Post-conflict Perspectives on Lebanon
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2481.cfm#down
Manuela Paraipan
Bucharest, Romania
September 5, 2006
Recently, Manuela Paraipan discussed the current situation in
post-conflict Lebanon with four key figures: Sheikh Samy Gemayel,
Dr. Joseph Hitti, Pierre Maroun, and Anwar Wazen.
![](16-filer/image001.jpg) |
Sheikh Samy Gemayel (Photo: Provided by Manuela Paraipan) |
Sheikh Samy Gemayel, son of former President Amine Gemayel of
Lebanon, is a political activist and a lawyer.
MP: How would you describe the current situation of Lebanon? Who is
to blame for not disarming Hezbollah?
Sheikh Samy Gemayel: The situation here in Lebanon is really, really
bad not only because of the material destruction and the loss of
lives, but because of the moral state of mind of a majority of
Lebanese who lost hope for their country and wish to leave Lebanon.
All of the political society is to blame for not disarming
Hezbollah. This is the Lebanese hypocrisy that we were talking about
in our last interview. If you remember, I told you that the Lebanese
people and politicians should sit down and frankly discuss their
problems and once they knew where the gaps were, they should accept
their social reality, and find a new political system that fit this
acknowledged social reality.
The government worked on compromises and is not able to disarm
Hezbollah mainly because the Lebanese army is not solid enough
to take such action knowing that 50 percent of the army soldiers are
Shia'a.
I think that the international community is to blame because for 15
years a mandate was given to Syria over the occupation of Lebanon.
Indirectly they gave the green light to Syria to prepare Hezbollah
for this battle. Syria did so because she knew that one day or
another she was going to leave Lebanon, so she armed and trained
Hezbollah to have a 100 percent Lebanese paramilitary group to serve
her interests.
Is Siniora's government up to the task of rebuilding Lebanon's South
and most importantly of keeping Lebanon sovereign and independent as
a state? I know Sheikh Nasrallah promised to give money to all the
people who were left homeless in the last month, so he is once again
doing what the state should be doing?
Hezbollah, since its birth in 1982, always wanted to implement an
Islamic state in Lebanon. It is starting to do so by imposing its
sovereignty on the war decision and on the right of reconstruction.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah is functioning as a state: political power,
economical power, social allegiance, military power, a region where
it imposes its laws … all the attributes of a state.
![](16-filer/image002.jpg) |
Dr. Joseph Hitti (Photo: Provided by Manuela Paraipan) |
Dr. Joseph Hitti is an expert on Lebanese politics and is President
of The New England Americans for Lebanon (NEAL)
MP: Why couldn't the Siniora government enforce the resolutions (U.N.
1559, 1680, and 1701) it has at one time or another asked for and
supported? Are the Shiia so strong, or it is the weakness (or rather
fear) of the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze that is maintaining the
status quo?
Dr. Joseph Hitti: The Siniora government — like all Sunni-led
governments in the past — wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Like Rafik Hariri who was assassinated by the Syrians, Lebanon's
Sunni Prime Ministers — out of incompetence or deliberate action —
they think they can lead a country under occupation, a country in
violation of international law, a country that harbors paramilitary
terrorist groups (Hezbollah since 1982, and the PLO from 1970
through 1982), and still have peace and prosperity. The dynamic of
the feudal nepotistic style of Lebanese governance keeps bringing
these inept leaders to power who think they can remain on the fence
of vital national matters and still succeed.
Two examples illustrate this: Rafik Hariri was brought to power by
the Taef Agreement. He tried to rebuild Lebanon under Syrian
occupation, but failed in many respects. He did not realize he could
not entice investors to put their money under the Syrian boots and
rampant corruption. When he finally realized this (2004), some 15
years after he came to power, he tried a reversal and the Syrians
killed him. Siniora is repeating the same mistake. On one hand, he
endorses an international involvement to stabilize the country,
establish the sovereignty of the state over the land and the
decision-making (he supported U.N. Resolution 1559, etc.), but at
the same time, his government gave carte blanche to Hezbollah to
continue "resistance" in the south (see the text of the Siniora
Government Ministerial Statement) and even included two Hezbollah
ministers in his cabinet. On one hand he accuses Hezbollah of not
sharing their decisions with the government, but Siniora always
rejected sending the Lebanese army to the south, always rejected
disarming Hezbollah, always called for resistance against occupation.
So in summary, the answer is in the combination of corruption,
incompetence and trying to please everyone at all times. In the end,
you pay the price. Like Hariri who paid the ultimate price, Siniora
will pay some price: Either the international community will abandon
him, or Lebanon, or he will have to stand up to Hezbollah.
