Beirut Real Estate Surging

From the Daily Star:

Interest in prime Beirut properties has risen since the election of a new president and the expected formation of a national unity government, real-estate companies said on Wednesday. "We expect more investors to contact us soon to buy or rent properties in Beirut Central District [BCD]. But it will take some time before these things materialize," Mounir Dowaidi, the general manager of real-estate juggernaut Solidere, told The Daily Star...

..."The demand for properties in Lebanon in general and Beirut in particular have oddly risen by 115 percent since the beginning of 2007, despite political deadlock," Joe Kanaan, general manager of Sodeco Gestion real-estate agency, said.

He added that once Michel Suleiman had been declared president, his office was flooded with inquires from Lebanese expatriates who were keen on buying houses and apartments in Achrafieh and some other parts of the capital.

"We are signing several sale contracts every day and most of these transactions are centered in Beirut," Kanaan added.

The agents agreed that Lebanese expatriates have accounted for the bulk of property purchases in Beirut since 2005.

As a result of strong demand, the per-meter price of property in Achrafieh has risen from $1,000 to $2,000 in less than two years.

"You won't find an apartment that goes for less than $350,000 in Achrafieh and if you move to more fancy places in Beirut the price will go as high as $800,000," another broker said, adding that Lebanese expatriates have bought $2.5 billion worth properties in 2007 alone.

The solution to this madness, as proposed by one real estate developer:

"People who are looking for apartments in Beirut less than $350,000 are wasting their time. I recommend that they start hunting for houses outside the capital," Kanaan said.

Freedom's just another word...

Political Demonstrations, Flag Waving, and Motorcycles Banned in Beirut, as Fighting Breaks out in the Chouf

In response to last night's clashes in Corniche al Mazra, the Central Security Council has banned political demonstrations, including the waving of party flags, from the streets of Beirut until further notice. Motorcycles, which are often used in the sort of political demonstrations in which Hezbollah and Amal engaged last night, are also banned from the capital. The guys who deliver my dinner on motorscooters from Bar Bar and Zatar W' Zeit are, unfortunately, included in this ban.

I know there is a particular context for these decisions, but there is still something deeply disturbing about a ban on political demonstrations and flag waving. Having said that, "political" has a more precise meaning here in Lebanon than in North America, particularly academic North America. The English word "political" in Lebanon generally refers to activities of political parties, not just any sort of broader power struggle, as it is known in North America.

In concordance with this declaration, Hezbollah and Amal issued a joint statement, urging their supporters to refrain from using their weapons "for any reason" and from participating in flag-waving motorcycle convoys. The parties would not be responsible for violators of these rules, Naharnet reported.

East of Beirut, in Darahat Armoun in the Chouf, fighting broke out this evening between pro-government and opposition men, killing a Lebanese soldier who was trying to intervene. It is unclear at this time to which particular groups the men belonged. Again, as I wrote yesterday, as seriously as we should take any form of armed violence, these clashes seem to be isolated incidents having more to do with individuals' political tensions and recent memories than with any sort of organized push toward further conflict. Hezbollah and Amal's call for their supporters to refrain from provocative behavior is a step in the right direction and an indication that the party leaders are in no way sanctioning this violence.

Meanwhile, Parliament will begin searching for a new prime minister tomorrow morning. The word on the street is that either current PM Fouad Siniora or majority leader Saad Hariri will accept the nomination.

In other news, Ras Beirut smells, at best, like a nasty farm right now. I'm guessing its the insect repellent they have been spraying along the corniche. Gross.

Is the Facade Really That Thin?

A day after Michel Suleiman was inaugurated President of Lebanon in a ceremony attended by all sides of the political landscape, sporadic fighting has broken out again in Beirut and the Bekaa.

While eating dinner at a seaside restaurant, we saw dozens of young men parade up and down the corniche in cars and on motorbikes waving Hezbollah and Amal flags (and a few Lebanese and Syrian Social Nationalist Party ones as well). I didn't see anyone fire any guns into the air, but we certainly heard it before we reached the corniche.

Hassan Nasrallah spoke this evening in commemoration of "Liberation Day," the anniversary of the departure of Israeli troops from the south of Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah's armed resistance is still widely hailed in Lebanon as the reason for Israel's departure. Nasrallah said nothing extraordinarily inflammatory this evening (in fact, he gave at least lip service to reconciliation with his political rivals). But in the minutes and hours after his speech, according to Naharnet and Now Lebanon, clashes broke out in the neighborhood of Corniche al Mazraa in Beirut and in the village of Talabaaya in the Bekaa. Now Lebanon is reporting that rocket propelled grenades were fired at the Abed an-Nasser mosque in Corniche al Mazraa.

I'll update this with more details as I hear about them.

UPDATE: Ya Liban, an unapologetically pro-government news source, summarizes this evening's violence as follows:

1- When [Nasrallah] started his speech his supporters used fire arms to shoot in the air but in doing so they injured 2 people who were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment

2- After his speech ended his followers again used fire arms to shoot in the air but in doing so they injured this time 16 people who were taken to a nearby hospital for treatment

3- In the Beqaa valley Valley village of Taalabaya Hezbollah-led opposition clashed with the ruling majority supporters

4- More violence was reported in Beirut, which was blamed on Nasrallah's speech. Amal and Hezbollah gunmen opened fire and hurled rocks in the direction of Tarik al-Jedideh and Corniche al-Mazraa . RPGs were also fired at the Abed an-Nasser mosque. The Lebanese army has been deployed and has cut off the roads between Corniche al-Mazraa, Barbour and Tarik al-Jedideh. The wounded have been transferred to nearby hospitals.

This is an unfortunate development, but it should not incite panic. Nasrallah gave no indication in his speech that he wished Hezbollah and its allies in the streets to begin using their arms again. It is therefore safe to assume that the clashes that broke out this evening were fairly isolated events, or at least, not dictated from above. Political tensions, increasingly along sectarian lines, are still very ripe in Lebanon, especially in neighborhoods such as Tarik al-Jedideh and Corniche al-Mazraa, where fighting (and casualties) was quite intense earlier this month. While we might unfortunately see more of these kinds of armed skirmishes, I don't expect tonight's events to escalate into anything more serious or spread to many other areas.

UPDATE II: The Daily Star just posted a short article on the clashes in Corniche al-Mazraa:

Security sources told The Daily Star that the fight broke out when supporters of Hizbullah and Amal paraded in the streets of Corniche al-Mazraa, a predominantly Sunni neighborhood, shortly after Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah concluded his speech to mark Liberation Day.

Sources added that after verbal insults were traded, the fight degenerated and the two groups exchanged gunfire.

The exact number of casualties was not immediately clear. Security sources said nine people were hurt, while Future Television, which is owned by the family of parliamentary majority head and Sunni leader Saad Hariri, said 16 people were wounded in what it called "attacks by Amal and Hizbullah supporters."

