Arab World: A democratically elected puppet? at The Ouwet Front: A Lebanese Forces Blog

Arab World: A democratically elected puppet?

Posted by Y

JerusalemPost | By ZVI MAZEL

It would seem that Syria suffered a major defeat last week with the formation of a Lebanese national unity government.

Syria has for years fought long and hard to keep Lebanon under its thumb, but in 2004, with the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, its influence took a big hit. At the time, the murder was attributed to pro-Syrian elements, and subsequent universal condemnation from Western and Arab powers alike forced Damascus to pull its troops from Lebanese soil.

Five years later, on June 7, 2009, Saad Hariri, the son of the slain prime minister, won a clear victory in the Lebanese elections.

And now, five months after that success, Hariri was finally able to form a “national unity government,” albeit only after intense international pressure and lengthy negotiations succeeded in bringing together representatives of the majority and opposition parties.

Is Beirut slipping away from Damascus? The truth is not that simple and not that rosy.

Opposition parties will have 10 ministers in the new government, or a third of the total. Two of these ministers belong to Hizbullah, an organization taking its orders from Iran. Though the organization is legal, per se, its militia is not, and should have been disbanded long ago as demanded by the Taef agreements which put an end to the Lebanese civil war.

Hizbullah has resisted all calls for disarmament, and is in fact doing the exact opposite by steadily building up its strength. It is trying to obtain new weapons which would tip the delicate regional balance, such as ground-to-air missiles with the capacity of downing planes, and it has already acquired some 40,000 missiles which could reach nearly all of Israel. Armament and ammunition are still streaming in over the porous Syrian border, and the Lebanese army has yet to confront the action for fear of clashes with Syria or Hizbullah.

All of the above is, of course, a flagrant violation of resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

Even before Hizbullah was officially included in the most recent Lebanese cabinet, Israel stated repeatedly that the responsibility for any attack on its territory carried out by the organization would rest squarely on that government, and that Lebanon as a whole would suffer the consequences.

WHAT, IF anything, will the new government be able to do to change this dangerous state of affairs? It is true that the June elections were fair and democratic, and that the Sunni-Christian-Druze coalition won 71 of the 128 seats of parliament, with the remaining 57 falling to the Shi’ite Hizbullah and Amal, and a breakaway Christian faction led by Michel Aoun. However, Hizbullah made it clear that it would oppose – by force if necessary – any government in which the opposition would have no part.

The group also issued significant demands. A third of the ministers must come from the ranks of the opposition, Hizbullah insisted, and the opposition must be granted veto power over all decisions. These stipulations would have given Hizbullah and its allies control over all important actions, as well as preventing the government from disarming the organization, investigating its links with Iran and the presence of revolutionary guards in Lebanon, cooperating with the international tribunal set up to probe the murder of Rafik Hariri, and more.

Saad Hariri is well aware of the fact that the Lebanese army is no match for Hizbullah, which took over west Beirut in 2008 in order to force then prime minister Fuad Saniora to set up a national unity government in which the opposition had a third of the seats. He also knows the problems of a country where a mosaic of communities and religions is kept in a state of fragile equilibrium. Were the Shi’ite community – the largest in Lebanon – not to be represented in the government, he would not have a moment’s peace.

Therefore, when President Michel Suleiman asked him to form the new government, Hariri immediately declared that he would do his utmost to include the opposition. He added, however, that he would not grant the veto power they wanted – hence the need for long and difficult negotiations. The first compromise left the majority parties with only 15 ministers while granting the opposition 10, with the remaining five seats being appointed by president Suleiman, who, although very sympathetic to Syria, is generally considered to be fairly neutral.

Thus Hariri, who had a parliamentary majority but only 50% of the ministers, would not be able to affect major change, which would require a two-third majority.

And still opposition parties were not satisfied. Despite their victory, they kept demanding not only veto power but also the right to choose their portfolios and to name the ministers. Hariri refused to yield to what he perceived as unreasonable conditions posed by parties which had, after all, lost the elections.

Matters came to a head when Michel Aoun insisted that his son-in-law – who had failed to get himself elected – be given the ministry of communications. This ministry is of special importance because Hizbullah has set up a network of its own, which the ministry is expected to try and regulate.

Further complicating the situation, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, a key ally of Hariri, decided to take his party out of the coalition. He stated, however, that he would not act against the new government, but would rather take part in it while not necessarily guaranteeing his automatic support.

