Lebanon's Government Quits in Face of Mass Protest

It's a mystery to me, actually I have seen no evidence offered as of yet that Syria has been involved in any hanky-panky (other than ususal) and it also seems on the surface that Lebanon has been pretty quiet stability wise for as long as Syrian troops have been on the ground there. Hard to say really what's going on but I am guessing that some degree of covert operations have had their effect.

Whose, do you mean? The US?

well there's always that possibility.

AlJazeera.net: (pre-event)

here

New York Times

Hey good news! Cool. Its sure been enthusing and engaging to read the reports about the popular demonstrations after the murder of Hairiri, the single most heartwarming reports in the paper this last month I dare say!

Especially when you read how for the first time in a decade, people from all the different denominations and religions, the same ones who for so long warred each other in sectarian conflict, flowed into the street together, united in a common ... patriotism, really! And though I'm not much for patriotism usually, a transethnic, interreligious patriotism (re)emerging in a country like Lebanon surely is good news.

I've been wanting to post or translate reports from Lebanon for some time, but somehow never got round to - good to see this thread about it!

Good old Beebs - with lots of links and analysis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4305927.stm

Damn - I hafta go to work - just when I had started reading lots about this.

Hey - Israel has said Syria is behind a recent bombing that killed five Israelis. Speaking of Syria....

I've called you on different topics to justify your posts dsylexia, but you just seem to be fond of one liners. A shame..

In reply to the topic question, I think this means that the Lebanese people have had enough of Syrian occupation and they are now planning to do something about it.
They do have a chance to go far with it this time around, given the different regional and international political moods, but the main concern here remains the aftermath.

Well, Lebanon was racked with civil war when the Syrians invaded. Had been for years.

Here is an interesting analysis of previous US policy:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0103_l1.htm


Here is a current article from The Economist re the situation:

Time for Syria to go

Feb 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition


But it is also necessary to disarm Hizbullah, the Iranian-inspired “Party of God”


AP


Get article background

GEORGE BUSH'S claim that the example of Iraq could spread democracy throughout the Arab world is frequently mocked, not least by the Arabs. In truth, nobody can foretell the long-term consequences. Following last week's murder by assassins unknown of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister, most Lebanese blame Syria, which has occupied their country since intervening in its civil war in 1976. Many Lebanese have launched what they are calling a “peaceful intifada” to push the Syrians out. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the country's Druze, says that Iraq is part of the inspiration for this. “I was cynical about Iraq,” he told the Washington Post. “But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8m of them, it was the start of a new Arab world...The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”

Can Syria really be eased out of Lebanon? Perhaps. On top of the pressure from the Lebanese, outside pressure on Syria's President Bashir Assad is intensifying. America has imposed some mild sanctions—and threatened more—under its Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Ending the Syrian occupation is one of the few regional policies on which America and France, the former colonial power, have been able to co-operate. They were the prime movers last September of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which orders Syria out. Mr Bush and President Jacques Chirac, a friend of the murdered Mr Hariri, repeated that call this week.


The restoration of Lebanese sovereignty would be a wonderful thing. However, Resolution 1559 contains a second, less remarked-upon demand. This calls for the disarming of all Lebanon's private militias, only one of which—Hizbullah, the Iranian-inspired “Party of God”—is in fact still under arms. A Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon that left Hizbullah with its weapons could be dangerous in the extreme.

Hizbullah is hard to define. To Americans it is a terrorist group, one that killed more than 240 marines in Beirut in 1983 and kept western hostages manacled for years in Beirut cellars. Israel accuses it of having killed 95 people in a Jewish centre in Argentina in 1994. To Lebanese it is the resourceful resistance group that drove the Israelis out of their self-declared Lebanese “security zone” in 1999. It is also a political party, with members in parliament. Its role in Lebanon's “fragile balance” is one reason France's foreign minister, Michel Barnier, gives for having refused American and Israeli pleas to add Hizbullah to Europe's list of terrorist organisations.