President Suleiman

The election of Michel Suleiman was met with great fanfare in the capital today, as foreign dignitaries from around the world (including a Congressional delegation from the United States) crowded into Lebanon's parliament building to witness the long overdue event. Afterwards, the sounds of gunfire, fireworks, and horn honking filled the Beirut air.

Suleiman's (pronounced s[a]lay-MAWN and sometimes transliterated as Sleiman) role, until yesterday, as chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces, made him an attractive candidate to nearly every MP. The army is the most respected institution in Lebanon, mostly because it is fiercely non-sectarian and generally free from corruption. Many people, including all the major political parties, also hailed the army's response to the presence of al Qaeda-inspired foreign militants in the Nahr al Bared Palestinian refugee camp last summer (though many others, particularly Palestinians whose homes were destroyed by the army, continue to criticize Suleiman's violent approach to the conflict; see this, as well as this). Suleiman, nonetheless, begins his presidency under general perceptions of neutrality and patriotism.

It will be interesting to see how long those perceptions hold. In his inaugural speech, Suleiman hinted that he was more likely to lean toward the March 14th governing coalition than to the March 8th opposition. Two passages illustrate this likely stance. First, Suleiman noted,

We still confirm our commitment to and respect for all UN resolutions … especially for the martyr Rafik Hariri and all our martyrs (Now Lebanon).

This statement elicited the loudest applause of any during his roughly twenty-minute address. The BBC telecast, however, noted that some MPs did not applaud. The investigation into former Prime Minister Hariri's death has been a quietly contentious matter ever since he was assassinated on February 14, 2005. There are many politicians and commentators who believe that the opposition is trying to prevent the Lebanese government from cooperating with UN investigators. The Syrian government, which enjoys a now muted alliance with the opposition, is at the heart of the investigation.

Second, according to Now Lebanon's transcription of the address, Suleiman uttered these statements, clearly in reference to Hezbollah's use of force just over two weeks ago:

Any gun is only pointed at the enemy, and we will not allow it to be aimed elsewhere...The continuation of the resistance depends on the people’s need for [the resistance], and its achievements should not be used by internal struggles.

Grumblings about Hezbollah's about-face on its longtime pledge to never use its weapons on another Lebanese can still be heard just beneath the surface of the pomp, circumstance, and "back-to-normality" of the past five days. So this statement, on the one hand, could be interpreted as an appeasement to those factions. On the other hand, it could signal Suleiman's intentions to reign in the power of Hezbollah, something with which America and Israel, as well as many people aligned with March 14th, would be thrilled. The United States' continued assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces (though a pittance compared to US aid given to Lebanon's only major enemy) could play a role in Suleiman's approach to the opposition.

In contrast to these statements, however, Suleiman also said that he favored "brotherly ties" with Syria, which, if nothing else, is a bone for the pro-Syrian opposition to chew on.

We'll see how long the honeymoon lasts.

Lebanon's New Electoral Geography

Here are a few maps for you, which detail the country's new electoral divisions. While convincing analysis of the impact of these changes is hard to find, the Daily Star contends that Beirut's new divisions will offer the opposition parties a greater chance of electoral success. In contrast the 2005 elections, when the pro-government Future Movement swept Beirut's Parliamentary elections,

New district divisions have separated Beirut into a Sunni-dominated zone, a Christian-majority area with a significant Armenian Orthodox bloc and a mixed district with a large Shia population. Published voting tables and district divisions indicate that Beirut's 19 seats will be split somehow, but stop short of offering evidence for steady predictions.

The shorthand for understanding contemporary Lebanese politics, and thus the below maps, is that Shias generally support the opposition (particularly Hezbollah and Amal), Sunnis typically support the government (most prominently, the Future Movement), the Druze tend to favor the government (behind Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party), and the Christians are split (between, primarily, Samir Geagea's pro-government Lebanese Forces and Michel Aon's opposition Free Patriotic Movement). The political divide between latter group, the Daily Star concludes, will mean that Lebanon's Christians will likely decide balance of power in the 2009 Parliamentary elections. If Lebanon's history has taught us anything, however, these alliances can change at a moment's notice. (See Now Lebanon's "Beginners' Guide to Lebanon's Major Political Groupings," as well as Al Jazeera English's "Who's Who In Lebanese Politics.")

Now Lebanon is currently featuring a report by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which details the changing religious divisions of Beirut's electoral districts to a greater extent than the maps posted below but there is no web link to the pdf.


Lebanon's new electoral divisions (courtesy of www.beirutspring.com). I can't find, at present, a map of the country's previous divisions.


Beirut's new electoral divisions (www.bloggingbeirut.com)


Beirut's districts before the Doha agreement (www.bloggingbeirut.com)

Beirut Is Alive and Well

Every table at every open cafe was full in downtown Beirut this evening when we left at 10:00 p.m. Sure, it's like a mall dressed in Ottoman and French Mandate architecture, but Place d'Etoile, which had been a virtual ghost town between December 2006 and yesterday, was a beautiful site this evening. People who stayed away from the heavily militarized downtown after Hezbollah and its allies occupied the adjacent Martyrs' Square with an also heavily armed, tent city for the past eighteen months returned this evening to sit, stroll, smoke nargileh, eat, and enjoy the beautiful spring evening.

There are still tanks in the streets, still soldiers patrolling the neighborhoods with machine guns, still Syrian Social Nationalist Party flags up in Hamra, still Hezbollah and Amal posters up elsewhere, still the giant photograph of the Hariris in Ain el Mreisse torn in half, still more than sixty people dead and several more wounded, but now, along with these things, there is a future in Beirut. There is a present, there is a here and now, of enjoying the city for what it really has to offer, which we hadn't seen in full bloom like this since we arrived in September. It's like a cancerous patient lying in the hospital for months on end with very little hope of survival who suddenly and miraculously is up and walking with a clean bill of health. There will always be fear of relapse into political instability, sectarian violence, and foreign meddling, and there are still deeply rooted problems of poverty, environmental degradation, and employment discrimination, but for now, in this first evening of Lebanon's power sharing agreement, things are looking good.


The corniche in Ain el Mreisse at sunset


Place d'Etoile at about 7:30 p.m. (just as people were starting to come downtown)


The Hariri Mosque just after sunset


A busy downtown cafe at 10:00 p.m.

Peace Has Broken Out in Lebanon

For those of you in North America who just woke up, an historically monumental agreement was reached early this morning by rival Lebanese politicians meeting in Doha, Qatar. The agreement not only settles the most recent crisis, which led to armed fighting on the streets of Beirut and elsewhere and left more than 60 people dead, but also the more protracted one, which has kept the office of the presidency vacant since last November and downtown Beirut completely shut down with an opposition encampment since December 2006. In one fell swoop, Lebanon has agreed to elect a new president, reform its electoral law, and rebalance the government to give greater representation to the country's growing Shia population. In response, the opposition has already started tearing down its tent city and has agreed to rejoin the government. Although many people still have their doubts and resentments, it's a promising and exciting day and I'm glad to be here in Lebanon right now to witness it.

