The world media called the events in which more than 80 people were killed and about 200 wounded, the worst violence in Lebanon since the civil war of 1975-1990, and wrote that Lebanon was on the verge of another civil war.
Actually, these events are more similar to what happened in the summer of 2006, when the Islamic resistance movement Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip. For a few days, from May 7 to May 10, Hezbollah put Beirut under its control. In both cases the logic behind the action was the same, but the Lebanese movement has been more successful than the Palestinian one - both in fighting against Israel, and at home. Regardless of what decisions are made in Qatar and future developments in Lebanon, Hezbollah's victory is obvious. It has again demonstrated its effectiveness, and proved that it not only controls the domestic situation but also largely determines Lebanon's relations with its neighbors. Hezbollah's rivals inside Lebanon and its foreign enemies, primarily Israel, the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia, will no longer be able to avoid that conclusion. Isn't it time for them to accept the unpleasant reality that Hezbollah is Lebanon's new face? So far, this is the situation de facto, if not yet de jure.
Lebanon has been living in an ongoing state of political crisis for about three years. The situation had been difficult before then, but it was the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, that sparked talk about a new civil war. Hariri's murder was followed by a spate of other political assassinations. The situation became even worse last November when the powers of the former president expired, but a new one was not elected. The parliament still cannot get a quorum for the president's election, and Lebanon is still without a head of state. Parliament has suspended its sessions 19 times. Though the opposition and the parliamentary majority have agreed on who should be the next president, they cannot come to terms on the conditions of political co-existence - the government's format and line-up, and the new rules of elections to the legislative assembly.
Clashes between government and opposition supporters are nothing new for Lebanon, but until the recent clashes in Beirut the politicians had managed to avert large-scale bloodshed. Haunted by the fear of a new civil war, they doggedly kept returning to the negotiating table to continue dialogue, even though they sometimes seemed to be going round in circles. This time, however, the leaders of the political movements decided not to restrain their supporters.
What was Fouad Siniora's government thinking when in the midst of this volatile political crisis it decided to outlaw Hezbollah's telecommunication network and sacked the head of security at Beirut airport, who is close to the opposition? This was an outright challenge to the main opposition movement, and Hezbollah could not - and did not - leave it unanswered.
Any government has an indisputable right to monopolize communications, or decide who should be in charge of the security of its infrastructure, but only if it is legitimate, and if it is confident in its ability to suppress any resistance at home. The Lebanese government is neither - since the departure of the opposition it has not been recognized by a considerable part of the population. Siniora's steps are tantamount to political suicide. Maybe he was counting on outside support, or hoped that Hezbollah would not dare use force against its compatriots?
These steps look naive, especially considering the outcome - the government had to cancel its own decisions. In this way the government demonstrated its own weakness, and with its own hands consolidated Hezbollah's position. In Qatar, moreover, the opposition may receive an extra bonus. The talks have already produced a multi-lateral committee on drafting a new election law, which may give the opposition a considerable advantage during the forthcoming elections to parliament. Hezbollah will then take power de jure.
But will this suit Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France? They are the primary opponents of Hezbollah's growing influence in the region, which they identify with Iranian and Syrian influence. What can they set against the obvious alignment of forces in Lebanon? Conduct endless talks or endless war? Or isolate Lebanon like the Gaza Strip? This method has been tried in several countries, but has not helped reach peace in the Middle East.
Regardless of the talks in Qatar, it is clear that Hezbollah has won this round in Lebanon.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
