Britannia Radio

As March 14 Approaches, Tensions Rise in Lebanon By: E. Picali*

Introduction On March 13, 2011, Lebanon's March 14 Forces plan to hold a mass demonstration in Beirut to mark the sixth anniversary of the movement's establishment. In anticipation of the demonstration, Lebanon's two rival camps, the March 14 Forces and the March 8 Forces, have scaled up their attacks. The recent speeches of Lebanon's caretaker Prime Minister S'ad Al-Hariri focused on three central issues: Hizbullah's arms, the "coup" that had been perpetrated against him, and the international tribunal investigating the murder of his father Rafiq Al-Hariri. Hizbullah responded by threatening that turning its arms into a main point of dispute could lead to civil war. Tensions in Lebanon are high in anticipation of the demonstration, the speeches expected to be delivered there, any actions the March 14 Forces may take regarding Hizbullah's arms, and Hizbullah's reaction to these moves. Al-Hariri and the March 14 Forces: Hizbullah's Arms – A Means of Political Blackmail Two recent speeches by S'ad Al-Hariri – the first on February 14, 2011, commemorating the sixth anniversary of his father's assassination, and the second two weeks later, on February 28 – delineated the March 14 Forces' new policy, characterized by S'ad Al-Hariri as "a return to the roots." In the speeches, which he said were complementary, he attacked Hizbullah's weapons, saying they had been turned against targets within Lebanon and had become a means for political blackmail and for taking over the country. In the first speech, he said: "We do not accept [Hizbullah's] arms, and we will not submit to arms aimed at the chests of Lebanese men and women as a means of blackmail... or [as a means] of pressuring members of parliament... This issue will remain a top priority in terms of our national stability. We will never submit to arms [as a means of] controlling the life of the Lebanese nation."[1] In his second speech, S'ad Al-Hariri defined the issue of Hizbullah's arms as "a blatant national problem that demands a blatant national solution."[2] In addition, he censured Hizbullah for its attempts to drag Lebanon into the regional camp of Syria and Iran, saying this camp had nothing to do with Arabism or Lebanon.[3] Another focal point of S'ad Al-Hariri's speeches, which he linked to the issue of Hizbullah's arms and threats, was the "coup" Hizbullah had perpetrated against Lebanon's state institutions by pulling the opposition ministers from the unity government, leading to its downfall and to the appointment of incoming prime minister Najib Al-Mikati, who has close ties to Syria and is committed to the resistance. S'ad Al-Hariri emphasized that the March 14 Forces were committed to the constitution and to democracy: "Our plan was [focused] and is [still focused on] the state, the constitution, and the [state] institutions, as well as on protecting Lebanon's Arabness, sovereignty, independence, and democratic regime."[4] He reiterated his support for the Al-Hariri tribunal, and called on the Lebanese masses to participate in the March 14 demonstration (which has since been moved to March 13). These speeches were the opening shot of a renewed struggle between the March 14 Forces and the March 8 Forces over Lebanon's future, a struggle centered around the issue of Hizbullah's arms and the organization's loyalty to foreign forces versus the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon and its institutions. [5] It should be noted that the issue of Hizbullah's arms has been part of the National Dialogue in Lebanon, launched with Michel Suleiman's appointment to the presidency in 2009. This low key dialogue, conducted under the aegis of the president, did not lead to any practical results. Now, however, in light of the recent events in the Middle East, the March 14 Forces have apparently decided to launch a direct campaign against Hizbullah, pitting the issues of Lebanon's sovereignty and its democratic regime against Hizbullah's arms. In his February 14 speech, S'ad Al-Hariri compared the struggle of the March 14 Forces to the uprising in Egypt. He said: "This is the same path the Egyptian people took... in order to restore its hope... its will, and its resolve [to attain] liberty and democracy. And it was successful... We set out on the path to liberty in 2005, and we will return to this path – the path of the March 14 Forces – together."[6] 'Ali Noun, a columnist for the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, wrote that the struggle had become a matter of national existence: "The entire structure is threatening to collapse, [which is to say Lebanon's] sovereignty and independence... [and our] life of liberty and peace... Preferring survival over destruction is not an issue for intellectual debate. It is at the very heart of matters..."