Moreover, there are reports that shortly after the settlement was reached, Syria announced that Israel has agreed to withdraw from the Golan Heights to its 1967 borders, another historically monumental occurrence, which, no doubt, given the Lebanese opposition's relationship with Syria, was part of the Doha negotiations.

Downtown Tent City Already Being Dismantled

Naharnet (via the National News Agency) is reporting that opposition parties Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement have already dismantled their encampments in downtown Beirut. Hezbollah is planning to do so this afternoon and has promised to rehabilitate the neighborhood.

I think I can hear jubilant screaming and cheering coming from all directions but that might just be the school children playing outside.

More Immediate Ramifications

Naharnet is reporting that Syria has received a commitment from Israel that it would withdraw from the Golan Heights to the June 4, 1967 border between the two countries.

Although directly brokered by Turkey, this deal must have been part of the broader negotiations over the Lebanese political situation in Doha.

And to think, the Bush administration would have preferred to to launch a major attack on West Beirut--my home right now--just a few days ago. But as they have proven time and again, the Bush administration does not care about peace, stability, or democracy; they only care about their political and economic interests and they will do whatever it takes to achieve them.

This settlement, as I have been saying, is not a panacea for all of Lebanon's or the region's problems, but it is a major step forward.

Rami Khouri may have been right all along (see also his charming column in this morning's [pre-settlement] Daily Star).

Immediate Effects on Lebanese Real Estate

I just got off the phone with a Beirut real estate developer who said that in the few hours between the announcement of the political settlement this morning and now, prices for new apartments in the Ras Beirut neighborhood have already risen by about twenty percent. Such a jump may be good news for investors and property owners but it will also mean an increase in rent, which will hurt the middle and lower classes.

This highlights one of the fundamental contradictions of urban property under capitalism: that which qualitatively improves living conditions, quantitatively increases the costs of living there. There is scarcely a person living in Beirut who wants more violence, bloodshed, or political instability, but so long as the market is left to determine the price of housing, peace and stability will make it more expensive for people to live.

The answer, by all means, is not to encourage armed violence or political tensions. Instead, Lebanon, like the rest of the capitalist world, needs to institute policies that guarantee affordable and adequate housing for even the poorest of residents. Lebanon does have a rent control law, but this only applies to leases that were signed before July 23, 1992.

The rise of luxury apartment buildings in several (mostly seaside) neighborhoods in Beirut over the past few years has already sent real estate prices soaring, however tempered in the past year up until this morning by the political crisis. The price of a new apartment runs around US$1 million and a (post 7/23/92) one-bedroom flat rents for at least US$700-900 at the lower end of the scale. This, in a country where 28.5% of the population lives in poverty, many of whom are in Beirut.

So the need for new laws that prevent landlords from indiscriminately raising rents has never been greater. The poor and middle classes should be able to enjoy peace and stability as well.

Agreement Is Reached

From Naharnet:

Lebanese leaders reached an agreement in Doha early Wednesday to end a long-running political crisis that nearly drove the country to a new civil war.

"An agreement has been reached," between the pro-government majority and the Hizbullah-led opposition, MP Ali Hasan Khalil told reporters.

The agreement calls for electing a president immediately, formation of a government based on a 16-11-3 formula (16 for the majority, 11 for the opposition and 3 to be chosen by the president), adoption of the Qada-based 1960 electoral law such as Beirut is divided into three constituencies ( 5 – 4 – 10) for one time only.

"We expect a (parliamentary) vote to elect a president on Thursday or Friday," Khalil said ahead of a Wednesday deadline for the Doha talks to wrap up.

While the wounds of two weeks ago will long remain, as will much of the accompanying sectarian tension, Lebanon is now, in theory at least, out of its political crisis.

This is good news.

Moving On

John Digweed in Beirut, this Saturday.

More on the Thwarted Israeli Invasion of Lebanon

From DEBKAfile, an Israeli news source:

The plan [to invade Lebanon] outlined in Washington was for the Israeli Air force to bombard Hizballah’s positions in the South, the West and southern Beirut. This would give the pro-government Christian, Sunni and Druze forces the opening for a counter-attack. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut in two columns.

1. The western column would take the Tyre-Sidon-Damour-Beirut coastal highway.

2. The eastern column would press north through Nabatiya, Jezzine, Ain Zchalta and Alei.

Sunday night, Olmert called Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora and his allies, the Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri, head of the mainline Druze party Walid Jumblatt and Christian Phalanges chief Samir Geagea and informed them there would be no Israeli strike against Hizballah. Jerusalem would not come to their aid.

According to American sources, the pro-Western front in Beirut collapsed then and there, leaving Hizballah a free path to victory.

The first reaction to this, on my end at least, is holy shit!, followed by a, I told you so, and then a, well, it's not like this is anything they haven't done before. But upon more sober reflection, there is an important distinction between this (original) source and the Now Lebanon story that picked it up, which could start to make sense of this "plan." Now Lebanon claimed that it was the "Israeli security site, Debka," which leaked the story. They are the first to report this news but according to Debka, it was, in fact, US sources that leaked the information.

As catastrophic, barbaric, and counter-productive as these plans might seem to most of us, there is a certain face-saving measure involved in such a US leak. For more than a week now, the Bush administration has had to answer to critics and journalists alike who claim that Hezbollah's purported takeover of West Beirut is the result of the president's failed Middle East policies. By leaking to the media that it urged Israel to attack Hezbollah, the United States can wash its hands clean of the situation, arguing that they tried their hardest to stop Hezbollah's apparent ascent but were thwarted by an indecisive and timid Israeli government.

The US's hand-wringing at what Israel did not do does not stop with the recent past. American officials are also now blaming Israel for the vitality of Hezbollah more generally over the past two years, the sustained power of Iran and Syria in the region, and the rise of Hamas in Gaza.

One US official said straight out to Olmert and Barak: For two years, you didn’t raise a finger when Hizballah took delivery of quantities of weapons, including missiles, from Iran and Syria. You did not interfere with Hizballah’s military buildup in southern Lebanon then or its capture of Beirut now.

IDF generals who were present at these conversations reported they have never seen American officials so angry or outspoken. Israel’s original blunder, they said, was its intelligence misreading of Hizballah’s first belligerent moves on May 4. At that point, Israel’s government military heads decided not to interfere, after judging those moves to be unthreatening.

The Americans similarly criticizes Israel for letting Hamas get away with its daily rocket and missile attacks on Israel civilians year after year. A blow to Hizballah would have deterred Hamas from exercising blackmail tactics for a ceasefire.

Despite all this sudden blame-shifting, the Bush administration still has the track-record that indicates how serious they may very well have been about pushing for an Israeli invasion. Thankfully, we would hope, Israel's own domestic political problems (stemming from the popular condemnation of the government's handling of the July 2006 war all the way to the most recent allegations of corruption against Ehud Olmert), in addition to the fact that they know that an invasion would most definitely spur Hezbollah into launching hundreds of rockets to as far south as Tel Aviv, may have saved us from a nightmarish situation. I still don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Israel would launch some sort of military strike on Hezbollah, but their decision to hold back for now is (however convolutedly) a good sign.

