Tayyara.org

If current trends continue, the Free Patriotic Movement’s website will be the champion of all websites in Lebanon very soon.


When I first started blogging right after Hariri was killed, I used to have a daily chart that indicated the different rankings of different websites in Lebanon. It was a nice feature, but it took too much space. This is why I reserved it for events that significantly change those rankings. One such event was the release of the Mehlis report: it propelled the ranking of the FPM’s website to the extend that it toppled that old beacon of March 14: Naharnet.

There are two reasons why the FPM’s website is doing so well.

The first one is reliance:
Michel Aoun heads a party with a significant following in Lebanon (and outside of Lebanon), but unlike other parties, he has no private newspapers and no private Satellite TV stations. At the same time, his exile in Paris required that he found a cost-effective means for communicating with his base.

Unlike in any other Party, the FPM’s website is integral to the party’s operations; while others use theirs (if any) as online brochures, the FPM uses it to communicate, to organize rallies, to publish pieces by its intellectuals, and lately, to gather membership applications.
Michel Aoun is the only Lebanese politician who has an internet address on his podium whenever he makes speeches or organizes press conferences.

The other reason why the FPM’s website is doing well is political. Soon Lebanon will have a new President, and whether some people like it or not, Michel Aoun is the strongest candidate. People are regularly frequenting his website for the latest on his “presidential moves” even if it’s only to “know thy enemy”.

Some might argue that the graph is not fair, since Naharnet.com for instance is part of Annahar group, which also runs Annahar.com and Annaharonline.com. But this post is not about individual websites. It’s about trends; Naharnet can be a fairly representative of the trend of Annahar’s websites, and that trend is downwards in comparison to tayyar.org’s.

Do you want a fun experience? Go to this website and compare the tayyar’s website to others. So far, only Annaharonline.com and Assafir.com beat Tayyar.org (slightly), but Tayyara.org flies above Almustaqbal.com, albaladonline.com and surges way ahead of the puny dailystar.com.lb which is losing readers by the day.

Nice Discussion

There is an interesting discussion taking place at Syria Comment.

Joshua posted a piece that ended with an inquiry: Are the Syrians/Arabs intrinsicaly violent? Commentators are comming up with various insightful answers.

Hezbollah’s Primary Affiliations

We shouldn’t have high expectations from Hassan Nassrallah’s sense of nationalism


The secretary General of Hezbollah is about to make a fiery speech to an expected gathering of half a million person. Read what he is expected to say here.(Arabic)

Meanwhile, I thought it would be helpful to publish this Hayya Bina piece, lest we forget where Hezbollah’s real loyalties lie. (Read Arabic version here)

The Sayyed, the general and a loaded gift!

It generates frustration and anger in the hearts and minds of Lebanese citizens, and even of non-Lebanese, to recall the image of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, General Secretary of Hezbollah, bestowing upon Gen. Rustom Ghazale, the head of
Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, a parting gift of a rifle acquired by the "Resistance" during a raid on the Israeli Army.

This moment was captured in a photo [1] taken during a farewell visit to Nasrallah made by Ghazale on the 20th of April, and was an exchange which marked the completion of the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and has taken an additional significance since Ghazale was named one of the key suspects in the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

Even if we assume that Nasrallah, leader of the only Lebanese party possessing military and security apparatuses, was completely ignorant of the involvement of the Syrian military intelligence forces in the assassination of Rafic Hariri, we surely cannot suppose that he was less aware than the ordinary Lebanese citizen of the Syrian security forces’ involvement in criminal, political and moral crimes against hundreds, even thousands, of Lebanese men and women. Therefore, what conclusions should the Lebanese draw concerning Nasrallah’s bold act of “faithfulness” to Syria, the gifting of a rifle to one of the main figures responsible for these offences?

Detlev Mehlis gave us no doubt of Ghazale’s guilt, so what can Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah do to rectify this dreadful mistake? Will he apologize to the Lebanese citizens? Will he reclaim this gift and return it to its owners ― its Lebanese owners?

The Economist On Converting Damascus

The Economist pitches in on the Future of the Syrian regime. It says “[Syria is] A suitable case for behavior modification, not regime change”


(the Illustration above is contributed by The Beirut Spring and was NOT used by The Economist's Articles in question)

Today's Economist Issue has two articles about Lebanon and Syria (their online versions require a subscription). The first is a leader, in which it argues that it would be imprudent to seek regime change in Syria. The second is a more general article that describes the What-happened-so-far-and-where-we-are-now of the matter.

