Lebanon: Civil War or Nasrallah's Peace?

As Middle East newspapers were warning this weekend that Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, Beirut enjoyed a moment of civility.

As tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators began an indefinite occupation of the city's center last weekend, thousands of marathon runners skirted the massive protests without incident.

Amidst the country's worst worst political crisis since the end of a bloody civil war 15 years ago, Lebanon also displays habits of accommodation that some hope will help it avoid the most dire of scenarios. But a peaceful democratic resolution, some commentators say, will most likely benefit the man most antagonistic to Washington and Israel -- Sayyed Nasrallah.

The latest developments show a deepening impasse between the opposition, led by Hezbollah, the Shiite party and militia, and the pro-Western government it seeks to topple.

• Tensions mounted Monday as thousands turned out to mourn a Shiite demonstrator who was killed during clashes in a Sunni neighborhood Sunday.

• The government responded to the weekend demonstrations by deploying more troops to the capital to head off the possibility of sectarian violence, according to Aljazeera.net.

• AP reported that Egypt's president and Russia's foreign minister are calling for for calm.

In Lebanon's diverse online media, commentators on both sides proclaim their own peaceful intentions while fearing the worst of the opposition.

Fingerpointing Powers

On Friday, the pro-government Arabic daily Al-Mustaqbal warned that the demonstrations organized by Hezbollah and supported by some Christians were actually the makings of a coup orchestrated by Syria and Iran.

"The direct goal of the Syrian-Iranian coup against the situation in Lebanon is to thwart the [establishment of] an international tribunal [to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri]," said Al-Mustaqbal, according to a translation by the pro-Israeli Middle East Media Research Institute.

Iran and Syria, said the Sunni daily, also hope to thwart the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandates the disarmament of Hezbollah's militia.

"This is a coup against the very existence of the state. Oh [Lebanese] Army, as of today you face the test of defending the state, the regime, and its institutions," said the Al-Mustaqbal editors.

But Al Manar, Hezbollah's Web site, charges that it is pro-government forces preparing for civil war by distributing guns in the Mount Lebanon region, north of Beirut.

Hezbollah, of course, has its own militia, as Al Manar acknowledged. But "Hezbollah's chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah sought on many occasions to reassure the Lebanese that the sole use of the arms of the resistance is to confront the Israeli enemy adding that these weapons will not be used internally," the editors said.

Ya Libnan, a pro-government site, was not reassured.

"Hezbollah's ongoing propaganda campaign to brainwash its followers has resulted in hundreds of thousands of misinformed people, manipulated into believing that their government is illegitimate," said YL columnist Mohammed Hussein. The current demonstrations, he said, are a "sneak peak of a Hezbollah dictatorship."

But Monday Morning, a nationalist newsweekly based in Beirut and also distributed in Syria, set aside blame of Hezbollah, saying sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis are stoked by the United States and Israel for their own advantage.

"The basics of the problem are anchored in Iraq and its neighbor Iran. The two countries fought a long war in the 1980s, during which Washington gave help to both belligerents. The US's strategic goal was to ruin two major Muslim states which regarded Israel as a major enemy and a target," said Monday Morning editors. Now, America's goal is to "let the Muslims fight each other and bleed on both sides. This reality will ease the situation from the American-Israeli side."

The secular Daily Star said Lebanon faces the same "trying circumstances" as Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

"On the one side are indigenous forces -- Arab and Iranian mainly -- that seek to assert an indigenous identity and often militant ideology, and on the other side are forces that prefer a political order that weds local interests with close ties to Western powers and international alliances," said the Daily Star editors.

"Street confrontations that remain peaceful are an established means of expressing various views, but these must be channeled into existing political and constitutional mechanisms that remain the only credible means of brokering a compromise that meets the legitimate demands of all sides," the editors concluded.

Lebanon's best-known journalist, Ghassan Tueni, called for a dialogue to contain the mushrooming crisis. Tueni, the former An Nahar editor whose son was assassinated last year, suggested that talks with Tehran would be a "launching platform" for a "dialogue in the name of all the Arabs," including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. At stake, he said, is not just the future of Lebanon but the Arab nation.

'At the Crossroads'

The debate about civil war is also raging beyond Lebanon.

Civil war is not inevitable, said the French academic, Pascal Boniface, in a column for the Gulf News.

