Monthly Archives: January 2008

by

Seniora, Sleiman React Differently to Winograd Report.

It is worth comparing the reactions of the hopeful president with that of the sitting Prime Minister to the Winograd report.


A victory to some… (AFP)

The Winograd report gave Mr. Sleiman an excellent excuse to suck up to Hezbollah. He told Assafir:

“[the report] makes us, as a military institution, stress on the joint victory of the resistance and the Lebanese army during the 2006 July War that led to the defeat of the enemy,” Sleiman said.”

He actually said that with a straight face. Perhaps he forgot that the Lebanese army didn’t shoot one bullet at the Israelis and instead kept a low profile to avoid being targeted. Or maybe he forgot that the mantra that “the army and the resistance won the war hand in hand” was simply a face-saving device for Hezbollah to explain why the army took over policing the south after the war.

But then again, perhaps all of this is just another brilliant ploy by Mr. Sleiman to regain Hezbollah’s favor -and save them face-, while keeping the army’s zero-tolerance strategy towards troublesome street demonstrators.

A more honest reaction to the report came from Mr. Seniora, who expresses important misgivings about the report:

“The report did not include anything on the cluster bombs used by the Israeli army or the part of Security Council Resolution 1701 laying responsibility on Israel and the international community to implement Resolution 425 on restoring Shebaa farms to Lebanon through the United Nations,”

“In spite of noting the Israeli army’s failure to achieve its objectives, the report calls on Israel to prepare itself for coming wars, as if it hasn’t learned anything from its failed aggression on Lebanon,”

by

Beirut For Dummies, By Dummies

Yet another, euh, weird piece about Beirut in the Western media.


At Gauche Caviar in Gemmayzeh (source)

The fact that Czech Airlines sponsored a London-based writer to write about Beirut for a Canadian newspaper is not the only odd thing about this piece on Beirut.

The writer, who is staying in the Albergo hotel, doesn’t get her facts straight: “Labneh is a creamy white cheese” and Kibbeh nayyeh was “rather like beef tartar”, indulges in clichés: “[Beirut youngsters] spend, party and live for today” and spews intelligence-insulting hyperboles: “with [Beirut's] glamour easily putting New York or Paris to shame.”

Worse, the writer seems to believe this stuff: “Although it’s all said with a smile, the party-loving girls who act like they don’t have a care in the world are deadly serious. Wise beyond their years, they are admirably pragmatic.”

If you’re into the “western reporter comes to Beirut, enjoys the nightlife in Monot and Jemmayze and is amazed at how the war torn youth enjoys life to its full” genre, then go ahead and read it. Otherwise, don’t bother.

by

Should The Lebanese Care About The Winograd Report?

Israel didn’t win the July war. But does that mean that Hezbollah did? Should we care?

The much awaited Winograd report on the July war finally came about. Since most of us humans won’t bother reading 600 pages, all we really need to know about the report’s conclusions is that the Israeli establishment failed to achieve its objectives in Lebanon –Uprooting Hezbollah & Getting back their kidnapped soldiers– because of serious structural failures.

Of course, Hezbollah immediately rushed to celebrate the report as “proof” that Hezbollah Won:

In reality, we have to tell the Israeli public at the end – with or without the Winograd report – that Hezbollah won the battles against the strongest army in the region in July 2006.

But here’s a question that I don’t hear a lot of Lebanese asking Hezbollah: If Hezbollah had really won that war, would the Israelis have published 600 pages describing in detail all of their political and military failures for the entire world to read? As in, no concern whatsoever for the “victorious” Hezbollah exploiting those weaknesses to kick their ass one more time?

But forget about that. The Lebanese don’t really care about the report and would rather pretend it never existed, for the simple reason that it was adding insult to injury. You see, not only did Israel kill thousands of Lebanese and smashed Lebanon’s infrastructural backbone throwing its economies years behind, but it also got a bunch of old men deliberate for an entire year to tell us, in 600 pages, that it was all one big failure.

by

An Investigation Like No Other

The unexpected consequence of Sunday’s drama could be Lebanon’s first ever “transparent investigation”.