[7] As S'ad Al-Hariri declared war on the legitimacy of Hizbullah's arms, MP Mustafa 'Aloush, a member of the Al-Mustaqbal Political Bureau, wrote an article stating that Hizbullah was a foreign body in Lebanon and hence completely illegitimate: "...Hizbullah is loyal... to the plan to spread [Iran's] Rule of the Jurisprudent... This is a political decision that it cannot relinquish. It is a divine plan that [Hizbullah] must implement... since, according to its belief, it is a prerequisite for the coming of the Mahdi [the Shi'ite messiah]. Therefore, any attempt to recognize Hizbullah as a [legitimate] element in the Lebanese [political arena]... is an illusion..." 'Aloush also cast doubts on the claim that Hizbullah's arms were intended as deterrence against Israel: "For Hizbullah, possessing arms is [simply] the only way to achieve superiority over the other elements of Lebanese society, in order to circumvent this country's pluralistic character... Resistance is a secondary matter as far as it is concerned. It is an excuse for continuing to possess arms..."[8]Kataeb (Phalangist) party chairman Amin Gemayel said in a March 10 speech that Hizbullah's weapons were meant to defend Syria and symbolized Syria's involvement in Lebanon.[9] Muted Threats by Hizbullah The March 8 Forces regarded the attack on their weapons as a step up in their conflict with the March 14 Forces. Initially, Hizbullah refrained from commenting, and reactions came only from its allies. For example, Michel 'Aoun called the attack on Hizbullah's arms "a blow to national ideals and to coexistence."[10] Former deputy parliament speaker Elias Al-Firzli, a pro-Syrian Christian, wrote in the pro-Syrian daily Al-Safir that Hizbullah's silence indicated it had "no interest in entering a debate that would inevitably play into Al-Hariri's hands. Al-Hariri's attack," he added, "is meant to pull Hizbullah back into [the abyss of] sectarian strife... and to play on the hostility between Sunnis and Shi'ites..."[11] It should be noted that, since Al-Mikati was charged with forming the government, Hizbullah has been stressing it wants a government representing all the sectors in the country – Sunnis, Shi'ites, Druze, and Christians – which will also include figures not affiliated with either of the rival factions in Lebanon, in order to prevent Al-Mikati's government from being seen as dominated by Hizbullah. Hizbullah and Its Allies Warn against Civil War Hizbullah's silence did not last long, however. On March 8, one of its MPs, Nawwaf Al-Moussawi, said that the slogan "The People Say No to [Hizbullah's] Arms" would lead to "all-out civil war," and that anyone using this slogan "fails to understand it and its dangerous [implications], and the harm it could cause to large sectors within the Lebanese and Arab people."[12] At the same time, Hizbullah and Amal did instruct their members to keep calm and refrain from all provocation until the March 13 demonstration. Ibrahim Al-Amin, board chairman of the Hizbullah-affiliated daily Al-Akhbar, accused Al-Hariri of collaborating with Israel: "...Sa'd Al-Hariri said that Israel was the only enemy, but [the fact is that Israel] is the only force that repeats Al-Hariri's position on the weapons of the resistance word for word. Israel's demands of the Arabs, the Lebanese and the world at large are identical to Sa'd Al-Hariri's demands regarding the weapons of the resistance..."[13] Subsequent statements in the pro-Hizbullah press were even harsher. Al-Safir columnist Sati' Nour Al-Din wrote: "Expecting Hizbullah to keep silent in the face of the attack on one of its most sacred principles [i.e., its arms] is misguided and dangerous. [Hizbullah] has faced this trial before, and the weapons won... Now it will win again, only this time the price will be higher than ever before."[14] Al-Akhbar columnist Jean 'Aziz wrote that the attacks on Hizbullah, coming at a time when the international tribunal was "preparing to chop off it head," would necessarily lead to civil war.[15] *E. Picali is a research fellow at MEMRI. [1] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 15, 2011. [2] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), March 1, 2011. [3] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), March 1, 2011. [4] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 15, 2011. [5] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No.648, "The Power Struggle for Control of Lebanon on the Eve of the Release of the Indictment in the Al-Hariri Assassination Case," December 7, 2010, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/70/4820.htm. It should be noted that the guidelines of the Al-Hariri government recognize Hizbullah's arms as an important component of Lebanon's defense. [6] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 15, 2011. [7] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 14, 2011. [8] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), March 3, 2011. [9] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), March 11, 2011. [10] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), March 9, 2011. [11] Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 3, 2011. [12] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 8, 2011. [13] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), March 2, 2011. [14] Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 8, 2011. [15] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), March 8, 2011.