As I was saying...

From Now Lebanon:

The Israeli security site Debka revealed yesterday that the United States gave the Israeli government a green light on May 10 to attack Hezbollah, pointing out that the Israeli army took military stances and was ready to attack Hezbollah in west Beirut and the South, but PM Ehud Olmert, War Minister Ehud Barak, and the foreign affairs minister were “reluctant to do so, which angered the US.”

It really puts the Bush administration in perspective when they make even the Israeli government look like a bunch of doves.

(More here, from al-Manar, Hezbollah's media outlet.)

In the News

Those of you who picked up a copy of this morning's New York Times probably noticed the following top-right headline: "HEZBOLLAH'S ACTIONS IGNITE SECTARIAN FUSE IN LEBANON."

When I first read this (last night, online, actually), I thought, oh crap, what has happened now? But the piece tells us nothing new; rather, it merely attempts to make sense of last week's events and Lebanon's possible future. The Times' reporters are without a doubt top of the line journalists who consistently provide far more depth and breadth than just about any other news source in America, if not the world. The reporting in this article seems impeccable.

The problem I have is with the Times' analysis of the situation. I find it misguided and, itself, capable of "igniting" a certain "fuse" in the region. First, there is the immediate perception that Hezbollah and Hezbollah alone is to blame for Lebanon's current crisis. If the headline does not say enough, the article begins by describing how "militiamen loyal to Hezbollah had kidnapped [a Sunni man] at a checkpoint after killing his nephew right in front of him." It goes on to describe how the kidnappers tortured the man before finally releasing him. I don't doubt that a man was killed and his brother kidnapped and beaten. The Times does not make things up (Jayson Blair and Judith Miller notwithstanding). But this statement is deceptively misleading. The key words here are "militiamen loyal to Hezbollah." This could have been a number of different people. Hezbollah did not, by any stretch of the imagination, act alone during last week's West Beirut clashes. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Amal, and various individuals used their weapons to temporarily take control of West Beirut neighborhoods before handing over power to the military (likewise in the Chouf and in and around Tripoli). To lay this Hezbollah blanket over everything that was done by anyone allied to them is to over-simplify the conflict, distort the historical record, and unfairly blame Hezbollah for the actions of others. To be sure, it is just as misleading to completely divorce the actions of Hezbollah's allies from the group itself, as the parties were, to a great degree, acting in concert. But if Lebanon's history tells us anything, it is that alliances disintegrate as quickly as they form; and they can break up because of differences over methodology, among other factors.

(In a similar, but even more egregious, piece of journalism, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal falsely claimed that Hezbollah burned down the Future TV offices. When I wrote to him to tell him that I know people who saw with their own eyes not Hezbollah, but Syrian Social Nationalist Party, militiamen burn it down, he acknowledged that I was right. But he still hasn't changed his factually incorrect statement on the newspaper's website.)

Moreover, while those loyal to the March 14th governing coalition would most likely agree with the Times' assessment of who is to blame for last week's violence, many others would argue that it was the government's two unprecedented decisions that targeted Hezbollah, which ignited the fighting. I am not trying to suggest that one or the other interpretation is correct; but to definitively argue that Hezbollah is to blame for the crisis is a claim that belongs on the opinion page, not the front page.

Second, the article downplays the progress that has been made since last Thursday's official cessation of hostilities, when the government revoked its two decisions and all sides agreed to engage in diplomacy under the auspices of a Qatar-led Arab League. As I mentioned in a previous post, things are certainly not "back to normal," but they are at least moving (however slowly) in that direction rather than toward the opposite end of the spectrum, as they were last week. The talks currently underway in Doha, Qatar could, conceivably, lead to a power-sharing agreement, electoral reforms, and an end to Lebanon's 18 month-old political crisis. But the Times quickly dismisses such a possibility, offering only a single paragraph about the talks amidst its 17,000 word article:

Although the crisis eased Thursday after Arab diplomats brokered a deal to restart political talks among the factions, the questions that have crippled the government for 18 months remain unresolved. It is not yet clear that enough international consensus exists among the key powers involved in Lebanon — Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United States — for a durable power-sharing agreement.

The difficulty in achieving such an agreement should not be underestimated. But the Times' dismissal of the Doha talks erases the extraordinary attention nearly everyone in Lebanon is giving right now to them. There is cynicism, to be sure, but there is also hope (here, as well as even here) that the talks can at least advance the political parties toward a peaceful settlement. Further violence is not inevitable (although it certainly is possible).

The danger with the kind of analysis found in today's Times is that it further reproduces two myths about Lebanon. One, it suggests that this country is rife with (sectarian) violence and is destined for more violence. Two, the article begins to lend credence to the idea that an Israeli-led war with Hezbollah, in particular, is both inevitable and necessary. There is already the notion that Hezbollah is a threat to Israel. But if politicians and the press can paint a Gaza-esque impression where Hezbollah is also tormenting its own citizens by violently seizing power, there will be all the more political capital for an Israeli led and American sponsored military invasion.

In order to avoid such an attack, we don't need to support Hezbollah. But we do need to remind the US and Israeli governments that Hezbollah is not politically, socially, or geographically isolated from the rest of Lebanon. If the world did not learn this from the July 2006 war, when Israeli bombs ended up killing nearly 1,000 Lebanese civilians and more than two hundred Hezbollah fighters (and Hezbollah rockets killed 43 Israeli citizens and 115 soldiers), they especially need to learn it now.

The Waiting Game

Representatives of the March 14th governing coalition and the March 8th opposition have now arrived in Doha, Qatar, where they are working with the Arab Delegation toward reaching a solution to the seventeen month-old political crisis. The key issues here are a unity government, which could give Hezbollah and its allies more power; electoral reform, which might result in the election of army commander Michel Suleiman as president of Lebanon; and Hezbollah's tent encampment, which has been occupying downtown Beirut since December 2006.

As the Lebanese politicians prepared for their trip to Doha, a group of people who had been disabled during the 1975-1990 Civil War demonstrated on the road to the airport. Their signs read, "IF YOU DON'T AGREE, DON'T COME BACK!"



In other news, AUB announced today that classes will resume on Monday.

The Setting Sun

Shortly after seven in the evening, as the crisp orange sun dropped down toward the Mediterranean horizon, those of us walking, running, fishing, or sitting along the corniche saw a beautiful sight high in the sky.

Descending toward South Beirut was a great big Middle East Airlines jet, the first commercial plane that we had seen in more than a week. Families already happy to be out enjoying the warm spring evening looked up and smiled; as I ran toward him, a man turned around to me with an excited look in his eyes that said, "do you know what that means?"; a young guy walking with friends waved at the airplane. And as it disappeared beyond the buildings of West Beirut, on its way to the airport, the airplane signaled yet another return to peace in Lebanon. After the government last night revoked its two decisions that targeted Hezbollah, the opposition removed its barricades from the road leading to the airport. Full of happy adrenaline, I started running faster, the laughter and easy conversation of the people I passed mixing nicely with the music of Bright Eyes on my i-pod. Even the soldiers slowly driving by with their hands on machine guns looked more relaxed than ever. One (without a gun in his hand) was chatting casually on his mobile phone. Another stared intently toward the west. I looked over to see what his eyes were fixed upon and saw nothing but the setting sun.