The pressure is intense and the scrutiny is painful. But that investigation had better deliver a credible outcome soon. Mr. Sleiman is pressured by both sides to find the perpetrators of Sunday’s incident because the outcome of his presidency is at stakes.

In times like these, one is tempted to be cynical. One could say for instance that Mr. Sleiman will characteristically fudge the matter and sacrifice the truth in the altar of “unity”. Some might even say that he will find scapegoats in the Army and move on.

Not so fast. This investigation is different because both sides really do care about the outcome and both sides say that they won’t settle for anything less than the truth. Both sides have their own convictions on who did it, both sides can be loud and both sides are pressing hard.

Since an inconvenient truth is bound to be found (A Hezbollah member shot first? An LF member sniped from roofs? The army was too trigger-happy?), Mr. Sleiman has to soften the investigation’s political blow as much as he can to keep everyone happy. In my opinion, that can only happen if he provides an air-tight account of what happened backed up by credible evidence that is available to the public. In other words, a transparent investigation with a credible outcome.

Of course, the investigation might end up evenly distributing the blame 10-10-10 style. In that case everyone will be happy. If that was the real truth, then be it. But if it’s just political compromise, then God help us with Mr. Sleiman’s presidency.

by

Was The M.O.U. Compromised?

Hezbollah and the FPM are rushing their Memorandum Of Understanding to intensive care.


Something else could be burning…

The peaceful Shiaa demonstrators came to the Christian neighborhood, started breaking stuff and cut off roads using burning tires. Depending on the version of the story you heard, they could also have shot in the air and threw a couple of grenades here and there.

The locals were enraged and some perhaps started shooting back using their good ol’ civil war M16s. “You don’t restore electricity in your neighborhoods by wreaking havoc in others” one female local told a TV reporter.

This can’t be good news to the FPM-Hezbollah’s political Memorandum Of Understanding (M.O.U), especially if all the damage took place next to the very church in which the memorandum was signed.

As Lebanese veteran commentator Sarkis Naoum asked this morning: “If Aoun and Hezbollah both believe that Aoun represents the majority of the Christians, then why did Hezbollah allow its supporters to tarnish the peace in a Christian neighborhood?”

If Mr. Naim Kassem, Hezbollah’s second in command, reads this post, he will likely “break my head” and that of Mr. Naoum, since that is what he threatened to do to those who dare “touch the M.O.U”. His ally, Mr. Aoun was equally defensive: “The People will not let go of the M.O.U between Hezbollah and the FPM”, announced a brave-faced M.P. from his block.

But for both Hezbollah and the FPM to be defending the M.O.U so vigorously, one would be excused to wonder if there’s any life left in that piece of paper.

by

Fisk: Army's Shooting On Civilians Unlikely

While Hezbollah continues to stoke the flames of hatred against the army, veteran British journalist and Beirut resident argues that “It’s far-fetched to think that Lebanon army fired at the protesters”.

Did the Lebanese army shoot the eight dead? It appears that soldiers may have shot one of them by accident. But since one of the victims was the Amal militia’s liaison officer with the national army, it seems unlikely that soldiers would have opened fire on him.

Unfortunately, to make his argument, Fisk used his beloved-yet-unsubstantiated argument that Shiaas form the majority in the Lebanese armed forces, although he could have stuck with the better argument that the army’s track record speaks for itself.

by

Hezbollah Channeling Anger Towards Army

Hezbollah’s wing of the opposition is blaming the army for yesterday’s events…For political reasons.


It’s all your fault General Sleiman! (Reuters)

In an angry voice, Hezbollah MP. Ali Ammar told an Almanar talk show that “the blood of the people of the south and of Dahieh cannot be used as a stepping stone by those aspiring to high positions”. Not a very veiled jab at Mr. Suleiman, the army’s head and supposedly consensus presidential nominee.