The Leader, after explaining why Bashar is “A remarkably inept dictator”, had this to say:

Given that even a not very good dictator is a bad thing, should America and France, which took the lead in squeezing Syria's army out of Lebanon, now engineer the downfall of the regime itself? That would be a gamble. Mr Assad has purged his country of an effective opposition. It is therefore impossible to know who might take his place if he fell. A clone might emerge from his inner circle, or Syria could be convulsed by a Sunni revolt against the Assads' minority Alawite clan. In neither case would the Syrian people or their neighbours necessarily benefit. Syria, after all, is not the republic of fear Iraq was under Mr Hussein. Unlike his father (who had some 20,000 people, mostly civilians, slaughtered in the city of Hama in 1982), the younger Mr Assad has not been a mass-murderer, even if he orders the occasional assassination.

Better to use Mr Assad's present weakness as an opportunity to change Syria's behaviour, not its regime. In particular, Syria should be made to stop interfering in Lebanon, which its proxies continue to intimidate even though its army has withdrawn; end its support for the Iraqi insurgency; and close the offices of the Palestinian rejectionist organisations that use Damascus as a base from which to organise attacks on Israel and undermine the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

The Economist also expects that Russia will not keep on protecting Mr. Assad if he doesn’t cooperate fully with the investigation in the future:

In the Security Council this week, the Russians gave a frosty response to a draft resolution from America, France and Britain that would empower Mr Mehlis to complete his investigation and pave the way for sanctions if Syria refuses to co-operate. The Arab League also said it opposed sanctions—for now. But this may not, and should not, be the last word.

Although Syria was a Soviet protégé, and has friends in its foreign ministry, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, may come to see the folly of protecting a dictator who repels the many Arabs who are tired of their leaders behaving like mafia bosses. To bring Mr Putin on board, however, America would be well advised to pipe down and let France, whose president was a friend of Mr Hariri's, make the running in the Security Council. If the Syrian regime collapses of its own accord, or at the hand of its own people, so be it. But the world has no appetite for more American-led regime change. Loose talk about that will do more to help than to hurt the deservedly friendless Mr Assad.

In my opinion, the most important part in The Economist’s second article is what it had to say about the Mehlis Report:

The UN report, compiled by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis, presents this background in telling detail. Having established a motive, it goes on to describe a range of incriminating evidence. Most compelling are mobile-phone records that reveal the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy to eliminate Mr Hariri. These include not just records from a set of callers, linked to the Lebanese and Syrian intelligence agencies, in the immediate vicinity of the crime. One caller, an official in a Syrian-backed Lebanese Islamist sect known as the Ahbash, put in a mysterious direct call to Lebanon's president only minutes before the blast.

The most damning evidence, however, is more controversial. Mr Mehlis cites two Syrian witnesses as having actually observed the preparation, in a Syrian camp, of the car bomb used for the assassination. But one of these witnesses is a Syrian defector with a history of telling tall tales. He is now being held in France, not as a witness but as a suspect in the murder. Syria has seized on such inconsistencies to challenge the legitimacy of Mr Mehlis's report, claiming that the investigation has been politicised.

This very much goes against the follies we are still hearing around us of a “politicized report” or a “vague non specific report” (Hassan Nassrallah should be saying this right now as I type in Hezbollah's celebration of Jerusalem Day)

Geagea Should Walk The Talk

The LF is not doing enough to change its image.


When the victorious Samir Geagea made that public speech in the Airport when he was released from prison, people were listening to a man speaking like a national leader. It was obvious that Mr. Geagea had made his strategic decision to move the party he leads to more moderate waters. Yesterday, the LF students, in their First Annual Conference, celebrated a “new Lebanon”, one where people are “free to express their opinions”. Mr. Ahmad Fatfat, a Sunni Haririst, was a star speaker of the show.

Yet doubts still remain about how much the LF is actually doing to improve its image. Take the issue of the crucifix shaped as a dagger (a symbol perceived by many to be offensive). In his first interview since he was released from prison Mr. Geagea

'expressed his surprise and discontent at his party's adoption of the "dagger cross". Commenting on the crucifix ending in a dagger that has become synonymous with the Lebanese Forces party, Geagea said: "This is not our motto. Some of the youths who decided to bear it did so after the LF was disbanded. When I was released I was surprised to hear about the dagger-cross."'