There is real damage here, some of it irrevocable. At least 81 people died. Homes and offices are destroyed. Windows are still broken. The free press now questions its ability to exist without facing deadly repercussions. Students are still not yet scheduled to go back to classes. And the country must now live with the fresh memory of armed Lebanese militias turning their guns on each other for the first time in nearly twenty years.

Contrary to what you may read in the Israeli and American press, though, Hezbollah has not taken over Lebanon, nor do they claim to ever want to do such a thing (but they proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they could). What they have created (yes, through force), is a new national order, if not also a new world order, where Hezbollah and its allies have not only shown their military strength but also, in doing so, have moved closer toward creating a government in which they--and the Shia they more or less represent--are no longer a marginalized minority. Syria and Iran, by extension, have advanced to points where they must be seen as viable regional and global powers, respectively. The United States and Israel live another day without one of its enemies completely destroyed and with a nuanced world where diplomacy rather than cluster bombs increasingly seems the best way forward.

To some people, this is all a tragedy; to others, it's a victory. To people like Rami Khouri and Qifa Nabki it's an opportunity. For those of on the corniche this evening, it's a reminder that, if nothing else, the sun also rises.

"Lebanon Will Survive"

(Latuff, via Qifi Nabki)

The Opposition Wins

For the first time since Saturday, I am hearing heavy gunfire again, but this time in the distance, and this time in that steady rhythm reserved for celebrations rather than battles.

The government has just officially revoked its "two decisions" that started this conflict. They will not investigate Hezbollah's communication network and they will not fire the airport's security chief. Celebrations in opposition neighborhoods are underway.

This should result in Hezbollah removing their blockade around the airport. (So all of you who had been waiting to send me that care package full of black bean dip, peanut butter, Heart to Heart cereal, and the latest copy of The Nation, you can go ahead and do that now.)

The opposition still, however, demands a unity government and electoral reform, for which they will continue their boycott of Parliamentary sessions. But Hezbollah and its allies have effectively made a bold statement in this conflict, which Saad Hariri, Walid Jumblat, and Foaud Siniora, and indeed, the United States and Israel, will not soon forget: don't mess with us, or else...

Now the shooting has reached my neighborhood. There is something strangely refreshing about it. Although they can damage, injure, and kill on their way down, bullets into the sky are better than bullets at buildings and bodies.

"Amid all this Chaos"

Kamal Faran, a student at AUB, argues,

Amid all this chaos, the workers were forgotten, their economic demands silenced and the workers' movement has become more divided than ever with pro and anti government unions. None of the parties battling in the streets have any solution for the workers' plight. They only care about their own interests and plans. The Lebanese masses should turn against all the sectarian, chauvinist and bourgeois parties who not only cause economic hardship, but who consciously turn the Lebanese against each other so that they stay in their place, while the elite at the top can advance their plans and projects at the expense of people's security.

Faran points us back toward the original event scheduled for Wednesday, May 7th, when clashes first broke out--a broad strike among Lebanese workers for an increase in the minimum wage from 300,000 LL (US$200) to 900,000 LL ($600) per month. As Faran explains, the strike was thwarted by the opposition's exploitation of the event for their own interests and by the civil disobedience and violence that followed.

I didn't mention this strike in my original post in which I attempted to explain the context of the political conflict precisely because it is incorrect to conflate, in general, the working class movement in Lebanon with Hezbollah, and in particular, the strike with the chaos that followed. Yet, many media accounts of the situation paint the strike as Hezbollah's first act of aggression. On the contrary, I think Faran is right to see the recent actions of both the government and the opposition as acts of aggression against the strike (and, of course, against each other).

Hezbollah's populist politics and impressive record of providing for the communities it governs does attract a sizable portion of Lebanon's poor, particularly those who are Shia. But they do not speak for whole of the working class. AUB's staff, for instance, engaged in a sympathy strike last Wednesday, and they are far from unified in their political or sectarian affiliations. There were also many workers who were planning to strike but backed out of the labor demonstration as soon as Hezbollah and its allies jumped aboard.

The need for an increase in the minimum wage (the government, as planned, did raise it to 500,000 LL [US$333]) and for the empowerment of Lebanon's workers more generally is an urgent matter. According to the International Poverty Center, 28.5% of Lebanese live in poverty and 8% survive under conditions of extreme poverty. Lebanon's Shia community, in addition to many foreign workers (including, most significantly, Palestinians, Syrians, Sri Lankans, and Ethiopians), are disproportionately represented in these figures and are often the victims of work-related discrimination and violence. Moreover, poverty will in all likelihood rise in the coming years if the current government succeeds in its efforts to bring Lebanon into the World Trade Organization and privatize what is left of the state-owned industries. The rise of several multi-million dollar luxury apartment buildings and the consequent gentrification of a growing number of Beirut's neighborhoods puts even greater pressures on the poor.

The hope, then, for many people, is that Hezbollah can emerge as the champion of the impoverished and oppressed in Lebanon and the broader region. But many on the country's left are not optimistic. As Faran puts it,

Hezbollah and the rest of the opposition have no economic alternative for Lebanon. In fact they have repeatedly stated that their problem is with the parties governing and not with their policies. They consider the governing parties to be corrupt ‑ which is true ‑ but conveniently cover up the fact that they themselves are also corrupt. A major opposition party, Amal, has the exact same economic policy and is involved in the same level of corruption as the Future Movement, while Hezbollah's economic policy is a populist one that would very quickly become openly pro-capitalist as soon as they gain power. The plight of the Iranian workers shows very clearly the such systems offer no alternative to the deprived classes (the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran can be considered as Hezbollah's Godfather).

Therefore, Faran continues,

Unless people focus on their common interest in overthrowing all the political class and present an alternative that really has the people's well being as the main goal, war after war will continue to rock Lebanon. Unless the left stops tail-ending this or that bourgeois party or the fundamentalists, the Lebanese masses will continue to count their dead.

On the one hand, then, we could see this conflict as resulting in both destructive violence and a further regression of the country's working class politics. But on the other, insofar as all the political players are (in many people's opinions) showing themselves to be horribly irresponsible leaders, perhaps this situation could bring about, as Faran hopes, an alternative, working class-centered, non-violent political movement. Perhaps.

AUB Remains Closed

This message was posted on the American University of Beirut's home page yesterday evening:

The American University of Beirut will resume classes as soon as conditions permit. The University will, as of that point, make arrangements to complete the second semester and help students make up for missed work. Medical students are expected to attend to their duties throughout.

Regular full-time employees and workers at AUB are expected to attend to their duties as normally scheduled. As on previous similar occasions, any day of absence will be charged towards days of regular vacation to be deducted from the employee's earned annual leave.