But what's in a name? Whatever you call it, Hizbullah should be made to disarm. In all countries, but especially those that have been through civil wars, allowing political parties to maintain private armies is a bad way to maintain a “fragile balance”. More often—as in the case of Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army—it is a recipe for continuing conflict. Nor does Hizbullah now require weapons to “resist” Israel. The Israelis withdrew their forces from all Lebanese territory five years ago, in very belated accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425. On the contrary, Hizbullah is permitted by Lebanon's Syrian occupiers to keep its weapons for one reason only: so that it can continue fighting Israel.

Israel delenda est

Hizbullah makes no secret of this. In an interview with The Economist, its deputy secretary-general, Sheikh Naim Kassem, explained that the establishment of the Israeli “entity” was a mistake that could not be allowed to continue, and that although “Jewish Palestinians” might remain in a liberated Palestine, those who came from abroad would have to return to their homelands. Destroying Israel is also the official policy of Iran, Hizbullah's mentor, which with Syrian connivance has supplied the group with thousands of rockets and missiles, some of them capable of reaching deep inside Israel. Although Resolution 1559 calls for Lebanese forces to control all of Lebanon, Hizbullah runs the border area, from where it mounts occasional well-planned attacks on Israeli positions. Lately it has also played a growing part in arming and directing the Palestinian intifada—so much so that even Yasser Arafat had begun to complain about its interference.

For Hizbullah and its sponsors in Tehran the idea of disarming it is almost unthinkable. War against the Zionist entity is part of its founding vocation. Syria, too, finds it useful to have a proxy that can be used to keep Lebanon's border with Israel on a hair-trigger. But these are yesterday's ideas. They deserve no place in a Middle East that may at last be moving towards democracy and a reconciliation in Palestine. The disarming of Hizbullah—or if necessary its incorporation into the official army of a democratic Lebanon, free from foreign occpiers.

Wishing Lebanon well sans Syria - I just hope, after so many prior years of civil war, that it can be a stable, peaceful state.

Community Card - do you have a lot of knowledge about Lebanon?

I would be great to hear your views.

Here is good old Wikipedia on the civil war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

and on lebanon generally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon

An interesting call to action from 2000:

http://www.meforum.org/press/440

Action and reaction:



"Pro-Syria rally set for Beirut

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 3:50 AM EST (0850 GMT)



Lahoud and Assad shake hands after reaching an agreement Monday.
Image:





BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Tens of thousands of pro-Syrian protesters are expected to crowd central Beirut one day after Damascus began pulling troops back to eastern Lebanon.

Tuesday's protest, seen as a counterpoint to anti-Damascus rallies in recent weeks, comes after the leaders of Lebanon and Syria agreed that Syrian troops will leave the country in stages.

The protest was called for by the Lebanon-based Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah, which has support in Syria.

On Monday, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud committed to the first stage of withdrawal and made plans for the second, under which Syria says it will move all 14,000 of its troops in Lebanon back into Syrian territory.

They agreed Syrian troops will pull back to Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley by the end of March.

Syrian officials told CNN they are following U.N. Resolution 1559 as well as the Taif Accord, signed in 1989, which legitimized Syria's presence in Lebanon at the end of a bitter civil war there but called for a later withdrawal............"

Full story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/08/syria/index.html

I just about PMPL when I read this in an link from the canajun right about the huge


pro-Syrian rally in Lebanon.



France and the U.S. are on the same side? What happened?