But if you look at the picture that his followers have unwittingly posted on his website to celebrate his birthday (shown above), it is clear that Mr. Geagea is cutting a cake that has the very symbol he pretended he didn’t know about.

But forget about the past, let’s talk about the future:

'Geagea explained he has called upon party members not to display the dagger-cross, adding that "an internal memorandum has been issued on that matter."'

If that is the case, then why is the symbol still prominently placed on the LF's website?

I trust That Mr. Geagea’s motives are good. I even understand why he would politically need some time to move his base with him. But in his interview he seemed willing to take the first symbolic step; so please Mr. Geagea, start with your official website.

**Erratum**
It was brought to my attention that http://www.lebaneseforces.com is NOT the LF's official website. Their official website is http://www.lebanese-forces.com.
Thanks Khaled and Anonymous

What He Said, What He Meant

Two statements by two different men can be taken for face value, or understood cynically. This post gives them the benefit of the doubt.

1- Patriarch Sfeir said that the Presidency has to be highly respected.

Cynical interpretation: The Patriarch would rather have a criminal Christian at the top than see his mandate shortened. In other words: President Lahhoud should stay.

Benefit of the doubt: The Christians are squabbling among themselves and they can’t make up their minds yet on who should be the next President. The Patriarch just wants to give this power struggle its due time.

2- John Bolton said that the investigation should be able to interview President Assad.

Cynical interpretation: The Americans want to humiliate yet another Arab Leader.

Benefit of the Doubt: The Americans are trying to make it easier for Bashar to broker a deal with them at the expense of Assef shawkat and other men who could be more powerful than him.

Whiners And Appeasers

Lebanese frustration Kuwaiti-Style.

Why is the Syrian regime suddenly the victim? What’s wrong with the European and Arab public opinion?

Russia just announced that it is against imposing sanctions against Syria (and of all places, it did so in Israel). Fine, but did it have to make its position public? now we can’t even use the threat of sanctions. Why would the Syrians now cooperate? What would force them to stop shooting our engineers who set out to demarcate our common borders?

People outside of Lebanon are speaking of the presumption of innocence. Everyone is speaking of a politicized report, everyone is reducing this to a silly conspiracy being cooked up in the pentagon by Neoconservatives.

Everyone outside of Lebanon, that is.

We, inside of Lebanon, all know deep inside that it’s the Syrians. We all know how they still scare our politicians and our journalists, we all know how they bomb our neighborhoods, we all know the scale of the contempt they have for our country.

But why do you care?

We can rot in hell as far as Putin and Joshua Landis are concerned..

Too Stretched?

The Lebanese authorities are targeting various Syria-loyal factions at the same time. Is this the sensible thing to do or are we outstretching ourselves?


Two News bits caught my attention this morning. One tells of the Lebanese authorities’ efforts to reclaim property forcefully occupied by the extremist pro-Syrian Ahbash faction, and one of a large-scale operation of the Lebanese Army to surround a Palestinian camp in a bid to capture the killers of a Lebanese Army surveyor.

What I’m really concerned about is this: how much control do we have over our law-enforcement and security bodies? Can we really go about cutting all the tentacles of the previous Syrian regime at the same time? What about the Syrian allies in Lebanon? Don’t they have followers in the Army and other government bodies over which they have considerable influence? Wouldn’t it be better if we take on the powerful Syrian remnants one by one?

What’s your take on this?

On Aoun’s Presidential Aspirations

An alternative theory on why Aoun should be the President.

I received a comment on a previous post that deserves some exposure. The reader thinks that we got it all wrong on Aoun’s entitlement to the presidency. Here’s what (s)he had to say:

Aoun is not saying that since Shia's picked Nabih Berri, he should be picked because he represents Christians, this is a bunch of propaganda trying to make the FPM seem sectarian at heart.

The fact of the matter is, that after the Parliamentary elections, three powers emerged: The FM and their allies, Hezbollah-Berri alliance, and the FPM and their allies. Hezbollah-Berri got the speaker of Parliament, the FM got the position of Prime Minister, and so therefore naturally, the FPM should get the last remaining spot, which is the Presidency. If the FM and their sidekicks don't want to give them the Presidency, then let them take it, but give the FPM the position of Prime Minster. So basically, it is not about the Presidency itself, but rather that all three major powers in the country should have one of the three top positions.

To not give the FPM one of the top positions would be to ignore the desires and opinions of many Lebanese, and would only concentrate more power in the hands of the FM and their allies, which would be majorly over represented if they got the Presidency spot as well.