The consensus among the faculty members I spoke to this afternoon is that classes are canceled not because it is presently dangerous in Hamra, Beirut, or even most other parts of the country, but because the university fears that the students themselves will engage in violence with one another if they were to return to campus. I would like to believe that that won't happen. The students here are extraordinarily politically engaged. Student elections carry the all-night fervor that, unfortunately, only college basketball or football games do on American campuses. There are regular demonstrations, sit-ins, and make-shift political art installations aimed at various injustices happening everywhere from Beirut to Gaza to the United States. It's an intense atmosphere at times, where political disagreements can escalate into ugly shouting matches, but I have never seen any violence. On student election day earlier this year, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of students stood crowded around West Hall all afternoon and well into the night, waiting for the Dean of Students to announce the results. Most of the student candidates ran on tickets directly funded by Lebanon's actual political parties, so there were students for hours on end literally crammed together representing Amal, Hezbollah, Future Movement, Free Patriotic Movement, Progressive Socialist Party, etc. I could hear the singing and shouting very well from my office about fifty meters away and even, later that night, from my apartment all the way down the hill. It was an intense, but festive, mood, particularly when the students representing the March 14th governing coalition parties won a majority of the seats. Fireworks lit up the sky and, as a former student of mine who was very active in one of the winning campaigns told me, the winners then proceeded to party all night long.

Last week, of course, may have changed everything. The intensity of politics has been ratcheted up to levels not seen here since the end of the Civil War. But I would like to trust my students. Not only are AUB students politically engaged, they are also extraordinarily intelligent and wise. So long as they are able to act upon their own free will, I can't see them discarding the tools of rational thinking and persuasive speech for the methods of violence. And even if one or two students let their tempers get the best of them and start fighting, I trust their peers to step in and stop things before they got out of hand. There's too much at stake and I am certain that they understand that even better than I do.

Meanwhile, from high atop its hillside fortress on the other side of town, the American Embassy sent this message to its ex-pat citizens:

Due to the lack of usual cargo handling facilities at Rafiq Hariri International Airport, the U.S. Embassy in Awkar will begin receiving necessary supplies and materials via U.S. Military helicopters.

The sole purpose for these helicopters is to ensure the continuous supply of the U.S. Embassy for operational needs.

As my wife remarked to me, upon reading this message, "what, did they run out of US Embassy letterhead or something?"

Nevertheless, it's another sunny, warm, and beautiful day in Beirut.

Near the Precipice

We had quite a scare for about ten minutes this afternoon, when Naharnet wrote at 14:26, "reports that several shells fell on Damour." (Damour is small coastal town just south of Beirut.) The amunition used in this conflict so far has consisted primarily of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (although I heard one unconfirmed report this afternoon that Hezbollah used anti-aircraft missiles against Jumblat's Progressive Socialist militia in the Chouf). Several car bombs have taken the lives of politicians and innocent bystanders over the past seventeen months. But no bombs have fallen from the sky since July 2006.

When we read this headline, we immediately thought the worst: Israel is beginning an air-assault on Hezbollah and its allies. Fortunately, however, the headline ten minutes later relatively assuaged our fears: "LBCI: The Army is detonating several explosives in the area of Damour."

But our fears are not unfounded. In addition to the tragic history of Israel's periodic invasions and bombing campaigns (most recently, of course, the July 2006 war), Israeli officials are making increasingly bellicose statements. As the Israeli daily, Haaretz reported today:

On Sunday, former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak said Hezbollah's persistent attempts to take over Lebanon could eventually benefit Israel in its struggle against the militant group.

"If an armed conflict erupts it will be simpler to strike Lebanon when Hezbollah is the legitimate ruler," Shahak told the Army Radio.

Earlier on Sunday, Israel's Vice Premier Haim Ramon told cabinet members that Lebanon must be viewed as a "Hezbollah state," after the Shiite guerilla group seized control over the western part of the Lebanese capital over the weekend.

"Lebanon has no government. It is a fiction, there is only Hezbollah," Ramon said during the weekly cabinet meeting. "Hezbollah is directly responsible for everything that happens [in Lebanon], and the organization completely controls the state."

Later in the cabinet meeting, Minister Ami Ayalon called for an emergency meeting of the political-security cabinet to discuss the ongoing crisis in Lebanon and Gaza.

(Just as I copied and pasted that quote, I heard the roar of a jet fly over the city. I wasn't able to see anything in the bright afternoon sky, but keep in mind, Beirut's airport is still closed.) This continued coupling of Lebanon and Gaza, as I mentioned yesterday, is neither an accurate analysis nor a good sign. Likewise, Ramon's contention that "Lebanon must be viewed as a Hezbollah state" is both absurd and troubling. I think there are a few people here on all sides of the political landscape who would beg to differ.

There is certainly broad popular support in Lebanon for Hezbollah and its allies. But it just so happens that most of the people I come into contact with are vehemently opposed to them. The furor with which these friends and colleagues of mine speak of the March 8th opposition and the events of the past several days is enough to make a foreigner keep his mouth shut, lest he accidentally says something offensively inappropriate. But there is scarcely a person in Lebanon who wants Israel to drop a carpet of bombs aimed at Hezbollah.

If an Israeli attack does seem imminent, we will leave the country. But for now, we're still in the realm of speculation, saber-rattling, and innuendo.

Meanwhile, within the borders of Lebanon, things continue to teeter on the edge between a viable settlement and increasing violence. I like Rami Khouri's analysis of the situation in today's Daily Star:

The consequences of what has happened in the past week may portend an extraordinary but constructive new development: the possible emergence of the first American-Iranian joint political governance system in the Arab world. Maybe.

If Lebanon shifts from street clashes to the hoped-for political compromise through a renewed national dialogue process, it will have a national unity government whose two factions receive arms, training, funds and political support from both the United States and Iran. Should this happen, an unspoken American-Iranian political condominium in Lebanon could prove to be key to power-sharing and stability in other parts of the region, such as Palestine, Iraq and other hot spots.

Insha'Allah (God willing).

More of the Same But Twisted Anew

I mentioned yesterday that I saw from my balcony what may have been an Israeli jet in the sky to the south and west of me. I saw another today (and heard its ominous roar).

As a Lebanese security official stated this morning,

More than four Israeli jets began overflying most of the southern part of the country at 0630 GMT

This violation of Lebanese airspace, sovereignty, and UN resolution 1701 is not anything new. But what is troubling is the flyovers' alignment with statements like this one from Israeli Deputy Defense Minister, Matan Vilani:

The most dangerous possibility for us is to see Iran's proxies take control of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon because the fates of both regions are connected.

When Israeli officials begin to compare Lebanon to Gaza, the whole world should shudder, not because the officials are anywhere close to the truth, but because if Israel deals with Lebanon in the same way that it has been approaching Gaza (or, for that matter, as it has dealt with Lebanon at any point in its history), there will be a significant number of casualties.

Moreover, a US warship, the USS Cole, is on its way back to international waters just off the coast of Lebanon.