At that point the situation seemed hopeless. Outside intervention was clearly needed. Together with moderate Arab countries, the world rallied to the cause, attempting to convince Syria to pressure its Lebanese allies to tone down their demands. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who had shunned Syria since Rafik Hariri was murdered, invited Bashar Assad to visit his country, and later visited Damascus himself; France and the United States sent emissaries to Syria; and finally, the emir of Qatar made a special trip to Teheran and, according to unconfirmed reports, convinced the Iranians to agree to the proposed list of ministers, thus paving the way to the formation of a government while keeping veto power out of the hands of the opposition.

WHO OR what finally clinched the deal? It’s hard to say. What is clear is that Hizbullah – aided and abetted by Syria and Iran – blocked for five months the formation of a government which had the majority support of a parliament elected in free and democratic elections. Such was the way two countries belonging to the so-called, “Axis of Evil” were able to decide the fate of Lebanon, regardless of the will of the people.

Saad Hariri has won an important battle, but he is under no illusion as to where the real power lies. In his speech announcing the formation of the government, he emphasized the need for national unity in order to deal with the country’s pressing social and economic problems. Lebanon is still wrestling with the aftermath of the civil war of the ’70s, as well as with the repercussions of the Second Lebanon War. Hariri added that while his country would stand firm against Israel, he would not let an operation initiated by Hizbullah and its supporters spark another war.

The new government made the formulation of its political program its first priority, but will that program include ridding Hizbullah of its weapons? Observers believe that there will be nothing to provoke a crisis with the organization. Most probably, the government will state that “resistance movements” – a euphemism for Hizbullah – have the right to defend the country against foreign aggression (i.e. Israel), but that the subject of the organization’s arms will be discussed within the framework of the “national dialogue,” as was done in the past.

However, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was speaking at the same time as Hariri, warned the government not to tackle issues endangering national unity. He also threatened to destroy Israel’s army, but declared he had no intention of starting a war. He talked at length about Israel, and about relations with Iran and with Turkey – which he congratulated for the distinctly cooler tone used against Israel. His remarks were a blatant interference by the leader of an illegal militia in affairs better left to the government.

In another sign of lingering Syrian influence, as soon as Hariri announced that he had formed a government, Michel Suleiman – without waiting for the formal ratification by the parliament – traveled to Damascus. It is expected that Hariri himself will do the same after that formal ratification.

Hariri will have to govern wisely in order to initiate much needed economic reforms, but how free will he be? Can he ignore the troubled political situation in his country and in the region? What about UN Security Council’s resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701 demanding that Hizbullah give up its weapons? What about the continued flow of arms to the organization coming from Syria? And what of the organization’s not-so-secret intention to attack Israel, yet again, no matter what the cost for Lebanon?

While the new prime minister is tackling local problems, he may discover yet that decisions taken in Damascus or Teheran will make a mockery of his efforts and wreak havoc upon Lebanon.

The writer is the former Israeli ambassador to Egypt and Sweden.

Filed under: Lebanon
Posted by Y on 11.20.09 @ 5:40 pm | 22 Comments

Related Entries

22 Comments. Add your own...

1. avi | November 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

I found something more interesting……

Fatah had made a strategic decision to declare a third intifada against Israel, movement officials told Nazereth-based newspaper Hadith Anas, citing the failed peace talks as the reason for their resolution.

The newspaper report quoted Fatah Central Committee members as saying that the movement wished to implement a decision made during its sixth convention, which assembled last August in the West Bank city of Bethlehem.

One of the movement’s top officials interviewed by Hadith Anas said the third intifada will have a widespread popular base, adding, however, that unlike the previous popular struggle against Israel, which was sparked in September 2000, the movement will not endorse an armed struggle or the use of firearms.
Advertisement

“We want thousands of Palestinians to demonstrate daily near the settlements of the occupation, carrying out a human siege, and calling for the end of the occupation,” one senior official said.

“We want thousands of Palestinians to demonstrate daily near the settlements of the occupation, carrying out a human siege, and calling for the end of the occupation,” one senior official said.

According to the report, Fatah chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to the resolution in principle, stipulating only that the struggle mustn’t become a violent one.

Sources estimate that Abbas could prepare the conditions which would allow for such a move by stepping down as PA President as well as by declaring the dissolution of the PA by the end of the year.