"There is some pessimism due to the following reasons - the divide between the communities is growing, the external powers, Syria, Iran, Israel, France and the US, have their own antagonistic agenda. But history could come to the rescue of Lebanon as the Lebanese people are against collective suicide," he wrote.

"The Christians are aware that fresh fighting will mean the end of their influence. Hezbollah is at the crossroads. It is both a national Lebanese movement and a Syrian ally. Whether it would prefer one role to the other could be the deciding factor of a civil war or not."

Nadim Zaazaa, a Lebanese contributor to Islam Online, was less optimistic.

"Once again, Lebanon is at crossroads. And once again, Lebanon doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. The country is sadly too futile to withstand the pressures it is facing. It may be true that Lebanon has stood firm in the face of the Israeli aggression, but there is a different test that Lebanon has repeatedly failed: the challenge of upgrading the Lebanese polity to a capable medium that can adapt to and interact with the social, economic, and political changes that it comes across. The roots of such a problem reside in all aspects of the Lebanese reality -- the history, the constitution, society, and even the individual mindset of every Lebanese."

Hezbollah's "street theatrics" endanger the country, say the editors of the Khaleej Times in the United Arab Emirates. "Hezbollah won itself plaudits and support from Arabs, Muslims and the rest of the world for the exemplary courage and perseverance it demonstrated in the face of Israeli aggression earlier this year. This newspaper had joined other media in the Middle East and elsewhere in hailing the victory of Lebanese people including Hezbollah over a ruthless power armed to its teeth."

"Which is why it is unfortunate that Hezbollah should squander that hard-earned public support and sympathy in such a pointless exercise, which could seriously destabilize an already volatile country."

In Israel, there is widespread feeling that the Hezbollah-led demonstrations will end, not with civil war, but a political victory for Nasrallah.

As the liberal Haaretz said, "What appears to be an internal political demonstration - so far conducted nonviolently - against a government that the demonstrators view as illegal, corrupt and unrepresentative is liable to end with the establishment of a pro-Syrian government, which would be under the influence of Nasrallah and his supporters, including the Christian Michel Aoun."

In a column for the the centrist Ynet News, Eyal Zisser, a professor at Tel Aviv University, said that "the demonstrators' restraint, as well as the fact that they chose to hide behind General Aoun, demonstrated that Nasrallah's sights are not set on a bloody civil war. Nasrallah is simply seeking to subdue [pro-Western Prime Minister] Fouad Siniora and to force him to surrender to his demands."

"What can be expected is a typical Lebanese bazaar, where both sides will ultimately emerge only partially appeased: Siniora will be forced to surrender to some of Nasrallah's' demands and Nasrallah will have to retract some of his other demands," Zisser concluded.

By Jefferson Morley |  December 5, 2006; 1:53 AM ET  | Category:  Mideast
Previous: World Opinion Roundup Hiatus | Next: Jimmy Carter, Palestinian Sympathizer

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Welcome Back, Jefferson, I hope all is well.

Regarding the current situation, I wonder why so little press time is ever given to the role the US and Israel played in creating this distaster. We allowed Israel to needlessly destroy the country and weaken one of the most US friendly Governments in the region while actually strengthening Hezbollah.

This ridiculus move was backed by the current administration of course, but also by vitually the entire House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. Yet I see very few criticisms from the press of the blind and almost (aside from the Israeli Lobby influence) inexplicably self destructive thinking that allowd this nightmare to occur.

If anyone is responsible for civil war in Lebanon, it's Israel first, and then the US, in that we gave them the green light and the weaponry to pull off one of the most spectacularly ill timed failures in modern Middle Eastern history.

Why are these senators and congressmen being called to account for this huge blunder that has further endangered our soldiers in Iraq and our overall national security as well?

Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? Howard Dean?: As opposed to working to end the war, they were screaming for blood.
Only they did not seem to care that is was largely the blood of thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians. Nor did they think long enough to envision what horrible consequesces might befall the US in our bid to stabilize the region and extricate ourselves from this war on terror if Israel lost, which was an emminantly forseeable outcome given their utterly ridiculus objectives.

J

Posted by: J | December 5, 2006 06:56 PM

Good to have you back Jefferson. How bout doing a chat sometime soon. There is so much to go over.