What do you think about this?

The Ideas above reflect the opinion of their contributor and do not necessarily represent The Beirut's Spring point of view.

The Beirut Spring Had previously invited readers to publish their own pieces. You are still welcome to contribute.

Aljazeera’s Maliciousness

Aljazeera not only dislikes the Mehlis report, it’s also demonizing the Lebanese position.


Aljazeera’s website usually has six or eight major stories on its first page. These stories have pictures next to them and they’re the ones most read on the entire website.

So when Aljazeera decides to spend this precious real estate to showcase an opinion piece skeptical of the Mehlis report, a news bit about the impending security council action against Syria (with a picture of John Bolton), and a news bit about the debt relief Lebanon is expecting (a piece that has somehow slipped out of the inner folds of the business section of the website), all side-by-side, one can definitely conclude that Aljazeera has an agenda.

And it’s not one for our best Lebanese interests as far as I'm concerned

Aoun's Road To Baabda

Michel Aoun can be the President. But first he needs to realign his strategy.


On the wake of the Mehlis report that points the fingers to associates of President Lahhoud, Calls are coming in from all directions for the President to resign. The next big thing in Lebanese politics is finding a successor; this is arguably the most difficult political challenge since the Syrians have left.
Constitutionally, The Lebanese President has to be a Maronite Christian, and to understand the state of the Maronites in Lebanon, one can learn a lot by looking at the Democratic party in the US.

The victory of President George W. Bush in the American elections in 2004 has divided the Democratic Party into two factions:

On one hand, you have the Clintonites (After Bill Clinton): The Democrats that believe that, in order to be electable, the party has to move a bit to the right (in other words, become more like the Republicans). They are therefore less hostile to free trade, less gang-ho about abortion rights and employees’ rights, and more hawkish on Iraq and Security.

On the other hand, you have the Deaniacks (After Howard Dean). They disagree with the Clintonites over strategy. They think that the best way to be elected in 2008 is to do exactly what Mr. Bush did: Rally your core base to turn out in great numbers to vote for you, instead of reaching out to the center. The Deaniacks believe that they represent the party’s soul better than the Clintonites. They call themselves “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”. They are idealistic and uncompromising.

Unfortunately, although the Deaniacks do represent the Democratic Party better, their strategy is flawed; it is a widely acknowledged fact that, for every Liberal in the US, there are two conservatives. The Clintonites, although not “authentic”, are more likely to be elected.

Back to Lebanon.
Michel Aoun is the Deaniack of the Maronites; he is their most representative, and he speaks in their name. His main argument is this: If Nabih Berri, a fairly hardliner Shiaa representative, got to become Speaker of the House, why shouldn’t the Maronite one (himself), become President? Following that argument, Aoun, like the Deaniacks, is choosing to rally his base instead of reaching out to the others. If you noticed, Aoun is speaking more these days of “Christian representation” and less of his trademark “secular state”.
But, like the Deaniacks, Mr. Aoun’s strategy is flawed: for every Maronite in this country, there’s a Sunni and a Shiaa. In Mr. Nabih Berri’s case, The Sunnis and the Shias have both approved of him. But Aoun is universally loathed outside of his base and is considered by many to be provocative.

However, unlike in the Democratic Party, someone has to emerge as a President from the Christian camp. Aoun could do wisely and chose to reach out. By doing that he can isolate his most vocal critics (like Jumblat) and appeal to the more moderates (Hariri). If not, he’ll have to live to see one of his lesser co-religionists become his President.

The Last-minute Modification

It is still not very clear who was behind the last minute modification of the Mehlis report to remove references to high-ranking Lebanese and Syrian figures.


Mehlis Denied (albeit unconvincingly) in his hastily-arranged news conference that he was pressured to do so. His explanation is that he dropped the names because the evidence was inconclusive and because he wanted to give the people in question the benefit of the doubt.

To understand what the difference between the previous (unedited) version and the new (edited) one, check out the differences in clause 96 (hat tip Carine):

Clause 96, in the edited version:
One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

Clause 96, in the washington post's unedited version
One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, Maher Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamil Al-Sayyed decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that Sayyed went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of Shawkat. The last meeting was held in the house of Shawkat approximately 7 to 10 days before the assassination and included Mustapha Hamdan. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

Arab Public Opinion

It seems the Syrian regime is losing the hearts and minds of Aljazeera’s audience.
According to this pole taking place at their website right now, around 2/3 of the voters think the Mehlis report is fair, whereas 1/3 think it’s biased.

