This is what two journalists wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 4/12/20061.[1] But here, in the heart of Beirut, the atmosphere seems quite different. The Opposition is in the streets, holding a sit-in until the formation of a “national union” or “national unity” government or until Fuad Siniora�s government is toppled. Sunni�Shi�a agitation has reached a peak, despite assurances that Lebanon cannot be “Iraqized” [in the past, we have heard assurances that Iraq cannot be “Lebanonized”]. A martyr [whom government supporters described as having been “killed”] has fallen from the opposition ranks. The wounded number in the tens. A Western newspaper talks about new weaponary that has arrived at the Internal Security Forces from an Arab country [United Arab Emirates] in order to counter the influence of “Hezbollah” and Iran. Pictures of Rafiq Hariri are torn apart. Pictures of Hassan Nassrallah are shot at. The student representative in the Socialist Party is beaten up. The Resistance is meant to be in the alleys.

It is as if we were watching an old scenario being replayed, or a scene that we had seen before [d�j� vu]: the scenario of the Palestinian-Lebanese conflict in the eighties, or the scene of the Palestinian resistance turning from fighting Israel to drowning in a swamp of petty wars [which the [Palestinian] resistance itself helped sometimes to sprout]. While not subscribing to conspiracy theories, one is led to ask: could it be that with the glad tidings of the new American Middle East, the Lebanonization of Iraq is being followed by the Iraqization of Lebanon and the “Palestinianization” of the Lebanese Islamic Resistance?

And, as the mattocks are being prepared to bury the National Resistance in the districts of Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon, and as the Sunni poor are incited to stand against the Shi�a poor, signals emerge from the South, and in particular from the town of Naqura, that point to a possible alteration in the aim of the mission of the International Forces as set out by the international resolution 1701 � namely, that of supporting the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the South. Following an article in the French newspaper “Le Monde” of 24/9/2006 in which mention was made of “rules of engagement” that point [albeit in an ambiguous way] to an offensive role for the International Forces, a statement was released on 10/10/2006 in which these Forces spoke of their “right” to “use force for reasons other than self-defense”, to establish “temporary barricades” in the South, to act on “special information” in instances when the Lebanese Army is unable to act, and to “use force” against any “hostile activities”.

This, if the International Forces are not brought in to separate the quarrelers in the alleys of Beirut, or to prevent the infiltration of “terrorists” across the Syrian�Lebanese border.

In brief, the Islamic and National Resistance is meant to be squeezed between the two claws of a pincer:

* International�Israeli in the South. And we note here the emphasis of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the mission of the International Forces in the South is actually “to protect Israel” not Lebanon; otherwise these Forces would be standing on both sides of the Lebanese-Palestinian border not only on one side[3] � the Lebanese, which was under assault.

* International-Local in Beirut and other areas. And we note here the intimate relationship between the US administration and the leaders of the ruling coalition, a feature of which was the sandwich party at the US embassy, and the visit of representatives of the coalition to Washington to congratulate Bolton [are they going to visit him now to console him following his resignation?].

Is it possible that the leadership of the Resistance is not aware of these dangers, despite all the sophistication and wisdom that we witnessed in its management of the resistance against Israel this past summer and during the past few years?

The cause of our worries are the frictions that arise at the Opposition�s sit-in in the streets of Beirut despite Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah�s insistence in his speech on 7/12/2006 that no chance should be given to the plotters, intriguers and sectarianists. The Resistance should not abstain from internal Lebanese affairs, as it did in the past; for, securing the Resistance [Hezbollah] is dependant upon the creation of popular and governmental support. However, one is led to ask: can this support be achieved through a “national unity” government? Can this support be achieved if Fuad Siniora, whom the Resistance [and the Opposition] accused of forsaking the Resistance after the capture of the two Israeli soldiers on July 12, stays on as head of a new cabinet? And how can the Opposition “not mind” the return of Siniora as head of a new government, after accusing him - of all possible charges - of conniving and conspiring, the last of which is Sayyed Nasrallah�s accusation that he ordered the Lebanese Army to confiscate weapons transferred to the Resistance in the South during the last war? And how can there be national unity with the leaders of the ruling coalition when, according to documents in the possession of the Resistance [as Nasrallah hinted in his last speech], some of them were conniving with the Israeli occupation? Either the Resistance has raised its treason ceiling to the point that its demand for national unity with the “conspiring traitors” has become contradictory and precipitous or it has raised this ceiling in order to achieve “effective” participation in the government, and, in such an instance, charging it [the government] with treason would be gratuitous and far from honest.