J has it right that so much of the weakening of Sinoira was done by Israel and USA, both of whom couldn't expect a more friendly face in Beirut. However, I dont see this confrontation resolving like a bartering session at the souk (Bazaar)ala Zisser. Positions are hardening and its clear that Hezb feels betrayed by the central gov. the Syrians are clearly feeling emboldened and not nearly as isolated as a year or two ago.

The potential for all hell to break loose in the Lebanon is very real and this might lead to a pretext for Syria to reoccupy. I haven't seen much discussion of this, but surely this must be Assad's saving face from the withdrawal (what irony, Is and the USA rescuing Assad by undermining Sinoira).

Lastly, what the heck is gonna happen with the two Is. solders that Hezb latched onto? Are there ongoing backchannel negotiations to do a swap or is the time not right? And if it isn't right can someone enlighten me as to who is holding up the show, and why? That may well be my question once Mr. Morley blesses us with a chat sessions.

Posted by: WOW | December 5, 2006 07:56 PM

"This is a coup against the very existence of the state. Oh [Lebanese] Army, as of today you face the test of defending the state, the regime, and its institutions," said the Al-Mustaqbal editors.

Right...I hope there was a similar call to "defend" Lebanon when the Israelis were reducing half the country to rubble. Otherwise I see no choice but to roll around on the floor laughing, but I wont because this situation has the potential of becoming such a tragedy. And all because, as J pointed out, the power wielders in Washington continue to blindly condone whatever Israel does, good or evil.
Will it take six million Arab lives to wash away the "guilt" of the holocaust and do the right thing for the Palestinians?

Posted by: Zain | December 5, 2006 11:21 PM

Yes, the Lebanese trouble is all Israel's and America's fault.
If you really believe that then you need your head examined.
If I remember correctly, Hezbollah invaded Israeli territory, killed two soldiers, and captured two more. It was an act of war, pure and simple.
The purpose of the Israeli response was to get their soldiers back and damage Hezbollah as much as possible. The U.S. supported this action because we would have done the exact same if we had been attacked. Afghanistan anyone?
Ultimately the U.S. and Israel gambled on this war and lost. Iran and its Hezbollah proxy gained politically as a result.
The likelyhood of a renewed civil war is due to the ethnic powder keg that is Lebanon. Renewed fighting would be ignited by the same unresolved issue of which group gets to dominate Lebanon that touched off the original civil war in 1975.
The only reason that war seems much more likely now is that a strengthend Hezbollah wants to dominate Lebanon, not share power. If there is anyone to blame it is Hezbollah and their Iranian masters.

Posted by: dana | December 5, 2006 11:36 PM

I have to respond to J's factual errors.

First:
"Only they did not seem to care that is was largely the blood of thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians."

Approximately 850 Lebanese died in the war - which is not even One Thousand, let alone Thousands. Many have jumped to the conclusion that these were civilians, but that is not consistent with Hezbollah's standard practices. Much of Hezbollah is intentionally comprised of non-uniformed militia as a matter of strategy. It is interesting that the news media - and many who are relexively opposed to war - neglect to mention this and instead take Hezbollah's assertions of dead civilians at face value.

Second, "If anyone is responsible for civil war in Lebanon, it's Israel first"

Wrong. Hezbollah started the war this summer - not Israel. Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon six years ago. If anyone was responsible for this war - and the resulting instability that followed - it is Hezbollah first, then Syria for not disarming Hezbollah during the occupation, then Iran for continuing to arm Hezbollah after the Israeli withdrawal, then the Europeans for screaming bloody murder when Israel justifiably retaliated after Hezbollah killed and kidnapped soldiers, and then, finally, the UN force stationed on the border for allowing the Hezbollah raids to occur and the not-so-subtle preparations for the assault.

Posted by: Jason | December 6, 2006 12:25 AM

Interestingly - many people seem to forget Israel's links to the Kurds in Iraq 30 or so years ago (along with the US and the Shah of Iran) - I'm not placing a value judgement on this but as usual they do seem to operate under a double standard - interfering in the affairs of another country while condemning those that do the same.

Posted by: Angus | December 6, 2006 01:12 AM

The pigs governing Lebanon are not committed to their citizens as for the war the goverment did nothing and if you think Hezebollah started the war please move your ass away from Fox News.

Hezebollah kidnapped 2 killers to exchange them for their children who are inslaved by this Ueropean oucasts know as Israelites

To all of you when the American Slave product child Condi Rice promised you of the New Middle East it is the begining of it now.like it or not you have to live it.

