Last night there were clashes between the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (Ahbash) and Hizballah. The reports are very confused, but apparently the Ahbash attacked a group from Hizballah, resulting in four deaths in Bourj Abi Haidar.
The Lebanese Army moved in and contained the fighting. By the end it had escalated to what some media sources are referring to “medium calibre” weaponry. While “medium calibre” is a description that is wide, wide open, a friend of ours who lives nearby claimed there were RPGs going off on a regular basis.
The groups released a statement claiming that the matter was personal and that it spiraled out of control and held discussions with the Lebanese Army after the Army had moved into the area.
A Few Points:
1.How does one define a “personal matter”? This escalated into the use of rocket propelled grenades in the streets.
2.What role, exactly, do the security services play, including the Lebanese Army and police, if not to engage people fighting in the streets of the capital? – The impression I got was that they didn’t act proactively.
3.Why was it not reported, at the time, to the extent that it deserved?
Sayed Nasrallah was on TV talking about a range of issues when all this was happening. One was that it was vital that all responsible parties work together to create a stable state. The irony is, hopefully, not lost.
The Army does not appear to have engaged in combat. This is, presumably, out of fear of repercussions. How can one create a “stable” state if the security apparatus is afraid of the citizenry?
The obvious answer to this is the fear of civil war. Fine, I understand that. The flipside is, there’s absolutely no accountability when a group decides to go out and kill someone.
Some commentators are claiming that the event stole Sayed Nasrallah’s thunder. However, that wasn’t my impression. Flicking around the channels last night, there was a either, a., a live broadcast of Sayed Sayed Nasrallah’s speech, or., b., regular programming – including a performance by Nancy Ajram. All my information came from the Internet. Did I miss something?
The whole situation, re. Hizballah’s statements on the STL and the general unease created by the situation hints that this clash was more than a personal matter. However, the one plus point is that the two groups do not appear to wish the affair to escalate. Why else claim that it was personal matter?
A good friend of mine, in the midst of a rant regarding Nasrallah’s speech the other night, pointed out that it’s probably quite easy to intercept the video transmitted from the drones. Primarily by using this piece of software.
Ah the Internet… what a marvelous invention. I think. Maybe.
Thanks fella.
I'm not endorsing the interception of television signals, nor the pirating of legit channels.
But ... I'm sure it's all tightly regulated here, right....?
So, I watched Nasrallah’s speech last night, along with most of Lebanon. I also read the regular updates here and here.
I must say, after all the anticipation, I was left somewhat deflated. The hype had suggested that there was evidence that Israel had killed Hariri.
There was no such clear evidence.
This is what, in a nutshell, Nasrallah said:
1.Israel has the capability to kill people through clandestine means
2.Israel has done this before
3.Numerous Israeli spies have been arrested recently, they specialised in the following areas: Surveillance, information gathering, logistics and the smuggling of people over the border.
1 and 2 are clearly true. 3? It certainly seems to be true. – But there’s nothing new here.
There was use of video of Israeli UAVs flying over Beirut. The video followed two routes taken in the past by Hariri’s motorcade. He highlighted how they seemed to linger above corners and sharp turns in the road, where the convoy would slow down.
There was also video of confessions by the alleged spies. The only mention of Hariri was from a man employed to watch his residence.
Nasrallah appeared to have backtracked and stated time and time again that this was not an open and shut case. He claimed that this was a “war of public opinion” and that it was odd that, given there was an official investigation, that the Israelis weren’t suspects.
My thoughts:
1.This seems to be a clear step backward from earlier claims of proof
2.Everything was circumstantial
3.There was only one agent linked, in any way, to Hariri
4.Nasrallah has refused to hand over copies of the videos to the international tribunal, saying he will hand it to an independent Lebanese body. As a result, the video cannot be verified or studied Israel undoubtedly conducts UAV surveillance of Beirut, to believe otherwise would be naïve. However, given that the video cannot be analyzed, it is impossible to say how representative the footage is. It was clearly edited (and set to music) by Hizballah for this press conference. How much editing has occurred?
5.Nasrallah openly spoke of the war “of public opinion”. It seems that his only objective here was to cast serious doubt on the Tribunal
Following the speech journalists asked Nasrallah questions. The overall atmosphere could be summed up in the following questions: “Who are you trying to convince?” The journalists were clearly confused as to how he expected them and, by extension, the general population to respond.
To his credit, Nasrallah didn’t duck the issue. He claimed that he was aware the “evidence” was circumstantial and that he was aiming to sway public opinion. Finally, he added that an independent investigation was needed.
After all the build-up I can’t help but feel that it fell a little flat. There was no compelling evidence. Sure, there’s certainly a case for investigating possible Israeli involvement, however, it’s far from clear. Nasrallah was asked why he didn’t show the video from the UAVs earlier, he claimed technical difficulties had prevented him from doing so.
I can’t help but feel that Nasrallah has made a mistake in his handling of this. The Lebanese were, depending on their political persuasion, awaiting clear evidence of Israeli involvement, or a pack of lies. They got neither.
However, then you recall Nasrallah’s statement: He claimed that he was aware the “evidence” was circumstantial and that he was aiming to sway public opinion.
