Qifa Nabki | A Lebanese Political Blog

Lina Khatib has an interesting article over at Foreign Policy about Wednesday’s attack on the U.N. Special Tribunal investigators at a gynecological clinic in Beirut. She comments on Nasrallah’s strategy here:

“He went on to question, “who would accept someone looking at the gynecological files of a mother or a sister or a daughter?” By invoking the issue of women’s honor, Nasrallah is appealing to a traditional set of values that makes the event dogmatically unacceptable. The STL’s investigators provided the perfect pretext for this framework, not only by physically entering a Hezbollah stronghold where they are certainly unwelcome, but also by sending men to a gynecological clinic.”

Lina is right: as legitimate an excuse as the STL may have had to visit the clinic, they seem to have played directly into the hands of Hizbullah, which has slowly but surely developed the most sophisticated messaging strategy this side of Cupertino, CA.

Not that this is so relevant, but can anyone imagine a more succinct exemplum of the lessons of Foucauldian (well, more like Saidian or Massadian) critiques of political, medical, and sexual imperialism? Behold the White Doctor stride self-righteously into the colonial clinic! Watch him violate the honor of the subject race, just as the empire preys on the defenselessness of the colonized’s body politic… Is this not what (a post-colonial studies graduate student’s) dreams are made of?

Makes me wonder whether Walid Bek (known purveyor of Continental philosophy and all things erudite) isn’t moonlighting at the Hizb’s press office these days…

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Investigators with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) had a rude awakening yesterday after being attacked by angry Lebanese citizens in the course of a routine information-gathering mission.

Upon visiting a gynecological clinic in al-Dahiyeh — a southern suburb of Beirut and stronghold of the Shiite party Hizbullah — a crowd of angry women attacked the investigators and reportedly stole a briefcase from them. A condemnation of the attack by the Netherlands-based Special Tribunal was echoed by various Lebanese political parties as well as the United States.

The attack “is a deplorable attempt to obstruct justice,” the tribunal said in the statement. “Those who carried out this attack must know that violence will not deter the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a court of law, from fulfilling its mandate.”

Reports are now emerging that some of the attackers were men dressed as women in full-length burqas, and Future Movement official Mustafa Allouch told reporters that the attack was “a clear message from Hizbullah to the STL.”

Meanwhile, the Hizbullah television station Al-Manar stated that the incident was “a blatant attack by the international investigating commission on a gynecological clinic,” and noted that “the women’s response was spontaneous and firm.”

The Qnion has learned that after receiving medical attention later that day, the STL investigators insisted on continuing with their duties rather than returning to The Hague.

“We weren’t going to let the attack deter us from finishing what we started,” said Geert van Whiffenpoof, the team leader. “We had other places to visit and important information to gather.”

However, the investigators were soon to discover that public opposition to their activities was not confined to the women of al-Dahiyeh.

The first stop the UN team made upon leaving the American University of Beirut Hospital was a small farm on the outskirts of Sidon, in order to question its owner, one Sa’eed Ghadban, about his acquaintance with one of the suspects in the Hariri assassination.

Upon leaving the farmhouse, however, the team encountered a large crowd of animals — cows, goats, horses, sheep, and other beasts — blocking their exit.

“They were really angry,” said Jan van Snurkensnuffle. “They were braying and mooing and quacking. It was actually quite terrifying.”

A flock of chickens charged the investigators who managed to escape unharmed.

Reports are now emerging that some of the attackers were men dressed in animal costumes, and Future Movement official Mustafa Allouch told reporters again that the attack was “a clear message from Hizbullah to the STL.”

For its part, the Hizbullah television station Al-Manar stated that the incident was “a blatant attack by the international investigating commission on a humble farm” and noted that “the animals’ response was spontaneous and firm.”

Upon returning to their hotel that evening, the investigators decided to make a stop at Barbar, a popular local eatery.

“They have the best shawarma I’ve ever had,” gushed Willem Beentrekker. “I love going there after a long hard day’s work.”

