR stunts. Syria's insistence that the Golan Heights be placed on the agenda - with the backing of America's Arab allies - alludes to the great cynicism of Arab states when it comes to negotiating with Israel.
But Lebanese ought to be focusing on Annapolis and other diplomatic initiatives for key reasons. Whether every Lebanese faction is armed to the teeth or not, guns will remain silent so long as the US, Israel and Syria want them to. The latest expression of willingness from Israel and Syria to resume some kind of dialogue (despite the high possibility of no fruitful outcome being achieved) signals that neither side is interested in embarking on another military initiative in the meantime. Of course, tensions still remain high after Israel's mysterious airstrike on Syria in September, but it is possible that the Israelis and the West are trying to soften Assad's stance to win a few compromises.
Arab critics are probably accurate in their pessimism at achieving a peace agreement at Annapolis, but is this conference really designed to bring peace, or to simply calm the waters? Is this conference a sign that - behind-the-scenes - the US and Israel are willing to conduct a dialogue with Syria over Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinians?
The speeches of Nasrallah, Aoun, Geagea or Hariri deliver little more than affirmation of the status quo. We are incapable of making our own decisions, otherwise I'm sure we would have a new president by now. There will be no president so long as the US, Israel and Syria are not satisfied. Let us not forget that it was a consensus between the US, Israel and Syria that ended the Lebanese Civil War in 1990. Regretfully, our deep inter and intra-religious divisions ensure that we are not the bearers of our own destiny.
Until the Lebanese learn to take initiative in their internal matters, my eyes remain fixed on regional developments and for the time being, Annapolis.
US-Israel divisions begin to surface
Israel to US: We want dialogue with Syria, and action against Iran. Give Lebanon to Syria in exchange for severing alliance with Iran, but keep Golan Heights
US to Israel: We want dialogue with Iran, and action against Syria. You're wasting your time with Damascus, they won't accept anything less than the Golan ... And get used to an Iranian bomb.
From Haaretz, full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
