What Lebanon the Lebanese would choose? By Salim Nazzal

What Lebanon the Lebanese would choose?

By Salim Nazzal

Al-Jazeerah, December 7, 2006

“The Lebanese want to speak classic Arabic and not Arabic in the Iranian or the Syrian dialect”. These were the words of Akram Shuheb at a 14th of March crowd. Not unexpectedly the pro government public listening to him applauded to his words.

Naturally, Iranians do not speak Arabic; they are Persians and not Arabs. And Syrians speak Arabic in the Levantine Arabic spoken in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Yet his political message is clear, a message the pro government forces repeat every day, no to Syria, no to Iran. While he uses metaphor in his statement, it leaves lots of unresolved questions about a conflict considered the most dangerous since the civil war in 1975. Akram Shuheb belongs to the socialist progressive party which perhaps mirrors the high – pitched contradictions in the Lebanese society. It is a sectarian party for the Druze sect which compose one of Lebanon’s 18th religious sects. The party leader, the “socialist “Walid jumblat lives in a palace built in the 17 century, is the son of an influential feudal Druz family, played a political role in the mountains of Lebanon since Prince Fakhr al din the second known as the great in the 16th century.

Obviously Shuheb reference to the choice between languages is a metaphoric reference to the current crisis.

A friend from the Lebanese communist party puts Shuheb words in geopolitical perspective, though in different outlook. In her view, the question now in Lebanon is who to choose, Syria or Israel. Extending the perspective of the conflict to this level is not far from truth. Yet this perhaps tells half of the story of the conflict which can not be understood without linking it with an undeniable fact: the deadly flaw lies in the country sectarian political system which carries since its birth political dynamites that explode with each major crisis. This explains in my view the reason why the Lebanese parliament which is supposed to be the mother institution is incapable of solving the repeated crisis. No wonder that major secular intellectuals such as the late distinguished Josef Mugeizel devoted much of his life to call for changing the sectarian based system. Mugeizel knew that the sectarian 1943 social contract has terminated and modernization became a Must.

The modernization process which took place during the time of president Foud shehab (1958-1964) was significant though not enough. In the view of the critics, the Shehabic reform did not go as far as to deconstruct the sectarian basis of the regime. General Fouad Shehab was the leader of the Lebanese army under the 6 months civil war in 1958, became the president of Lebanon after he was valued for his role in keeping the army neutral. In the current conflict the leader of the army, General Michel Suleiman takes a position similar to Fouad Shehab in upholding the army away from the conflict. Suleiman has expressed his confidence in the integrity of the army which in his view stronger than it was in the civil wars of 1958 and 1975. In 1975 the army splited into two major armies: (The Arab Lebanon army) led by major Ahmad Al khatib, while the rest of the army remained loyal to the ministry of defence. Nevertheless Suleiman warns that the immunity of the army would be shaken should politicians fail to find a political solution to the present crisis.

In the view of the Lebanese writer Nasre Al Sayeg the picture seems grim on light of the fact that the country three constitutional powers are more or less paralysed which is a clear expression to the depth of the crisis. In 1958, Lebanon position towards the rise of the Pan Arab sentiments was the major reason of the conflict between the Pan Arab trend led by Rachid Karame and Saeb Salam, and the Lebanese national trend led by Pierre Al Jemayel .The American Marines landed on the shores of Beirut to support the pro west president Camille Chamoon . The civil war ended with (No winner and No looser) mirrors par excellence the Lebanese balanced political culture.Fouad Shehab understood that Lebanon lies in an explosive region where neutrality is a myth. In conformity with the Lebanese (balanced!) political culture he resisted the pressure of the Pan Arab trend to join the new Arab republic emerged after the Egyptian Syrian unity in 1958. At the same time he tolerated the Lebanese Pan Arab tend and met Nasser in a tent erected on both sides of the Lebanese Syrian border.

The key question in Lebanon today is how to bring a balanced solution between the conflicting March 8 and March 14 coalitions. Until now the Arab solution is not seriously considered because most ‘Arab moderate countries’ took biased position in supporting the March 14 Sanyoura government. Syria which was in the last 15 years the only broker in the Lebanese conflicts is considered by the pro government party a supporter to the March 8 coalition. The Lebanese are incapable to find a solution to the crisis which many warn it might take Lebanon to the frightening Iraqi scenario of sectarian clashes. Nofal Daw the writer in the Lebanese newspaper Al Nahar echoes the Lebanese traditional solution by saying that the two coalitions must search for a no winner and no looser compromise. However what is obvious to those who follow the current crisis is that each side of the conflict has its own “street” yet none of them, following the Lebanese political culture, say it seeks to cancel the other.

Yet the question persists, why there is a state of denial in the current crisis.

In my perspective establishing a linkage between the impotent sectarian political system and the regional challenges is purposely done with the aim to highlight two major points which is beyond the capacity of one article to be analysed thoroughly. The first point that the reform in the Lebanese political system has become an inescapable matter should Lebanon remains an independent political entity. The second matter is that the Lebanese political leaders must find a formula which defines Lebanon role in the Arab Israeli conflict. The three disputable topics, in the current crisis, the question of the international tribune, the position towards the 1701 UN resolution, and the future president who shall reside the Baabde palace, are only reflectors to deeper unresolved questions which I summarised above in two major points. The Lebanese history has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the policy of denying the roots of the crisis has not prevented the repetition of crisis. In major crisis nations need to question the whole political structure in order to renew the aging institutions to meet the changing needs. The urgent step which the Lebanese must take now is recognising the existing problems as an essential step towards answering the central question: What Lebanon the Lebanese would choose!

Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian historian. He has written extensively on social and political issues in the Middle East .E mail: gibran44@hotmail.com

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info