I don't mean to be an alarmist; the USS Cole was here in February without immediate consequence and as mentioned, Israeli jets frequently fly over Lebanon. But these moves, given the present context, are troubling.

Sunday in Hamra

While fighting has intensified outside Beirut, things seem to be returning to some degree of uneasy normalcy here in the city. We took a long walk through Hamra today, something quite a few people seemed to have done as well. There were far more cars and pedestrians in the neighborhood than anytime since last Tuesday. It wasn't that much different than any other lazy Sunday afternoon in West Beirut. I was actually surprised by how relatively little evidence there is in the neighborhood that there had been fierce gun battles here for nearly 24 straight hours on Thursday and Friday. The main visual change now is that we see the flags and stencils of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party all over the neighborhood (the second photograph was taken by Dr. PVM):





It seems that in this case, the red SSNP symbol was painted over the communist hammer and sickle (this is the only one that we saw like this), but whether that was an act of aesthetic aggression or synthesis is another question. It could very well be the latter, as the SSNP became quite Marxist in the 1970s and, I presume, still is (I am still learning about this party, which had been completely invisible from the Lebanese political scene the whole time I've been here but now seems to have quite a presence, particularly in Hamra).

More prevalent, were symbols and flags that looked like this:



There aren't any Hezbollah or Amal symbols, further suggesting that the SSNP either took the lead in controlling this neighborhood or were the only ones who remembered to bring their paint.

Also in Hamra, are the remains of a few Hariri posters that used to cover the neighborhood to a greater degree than even the SSNP flags now do.



There were several stray bullet holes, but far fewer than I expected to see. And besides, much of Beirut's landscape is still riddled with bullet holes from the 1975-1990 Civil War:


(The Beirut Holiday Inn, which was heavily used as a sniper location during the 1975-1990 Civil War; source: www.michaeltotten.com)

So the only way to tell which ones were new was if the holes were in glass or in a new building.



Nearby, there is also Hariri's Future TV channel, which was set on fire on Wednesday (or was it Thursday?). This photo of its charred remains was taken by a colleague of mine:



As reported in the media, opposition gunmen have largely handed control over to the Lebanese military. There is not an ostensible presence of militas on the streets, but neither is there much of an army presence either. On the road toward Hariri's residence, there are tanks and military-controlled road-blocks (these pictures would have been better but we had to conceal our camera from the soldiers):



But on our way back to AUB, we walked down Sidani St., which, more than any other street in the neighborhood, was covered in SSNP flags. And exactly at the same point where we were on Thursday, when we started hearing gunfire very close to us, we noticed an abandoned building covered in SSNP flags and stencils and guarded by a non-uniformed man with a machine gun in his hand and an ammunition belt around his waist. He smiled when we walked by and gave us an earnest greeting, asking us, in German, whether we were German. "No, sorry!" we exclaimed, smiling and continuing our walk. I really wanted to get a photograph of him or of the building but my better half reminded me that months ago when she was out photographing the neighborhood, she had tried to take a picture of that very same building (without, then, all the political symbols) only to have a hand pushed into her lens, preventing her from getting the shot.

I heard from a friend in the neighborhood a few moments ago that other people continue to see non military snipers camped out in the upper floors of abandoned or under-construction buildings (of which there are plenty in Hamra).

This, coupled with the fact that fighting has ratcheted up considerably in areas outside Beirut (I just learned that a colleague witnessed a serious gunfight just outside her apartment in Saida, which left innocent civilians dead), is disconcerting, to say the least. And it puts the calmness that I'm seeing in Hamra in some perspective.

In light of all this, AUB just announced that the university will be closed on Monday.

Some Semblance of a Temporary Settlement and More Analysis

Amal MP Ali Hassan Khalil in a press conference today:

We confirm to our brothers in Beirut that we will withdraw arms from the streets and hand security over to the army, but we will continue our civil disobedience.

So Hezbollah, Amal, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have left their posts in West Beirut and the military has taken control of all conflicted neighborhoods. In exchange, the government has agreed to reverse its two decisions that started this conflict. They will now back off Hezbollah's communication system and reinstate the airport's security chief. PM Siniora's governing coalition stopped short, however, of meeting two of the opposition's other demands: the formation a unity government and electoral reforms. Therefore, Khalil declared, Amal, Hezbollah, and the SSNP will continue engaging in civil disobedience until these issues are resolved. This means that they will continue blocking the roads to the airport and most likely will also continue to block the port.

We grabbed something to eat in Hamra this evening and, indeed, the opposition's militias were no longer there. The streets were relatively empty, though we did see more pedestrians and cars than yesterday.

MP Walid Jumblat, whose Druze militas in the Chouf had been engaging in fierce fighting with Hezbollah, urged his followers and the rest of Lebanon to exercise restraint.

As I said earlier, commentary and analysis are popping up all over now; here is a take on the situation, which you won't see in the New York Times, from Electronic Lebanon editor, Samah Idriss:

Clearly there is a strategy from the government and pro-government forces to portray Hizballah as the outsiders, to try to portray Hizballah as a force coming to change the nature of Beirut by bringing in Shi'ite elements, Iranian elements, Persian elements, barbarian elements, etc. All oriental stereotypes that mainstream western media and some mainstream Arab media will quickly adopt. It is not certain, however, that this portrayal for Hizballah could work in the Arab media because Hizballah is widely respected as the major defender for the Arab cause, for the Palestinian cause.

Across the Middle East the mainstream Sunni populations don't view Hizballah or its leader Hassan Nasrallah as a sectarian leader or simply a Shi'ite leader. However, the mainstream pro-government media in Lebanon attempt to portray Hizballah as a completely sectarian movement, in tune with the political lines fostered by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, France and the US.

As Idriss suggests, negative portrayals of Hezbollah are not unique to Western media and politicians. But while I certainly have met plenty of people in Lebanon who think Hezbollah (and often, by extension, Shia) are nothing but a bunch of terrorists, the difference here is that nearly everyone at least understands that Hezbollah is a political party that represents, governs, and defends a large number of people. Even Siniora today, in his speech, expressed gratitude for Hezbollah's ongoing defense of Lebanon from continual Israeli invasions (speaking of which, by the way, we saw what was most likely an Israeli jet fly high over Beirut this afternoon, violating UN resolution 1701, as it regularly does).

This is not to say that you should discount all Western representations of Hezbollah, or Lebanon more generally. Cal Perry has been giving very good, nuanced reports on CNN, which actually mention not only the July 2006 war (something most American journalists conveniently forget when they discuss Lebanon's recent history) but also the rise in support for Hezbollah during and after that war. I wonder, though, whether CNN in America is showing these same reports, or if it only plays those from its more conservative journalist in Lebanon (whose name I can't remember right now). The CNN we watch here is specifically for international audiences.

In addition to Barack Obama, John McCain is now weighing in on the situation as well.

Worth Reading

Now that the fighting has calmed down (though definitely has not stopped), a slew of commentary and analysis is beginning to pour in from all sides.