Hey guys

Well, I guess this means that there are two distinct speeches in Lebanon. One is for the liberation of the country from any occupying force, and we'll call this camp A for the moment, while as on the other hand, we have a camp B which we will define as pro-Syrian.
The thing is that this definition is not quite complete, and we need to add a few more elements to the equation. In trying to do so very briefly, let me separate both camps in order to try and draw a comparison.
A's partisans are for the most part (not to say ALL) Lebanese people. They are the Christian, Druze and Sunnite parties. They form the current opposition in Lebanon (to which the Communist party has joined, although it is a small one in the country), knowing that a few months back, it was without the Sunnites who only joined after the former Prime Minister Hariri resigned. Now, and after he has been assassinated (the question of who is behind it is a whole different thread). These people know for a fact that their government is corrupt, does by no means represent the will of the people and above all Syrian ! After the assassination of the former PM, and the mediatic attention this has lead to, not to mention Bush, Chirac, Arab countries as well as Germany and some other, they are requesting a total withdrawal from Lebanon. They are holding to this shred of hope of seeing their country truly independent and the Lebanon some 25 years back. They want to start over and put an end to this rather dark period which have been haunting them for some time. (This is not meant to mean that Lebanon was one hell of a corrupted place as some who don't know it might be thinking. This has been a very safe place (if not the most) in the middle east for nearly 14 years now, and it's nothing like there were wars and I don't know what else. It is just that living there have proven to be too difficult for people who love their country and who (for the old bunch) want the Lebanon they knew before the war, as well as those who (the younger bunch) want the Lebanon they only know in the books.
B's people meet some of the slogans of the first camp, but have a different ideology. As opposed to the others, and during their demonstration in the street, they were formed of Lebanese people, as well as Syrians and Palestinians. Busses drove people from Syria to come and manifest with them, people have been paid to be their and do their show and they are people who wouldn't know the Lebanese anthem if it was playing before their very eyes. When Saddam wanted to gather people, he knew very well how to do so, and it always proven to be successful. Hilter was no short of a genius in this sense, and we could carry on with such examples. These people's speech goes as follow :"we want Syria out of Lebanon, but there is no rush. They are ok with them replacing their troops inside of Lebanon now, only to leave at some later stage (5, 10 years..Doesn't matter much). We are against any intervention from outside countries, referring to Bush and Chirac at this point. We want to sit down and talk to the opposition, and we want to resolve inner problems amongst ourselves. We will never disarm knowing full well the threat Israel represents and we would like to give a big fat thank you for the Syrian support during the war in Lebanon (everybody else seems to be against them, so this sounds like a good moment to show them our moral support)".
The problem at hands here is that Lebanon is a place which is supposed to fit both A and B. There is no such thing as right or wrong, and what is needed is for both sides to find some common ground. Regardless of which side one might favor, he must acknowledge the fact that the other is also here and is equally entitled to the same he wish for himself.
As much as this smells very much like civil war, I do not really think this will happen, if only for the simple reason that there are no weapons in their arms. Hezbollah (B) is the only armed party, so this eliminates the threat of a civil war.
The problem now is to see how all this will evolve. The government is collapsing and the Syrian troops are on their way back home. The outside world has a tight eye on everything which is happening, and it is also taking part of it, via speeches and demands here and there. From what I gather, there have been very positive signs so far in the country, but still a long way to go. What if this soon melts down and The Bachelor 6 takes over? What if this results will bring a change which Lebanon could have very well did without ?

The United states and al its supporters this week have received two firm slap on their face,

1)The pro Syrian rally has outnumbered the feeble 'mass protest' that losers have been boasting about. Commentators have put the numbers at hundreds of thousans, some even put the number at a million.

2)the second kick in their teeth has been the relection by the Lebanese Parliment of the pro Syrian PM

These two slaps follow in the footsteps of the slap the americans recieved at the hands of ther pro Iranian parties victory in Iraq.

Long live their liberation!

reuters link

Feeble ?
The pro-Syrian protest was larger in number than the opposition, and this is a fact. Numbers close to one million are far too exagerated, and serve nothing but misleading the public opinion. You seem to have fallen for the trap. It is not physically possible since such figures would imply fitting 15 people per square meter.
More and more, while the opposition protests (even if lesser) were made of Lebanese people, the pro-Syrian one was made of Syrians, Palestinians and Lebanese. The opposition protested in Lebanon, as well as all over the globe (France, Dubai, USA, England, Belgium, Australia..While as the pro-Syrian ones demonstrated in Syria and Lebanon and thats it.)
Sadly enough, it has long been proven via history that the ratio of quality vs quantity have always been in favor of quantity.