Unfortunately, within hours of downing the meal, all three men found themselves waylaid by severe stomach cramps, nausea, and diarrhea. After a long and sleepless night with alternating visits to the hotel bathroom, the three investigators boarded a flight to the Hague this morning.

Future Movement official Mustafa Allouch told reporters again that the indigestion was “a clear message from Hizbullah to the STL.”

For its part, the Hizbullah television station Al-Manar stated that the incident was “a blatant violation of sovereignty by the international investigating commission on proud Lebanese foodstuffs” and noted that “the shawrma‘s response was spontaneous and firm.”

One of the themes that came up repeatedly during Interior Minister Ziad Baroud’s panel discussion in Washington last month was the need for better strategic planning to address the myriad political, economic, social, environmental, and security-related challenges facing the country. I found myself wondering, as I left his talk, where Lebanon would be in, say, ten years.

Ten years seems like not very much time, until one looks back a decade and considers just how far the country has come. Ten years ago today, Rafiq al-Hariri was appointed prime minister of Lebanon for the fourth time. His bloc had recently swept the parliamentary elections, and he used the result to catapult himself back to the premiership, despite his problematic relationship with Emile Lahoud. Michel Aoun (speaking from his Parisian exile) denounced the newly formed government as a Syrian tool. Earlier that year, the Syrians and Israelis met for direct peace talks in Shepherdstown, WV.

It was a different world.

Since 2000, Lebanon has witnessed several monumental developments: a war with Israel; two elections; a string of political assassinations; a high-profile international murder investigation; the destruction of the Nahr al-Barid refugee camp; a presidential power vacuum; a series of mass public protests with hundreds of thousands of participants; and, most importantly, several Guinness World Records for the largest servings of hummus, tabbouleh, fattoush, etc.

Compared to most Arab countries, change in Lebanon seem to take place at warp speed.  However, while plenty has changed over the past ten years, most of the things that its citizens care about remain the same or have gotten worse. Unemployment is high, wages are low, traffic is awful, the electricity situation is deplorable, water resources are dwindling while seasonal rains cause massive flooding, air quality gets worse each summer, political stability is nonexistent… I could go on, but that’s what the Daily Star’s editorials are for.

By this point, ten years from now, there will have been two more parliamentary elections and two new presidents. The country’s population will be approaching five million people. Where do you think Lebanon will be, politically, economically, socially, etc.? What will be the state of the public debt? The energy sector? Privatization of industries? The status of refugees? The security situation in the South? Tourism? Infrastructure?

Vote above, and discuss below.

PS: Apologies to those of you who developed carpel tunnel syndrome scrolling to the bottom of a 528-comment discussion last week. We aim to please, not to injure.

At some point in 2006, I recall asking a friend of mine what he thought of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had recently been elected President of Iran. This friend (known to readers of this blog as “Abbas“) is a Lebanese Shiite living in Beirut, and a devoted partisan of Hizbullah. The conversation went something like this:

QN: So what do you think of this new Iranian president? Ahmadinejad?

Abbas: Fantastic. I love him.

QN: You like him better than Khatami?

Abbas: Definitely.

QN: How do you think Hizbullah feels about him? Will he serve the party’s interests?

Abbas: Of course he will. Who do you think brought him to power?

That’s right. Such is the mystique of Hizbullah in Lebanon that it wouldn’t be completely outlandish for someone to claim that the Iranian president’s rise was facilitated by the influence of his Lebanese allies. Nasrallah, after all, was a regional rock star while Ahmadinejad was revoking parking tickets as mayor of Tehran. (This was the gist of the discussion that followed, between me and Abbas).

Obviously, Abbas’s point was just another silly conspiracy theory (which we absolutely never tolerate on this blog), but it raises an interesting question. For the past few years, Iran’s reputation in Lebanon seems to have been tied to the fortunes of Hizbullah. Nasrallah was the public face of Iranian ambitions in the Levant, enjoying a 10% lead in popularity across the region over Ahmadinejad (according to the University of Maryland and Zogby International’s Arab Public Opinion Poll). This meant that more Arabs admired Nasrallah than they did Ahmadinejad, and anecdotally this struck one as true: Nasrallah’s popularity across the region was untouchable from the end of the July War through at least March 2008, and both Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad seemed to be riding on Nasrallah’s coattails.