Hezbollah and Syrian media are blaming the army, not the snipers for yesterday’s deaths. Their allies at the FPM had blamed the rooftop snipers, whose footage was seemingly captured by OTV.

Call me cynical but this seems all too convenient for Syria, who not long ago made it known that it no longer wants Mr. Sleiman for the presidency (and according to today’s Albalad newspaper, proposed Jean Obeid and Fares Boueiz as alternatives). Calling Mr. Sleiman responsible for the deaths yesterday is just the poison his candidacy needed. Hezbollah, it appears, will be glad to administer it.

Hezbollah’s supporters have always secretly disliked the army and saw it as a wussy competitor to Hezbollah that couldn’t defend them if Israel were to invade again. Hezbollah supporters were the ones who sheered least when the army emerged victorious from the Naher El Bared confrontations.

Does Mr. Sleiman still have a chance at the presidency?

by

The Mysterious Rooftop Snipers

Who are the “agents provocateurs” who shot and killed 9 Lebanese demonstrators yesterday?

The nature of the first victim says it all. Ahmad Hamza was the man appointed by the opposition’s AMAL movement to coordinate the demonstrations with the army, so that things remain in check. He was the first to be taken down. It is obvious that those pulling the trigger knew what they were doing. But who are they?

It didn’t take long before the usual blame game began. March 14 promptly accused Syria and Iran, and March 8 pointed their fingers (and media) at March 14. But something is missing.

The opposition was dancing around the brink for a while, but it has always been careful not let this descend into an all-out confrontation with the army. But then again, weren’t they the ones who chose the symbolic venue of the confrontations, which eerily mark the fault lines of the Lebanese civil war? Weren’t they who chose the timing to coincide with the Arab League’s meeting about the Lebanese Crisis? Weren’t they who were warning of “decisive action in the streets?”

Moreover, how could have March 14 guessed where the demonstrations will take place and carefully planned faultless sniper attacks without being uncovered? On the other hand, how could have the FPM, a party rooted in the army, condoned a confrontation between the opposition and the army?

The puzzle has a missing piece. It seems that a third party wants to stir things up by breaking the balance of restraint between the Lebanese parties. As political analyst Ossama Safa puts it: “This is the work of agents provocateurs — someone is in there stirring trouble [..] I really think they want to get a hold of the situation. But someone, somewhere is doing this.”

The politicians will try to calm the situation. But expect a lot hot-headed blame to be tossed around.

by

Why they killed Wissam Eid

Who killed Mr. Eid? Was it Fath-el-Islam? Was it Syria? Actually, it was both.


Captain Eid Honored (AFP)

The Lebanese were divided into two camps yesterday. The anti-Syrians were saying that the Syrians killed him because he was the genius who was putting together the tribunal’s data, and the pro-Syrians were saying that he was killed by the Islamists of Fateh Al Islam because of his crucial role in uncovering them.

So who is right? Well, perhaps both are.

Annahar, Lebanon’s largest daily, revealed this today

????? “??????” ?? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ?????. ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? “??? ???????” ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????.

In short, Mr. Eid was, according to “high ranked security insiders”, the very officer who unveiled the relationship between Fateh Al Islam and Syria and traced it back to Assef Shawkat, the Syrian intelligence mastermind whom many blame for the Hariri Murder.

by

Meanwhile, Nadine Labaki Makes Strides

While we’re here killing each other, Lebanese Actress / Director Nadine Labaki goes on accumulating rave reviews for her movie Caramel as she moves west, becomes “one of ten directors to watch“, and gets shortlisted for the Oscars for foreign movies (although, unfortunately, she didn’t end up being nominated).

If you’re familiar with the website rottentomatoes.com , you’ll know that getting an 80% rating like Caramel did is a very good feat!

Congrats Nadine. Bright spots are becoming harder to find.