Aoun Eliminates His Enemy

Of all the paragraphs in the Mehlis report, which one do you think the tayyar’s website found most important to publish on its first page as Breaking News?

This one:
X: Take it easy on me. Can you appoint a new Government at this time?
Ghazali: Yes we can appoint one. What could be the problem? We can name Botros Harb.

The Name Butros Harb was bold and in red.

Of course, it’s just a coincidence that Harb is Aoun’s biggest competitor for the presidency.
Some subtlety Mr. Aoun, please.

The tayyar have later modified the front page. The piece just lasted for 30 mins. between around 13:00 and 13:40 GMT.

The Shape Of Things To Come.

How the internal political battle is shaping up after the Mehlis Report.


It is too early to predict exactly how the political scene will look like in Lebanon in the next few hours, but enough is already known to have a general idea.

The majority coalition (FM-PSP-LF-QS-DL) is in full-throttle; If the headlines of Hariri-owned newspaper and Gebran Tueni’s statements are of any indication, their apparent immediate objective is the overthrowing of President Lahhoud. It is already preparing to flex its street muscles this evening, when thousands of young Lebanese are expected to come to Hariri’s shrine and celebrate “The Day Of The Truth”

On the other hand, while Michel Aoun has no love lost for Syria, he told the LBC that the report has some ‘political conclusions’ and that he is against overthrowing the President by force. He said that if it is to be done, it should be done in consensus among the various Lebanese parties. He warns of instability otherwise. Expect his official position to be announced after the exceptional meeting he's holding in Rabieh with his block at 2:30 this afternoon.
It remains unclear whether Aoun's position is due to his presidential aspirations or simply one to raise his negotiation powers. Expect a violent exchange between him and Mr. Jumblat, who will probably renounce him as a Lahhoud defender. Saad Hariri might be a bit more flexible, so expect his envoy Ghattas Khoury to be visiting Rabieh soon.

This evening, the Seniora government is expected to produce an official reaction to the report, but the task is not as easy as it sounds; Hezbollah has already prepared the grounds yesterday by renouncing what they called cabinet procedural irregularities. According to Trad Hmedeh, a Hezbollah minister who spoke to NBN yesterday, P.M. Seniora speaks in the name of his party when he makes official statements, not in the name of the government (part of which is Hezbollah), and that, Hmedeh thinks, should be changed. In other words, mind your language tonight Mr. Seniora or we’re stepping out.

Nabih Berri’s Amal movement remains cryptic. It has not made any public statements yet, but anyone who knows Nabih Berri well would estimate that he’s planning to join the party that will ultimately emerge as a winner.

Mehlis Report, Op-Eds, Analysis (Constantly Updated)

In the same spirit of cooperation, this post is about digging out worthy press OP-EDs, analysis or interpretations of the Mehlis investigation. Of note would also be any official position taken by significant parties. If you find any such relevant articles/scoops, please suggest them in the comments section or email them and I’ll transfer them to the body of the post.
Your help is greatly appreciated.


The New York Times, citing ‘a diplomat with intimate knowledge of the inquiry’, names Assef Shawkat, Bashar Assad’s brother in law as ‘the main suspect’

The diplomat spoke as a long-awaited United Nations report on the killing made public on Thursday said it was a carefully planned terrorist act organized by high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officers.
[...]
Though the report did not include names, the diplomat said the investigators were focusing on Syria's military intelligence chief, Asef Shawkat, the president's brother-in-law.

"Their main lead is that he is the ringleader," the diplomat said. "This is where it is heading."

Hariri-owned Almustaqbal Newspaper calls on the Lebanese youth to visit Hariri's grave in celebration of "The Day of the Truth". The event will take place at 8 p.m. Beirut time.

Reactions:
Aljazeera (English) reports on the vehement denials in Syria and Lebanon. You can also read the Arabic version. Naharnet calls the Syrian allies a "5th column" and reports that Ahmad Gebril wants to sue Mr. Mehlis.

More Reactions:
Here's what the BBC website's (mostly western) readers think of the report.

Skepticism:
The Angry Arab, a skeptic, provides a cynical reading of the report

More Skepticism:
The Washington Post has a "confidential" version of the report on its website. It features parts that have apparently been deleted in the final version. This is beginning to cast doubts on the objectivity of the report in various circles.