But, let�s be frank about it, how can we expect all this from the Opposition, when some sections in it are directly responsible for past corruption, and past squander, for the “partification” and “sectarianization” of the Lebanese University, for paralyzing the labour movement, for making entire unions subordinate to different tutelages, for flirting and coordinating with old�renewable guardianships to increase their chances of reaching the highest posts?

The real opposition, from all oppositional parties, should, at this particular time in the history of our country - when different sections of the Lebanese population are united in Riad al-Solh and Shohad�a - articulate its own clean visions for the future� visions that do not stop at immediate goals [like, as we said earlier, the hasty and unconvincing demand for a “national unity government”] or personal aspirations. The honest groups should keep � even amid this rich mixture of oppositions � a considerable distance from some of the leaders of the Opposition that are themselves responsible for drowning Lebanon in corruption, squander and Syrian � and international [1559] tutelage. Moreover, the genuine secularists in the opposition should not just nod approvingly at slogans of the “dubious Opposition” that do not differ in the least from the slogans of the March 14 group: the call for “Muslim-Christian unity” and for “Sunni, Shi�a, Druze, Orthodox, Maronite …” solidarity [as per one of the new songs], and all similar calls that are so abundant in the late Opposition sit-in and are reminiscent of the March 14 demonstrations [the one important difference being the absence of a racist attitude towards “the Syrian”]. As for the songs that sprouted from the media machinery of Hezbollah for this particular event - besides being devoid of any artistic or political value [as opposed to most of the Resistance songs of previous years] - they remind us of the absurd, rushed “unifying” songs that were broadcast on “Future TV” and “Radio Orient” [Hariri outlets] following the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri. The difference here is that the “new” opposition is the one that is, today, singing the songs of “national unity” that the “old” opposition used to sing in the days of Syrian tutelage, before turning against it [national unity], after attaining power, and after the need to know “the truth” became its sole aim in life� as if there is no truth in the world worthy of being known other than the truth of who killed Rafiq Hariri!

“We want to live!” This is what president Siniora says, repeating the slogans posted on bulletin boards across the capital these days. Those promoting the new slogan may be no different from those who, after the end of the Syrian tutelage, promoted the slogan “Independence 05” followed, a few months later, by the slogan “Dependence 06”, mocking and ridiculing the first! We, of course, want to live like Siniora wants. But, “free and dignified” living has to include everyone: our captives in the jails of occupation that have sacrificed for us, our people in the South dwelling amid daily Israeli violations and in the danger that one of the one million two hundred thousand cluster bomblets dropped by Israel during the last hours before the cease-fire could explode in the face of their sons and daughters. Free and dignified living should include the poor and dispossessed, low-income employees and the victims of Hariri�s “reconstruction”� most people neither benefited from his upscale Solid�re or from his luxurious airport. “We want to live” should include, as well, the more than three hundred thousand Palestinians who, in the camps of misery, are simply not “living”. And, by the way, only one thing “lives” better now than at anytime in the past: the banks!

Samah Idriss is the editor of al-Adab magazine.
This article appeared originally in the October-December issue of al-Adab. Translated by Tadmaon! Montreal, with permission.

[1] Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, “North and South”, Ha’aretz.

[2] Richard Lab�vi�re attributes UN Resolution 1559 to France�s desire to please the United States after the losses it incurred from the American boycott that followed its objections to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. He also notes that the close financial relationship between the late Prime Minister Hariri and French President Jacques Chirac played a role in the passage of the Resolution.

[3] Robert Fisk, “Conflict in the Middle East is Mission Implausible”, The Independent, 15 Nov. 2006.

• Facebook
• Twitter