This wasn’t about proof. It was about blowing the Tribunal out of the water. Mission accomplished. There will be enough doubt, and assumptions of Israeli involvement, among the Lebanese to achieve that.
However, the cost, in terms of his credibility outside of his constituency, might prove to be high.
There have been mixed responses, both in Lebanon and abroad, with some arguing that he had some degree of success, other claiming it fell flat.
Regardless, I think this snippet from Al Jazeera sums the situation up nicely:
Nasrallah unveils 'Hariri proof'
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has tried to implicate Israel in the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister.
Note the quote marks in the title, note the use of the word “tried” in the text.
The tribunal might be dead, but Nasrallah didn’t come off looking all that convincing.
So, we’ve been waiting with bated breath to see what Nasrallah is going say. Tonight, at 2030 Beirut time, or 1730 GMT, we’ll finally learn what the, supposedly, irrefutable evidence pointing to Israel’s involvement in Hariri’s killing is.
Regardless, the tribunal’s dead.
All that remains to be seen is what Nasrallah has up his sleeve.
I’d be utterly amazed if he managed to convince me that Israel was involved.However, and here’s the worrying thing, this guy is renowned for telling the truth.
That’s a cause for concern.
I think there are three scenarios here:
1.He’s right – Israel did kill Hariri – and he can prove it
2.He’s got information that he regards as conclusive, but the majority don’t
3.He’s been misled
I think number 2’s a fair bet. And, sadly, that’ll be enough to worsen the tension with Israel.
Bunkers - A simple, practical addition to your property
There are two ways to follow the speech in English. By following this Twitter account, or by this reading this blog.
There are ongoing arguments regarding where the tree that sparked the latest confrontation was. UNIFIL and the IDF are standing by claims that it was in the Israeli area.
Regardless, as I posted yesterday, it’s time for cool heads.
-
Of much greater import, in the long run, was a speech given by Hassan Nasrallah two nights ago.
Nasrallah
Nasrallah’s speech covered the border clash, but of more importance was his response to the issues surrounding the STL.
The Israeli press has been crowing over how Hizballah will be indicted.
We believe that Israel killed Hariri.
However, due to tensions, we will delay the announcement.
[Hizballah has been leant on by Syria and Qatar in an attempt to get them to keep quiet according to numerous commentaries.]
On Monday, I will release information that will prove Israel killed Rafic Hariri.
We will work with the government to deal with the outcome and to investigate the witnesses who withdrew their testimony.
-
Yes, Nasrallah will provide proof that Israel killed Hariri.
Hariri
After staring blankly at my wife, who was giving me the lowdown as the speech was playing, (real time translation of bombastic Arabic political chat being beyond me) I muttered something along the lines of, “Oh shit.”
Yes, following the events of the last few days, Nasrallah is going to drop the bomb (metaphorically-speaking).
The problem with this is that, I would be willing to bet, Hizballah will present their evidence in the public forum. I doubt there will be any effort to allow outsiders a look at the material before the Party broadcasts it. Regardless of whether or not Hizballah have the evidence, it’s going to blow the whole STL out of the water and, potentially, start a war of words with the Israelis... at the bare minimum.
If he has the evidence, then relations between Israel and Lebanon nosedive, the STL's finished, it's credibility ruined. If he's wrong, a substantial proportion of the population will believe him anyway, the Israelis are going to be pissed, and the STL's still dead in the water.
Either way ... it's not going to be pretty.
Given that Lebanon and Israel just fought over a tree*, how dangerous is this going to be?
*Yes, I’m aware it’s much, much more complex than that.
It’s official, there’ll be war here in around 18 months. According to a report from the US Foreign Affairs council.
Wonderful. It’s a microcosm of the Glen Close factor. You have a great weekend and then you get this.
To summarize (take a deep breath):
Israel and Hizballah are ready to go for each other's throats Hizballah believes that Israel had a role to play in the Hariri tribunal Israel says it doesn’t have anything to do with it Israel says that any aggression from Hizballah will be met with force but it's not interested in war Hizballah says something similar the Israeli cabinet then meets to discuss the potential fall out of the tribunal and in the meantime an NGO reports that the two parties are only holding back because they’re afraid of escalation above and beyond 2006 but it’s all ok because the Saudis, Syrians and Qataris are going to ensure peace and stop the tribunal anyway
*Gasp*
How’s that for Monday morning reading? Pretty much ruined my cornflakes, I can tell you.
Translation: 'We don't like each other. We are going to do something about it in the future. However, we're a little preoccupied at the moment and will get to it at some point in the future.'
... Perhaps that 18 month warning wasn't so far off base...
I’ve been reading, with increasing disgust, about the firing of Octavia Nasser, CNN’s Middle Eastern Editor.
So, she gets fired for Tweeting the following: “So sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hizbollah’s giants I respect a lot..”
I used the words "respect" and "sad" because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman's rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of "honor killing." He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.
I met Fadlallah in 1990. He was willing to take the risk of meeting with a young Christian journalist from the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. Fadlallah was at the height of his power. As I was ushered in, I was told that he would not look at me in the eye and to make it quick as there was a long line of dignitaries waiting.