Losers ?
Again, I do not blame you for being under the influence of mainstream propagandish messages. It is still a bit early anyway to say who "won" and who "lost".

steve, this is by no means meant as an offense to you, since it is fairly understandable that you do not know much about the country. It's not like we are talking about some major European country so you join lots of others who all of a sudden see this small country on the top of the news. Most of the people who, in the recent weeks, have been exposed to the headlines concerning Lebanon could not even point the country on the map.

About the reelection of the Prime Minister Karame.
Is it really a slap in the face of Bush and Chirac ?
Does it really mean that the opposition has lost its battle ?
Well allow to think of it otherwise. As a matter of fact, I can't help but feel like this is a good sign for the opposition.
I happen to believe that this is definitely a story to follow. For the time being, they need a Prime Minister (I mean you do need a guy to sign some papers and I don't know what else), and it gives the opposition some extra time to work out a good plan on its behalf. All have happened so quick, and the assassination of Hariri was nothing to be expected. It just generated all this amount of action in the streets, but its nothing like a Coup D'Etat the opposition have carefully worked out, which would imply having a detailed plan to follow up with.


So, in summary, this is not over yet, and to claim that the bigger pro-Syrian manifestation, as well as the re-election of Karame have sealed the deal for Syria would be giving too little credit for the opposition on one hand, as well as for the outside world which supports it. (again, for whichever interests it might have).

The pro-Syrian demonstrations, the re-instatement of Karami, the relocation of Syrian military assets into the Bekaa Valley, and a Broadway musical all have something in common; a script and choreography.

Assad and the Ba'athists have no intention of goin' softly into the night. However, even if dragged kickin' and screamin', they're goin'. The Middle East is changin', and nothin's gonna put that cat back in the bag, no matter who objects.

The change well may be marred by violence and setbacks, likely it will be, but it is the sort of change that once begun is irreversible.

Of course.
The demonstration : A clear statement from the pro-Syrian supporters (whoever they might be) that they very much count in this game, that they have a set of conditions as well and a word to say in all which is happening.
The Karami joke : Definitely something to follow. It must be awkwardly humiliating for him as well.
The relocation of Syrian army : A way to gain as much time as possible, hoping that the pressure will ease on them.



Agreed on the fact that they will Definitely be going, and that it's a matter of time now.



I do not think so.
I do not see any signs of potential violence. I hope you're not implying US military intervention, since I hardly see such a development.
Now if you mean an inner conflict, or maybe even a civil war, I would also reject this option for multiple reasons.

I doubt very much - given current conditions and apparent trendin's, that direct US military intervention wil be a factor. The matter of internal conflict within Lebanon cannot be discounted ... in fact, bombings and assassinations would be entirely unsurprisin'; certain of the interested parties have demonstrated proclivity for such, after all. The possibility of armed suppression of civil unrest is very real too, though - again, by present indicators - perhaps remote. I doubt conditions will develop in the direction of full-blown civil war. All that said, anything could happen. It would be unwise to be unready for any of the permutations. Havin' a fire extinguisher readily to hand does not in any way imply one intends or expects a fire, but rather that one intends neither to stand idly by nor to surrender in impotent victimhood should a fire occur.

As for the rest; Assad and freinds are playin' song-and-dance, hopin' they can figure a way to get this to work in their favor. They're in for sore disappointment, perhaps even the fall of Assad's government.

None of this will happen by close of next business day, of course, but the ball is rollin', and gainin' momentum. 25 years ago, who might have foreseen the fall of The Berlin Wall, the collapse of The Soviet Union, or the former Warsaw Pact members' shift to the NATO camp, to say nothin' of recent events in Ukraine?