In 2009, something happened. Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad took a major beating in the regional popularity polls (conducted in April-May 2009), while Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shot from 9th place to 1st. How to explain this reversal of fortunes? Here’s my highly unscientific hypothesis:

1. After the May 2008 events in Lebanon (which occurred after the 2008 poll was conducted), Hizbullah’s reputation among Sunnis across the region was (temporarily) tarnished.
2. In early 2009, the region watched Israel attack Gaza as Hizbullah sat on its hands, unwilling to provoke another confrontation in Lebanon.
3. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez accused Israel of committing genocide and expelled the Israeli ambassador from Caracas. Presto: instant celebrity.

Now, Chavez’s resistance credentials in the Arab-Israeli conflict are nothing compared to Hizbullah’s and Iran’s. But the fact of his turnaround seemed to count for something. Iran couldn’t dismiss its Israeli ambassador because it doesn’t have one. And if Ahmadinejad blamed Israel for committing genocide, no one would notice because he does this on his way to work each day. Meanwhile, the Chavez effect repeated itself this year. Who was the most admired leader in the Arab world  in 2010? Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Where was he in the polls in 2008 and 2009? Last place and second-to-last, respectively. While he also criticized the Gaza assault, his real surge in popularity was almost certainly tied to the flotilla incident.

This is a very circuitous way of saying that I found myself wondering today, as I listened to Nasrallah’s speech welcoming Ahmadinejad to Beirut, whether Iran is trying to step out of Hizbullah’s shadow in Lebanon. That sounds odd to hear, given the nature of their relationship. But I think that it’s not that far-fetched to imagine that Iran’s ambitions include winning over non-Shi’a Lebanese through a mixture of investment projects, military aid, assistance in energy exploration and infrastructure development.

After all, as we’ve seen, even Hizbullah’s popularity can take a hit. The party cannot keep Lebanon in Iran’s orbit all by itself. Thoughts?

The “false witness” issue has gone from being a conspiratorial throw-away line in one of Nasrallah’s early summer speeches, to a full-blown scandal involving several arrest warrants from the Syrian judiciary, and threats by Lebanese opposition parties to boycott cabinet sessions until the issue is resolved.

Who is to blame for this fiasco? While it is fairly clear that the false witness file is just one part of an opposition campaign to discredit the STL, I feel that Saad al-Hariri is ultimately responsible for allowing this issue to snowball. Did he not recognize months ago that this was going to be the opposition’s game plan? Did he think that he was going to get off with a poorly-worded mea culpa in a Saudi newspaper?

By remaining out of the spotlight and not tackling the issue head-on, he has allowed the opposition to take complete control of this story. And the longer he tries to ignore it, the more suspicious and deceitful he and his allies look. Does it matter whether or not the 33 summoned individuals actually offered false testimony or tampered with evidence? No. What matters is that the opposition has been given an open floor to argue that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is nothing but a vast conspiracy relying on false witnesses.

I’ve gotten a lot of flak over the past two weeks for suggesting that Saad al-Hariri’s premiership is little more than a sustained absence, and that March 8th politicians have better rhetorical chops than their counterparts in March 14th. Let me ask you naysayers once again: let’s imagine the tables were turned, and that a media campaign was being waged against Hizbullah. Would Nasrallah remain quiet, or would he respond to his accusers calmly and clearly (and, probably, disarmingly), batting away their claims like the wispiest of dust bunnies?

Compared to what Hizbullah is facing, the false witness issue is small potatoes. Nasrallah is allegedly staring down an STL indictment built on five years of in-depth investigation, interviews, and forensic evidence. What does he do in response? He goes on the offensive a few months in advance, and one-ups the U.N. with a three-part TV special featuring Israeli satellite footage and confessions from convicted espionage artists. Nasrallah could handle the false witness thing in his sleep. Meanwhile, Hariri seems to be asleep.