The interview went 45 minutes, during which I asked him about Hezbollah's agenda for an Islamic state in Lebanon. He bluntly told me that was his group's dream but there would be room for other religions. He also joked at the end of the interview that the solution for Lebanon's civil war was to send "all political leaders without exception on a ship away from Lebanon with no option to return."
He challenged me to run the entire interview on LBC without editing. We did.
This does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it.
It is no secret that Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah hated with a vengeance the United States government and Israel. He regularly praised the terror attacks that killed Israeli citizens. And as recently as 2008, he said the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust were wildly inflated.
But it was his commitment to Hezbollah's original mission - resisting Israel's occupation of Lebanon - that made him popular and respected among many Lebanese, not just people of his own sect.
In 1983, as Fadlallah found his voice as a spiritual leader, Islamic Jihad - soon to morph into Hezbollah - bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 299 American and French peacekeepers. I lost family members in that terror attack.
And it was during his time as spiritual leader that so many Westerners were kidnapped and held hostage in Lebanon.
When the Lebanese Civil War ended in 1990 with Syria taking full control of Lebanon, Hezbollah was and remains the only armed militia in Lebanon. Under Syria's influence however, Hezbollah - declared a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union started becoming even more militant, with designs beyond Lebanon's borders to serve agendas for Syria and Iran.
Fadlallah himself was designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department.
In later years, Hezbollah's leadership apparently did not like Fadlallah's vocal criticism of Hezbollah's allegiance to Iran. Nor did they like his assertions that Hezbollah's leaders had been distracted from resistance to Israeli occupation of portions of Lebanon and had turned weapons against their own people.
At first, he was simply pushed to the side, but later wasn't even referred to as a Hezbollah member. Rather, he was referred to as the scholar - the expert on Islam - but nothing more. During the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel, his honorary title "Sayyed" - indicating that he's a descendant of the prophet - was dropped any time he was mentioned on Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV and other Hezbollah media outlets.
Through his outspoken Friday sermons and his regularly updated website, Fadlallah had a platform to spread what many considered a more moderate voice of Shia Islam than what was coming out of Iran. Immensely popular in Lebanon among the various religious groups, he also had followers across the region including in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and even as far as Morocco in northern Africa."
---
So, Nasr’s gone.
And now the attention has turned to the British Ambassador to Lebanon:
---
"To say that it's deeply unprofessional and wholly inappropriate for a representative of the British government--a close ally of the U.S. and France, plus a supposed friend of Israel--to be publicly honoring Fadallah is a gross understatement."
"CNN have just sacked their Middle East editor Octavia Nasr after she tweeted that she ‘respected’ Fadlallah. Idiots and moral cretins may have written up Fadlallah as ‘progressive’ or (my favourite) ‘complex’, for heaven’s sake, because he supported Muslim women’s rights and abortion. But how can Britain employ an ambassador to Lebanon who gushes her devotion to a spiritual godfather of global terror, jihad and Jew-hatred?"
---
Here’s a cached version of her blog, the original has been deleted:
---
The passing of decent men
One of the privileges of being a diplomat is the people you meet; great and small, passionate and furious. People in Lebanon like to ask me which politician I admire most. It is an unfair question, obviously, and many are seeking to make a political response of their own. I usually avoid answering by referring to those I enjoy meeting the most and those that impress me the most. Until yesterday my preferred answer was to refer to Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, head of the Shia clergy in Lebanon and much admired leader of many Shia muslims throughout the world. When you visited him you could be sure of a real debate, a respectful argument and you knew you would leave his presence feeling a better person. That for me is the real effect of a true man of religion; leaving an impact on everyone he meets, no matter what their faith. Sheikh Fadlallah passed away yesterday. Lebanon is a lesser place the day after but his absence will be felt well beyond Lebanon's shores. I remember well when I was nominated ambassador to Beirut, a muslim acquaintance sought me out to tell me how lucky I was because I would get a chance to meet Sheikh Fadlallah. Truly he was right. If I was sad to hear the news I know other peoples' lives will be truly blighted. The world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths, acknowledging the reality of the modern world and daring to confront old constraints. May he rest in peace.
Are we really saying that there is no room at all for the grey? Is everything black and white?
I would suggest that the majority of those criticizing Fadlallah have never been to the Middle East, let alone been involved in dealings with religious figures and the organizations they are associated with.
Fadlallah was a moderate.
That he was not moderate enough for the tastes of those wishing to sell newspapers is irrelevant.
It is a gross simplification to boil things down to “you're either with us or against us”. It simply does not work.
Anyone living in Lebanon understands that.
I’ve just lost an enormous amount of respect for CNN.
People talk about Liberal media bias … on the evidence of this Conservative media bias is alive and well.
Hezbollah is talking about suing the US government and Lebanese NGOs that accept American money.
The reasoning behind this is that the US, through these NGOs, is slandering the organization and tarnishing its image.
The gist of the claim is that the US, through the NGOs, is brainwashing Lebanese youth against the party and intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The irony of this isn’t lost on most commentators, given that, allegedly, major donations to the party originate in Iran.
