In 1940, the Muslims of Lebanon
complained that president Emile Edde was treating them as
second-class citizens. Reportedly, he replied sarcastically to
the complaint, saying: "Lebanon is a Christian country. Let the
Muslims go live in Mecca." Edde's words describe how hostile
some Christians were against the Muslims of Lebanon, and how
much they wanted to rid Lebanon of its Muslim community.
Less than 10 years later, in 1946,
King Abdullah I of Jordan toyed with the idea of uniting Syria
and Jordan under his Hashemite crown in a scheme he called
"Greater Syria". He went on a regional tour to drum up support
for his plan, and in Lebanon met with the Maronite patriarch
Antune Arida. The patriarch made him an offer "he couldn't
refuse": Maronite support for the plan, but only if Abdullah
would annex the Muslim territories of Lebanon to Greater Syria.
This story, which will be criticized
and questioned by many readers, can be found in the memoirs of
Prince Adil Arslan (pp 672-679, published in Beirut in 1983). He
was a Lebanese Druze statesman who worked in Syria and became
minister of foreign affairs in 1949. The feeling of distrust and
animosity was mutual, of course, and reciprocated by the Muslims
of Lebanon.
In 1976, tension between both
parties escalated tremendously, and Syrian president Hafez al-Assad
intervened politically, before sending his troops into Lebanon
in May 1976, encouraging Lebanese president Sulayman Franjiyyieh
to issue a constitutional document giving the Muslims some key
concessions they had been demanding since the 1940s: equal
representation in parliament, more power and autonomy for the
Sunni prime minister, who should be chosen by parliament, and
not by the Maronite president, equal access to top civil-service
jobs, and reference to Lebanon as an "Arab country".
The proposal was flatly turned down
by the Muslims themselves, considering the reforms too little
and too late. When Assad met with Kamal Jumblatt for 12 stormy
hours on March 27, 1976, he asked: "Why are you escalating the
fighting? The constitutional document gives you 95% of what you
want. What else are you after?" Jumblatt angrily replied that he
wanted to get rid of the Christians "who have been on top of us
for 140 years".
This statement was published by
British journalist Patrick Seale in his book Assad: Struggle for
the Middle East, based on an interview with none other than
Walid Jumblatt, who today is part of, and in effect leads, the
Christian-dominated opposition in Lebanon.
That in itself shows us how far
Lebanon has come since 1976, and how muddled and complex its
politics remain. Of course, both the attitudes of Edde and
Jumblatt are unacceptable in a diverse and confessional nation
like Lebanon. One wonders, had Edde lived on (he died in 1949),
what he would have said of the more than half a million
marchers, mainly Shi'ite, headed by a militant Shi'ite cleric,
on the streets of Beirut on March 8.
This is a Lebanon very different
from the one he ruled in 1936-41, and in order to move on with
their lives, the Christians of Lebanon must realize that Edde's
Lebanon, sadly, no longer exists. This is a Lebanon, whether one
likes it or not, whose majority are Shi'ite, not Maronite. They
are 40% of the population, and contrary to what is being said,
most of them are either members of Hezbollah, or supporters of
its secretary general, Hasan Nasrullah. It is a reality - a sad
reality, maybe, to some, but a reality nevertheless - than
everybody, President George W Bush included, should take into
serious consideration before drawing up plans for the Lebanese
republic.
The Hezbollah demonstration was one
of the largest in Lebanon's modern history. Reassuring as it was
to the Syrians and their allies in Lebanon, it was a nightmare
for most Christians. It showed the world that the Shi'ites have
an extraordinary organizational ability, are dedicated to a
unity of purpose with Syria, and opposed to Bush's Middle East
agenda.
Within a flash, Nasrullah can cause
havoc in Lebanon, yet he is too wise to do that, and havoc among
the Shi'ites of Lebanon would send emotions souring among the
Shi'ites of Iraq. Bush cannot afford upsetting the Shi'ites of
Iraq, who have played a crucial role in calming things down and
keeping order in the post-Saddam Hussein era.
Nasrullah was reminding the
Americans, and the members of the opposition who had been
calling for the implementation of UN Resolution 1559 for the
withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, that the Shi'ites were
still there, still visible to the rest of the world, and that
they were armed, and came in huge numbers.
The symbolism of the Hezbollah march
was great. First, no Hezbollah flags were carried, only flags of
Lebanon, to show that the Shi'ites were committed to Lebanon,
and not, as their opponents claimed, to pan-Shi'ite loyalties
that include Iran, Iraq and Syria. Nasrullah's crowds met on the
front lines that separated the Lebanese during the civil war -
on the actual location of the trenches. He pointed out that this
location had been destroyed by Israel in 1982, and by the
Lebanese themselves during the fighting.
Nasrullah did not allow one person
to carry a gun, to show how far his followers had come from the
1970s, or fire one shot in the air, insisting that it was a
peaceful demonstration aimed only at showing the other side of
Lebanon, and thanking Syria.
It echoed the words of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad on March 5, where while speaking to
Syrian parliament, he said that the anti-Syrian demonstrations
were focused on a few demonstrators that were zoomed on by TV
cameras. The half a million people that Nasrullah brought out in
Beirut needed no zoom lens. Cameras shot images at a distance,
and all viewers could see were pro-Syrian citizens in the
horizon.
The Hezbollah demonstration worked,
and it delivered the required message to the US and the world.
The New York Times reported that the United States will deal
with Hezbollah in a different manner after the massive
demonstration staged in Beirut. The newspaper said: "The [US]
administration's shift was described by American, European and
United Nations officials as a reluctant recognition that
Hezbollah, besides having a militia and sponsoring attacks on
Israelis, is an enormous political force in Lebanon that could
block Western efforts to get Syria to withdraw its troops."
It quoted an official saying, "The
administration has an absolute aversion to admitting that
Hezbollah has a role to play in Lebanon, but that is the path
we're going down." It added that it was "dangerous" to
antagonize Hezbollah and "wiser" to encourage the party to run
candidates in Lebanese elections. The European Union, however,
held by its views as member states were asked to restrict their
activities with Hezbollah, and the European parliament labeled
it a "terrorist" organization with a majority of 473 against 33
votes.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice tried to maintain strong talk against the Shi'ite
guerrillas, but many viewed that as a media stunt, while
Lebanon's Daily Star wrote that "America's stance was softening"
to avoid a crisis in Lebanon. The Daily Star went on to quote
one State Department official who said, "Any party that can win
public support democratically should play a role in Lebanon's
future as determined by the Lebanese people."
A spokesperson at the French Foreign
Affairs Ministry said, "France's position is clear and
unchanged. We realize that Hezbollah is a very important element
of Lebanese political life and accordingly we refuse to include
it to the list of terrorist organizations, despite growing
American and Israeli demands to do so." She pointed out, "We are
attached to the stability of Lebanon and we will not take
measures which will destabilize the country."