Tag Archives: Beirut

by

Lebanese Food Downs Ethiopian Airline

We have a little bit of a he-said she-said situation going on regarding the report on the crash of the Ethiopian airlines over Beirut in 2010. But a little talked-about fact in this report is this:

The report suggested the crew could have been affected by a meal they ate during their stop in Beirut, noting they were heard discussing how they had trouble sleeping afterward.

The particular cuisine of said fatal meal was not disclosed. But that, I’m sure, will be the subject of a completely different investigation..

by

Christopher Hitchens is Dead. Remember What He Wrote About Lebanon

World famous writer and polemist Christopher Hitchens has died today. The man has left many marks on the literary world, but he also left a small fingerprint in Beirut.

In 2009 , while walking in Hamra, he saw a poster with the logo of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), which to him looked like a swastika. He didn’t like it and decided to do something about it:

call me old-fashioned if you will, but I have always taken the view that swastika symbols exist for one purpose only—to be defaced. Telling my two companions to hold on for a second, I flourish my trusty felt-tip and begin to write some offensive words on the offending poster. I say “begin” because I have barely gotten to the letter k in a well-known transitive verb when I am grabbed by my shirt collar by a venomous little thug, his face glittering with hysterical malice. With his other hand, he is speed-dialing for backup on his cell phone. [...] It becomes evident, as the backup arrives, that this gang wants to take me away.

Mr. Hitchens experienced first hand what was later dubbed the “SSNP’s Fiefdom in Hamra”. An area that is supposedly in the heart of cosmopolitan beirut but that is rife with rabid pro-Syrian thugs who enforce their own law onto anyone they don’t like, under the noses of police officers who always look the other way.

by

So, What Can We Learn From What Happened?

Pundits are starting to analyze the meaning of what happened in Lebanon.

First, here’s my absolute favorite metaphor of the situation, courtesy of Hot Air:

…The government [was] temporarily brought to its knees to remind it who’s boss. Think of it as a visit from mafia goons to some poor bastard who’s late in repaying his debt to a loan shark — they broke a couple of fingers this time to let him know they can break his neck if he doesn’t play ball.

So, what lessons can the West learn from what happened in Lebanon? Noah Pollak in Contentions suggests an answer:

What does the crisis in Lebanon teach us about Hezbollah? It teaches us the same lesson we learned from Hamas when it took Gaza: Islamic supremacist groups, despite their claims to the contrary, cannot be integrated into states or democratic political systems.

[...] The Hezbollah rampage in Lebanon that we are witnessing should make it obvious to any sentient observer that Hezbollah’s claims to democratic political legitimacy have always been intended only to manipulate the credulous. Participation in politics requires the willingness to persuade your foes, to compromise, to stand down when you don’t get your way. But there is no record of Hamas or Hezbollah ever observing such restrictions: the moment Hezbollah was confronted with political pressure, it responded not within the political sphere, but with warlordism — with an exhibition of violence intended to make clear not just that Hezbollah is the most powerful force in the country, but that challenging it will result in its enemies’ humiliation and dispossession. In the streets of Beirut, with Kalashnikovs and RPGs, Hezbollah is making it abundantly clear that its participation in Lebanese politics ends when Hezbollah is asked to submit to the state’s authority. How many more Middle East “experts” are going to proclaim that the answer to Islamic supremacism is dialogue and political integration?

by

Beware Of Al-Quaeda

All sides should try their best not to portray this as a defeat for Lebanon’s Sunnis.


Humiliated on Hezbollah TV. (Photo Credit: Yahoo!)

As Hezbollah moved into (Sunni) west Beirut and took on the moderate Future Movement, many will be tempted to portray this as a defeat for Lebanon’s Sunnis. That would be bad ideas whose repercussions will affect all parties in the country.

Unleashing the sectarian monster can seem like a good idea to Islamists allied with the Future Movement and to the Saudis, but they had better think twice before letting that genie out of the bottle. All parties, including the Future movement should actively portray this as a security and political situation, not a sectarian one.

Because before we know it, extreme elements can manipulate the sense of victimhood some Sunnis would have and target Shiaa symbols with terrorist operations that would unleash the same god-forsaken death spiral that exists in Iraq.

We don’t have to go through all what Iraq has suffered to realize that Al-Quaeda is not really what the Sunnis want for their protection.

by

Opposition Supporters Doubtful

Even those who support Hezbollah and the opposition are not happy about the latest events:

I spoke to a relative of mine living in Beirut. Loyal to the opposition, my relative (let’s call him Talal) sounded doleful for the first time in a year and a half. Gone from his voice was the tone of righteous defiance and indignation that so often characterized our political discussions. In its place was glum resignation and a dispirited antipathy towards the selfishness and cynicism of Lebanon’s political elite.

“We have a government that is completely corrupt; I have no confidence in their integrity,” Talal said. “On the other hand, I am beginning to have doubts about the opposition’s allegiances.”

“Compromise between the two sides is impossible, because the government and the opposition are speaking two different languages.”

Indeed, if there is anything that unites most Lebanese on both sides of the political divide, it is precisely this sentiment that their leaders have failed – spectacularly and even willfully – to establish a common ground for communication and compromise.