Posted by: South African | December 6, 2006 09:20 AM

It would be in Israel's best interest to make peace with Hezbollah. Because whether Israel likes it or not, and whether in Lebanon there is a civil war or not, Nasrallah is going to win. That much is certain. Nasrallah always does what he promises. We all know that by now. Iran it moving next door to Israel. And war is not an option for Israel. Because from what that world witnessed in July, Israeli military is not up to the task of either defeating or even disarming Hezbollah. Therefore, lets negotiate a peace settlement right now and let the Shi'ites of Lebanon share a peaceful unity government. Otherwise, Hezbollah will only get more stronger and this will lead to a nightmare for Israel. I am sure Nasrallah is an intellingent man and open to reason. Its time to talk to him.

Posted by: iceman | December 6, 2006 10:42 AM

"Hezebollah kidnapped 2 killers to exchange them for their children who are inslaved by this Ueropean oucasts know as Israelites"

Hezbollah crossed the boarder in force, kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, and KILLED a half dozen others. If this were the first time something like this had happened, we could excuse it - but it's not. The six-year period between the Israeli withdrawal and the summer war was punctuated with rocket attacks and cross-border raids by Hezbollah.

Much of the world seems too willing to excuse Hezbollah. I can only guess this is because accurately condemning Hezbollah can't be done without acknowledging some need to forcibly disarm them, and for individuals who naively see no need for the use of force - anywhere, anytime - this is a vexing problem.

Posted by: Jason | December 6, 2006 11:41 AM

It is time for the United States to be an honest broker for peace in the Middle East. The Siniora government has the popular support of only the people it pays in Lebanon. It is arming these people to suppress a peaceful bid to bring down the government. In other words, the Bush Administration is backing a violent minority against a peaceful majority in Lebanon. The opposition is protesting against Lebanon's sectarian-based government. All they are asking for is an election in Lebanon on the principle of 1 person, 1 vote, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. We in the United States therefore need to support the opposition in Lebanon in their quest for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Contrary to what the Bush administration says, the opposition in Lebanon is not an attempt to create a Shia state in Lebanon. It is led by a Christian former Army General, Michel Aoun. It is therefore a populist movement wishing for a Lebanon that is truly united, not divided along sectarian lines. Don't believe the lies coming from the Bush administration. Lebanon deserves to be free. The United States must support the Lebanese opposition.

Posted by: Jaxon | December 6, 2006 12:19 PM

Jason,

From Amnesty International;

"Ambulances were attacked in Israeli strikes and humanitarian organizations were forced to abandon rescue attempts or delivery of humanitarian assistance even after receiving clearance from Israeli authorities.

Attacks by Israeli forces on Lebanese infrastructure and the imposition of an air and sea blockade seem to have been intended as a form of collective punishment as well as to cause harm to Hizbullah's operations.

Convoys of civilians were bombed by Israeli forces while they were fleeing villages and towns in southern Lebanon in compliance with Israeli orders to evacuate the area.

Civilians, particularly children, continue to be killed and injured even after the end of the conflict as a result of Israel's widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas that left around a million unexploded cluster bomblets scattered across Lebanon.

The Israeli authorities regularly expressed regret for civilian casualties but have given no or inadequate explanations for specific attacks, such as the intended target, considerations of proportionality and any precautionary measures taken. When they indicated that civilian casualties were the result of mistakes, they provided no indication that anyone had been or would be held accountable for the mistakes.

No investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by Hizbullah is known to have been conducted by Hizbullah commanders or by the Lebanese authorities.

Inquiries completed by four independent UN human rights experts and the current Commission of Inquiry set up by the UN Human Rights Council have been limited in scope and operated under significant restrictions of time and resources."

From Answers.com


"The level of destruction that hit Lebanon has been described by the country's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora as "unimaginable." Much of Lebanon's infrastructure was destroyed, mainly bridges and roads, and estimates of the overall damage approach $15 billion [5]. Nearly 1,200 Lebanese civilians were killed and about 4,000 were injured. Over one million Lebanese were displaced and forced to flee to safer areas."

Most credible sources place the actual number of deaths at just under 1200. (more than 1000) Just as in Iraq, though, that number will inflate due to deaths that arise as the result of the wounded dying, and as the result of deaths caused as the result of the devastation of the countries infrastructure, including the deaths that still occur as the result of civilians being killed by the hundreds of thousands of intentionally dispersed unexploded cluster bombs.