Sleepless in Beirut...

This night, the Lebanese got lost between the moon and New York City.


The news is trickling in. The United Nations has decided to release the long awaited Mehlis report to the world. The Lebanese all over the world are awake and following with suspense the information coming in bit by bit. Journalists are doing on-the-spot translations of the 100 page documents. People are waking each other up to watch the news. It seems Syrian and Lebanese high officials are involved. Significant live information are coming in to the Oohs, the Ahhs, and the I-told-you-sos of Lebanese households everywhere.

I can’t write more, Shaza omar from LBC just mentioned that president Lahhoud got a call on his cell phone just 3 minutes before the Hariri assassination. Fares khasshan is spilling his guts on Future TV. Aljazeera’s Ghassan Bin Jiddo is trying to sound balanced, Gebran tweini is gloating on LBC...

I will need your help on this one. There is continuous coverage on TV and I need to catch up some sleep. Please use the comments section to post bits of information, reactions or analysis as they come. If you read or hear something that is significant, please let us know. It would be great if you could mention your sources. If you have a personal opinion or analysis, you’re also welcome to share it.

Good night.

Honor, Sacrifice...Loyalty?

The surprising neutrality of the Lebanese Army Commander


On the eve of the presentation of the Mehlis report to the United Nations, Lebanon is on a high security alert. The perpetrators may want to further destabilize the country with large-scale explosions and assassinations, so the Army has kept a heavy presence in the capital and in other important cities.

Most of the Lebanese (rightly) trust the Army. Not only has it kept a remarkable neutrality in different sensitive milestones, but it has also proven that it can make its own sensible decisions whenever necessary (look how they disobeyed Sleimen Franjiyeh’s orders and let the March 14 protesters do their thing). Gen. Michel Sleimen’s stewardship has proven admirable, but his neutrality remains a mystery.

General Emile Lahhoud, considered by many to be a Syrian pawn, had appointed Mr. Sleimen to replace him when he became President. One would think that the Syrians would have wanted to install another pawn as the head of the military. That would fit nicely in the scheme of things; the Syrian controlled the president, the heads of the different security departments, key Judges, key bankers and most parliamentarians. Why not control the army commander? Wouldn’t he come in handy when Syria decides to play destabilizing games? In fact, the army is now playing a destructive role to the Syrian plans of smuggling weapons to the Palestinian camps.

Perhaps General Emile Lahhoud saw in Mr. Sleimen a trustworthy pro-Syrian,
but underestimated his pragmatism. After the Hariri assassination, Mr. Sleimen cleverly branded the army as the guarantor of the security of the Lebanese people. In other words, he stirred it from high-minded pointless ideologies to a purely technical role: The role of “safeguarding the national unity and […] guaranteeing the freedom of expression and ensuring security for all the Lebanese people”. This role was most clearly expressed in the “order of the day” of the first Lebanese Army Day after the Syrian military withdrawal. You can read it here.

The other Mystery is the trust P.M. Seniora has placed in Gen. Sleimen and in the military; was Mr. Sleimen brought in the folds by the Independence movement and the international community, or (gasps) was president Lahhoud always right when he claimed that he has built a “truly national army”?

The Ideal President

Samir Geagea explains what sort of presidents Lebanon needs

The Blind Ophthalmologist

The world versus Bashar Al Assad


Josh Landis wrote a few weeks ago: “The US Wants to Get Bashar by the throat and Shake Him Hard to See What Change Falls out of his Pockets”.

This is by far the most appropriate description I have read for the current US pressures on Syria. Everyday that passes, something new comes up. The US is literally using all means possible to squeeze the Assad regime. There is talk of military operations inside Syria, There is diplomatic coordination between Washington, Paris, London and Moscow in preparation for the Mehlis report, There is pressure from Lebanon (Seniora speaks of embassies and border demarcation, Hariri’s newspaper starts to reveal the juicy stuff), There is pressure from Inside Syria in the form of a Syrian opposition meeting in Paris (Josh just writes however that it was bust). Even the carrot that America seems to have offered to Syria was poisonous.
America is not just putting pressure on Syria. America is playing with its food.

The fall of Bashar al Assad is looming; this once promising “Western educated” eye-doctor proved to be not only scandalously incompetent, but much more hardline than his father. If only Israel would let him go..