Electronic Lebanon, a branch of Electronic Intifada, has been publishing some excellent reports on the situation, from a helpfully critical perspective. I strongly recommend reading Maureen Clare Murphy's piece, as well as this one by IRIN, among the others. Rami Khouri's column in today's Daily Star is also worth reading.

Robert Fisk sees parallels between the political situation in West Beirut and that in Gaza:

When Hamas became part of the Palestinian government, the West rejected it. So Hamas took over Gaza. When the Hizbollah became part of the Lebanese government, the Americans rejected it. Now Hizbollah has taken over west Beirut. The parallels are not exact, of course. Hamas won a convincing electoral victory. Hizbollah was a minority in the Lebanese government; its withdrawal from cabinet seats with other Shias was occasioned by Mr Siniora's American-defined policies and by their own electoral inability to change these. The Lebanese don't want an Islamic republic any more than the Palestinians. But when Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah chairman, told a press conference that this was a "new era" for Lebanon, he meant what he said.

Prime Minisiter Fouad Siniora addressed the country this afternoon, urging Hezbollah to cooperate with the government to end the crisis. In particular, he said (the translation here by Lebanon Now seems a bit choppy):

First, neither of us is non-partisan any longer, and we must agree on a neutral mediator to help us reach agreement and solution.
Secondly, the arms of Hezbollah are today more than ever an issue that necessitates discussion… Hezbollah’s arms must be pointed at resisting Israel only, and with the agreement of the Lebanese and the government. Else, the only role of the arms is illegal. Hence, we must search with Hezbollah for a solution through constitutional institutions.
Third, we must amend the Lebanese democratic solution, but not through violence… So we may need a transitional formula:
1) The two decisions of the government have not yet been decreed, and will be left to the discretion of the army.
2) Withdrawing gunmen from the streets, ending the sit-in and handing security over to the national army.
3) The election of a consensus president immediately with a national-unity government in which neither party can force its beliefs.
4) The discussion of an electoral law in parliament.
5) The promise of all parties to abide by a code of media ethics that we can build with our own hands.

As of this posting, Hezbollah has not yet responded.

I could hear two or three gunshots Hamra shortly after Siniora's speech.

A Word from the US Embassy in Lebanon

I received this message from the US Embassy earlier today:

As stated in the current Travel Warning for Lebanon, the Department of State continues to strongly urge that Americans defer travel to Lebanon and that American citizens in Lebanon consider carefully the risks of remaining.

In a crisis situation, American citizens are responsible for arranging commercial or private means of transportation to depart Lebanon. American citizens wishing to depart Lebanon are urged to do so, keeping in mind that options are currently limited.

Major roads to Beirut International Airport remain blocked, and there is only limited airline service at present. Violent clashes in several areas in and around Beirut have been reported, and it is still not known when the airport road will re-open and normal air transport services will resume. The main road to Damascus remains blocked.

American citizens wanting to depart may wish to consider chartering private watercraft to Cyprus. Until such time as travel services out of Lebanon become available, the U.S. Embassy urges American citizens to ensure they have an adequate supply of food, water and other essential items and to remain safely inside their homes. Americans are encouraged to review their travel plans following resumption of normal air services.

The U.S. Embassy remains open for business; however, Nonimmigrant Visa processing has been suspended except under special circumstances. American Citizen Services and Immigrant Visa processing are functioning normally. American citizens are urged to avoid the airport road and any other areas where demonstrators are gathered, and to monitor the local media for information regarding the security situation.

In other words, if you're American and want to leave: get a boat or start swimming. If you're Lebanese and you want to get out and stay with your relatives in America: too bad.

A better plan, which a few American visitors I know have done, is to take a taxi toward the Syrian border near Tripoli and then travel by land down to Damascus, from where you can fly home. Having said that, there are reports that fighting has broken out in Tripoli. Moreover, those same Americans informed us that while Syria is processing travel visas much more quickly than it usually does (it can take an American up to twelve hours to get a visa at the Syrian border), there is a flood of Syrians at the border trying to get back into Syria.

As for B and me, we feel better for now about staying. There is a good chance that classes will be held next week (although, according to one woman in one of my classes, most students have gone to their family homes in the mountains or elsewhere outside Beirut). And besides, I think we are safer here on campus than traveling, particularly since Hezbollah and its allies seem to have taken the battles to other parts of the country now. That said, we have received word from a friend of ours in a neighborhood in southern Beirut that fighting is still going on there (as media reports confirm).

Struggles over the Media

More media outlets have been attacked.

Naharnet is reporting that the Armenian Sevan radio station in the Mar Elias section of Beirut has been set on fire.

The Arabiya tv news channel in Akkar, according to Naharnet, has been besieged.

At the same time, according to Lebanon Now,

Journalists and media personnel have reached the Future Channel building in Qontari after holding a march from the Bourj Al-Ghazali Tower in Tabaris in solidarity with Future media employees, who were routed out of their offices and harassed by opposition members.

In the southwest neighborhood of Tariq al-Jedideh, two people were killed and twelve were injured this morning after a funeral convoy was attacked.

Nevertheless, this portion of West Beirut is still calm. After receiving confident assurance of my safety from an AUB security guard, I took a run along the corniche, where a small number of men, women, and children were walking, running, and fishing. It's sunny and 70 degrees today.

A Lebanese Perspective on Obama's Perspective on Lebanon

From Jeha's Nail:

Obama’s statement on Lebanon was most interesting. In the middle of platitudes about the necessity for the “effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop”, we get this little gem;

It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Yes, we all want those things, and more; it's our country after all.

However, note the fact that he makes no mention of the necessary presidential election. Interestingly, this demand for electoral reform is not far from “opposition” demands, formulated before the current mess. I though official US policy was to ask for the election of a president first.

My take on this is that Obama meant presidential elections, as well as other electoral reforms, when he said "electoral reforms." And anyway, no president will be elected in Lebanon without some sort of electoral reforms. For better or worse, Obama has shown nothing but 100% support for the March 14th governing coalition. In February 2008, for example, Obama said,

We must keep supporting the democratically-elected government of PM Fouad Siniora, strengthening the Lebanese army and insisting on the disarmament of Hezbollah before it leads Lebanon into another unnecessary war."

The difference between Obama and the Bush administration on this matter, according to Obama, is in Bush's complete unwillingness to engage in any sort of diplomacy on the matter:

Washington musts rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans.

I'd imagine that Obama means diplomacy between March 14th and Hezbollah (and their allies), rather than the US and Hezbollah, but it does correspond with the senator's earlier claim that his potential administration would engage in diplomacy with Iran. March 14th, of course, is in seemingly constant (however fruitless) dialogue with the opposition, so, on the one hand, this might be more of a proposed shift in the US president's rhetoric toward Lebanon rather than in any meaningful policy change. But on the other hand, if Obama is really serious about sitting down with the Iranian government, that could very well affect Lebanon and in ways perhaps that could be seen as beneficial to Hezbollah.

In the meantime, West Beirut, at least in my neck of the woods, is still quiet as ever. There is, however, deadly fighting going on in Halba, in the northern Akkar region of Lebanon.