|
| |
From New Jdeideh to Zalka… Over Nahr el-Mot
Terrorism, Federalism or a Petty Theft? A Theoretical Approach
by Don Quixote
August 23, 2005
[Available in PDF]
“The blast, which could be heard several kilometers away, occurred outside
a hotel and shopping center in the mainly Christian area of the city. It is the
sixth terrorist attack in less than 6 months to target a commercial /touristic
center in the Christian areas north of Beirut.” The BBC,
August 23, 2005.
Who is behind it all and why?
1. The Lebanese reaction: Six explosions in less than 6 months from New
Jdaideh to Baushrieh, to Kaslik, to Broummana, to Monot, to Zalka… The series
goes on with a striking difference: In the early explosions after March 14th,
2005, the self-proclaimed “heroes” of March 14th rushed to the scenes to
denounce the attacks and emphasize the need to get rid of the Lebanese-Syrian
security apparatus, and stressed the importance of “living together” –
Christians and Moslems – in Lebanon. Even Bahia Hariri went to New Jdeideh,
despite her grief over the loss of her brother; we saw Ghinwa Jalloul, Atef
Majdalani, Walid Eido… we saw Marwan Hamadé and his nephew Tueini Jr.; we also
saw Mme. Solange and Sheikh Pierre Jr. and of course the “suitors” of Kornet
Shahwan. Everybody wore the red scarf then; before there was blue, green, yellow
and orange. Believe it or not, many of us felt comforted by their visits to the
bombed sites.
Alas! That was before the elections.
Now that Metn, Keserwan and Jbeil did not vote as originally planned, none of
the above politicians bothered to show-up and express support or at least try to
comfort with words the devastated citizens in their newest tragedy. On the
contrary, many can be heard saying to themselves: “They deserve it” (Khayy…
byestahlo). They did not sow the seeds we gave them; they shall reap the
consequences of their misbehavior…
As a Lebanese I had to volunteer that emotional burst, otherwise I would not be
true to my origins. That’s all fine; but proper reaction or no, we still do not
know who the culprits are or why they are doing it. So allow me to speculate
using my “logic” reared in Beirut and pruned by living abroad and some foreign
interactions.
2. Occam’s Razor: In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one
should make no more assumptions than needed in seeking an explanation: when
multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is
the best. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing
alien spaceship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning
strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.
Applying this principle to the series of explosions that rocked East and North
Beirut (excluding the ones that killed Hariri, Hawi and Kasir and attempted to
kill Murr), the most plausible suspect becomes a private security agency (the
Agency) in search of business in Lebanon. The targets are commercial centers
with a level of collective income that enables them to pay their way into a 21st
century private security system equipped with 24 hours / 7 days monitoring using
high-tech cameras and on site guards. This phenomenon of purchasing security is
no stranger to Lebanon. During the war and throughout the Syrian occupation,
security in Lebanon always came at a price: the Lebanese in various regions paid
the local militia a monthly fee or bribed a Syrian officer in exchange for
security guarantees. Now most militias and the Syrian officer are gone. Actually
they were replaced by popping private security agencies many of them owned by
former militia men or affiliated with politicians and men of power who worked as
security middle men during the war.
Any proof of that? Of course not! Otherwise we would not be speculating. But
this hypothesis is the one requiring the least assumptions and therefore is the
best. It is for the Interior Minister and what remain of the public security
agencies in Lebanon to explore it (unless they are in on it, pushing for a
privatization of security among other sectors).
Ah! But why North and East Beirut only? Why not the commercial center in
Downtown Beirut? Why not the Southern suburb? It could be that the commercial
center in Downtown Beirut is already highly secured with cameras and watchful
eyes provided by the Agency or other similar agencies. As for the Southern
suburb, there may be nothing to protect there; no commerce, no wealth, no
tourism; plus it may be unsafe for the Agency (unless it belonged to Amal or
Hezbollah) to operate there: someone may steal its cameras or highjack the
guards!
3. Conspiracy theories: Of course Occam’s Razor in its reductionist
simplistic approach does not quench the thirst of conspiracy theorists in
Lebanon. Therefore we need to get into more complex analyses of these explosions
and develop some really conspiratorial theories:
Theory 1: Everybody’s favorite is Syria and the Lebanese Security
apparatus. I am surprised the rhetoric in that direction is not even more
ratchet nowadays than it was in March and April and May. No need to elaborate;
almost all of you know the jingle.
But that’s not where the juice is. The best conspiracy theory would be one that
ties the explosions to the delicate sectarian balance in Lebanon to the arms of
Hezbollah to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the situation in Iraq all the
way to the cause of Islamic fundamentalism and the war on terrorism. Can we do
that? Of course!