As terrible as all this is, though, if it served a greater purpose which justified this type of response, then it may have been worth it.

We elect the various officials that are charged with making these decisions precisely because we trust them to only go to war when it serves the Nations best interest.

Unfortunately, This administration and virtually the entire House and Senate have shown historically unprecedented bad judgement in deciding who to go to war with and why.

Iraq? I wont belabor you with the details. A complete mistake. We make loud noises about going to war with Iran, while Paksistan, a country we refer to as our ally, Harbors OSB and other Al qeada leaders, Harbors the taliban who run raids out of pakistan into Afgahnistan, HAVE nuclear weapons, are overrunnign with extremeists who hate the US and Israel and regularly try to assasinate their president, and consider A.Q. Khan, who has given nucelar technology(our worst nightmare scenario) to both Iran and North Korea a national hero and hold him out of the reach if US justice. Now, strategically, we don't attack Packistan, who arguably poses a much larger threat to US interests and world peace than Iran, because it would not be in our best interests in the overall war on terror at this time. It also shows quite clearly that when we want to, we can negotiate with and create alliances with the most dangerous and unstable of countries if we consider it in our interest to do so.

So, looked at from that perspective, what was the purpose of going to war with Lebanon? As with Pakistan, just because someone creates the pretext for war does not mean that war must occur unless it is unavoidable or make a great deal of strategic sense.

Did it help to further stabilize the US friendly government there? No. It's Probably going to bring it down and may result in the reintroduction of Syrian forces.

Did it wipe out Hezbollah or even significantly damage its military or political presence in Lebanon? No.
They are wildly more popular, especially because they won the war, and may become the majority political force in the government as a result.

Did it bring stability to the region, help the US in the war on terror, or help with the war in Iraq? No, No, and No.

The Situation in Lebanon is self evident and is occurring as the direct result of the devastation that Israel caused there, the damage it has done to the once US friendly government and popularity that it has garnered for Hezbollah. It makes our job of negotiating with Syria and Iran to help us stabilize Iraq much more difficult.

Israel's loss (and By Proxy, the US) has emboldened the Insurgency in Iraq and worked to further vilify our troops in the eyes of the Iraqis. This has added to the greatly increased level of violence that has occurred after the war in Lebanon.

This is also great propaganda and recruiting material for Al Qeada and similar groups. This is precisely the type of thing that recruiters use to inspire young Arabs and Muslims to view the US and Israel as ruthless tyrants who are bent on the subjugation and destruction of Arab and/or Muslim countries. ( John Bolton said that there was no moral equivalency between Israeli civilian deaths and Lebanese civilians deaths. I can only hope that we find him scrubbing toilets in his next job, where such "diplomatic" rhetoric can more easily find its proper receptacle, but I digress)

Just as in Iraq, If someone in the US government would have asked for and received the objectives for the war and a list of tactics that would achieve those objectives, I doubt we ever would have backed such a debacle.

The absolute end of the story is that Israel is no safer. The US is no safer. Hezbollah is stronger than ever. The US friendly Lebanese Government is crumbling.
The Insurgency in Iraq is emboldened, Al Queada is Emboldened and given the gift of Propaganda. Our position with Iran and Syria, whom we need to enlist to help bring Iraq under control is needlessly further damaged. And finally, the soldiers have not been retrieved.

Israel should have simply done a prisoner exchange (they have thousands of Lebanese soldiers in captivity) as they have always done in the past when exactly the same type of events have occurred. EVERYONE , including Israel, Lebanon, The US, and Iraq, would have been better off.

Instead, Israel, with the permission and assistance of the US government, caused much more damage to the greater picture of the Middle East and the US position in it while accomplishing almost nothing. Furthermore, these results were absolutely predictable, which is why I hold Israel, and then our government responsible for this outrageous strategic error. They should have known better.

J

Posted by: J | December 6, 2006 12:32 PM

Welcome back Jefferson.

Hezbollah was already powerful. It was part of the legitimate government as well as being the major illegitimate government-type body. What is a goverments main responsibilities? Defense of the the country and providing and supporting an infrastructure. That was and is Hezbollah (well that and the terrorism stuff). They were well on their way to taking over as it was - the fight with Israel allows them to try it quicker and more directly.

