Overlooking the obvious

Jan.27, 2007

Overlooking the obvious

IT SEEMS to be taken for granted that the violent flare-up in Lebanon on Thursday was a spontaneous clash between pro-government forces and opposition supporters. Leaders of both sides — opposition Hizbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Saad Hariri, who heads the ruling coalition behind the government — have called on their people to abide by the law and to refrain from violence. Thursday's clashes were described as the natural culmination of tensions that have been building since Dec.1 when the Hizbollah-led opposition launched a sit-in strike in Beirut hoping to topple the government of Fuad Siniora. The violence came on the day when the international community pledged some $7.6 billion in loans and grants to the Siniora government at a conference in Paris to help Lebanon recover from the devastating impact of the Israeli-Hizbollah war in the summer of 2006.
A close look at the Lebanese scene would immediately show that bloodshed leading to a resumption of the civil strife is not in the interest of the government or the opposition. The Lebanese people know only too well how it is like to live through a civil war and few in Lebanon have the stomach to see it happen again.
The government knows that violent clashes could deteriorate and prompt the different groups to bring out their weapons to the street. We saw it happening on Thursday and keep our fingers crossed that it would recurr. If that happens again, then it is anyone's guess what could happen. However, one thing is sure: Factional fighting in Lebanon today would be the end of the country as we know it because the geopolitics of the Middle East region are ripe for yet another explosion.
Strife in Lebanon would cease to be Lebanon-specific and external forces would be calling the shots to suit their interests, and the government would cease to be an effective force in the country.
As far as Hizbollah is concerned, the group should know that it would be the first target for destruction at a time when it feels politically strong enough to insist on a change of government the country.
So, both sides stand to lose a lot if they were to engage in violent clashes and take the country to a civil war. This awareness is evident in the calls for calm issued by all factional leaders. The question then is who was stoking violent sentiments and provoked Thursday's clashes.
We could perhaps get a clue if we recall that the clashes started at Beirut's Arab University campus. Fighting between students with sticks and stones on the university campus spilled into nearby streets and developed into exchanges of gunfire from assault rifles and pistols involving students and residents from both sides, according to reports.
Well, we know that university campuses are the first targets of hostile elements seeking to start trouble because it is easy to blame "hot-headed" students for anything and everything, with police or university authorities being able even to identity the trouble-makers or to ascertain whether students themselves or external elements were involved.
As supporters of the government and opposition continue to blame each other for starting Thursday's clashes in Beirut, they would be better advised to investigate and pinpoint who had thrown the first stone and fired the first shot. It is a safe bet that they do not have to look too far to identify the culprits and establish their cross-border connections with the country's southern neighbour.
Israel has always played a key role in Lebanon's troubles and it would not be the first or last time that its operatives and agents poured fuel into tensions in the country. That realisation, we hope, would be enough to stop both sides in their advance towards open confrontation and recognise that no one who loves Lebanon could have thrown the first stone or fired the first shot. If they overlook the obvious, then they would be paying a much heavier price in the days and weeks ahead.