Hezbollah

What an eventful week its been! Cyclones, Earthquakes and the beginning of a new era in Lebanese politics, to which we shall now turn our attention to...

Whilst the British press has mainly lambasted Hezbollah for its 'provocative' stance towards the Sinoira government, and Western governments, as well as their Arab allies, have towed the line asserting a coup (failed?) was taking place in Lebanon, as well the beginning of degeneration of the Lebanese government, pertinent questions remain unanswered.

1. What did Hezbollah have in mind with this action?
2. To which audience was this theatre aimed at?
3. What has been achieved and what has been lost?

There are many opinions in the 'air'. Which ones should be counted? Taken note of? Plausible?

Whilst none except Hezbollah can confirm, or deny their intentions it becomes necessary to go to the source. Some have called it a failed coup; Nasrallah's emphatic response, "if it was a coup, you would have woken up with your leaders in jail or thrown in the sea." (See his speech here) Militarily, there is little to prevent us to assume that this would not have been the case. A guerilla army that defeated the most powerful army in the Middle East in 2006, renown for their organisation, tactical effectiveness and discipline fighting an ill equipped and disorganised opposition was no contest as events demonstrated. The silent march and occupation of the capital as well as its closure, points to the direction that this was a meticulously planned operation, no doubt the plan was in existence prior to May 7.

Superior military might, as well as tactical genius alone do not account however for the course of action. With internal tensions already simmering, such provocative action was undoubtedly a last resort. Whilst the history to this latest conflict demonstrate that diplomatic efforts between the Parliamentary speaker, Nabih Berri and the Sinoira governments were well under way to avoid a confrontation, the red line had been crossed and negotiations had failed. Hezbollah have thus demonstrated numerous key capabilities in taking unilateral action:
1. The organisation to take and hold the capital city marking the creation of a precedent for future showdowns
2. The strength of their relationship with the army (paradoxically also demonstrating the fragile nature of the army in the face of internal Lebanese opposition)
3. Their strength in comparison to the militias of Hariri and Jumblatt

Whilst the world was the intended audience, more specifically three must be singled out for special consideration:
1. Sinoira: He has shown weakness and resolve in addition to being politically impotent. Whilst it remains to be observed whether he complies with the army's suggestion, it is unlikely he will be willing to risk further confrontations
2. The US: Sabre rattling on the US part as well as the lack of sufficient support, also served to demonstrate that the US was toothless in the face of Hezbollah. Practical considerations for the deployment of troops are not on the agenda, extending to its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has shown its inability to engage and gain victory over guerilla forces using conventional means (both diplomatic and militarily), further undermining its military deterrent and empty rhetoric
3. Israel. All sides are expecting another round of Hezbollah vs Israel but one can now expect this to be delayed even further by this show of force. Hezbollah's arms have proven to be impervious to Israeli fire power and now the Lebanese government has also demonstrated its inability to place control over them. UNIFIL of course, neither has the mandate nor the might, as well as the will to take on Hezbollah directly.

So it seems that all the fireworks will be flying over the Hezbollah camp. Not so. Such unilateral action has only served for further polarisation, and whilst it seems that Hezbollah is able to act on its own accord, there is little doubt that it is beginning to run thin on political capital. Whilst outwardly Hezbollah may dismiss the Arab position, it would not be something to be scoffed at in the long term. Only the most superficial commentators would label this as a sectarian issue, it is profoundly political, but Arab state machinery may avoid that notion altogether which will harm Hezbollah's standing with the Arab people. Al-Qaeda has already announced its intention to defend the "Sunni community." (See here) No doubts attempts will also be made by the outside powers, Israel and the US, to exploit the cleavages exposed with placing particular emphasis on Hariri, as Jumblatt seems to have resigned from hope. Bush recently announced support for the Lebanese army, one questions the wisdom of this decision, as the army have demonstrated aptly to have learnt their lesson from the civil war. Syria and Iran, will also have lost out on important diplomatic efforts to gain consensus for their respective concerns. Again, polarisation on the international scene is becoming increasingly visible, the US and its allies and an unswerving Arab league - bar Syria - on one side, Iran and the latter on the other.

The end of Lebanon? Unlikely, the end of the beginning more likely, as we now enter a new phase of mobilisation, tension and low thresholds for escalation.

The Middle East and British Work Culture

A rather odd concoction to say the least, but bear with me...

In July 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed us, in the thick of another round of Israel vs Lebanon, we were witnessing the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Au contraire Madam Secretary. A rather sadistic description of the death and destruction that was wreaked over Southern Lebanon as well as the death of over a hundred Israeli soldiers one may retort. Quite how the miracle of life has become synonymous with war crimes is beyond any intellectual or reasonable explanation.

It was Franz Fanon who articulated the 'culture of violence' thesis, which has effectively portrayed the developments of post-apartheid South Africa and many other nations, which also seems to have found currency within mainstream political discourse. Recently, an Iraqi lost her parents, her two brothers along with their pregnant wives and four nephews and nieces. Another lost her husband and three children aged six, four and two. A twenty four year old mother watched her 18 month toddler killed by a rocket. Whoever pulled the trigger, it seems the cement between Iraqis and violence has set (see here).

How are such tragedies treated by politicians? "Unfortunate," "unintentional," and most prolifically, "unavoidable." If these events are continually marginalised, outrightly dismissed and even contested in the public arena, is there any wonder that those on the ground behave as equally dismissively, immune to the repercussions (psychological and others) of their actions? More pertinently, are they then justifiable if they see no moral deficit in such actions? (Applying equally to nation states too.. Abu Ghraib, Srebrenica, Qanaa - let us not have amnesia, intentional or otherwise)

Secretary Rice believes it is "an achievable goal to have an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis by the end of the year." Effective political discourse requires a cohesion of sorts between rhetoric and action, which also serves to espouse intentions. Hence, whilst settlements continue to expand, the wall continues to grow and rights are not fulfilled one is entitled to question this. Apologies Madam Secretary, but US actions are not matching your rhetoric, whose being disingenuous I hear you whisper?

In the local news one comes across a rather interesting assessment of the new British work culture that is gripping us. Apparently we work so hard, we forget to take care of our children prompting schools to remain open office hours, 8am to 6pm. Children receive their breakfast, lunch and probably dinner at the hands of the state. Is this simply work culture? Or is it economic survival? Materialism, consumerism and self-indulgence one may also suggest. Many parents work hard to give their children a more pleasurable life, no doubt, but with the recent spate of child killings (Rhys Jones etc.) one wonders whether we prefer for our children a material life or alternatively, no life at all!

So how does the latter relate to the former, or is this all hopscotch? Family life underpins society, and in both the above cases whilst a strong, morally upright and ethical framework does not exist amongst family relations, one can not expect social cohesion and social rectification to ward off bombs, knives, ASBOs or teenage killings.

"Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family" : George Bernard Shaw