It was not a "strategic error", it was an opportunity (create by Hezbollah itself) to wipe out a terrorist group. It was, unfortunately, not executed very well and wound up making the group and Nasrallah stronger. Hezbollah, so they say about themselves, is committed to the eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon, the transformation of Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Islamic state, and the complete destruction of the state of Israel. Politically, much like Mussolini, they run on a "will make the trains run on time" platform to get elected. It's not a question of if there will be a civil war or even when, its whether it will be a bloody one or a relatively quiet one. Will it be bloody or will Hezbollah just continue on its way to becomming the de facto government? Either way, apparently somehow, someway, its bound to be the US and Israels fault.

Posted by: Dave! | December 6, 2006 03:09 PM

Dave - Why is it ok for a nation to use rhetoric like "wipe out a terrorist group," but when the president of, say Iran, is mistranslated to say essentially the same thing, that is unacceptable?

So when a state is the agressor (Israel) as a policy, I think they need to be reined in.

I think that life anywhere is sacred and should be revered by all.

Let's put it this way:
(Israels) bombs and missles may kill some arabs but (Iran's) words will never hurt them.

Posted by: Same Old Story | December 6, 2006 04:27 PM

Same Old Story
"Why is it ok for a nation to use rhetoric like "wipe out a terrorist group," but when the president of, say Iran, is mistranslated to say essentially the same thing, that is unacceptable?"
Because Hezbollah are terrorists, supported by Iran. And Israel isn't.

Posted by: Dave! | December 6, 2006 05:12 PM

from Dave...
"Because Hezbollah are terrorists, supported by Iran. And Israel isn't."

israel is nothing but terrorists and have been since its inception...not just killing Arabs ...also Brits....American's....the main difference is they have always had their mealy mouthed professional apologists ready to blanket the print media and our airwaves with the justification du jour.....usually something along the lines of

1) It's not true
2) If you have proof it's disinformation cooked up by the Palestinians, the French, the Azerbaijani's, the Internation Brotherhood of Mean People.
3)If you have video proof then it was an "accident"

I guess the the only good thing is that the lies become more obvious the more often they are used.

Posted by: Angus | December 7, 2006 01:35 AM

Dmenstrations are better than a Civil War.

Posted by: P. J. Casey | December 8, 2006 05:39 PM

We must remember that Hezbollah believes in the destruction of the state of Israel
and the setting up of an Islamic Republic
in Lebanon. Its hard to compromise with this sort of fanaticism. Lebanon has been at peace within itself for the last 16 years. Hezbollahs new demands have upset
this peace. Hezbollah does not deserve
any more power in Lebanon than what it has right now. Finally, do not blame Israel
or the USA for the local internal problems
within Lebanon. The various 6 to 7 sectarian factions within Lebanon are responsible for their own problems and destiny. Its always easy to blame some other nation thousands of miles away for your own nations internal problems.

Posted by: Intrepid 123 | December 18, 2006 03:20 AM

Harriris assasination will not go in vain and nor will all the other martyrs here in the 14 march movement backed by our loyal and truthfull goverment. Many say Israel commited the crime and others say its Syria. If you look at the roots of these two countries you see that America and Iran and in it too and what do you know theyre enemies. Yes enemies fighting indirectly in our Lebanon intervening in our country and attcking our sovereignty so as you can see Lebanon is split into two and both blames the other. Our population being only 3.5 million and all the super powers are somehow interested. Everyone needs something from this small country.

Posted by: Marc | December 23, 2006 04:35 PM

I wanna just say somthing to this Jason guy who seems as South African said "too much Fox News". Man I live in Lebanon and personally oppose Hizbollas regime here, but if u wanna start telling me that what Israel did in the war was justified and right because its " Defending its country ", man your sadly misslead by American propaganda which says the total opposite. Living in a christian area we were under attack west beirut which is 20 min away was bombed to the ground. It was an all out attack not only on Hizbollah but on the "" WHOLE LEBANESE INFASTRUCTURE "" 80% of casualties were civilians like you and me and you tell me. The first three days of the war while Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon Hizbollah did not fight and did not launch a single rocket into Israel and then HAD to retaliate. I lost a dear friend in that war he was in the Red Cross and was kileed while trying to drive the injured to the nearest hospital.
Tell me know if that is justified to the west?
Marc

Posted by: Marc | December 23, 2006 05:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company