Good or Evil [Part 2]

The Arab/Arab dichotomy on the Iraqi constitution


Whereas my previous post was about the diverging attitudes of the French and Americans towards the Iraqi constitution, this one deals with the internal Arab divide.

To best understand how Arabs are divided on the Iraqi constitution, all you need to do is to first tune in on Aljazeera’s bulletin, then on Al-Arabiya’s. Again, the coverage is very telling.

Al-Arabiya devotes a substantial amount of resources to the coverage of the different phases of the referendum. For some time now, it has been airing well-produced paid-for ads about the importance of the constitution to the future of Iraq. It has correspondents in all major Iraqi provinces, careful to keep a close eye on polling and on counting.

Aljazeera on the other hand thinks that some minor skirmishes in the Palestinian territories are more coverage-worthy than what it sees as a flawed and cosmetic process.

Al-Arabiya’s footage is peppered with smiley young Iraqi faces and cleanly shaved spiffy Iraqi men (and women). Aljazeera focuses on misery. Its protagonists are Iraqis living in squalid conditions lamenting the good old pre-American days.

Al-Arabiya speaks matter-of-factly of “Sunni and Shia Arabs” and “Kurds”, and it regularly features comments by optimistic American officials.
Aljazeera prefers to showcase Amr Mussa’s belated alarmism on the gloom and doom that is to be the future of Iraq.

Both stations have their audiences. Aljazeera appeals to Arab masses still wedded in nostalgia and conspiracy. The optimistic Al-Arabyia on the other hand commands the loyalty of the Arab Elites, businessmen and Aljazeera-haters like the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and now recently, the Lebanese.

Good or Evil?

Iraqis have voted on their new constitution. Is that good or bad? It depends who tells the story.


Or



Here in this small West African country, there are many ways one can
listen to the international news. Africa is a ripe place for propaganda, so stations like VOA (voice of America), the BBC world service and RFI (Radio France Internationale) all have 24-hour dedicated FM frequencies.

Yesterday, voting was underway in Iraq in a referendum for a new constitution. Since I know that The US and France have completely diverging views on this subject, I decided to conduct an experiment: I first listened to VOA's eleven o'clock bulletin, and then to RFI's midnight one. I must say, I had some interesting findings.

You'd think the two radio stations are talking about two completely different topics. To VOA, this was a "historic" day not only for Iraq, but for the whole Middle east. Iraqis are voting in droves in defiance to the terrorists and in a beautiful rendition of democracy. The Iraq of the future is being built. It was the most peaceful day in Iraq after the war.

Contrast that to RFI's take: Iraqis were voting on a "controversial" constitution under "draconian security measures". The constitution divides the Iraqis into sects and communities. It is "based on Islam", "tramples on women's rights" and doesn't protect religious
freedoms. RFI's analysis was that such a constitution would weaken Iraq, a previously strong a secular state; to support that, they interviewed Richard W. Murphy (The Hafez Assad Biographer). Murphy said that the role of the constitution was to weaken a strong Arab state that had posed a threat to America's interests in the region, namely the security of Israel. The war was initially launched because of the strong lobbying of the friends of Israel in the Pentagon.

So which of these perspectives is more sensible?
The American viewpoint is the one it has always aggressively promoted, but the French/European one is still the one that is largely believed among the Arab intellectuals and elites (of course, there's also the Islamist perspective which sees the whole thing in shades of Crusaders and Martyrs).

What does this blogger think?
Well, while the French perspective has its inroads in my heart and mind, it is our own weak social cohesion that is to blame. I support a prosperous Iraq that is an American ally. The key word is prosperous. Once a country is prosperous, and, with a bit of luck, democratic, it can one day grow to become like Turkey: a rational and democratic Muslim country that is an American ally, but one that can at some point tell America "no".

Back soon

Sorry for the irregular posts guys, I’ve been having some technical difficulties as some of you might have noticed; The Beirut Spring should be regular again on Monday.


Your comments, suggestions and ideas are always welcome to my email: Mustapha at beirutspring dot com . What do you like or dislike about my blog? how can it be improved? I would love to hear from you.

Thanks for reading.

The Death Of A Symbol

No love lost for Ghazi Kenaan.


Ghazi Kenaan ruled Lebanon for Long and oppressive years. He symbolized everything that was wrong with the Syrian Hegemony: Opression, ruthlessness, fear, corruption and cronyism.

He is said to have committed suicide. Maybe he did, or maybe he was ‘liquidated’ because he was potentially harmful as a witness in the Mehlis investigation. Also, Tony says that Kenaan was a threat to the Assad regime.