Fatah officials had commented recently on the need to duplicate the weekly anti-separation fence rallies in the villages of Na’alin and Bil’in in locations across the West Bank, as well as turning some of those demonstrations against nearby settlements.

A senior member of an Arab-Israeli Knesset party, who maintains close ties with top Fatah and PA officials, said that anti-separation fence rallies could spark renewed popular resistance, if they continued to escalate as they did week ago near the Kalandia checkpoint.

The official said that PA sources have come to understand that unarmed popular resistance, centering on symbols of the West Bank occupation, could garner sympathy for the Palestinian cause in international circles as well as embarrassing the Israeli government.

“The first intifada gained significant diplomatic ground as far as the Palestinians are concerned since its symbol, a boy throwing rocks at a tank, made it impossible for Israel to claim it was defending itself against terror as it did in the second intifada, followings the city-center bombings,” the official said .

this article is taken from Haaretz…..anyways if this is true I as an Israeli will support such non violent demonstrations….In my humble opinion this would be common sense after all…..but still only if this stays non violent.
2. SmaSh | November 21st, 2009 at 12:31 am

“It would seem that Syria suffered a major defeat last week with the formation of a Lebanese national unity government.”

and
“And now, five months after that success, Hariri was finally able to form a “national unity government,” albeit only after intense international pressure and lengthy negotiations succeeded in bringing together representatives of the majority and opposition parties.”

Lol You really think Hariri formed this by himself?
Inno seriously, we all know that saudi arabia, syria and iran made a deal.
3. Fadi | November 21st, 2009 at 12:49 am

Ok ya lebnaniyeh, so it seems like not much can be done from the top of the pyramid to have a better country, since we are still under iran’s thumb. How about you guys put your energy into grasroots movements that will lobby for the smaller things we all want and agree on, like better streets, clean water, uninterrupted electricity, broadband internet, modernized laws.. that would make lebanon so much pleasant to live in.. and unlike all the campaigning this blog did for the ouwet bloc in the elections, which resulted in a ‘democratically elected puppet’, we would at least really feel the change
4. Doc1559 | November 21st, 2009 at 8:31 am

Keep articles short and sweet please !! I find it irritating to read 10 pages of pure biased garbage.. What a waste of time gimme my 3 mns back..

From above :

Can he ignore the troubled political situation in his country and in the region? What about UN Security Council’s resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701 demanding that Hizbullah give up its weapons?

Answer : The capture of the 50+ ISRAELI agents along with their spying devices is a clear violation of UN resolution 1701 !! Flying over Lebanon on the daily basis is also a violation ..
5. Mike | November 21st, 2009 at 9:40 am

israel’s apartheid is far far far worse than the one that was in South Africa. Letting Palestinians demonstrate is not even the least they can allow and is not even in their hands. The protest “turning violent” would be as stupid as palestinians chanting anti-zionist slogans, getting too close to the fence or even throwing a rock or two.
6. avi | November 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Ah no Mike the situation is different than South Africa ….I remind you that the whites in South Africa are not originally from South Africa but the Jews are originally from Israel,Mike as usual get your fact straight.
7. avi | November 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Plus the Palestianians inside Israel have every civil right based on Israeli law the problem is in west bank.Plus it is the Arabs who are not originally from Israel!!!!Very very different situation,Mike wonder how nobody takes you seriously.
8. Darwish | November 21st, 2009 at 5:38 pm

We are so weak and so dependant on others to save our butts that it is pathetic! We can’t agree on crap among ourselves and yet, we just continue to pretend like all is fine and Lebanon is going to be OK…we are a truly hopeless nation! Let us just drink the cool aid and be happy!
9. avi | November 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Only I see a different Israel today thanks to 2006;the people in Israel have decided not to retreat under fire :but only with an agreement that’s why I totally agree with Palestinian non violent and I stress non violent demos because it forces Israel to negociate since this action shows a desire for peace.
10. Mike | November 21st, 2009 at 10:49 pm

“Ah no Mike the situation is different than South Africa ….I remind you that the whites in South Africa are not originally from South Africa but the Jews are originally from Israel,Mike as usual get your fact straight”