Theory 2: Muslim fundamentalists, probably related to Al-Qaeda, are
behind the attack. That would explain in part why the targets are in the
Christian areas only; they are relatively liberal and strange to the teaching of
conservative Islam. That may be true of Monot in Ashrafieh! But this does not
make much sense in the industrial zone in Baushrieh and other commercial centers
largely closed at night. Just for the sake of the argument, what would be the
goal of the fundamentalists in these areas? Maybe simple terror to extract some
political decision! After all Walid Jumblatt warned the Christians if they do
not abide by politics as he likes them, they may have to deal with radical
fundamentalists. Although plausible, it sounds a bit far fetched.
Theory 3: The target is to force a redistribution of wealth from the
Christian areas into other areas of Lebanon. Despite 30 years of war and
occupation and despite fifteen years of oppression and dispossession (1990 –
2005) aimed at areas east of the demarcation line (Oh yes! The demarcation line:
fajjeh we waki3iyyeh), the attacked areas are thriving and bustling with life
and tourism, so much that many other areas for example in the Shouf, Aley and
the Southern Suburb may be feeling left out. These attacks are obviously
targeting wealth and trade in these areas and not the people. It may scare away
a few tourists and it may also scare away some capital into more secure and less
vulnerable areas. Who stands to benefit? Follow the money.
Theory 4: Force the Christians to seek international protection, in the
absence of a centralized national security system to protect them, more like
they did when they were threatened by Arafat in 1975. This time however it won’t
be Syria or any other Arab nation, for all Lebanese had had their fare share of
Syrian security and Arab protection. It will be an international force mandated
by the UN Security Council and authorized to collect arms from all armed groups
and individuals outside the Lebanese army including Hezbollah and the
Palestinian militants. That would be an ideal solution, given the lack of
maturity among Lebanese politicians to run their country, from implementing UNSC
resolution 1559, to appointing constitutional judges, to replacing the security
officers that have resigned to securing the streets for the people. But who in
the world cares really about Lebanon or the Christians therein? If the USA or
France really desired that outcome, they would not need sporadic bombs pretexts
to reach it, would they?
Theory 5: Force the Christians to organize their own local security
systems “Moukawameh style” to resist against a real enemy: sporadic terrorism in
their streets. If Hezbollah (the Iranian-backed Shiite movement), under the
guise of “Resistance” to an enemy who has not attacked in 5 years and may never
attack again, can claim the lack of readiness of the Lebanese Army in order to
keep its arms, then why can’t the Christians (Aounists or Geageaists or
Pakradounists – I doubt if the Gemayels still have any pull among Christians)
make a similar claim, especially that they are regularly under attack and the
central government cannot seem to agree on who is in charge of security. So let
the Christians have their own security system, their arms, their organized
resistance against terror, their own militia and let’s start by calling it
“Civil Security Forces” (Kiwa el-Amn el-Madani) and with time it can evolve into
the Army of Free Lebanon (AFL - Jaysh Lubnan El-Hurr). This theory feeds into
two corollary theories: six and seven.
Theory 6: A corollary of theory five. Since the Sunnis, effectively in
charge of Lebanon since March 14th, 2005, have remained unable or unwilling to
implement UNSC 1559 and disarm Hezbollah and the Palestinians, it is time to
recruit somebody else to do it: the Christians. These guys love a good fight.
But instead of asking them to disarm Hezbollah and the Palestinians and
encouraging them to build a modern and peaceful country with their fellow
citizens (which they can’t do), give those arms and let the suckers on both
sides fight each other again until their fighting power is drained and there
won’t be any need to disarm anybody. Brilliant idea!
Theory 7: A corollary of theory five. Arming the Christians and allowing
the Shiites to retain their arms, is a prelude to establishing a federal system
of government in Lebanon that goes beyond politics and government and resembles
what is being built in Iraq – instead of “Faylak Badr”, Hezbollah; instead of
“Faylak Omar”, the Palestinian militants (historically the armed wing of Sunni
political groups in Lebanon); and instead of the Peshmerga we’ll have the AFL!
This would have taken care of many problems in Lebanon including that of
nationalizing the Palestinian refugees. This also ties well into the theory of
wealth redistribution (theory 3 above) and perhaps provides the best outcome for
a pluralistic country in which “living together” among different sectarian
groups may have become politically impossible. So as long as we can’t agree on a
secular formula for this country, let’s try to shift our focus from “together”
to “living”, and go after “living in peace” with our neighbor. May be that
formula will work.
Of course, these are only theories and it will take time to prove or disprove
any of them.
* Don Quixote: The voice of one or may be of thousands.
|