How do you think Lebanon will look, in let's say five years with
Hezbollah in parliament, government and their guerilla being part of
the military? Is it likely to see a new political arrangement
emerging between the various factions?
Not in five years. The sectarian political system is so entrenched
and the Lebanese people, although educated and advanced by Middle
Eastern standards, remain very tribal in their political allegiance.
If Hezbollah is disarmed — and that is a big IF — it will become a
powerful political party exclusively for the Shiite community.
However, without its weapons, it will likely be challenged by other
Shiite leaderships of the more traditional brand, and with time its
power base will erode, especially when the money from Iran dries up.
Would Lebanon be better without the sectarian system? What is the
alternative?
Lebanon would definitely be better off with a non-sectarian
political system. But the forces at play in maintaining the present
system are too powerful. Big families, the churches (Christian and
Moslem alike) are still very powerful and will not relinquish power
easily. A few years ago, a Lebanese president asked a rhetorical
question about why the Lebanese cannot marry in a civil court in
Lebanon, but the Lebanese courts will divorce a married couple who
married abroad. The Christian and the Moslem clergy went up in arms
about how this will lead to a decline in morality etc. … It is the
opinion of this writer that the Lebanese system, as concocted in the
late 1930s - early 1940s is a religious federation of 17 communities,
should outgrow its present status. This federation is not reflected
geographically as the communities overlap each other extensively on
the ground, which prevents a partition or a cantonization of the
country.
Right now, my relationship with my government is based on the
government's recognizing my religious community before it recognizes
me as an individual. My individual rights are subsumed under those
of the church or the denomination under which I am born. Therefore,
people generally revert to their religious community, rather than to
their sense of citizenship or nationhood in times of danger and
strife. The only way to break the grip of religion on political life
is for the Lebanese government and constitution to be amended to
reflect a direct relationship between the ruler and the governed,
without the intercession of organized religious groups. This is not
likely to happen any time soon, and such a change requires major
social upheavals.
![](16-filer/image003.gif) |
Pierre Maroun (Photo: Provided by Manuela Paraipan) |
Pierre Maroun, Secretary General of the American Lebanese
Coordination Council (ALCC)
"UNSCR 1701 is just another U.N. resolution that is not worth the
paper on which it is written. France and other European countries
pressured the U.S. for it and it turned out that Condoleeza Rice was
right when she did not want a resolution or a ceasefire that did not
present real solution to the crisis. U.N. 1701 is only a ceasefire
with no real value to resolving the crisis. I believe that there
will be another round of fighting that will be much more violent
than the one that passed. …very sad!"
Anwar Wazen, Middle East Affairs Specialist
Anwar briefed Manuela Paraipan on the Shiia community's status in
Lebanon.
The Shia community in Lebanon, after independence from the French
mandate, considered themselves second-class citizens. They were
represented in the Lebanese political system by two feudal families:
The Assaad family in the south and the Hamade family in the Bekaa
valley. When the speaker of the parliament Ahmad el Assaad was asked
once why most Shia children were illiterate, his answer was that
Kamel was going to school on their behalf — Kamel was his son. As a
secular person I do not believe that political power sharing based
on belonging to one religious sect or the other is a viable solution
in building a state.
![](16-filer/image005.jpg) |
Anwar Wazen (Photo: Provided by Manuela Paraipan) |
Do you think that the Christian villagers of Rmeish, Ain Ebel, Dibel
, Marjeyoun, etc. were treated by the Lebanese government better
than the Shias of other southern villages? Like the Shias, those
Christian villages in the south had no public schools or public
clinics or public transport or vital utilities (electricity, water,
sewage etc.) The whole region was neglected by the central
government.
Hezbollah's main aim when they were constituted was to extend the
Iranian Islamic Republic not only to Lebanon but to the whole Arab
world. As a matter of fact Israel helped them at one stage in
acquiring arms when they fought the Amal militia.
The Israeli army withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 after negotiating a
truce in Germany with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah was not
organized for the sole purpose of getting Israel out. It was Ehud
Barak, Israel's prime minister then, who decided in 2000 to withdraw
unilaterally from Lebanon purely for electoral gains.
True, Hezbollah did a lot for the Shias in the South — the Dahyet,
Baalbeck and the Bekaa valley. They built a State within a State for
them and they are now committing the same mistake that the
Christians committed during the civil war; they are organizing a
canton which will implode most probably from within like the
Christian canton did.