Israelies from Palestine? First of all most of you are from Khazaria and lets say the remaining 10% who even have a trace of cohen genes. They migrated there thousands of years after the caanites called it their home. The Palestinians are not in Israel. You are in Palestine. As you said that you’re iraqi jew. Your home is Iraq not Israel. How come I never heard you say one time that the jews are entitled to their own countries that they’re from rather than all superficially belonging to a man made imaginary stolen land called israel. Palestinians have more original hebrew blood than the israeli population AND they own the land. So if you really want to think by your logic; then the palestinian descendants of the original hebrews should be living in palestine. Read shlomo sands book. It was a bestseller in israel for 5 months. The invention of the jewish people. Jews are a religion; not a race. Even if you want to call yourself a JEW? which i doubt you are. It is not allowed to have a state until the messiah comes. Which he didn’t? Where are the 7 noahic laws in the IDF and the gov? All criminals. Modern day nazi zionists who disgrace the name of judiasm. Followed by brainwashed supporters like you who actually support their BS. Good thing their’s jews who hate zionism to the bone and are actually trying to get rid of it. Watch shlomo sands video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq6EPYLfcM0

Not long ago, i read a family of 7 chinese jews made aliyah and moved to israel even though they only speak chinese. So the chinese and the russian jews can move to palestine? But the palestinians can’t?

Btw,Most of South Africans are black, minority being white. The white being dutch boers but have been living there for hundreds of years. THey actually gave the blacks their rights. Israel still has the aparthied laws and actually commits genocide on the palestinians. So don’t lecture me about wanting peace when mahmoud abbas is @ss kissing every hair on natenyahus @ss and is not getting anything in return. If you guys wanted peace you would atleast go to the 1967 borders and give the poor palestinians their homes. Instead Israel demolishes their homes with everything in it, makes them homeless and builds luxurious apartments for americans to come buy. What scum.
11. Doc1559 | November 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 am

Avi 7

False logic puzzles amigo ..

DO I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF YOUR FAMOUS ISRAELI SAYING : Buy a land without a people for a people without a land !!!

Arabs are not from Israel ?? Really !! Back in the early 30’s, Jewish land owenership owned approximately 1% onlyyyyy of the LAND !! It wasn’t long after that before your zionist gangs took control of everthing..

. Author Norman Finkelstein states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’..

AVI, you can’t fool us !!

GO FISH !!
12. avi | November 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm

I am not fooling anybody ,ashkenazi and sepharadic jews have both hebrew blood…this is the truth even if you deny it.We are Jews and Jews come originally from Israel,while most Arabs come from Syria and Arabia…..Doc no use in using self hating Jews to prove your lies….what I am saying is the bare truth!!!!
13. avi | November 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm

And Palestine Mike is the the name the Romans gave to Judea remember???what use in distorting history!!!!
14. avi | November 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Sorry about the genes Mike it seems Jews will never have pure enough blood for you ….aka M. Hitler……And stop using Sand or Finkelstein their rhetoric is unbeleivably stupid .
15. avi | November 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Plus what genocide Mike????REALLY WHAT GENOCIDE who wants to annihilate whom???Why deny that you are the one that wants to deny teh Jews basic rights to Israel in the name of not pure enough blood!!!!!!You facist Jewish rights are not for negociation!!!!And we will not let you take away our right to our ancestor’s homeland!!!never!!!
16. Mike | November 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 am

HAHAHAHA…their is not one single fact of evidence in all your replys. Even though I gave ample evidence to prove it.

It’s all bigoted ranting that’s delusional and imaginary.

Plus you never answered my question.
17. Doc1559 | November 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 am

Mike
We’re anti semitic and finkelstein is a self hating jew !! We’re all wrong and Avi the zohan is right !!
18. Fadi | November 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 am

Why the hell does this have to turn into a jewfest on a lebanese forces blog.
Guys please leave us alone, and go get busy with some palestinian child killing or some fun activity like that
19. avi | November 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am

No evidence,???So be it believe what you want since the Jewish people do not exist!!!!!
20. Mike | November 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm

yea we can say that to the christian people and the muslim race. Don’t mix religous background with ethnicity. Jews are as diverse in background as the Christians.
21. avi | November 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 pm

But Mike Jews in Europe and North Africa rarely married to non Jews…..You are the one that does not understand that Jews are a people even though the exodus!!!!With a common religion and a common language…WAKE UP!!
22. Mike | November 24th, 2009 at 8:14 am

The only thing that connects the jews is their solidarity towards each other. Zionism is breaking it up and marginalizing followers of the jewish religion by comitting sin in their name. They remind me of the catholic church during the inquisition. Except the atrocities comitted by israel and the mosaad are the direct result of zionism.