(you can find a good summary of the topic here)

Ruffled Feathers

Bad time to be a rooster


The Syrians are getting even more gang-ho. Their accusations against P.M. Sanioura, The Hariri Family, The Americans and the Lebanese Media are escalating. Mr. Otari, the Syrian Prime Minister, speaks of the “gates of hell” if the Americans attack Syria. (Mr. Otari was obviously mimicking French President Jacques Chirac’s warning to the Americans on the eve of their Iraq attack).

Mr. Otari, you have chosen the wrong time to be a rooster. If you don't have anything to be afraid of, why all the noise? Chill out.

Besides, we have just banned all foreign poultry from entering the Lebanese territory.

Assad Takes a Beating

Things are not looking good for the Syrian President.


The Damascus regime was emboldened by diplomatic comments from Egypt and some wishful thinking from its Lebanese allies. So, it decided to go on the offensive. It is “Angry” with Seniora, with Mehlis and with everyone else you can think of.

Everyone from Walid Jumblat, to Saad Hariri To George Bush didn’t think Assad was funny. So they decided to show Syria that they’re not shaking in their boots. The Financial Times Says that Bush is searching for an Assad replacement (a report proudly featured on Haririst Almustaqbal’s first page), Jumblat wants to see the “childlish” Syrian regime behind bars and Hariri is inviting everyone to accept Whatever Mehlis comes up with, so that the perpetrators can be held accountable.

The tone is getting louder and the exchanges more violent. Let’s hope for some safe last few days.

The Star and the Crescents

For the Arab Gulf countries, having a normalized relationship with Israel is the sensible thing to do.


Today, some Lebanese newspapers brought to our attention the fact that major Kuwaiti newspapers are advocating the normalization of the relationship with Israel. A move deemed very unpopular among the general Kuwaiti populace.
Ahmad Jarallah, editor in chief of the English-language “Arab Times” wrote:

"After a long time, we have finally decided to leave the Palestinian cause to Palestinians, because it is they who are really concerned with this issue. […]Arabs will never be able to improve their economy unless they end their perpetual state of war and resort to peace."

Other writers like Youssef al Suwaidan of Alsyassah wrote that Arabs should follow the example of Pakistan who had recently broken the ice between it and Israel after the Ghaza withdrawal.

Are the Kuwaiti writers going against everything that Arabs and Moslems stand for, Or are we finally starting to hear sensible voices coming out of that region?

People who are against normalizing ties with Israel usually have four arguments.

The first argument is the crudest. It’s a religious one that argues as following: God asks us in the Koran to fight the Jews, therefore, the Jews are the enemy.
This argument is flawed for obvious reasons. The least of which is that it would put us in par with Bin Laden and his Ilk who have a literalist reading of the Koran. We might as well declare war on the Nassarah (Christians) if that is to be the case.

The second argument is the one most popular among leftist and secular intellectuals (read Ghassan Tweiny). The argument, simply put is this: Israel is brutal force that wants to establish a homogenous state in the middle of a culturally diverse region, to prove that our model of diversity and tolerance is inferior to theirs.
This argument makes sense, but it’s not Israel’s problem, it’s ours. The burden is on us to compete with Israel and prove that our model is superior. It’s a healthy competition between two culturally different neighbors, and you don’t need a war for that (look at France and England)

The third argument is the Arabist one. How can we make peace with Israel if it’s treating the Palestinians, our brothers and sisters, the way it is? How can we abandon the ‘kadiyya’?
This is an obsolete argument. You can find counter-arguments all over the place on why Arabism is dead and why we shouldn’t be more royal than the king. (in other words, why should we make war if the Palestinians themselves want peace?)

The fourth argument on why we should still be at war with Israel is the most substantial one. But it only applies to countries that share a border with Israel like Lebanon.
I would call it the Hezbollah argument: Israel has expansionist ambitions in our land and water resources, and it can wiggle its way out of the international community’s watchful eye. This is why we should have deterrence capabilities. But the question is, do you need to be at war with someone to have deterrence abilities? Switzerland has one of the world’s strongest armies, but it’s one of the most peaceful countries in the world.

In other words, it is time we threw behind us all the rhetoric and started thinking progressively. I applaud the brave Mr. Jarallah. He will produce a shockwave throughout the Arab world, but it will be a good shockwave. Next time though, he should write his article in Arabic.