Zuheir Kseibati
Up until the day of the strike, bullets and gunpowder in Beirut, and before the fingers of strife sneaked into its streets along the new demarcation line, the Lebanese had a choice between a slow death and suicide. May 7 and its labor movement was not a mere copy of the black day that carried the confrontations from the walls of the Arab University to the sectarian demarcation line last January 25.
These are now lines for suicide. The majority accuses the opposition of cornering Lebanon in a slow-death ditch, while the opposition holds the "authority" responsible for dragging the country and the Lebanese to the suicidal front. Wasn't defiance less costly in this case?
Between the trenches of "defiance" and "fait accompli," the scent of gunpowder and the death of freedom in Beirut prevailed along the lines that separate March 8 and March 14. While May 7 was split between the not-so-united pro-opposition union and the public of the majority which rejected the "compulsory" strike, the question was not whether Lebanon has entered a new phase, but rather, why the confrontation now? When Michel Aoun calls for the forceful ousting of Siniora's government, the question should be whether the Hezbollah-led opposition has made up its mind to bring down by force what it refers to as "fait accompli."
Amidst the confrontations in the streets of Beirut, no one cared about the fate of the Arab initiative. As the call to oust the government over the battle for Hezbollah's telecommunications network seemed to sound the death knell of Nabih Berri's initiative to renew the crippled dialogue, the confrontation bordered the edge of suicide, especially as none of the parties can claim the ability to extinguish the fires of sectarian strife, reminiscent of the ones blazing in Iraq.
The opposition can consider Geagea a dreamer who wishes for it the fate of al-Mehdi Army in Iraq, whose "taming" was perceived as a blow to Iran's influence in that country. In Lebanon, it is no exaggeration to describe the latest decisions of the Siniora government as confrontational, not only with the communications network that Hezbollah considers part of the resistance war efforts that should neither be blocked nor disarmed, but also with the Iranian role and its known ramifications. Those who raise doubts about the secret behind the government's sudden courage, since it risks an open confrontation with Hezbollah and its supporters, do not hesitate to speak of regional and international winds that have already begun to blow over Iraq and Lebanon.
It would not be unusual for Siniora's government to be accused of betrayal and especially of its ties to an international American decision that intends to slim down Iran's regional role. On the other hand, the heavy price that the Iraqis paid and which the Lebanese may eventually pay to avoid slow death is no priority at the time of battle and suicide in self-defense!
After the failure of the labor strike which eventually turned into a mini street war, it may be said that by starting the airport battle, the opposition seeks to bargain the resumption of airport activity in return for the government going back on its decisions to dismiss Brigadier General Wafik Shoucair as head of airport security, and to "internationalize" the security of service centers and runways. Most importantly, however, the country's lung and gateway to the world must not turn into one of the conflict tools in case the opposition decides to counter all attempts to eliminate the role of its Iranian ally in Lebanon.
Would this not be the first time in which the government decides to expose the role of Iranian entities in assaulting the sovereignty of the state? The question is no longer one of Arabization or internationalization since they are both factual now and intersect at common points. This is a problem for the opposition which is aware of the Arab-international consensus against the encroachment of the resistance on the legitimacy of the Lebanese state and government. The "urgent" issue that emerges while the demarcation lines foment sectarian anger in Beirut is the extent to which the opposition and Hezbollah will go in challenging the government's decisions, touching on what was prohibited as taboo in the rhetoric of Hezbollah and the resistance.
Behind the fires of the labor strike and the gunpowder of confrontation in Beirut, it would no longer be a taboo to speculate on whether the stage of separating the Syrian and Iranian paths in Lebanon has started, as Damascus seems to have no interest in challenging international legitimacy or waging an all-the-way battle against it in this country that borders on the gates of hell. The opposition threatens to open the gates of hell in response to the government's "exceptional" daring step, and if this happens to be one of the urgent variables along with the "battle" to shrink the Iranian role, then it would be scary that all the Lebanese are sliding to hell as some of them have mistaken the direction of the wind or fallen into the calculations of revenge and the desire to control the streets.
*Published in London-based DAR AL-HAYAT on May 09, 2008. |
