Saniora denounces Hezbollah after continued protests vow

[everythingsxen]

BEIRUT: Prime Minister Fuad Saniora sharply denounced Hezbollah and its leader yesterday, a day after the guerrilla group's chief launched a scathing attack against the US-backed government, promising to eventually bring it down. The unprecedented trading of accusations and acid words between Saniora and Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah marked a sharp turn in Lebanon's political crisis and further stoked the tensions between the two sides that threatens to tear the country apart.

"What we've seen yesterday was an unnecessary fit of anger and rudeness that we don't accept," Saniora told hundreds of supporters at his heavily fortified office complex where he has been holed up since the opposition launched street protests on Dec 1 to bring down his government. The two rivals had traded barbs in the past, mostly through aides or supporters, but their recent remarks descended into personal, direct attacks for the first time. In a rousing speech delivered Thursday night on huge screens in central Beirut, Nasrallah accused Saniora of conniving with Israel during its monthlong war with Hezbollah last summer.

He claimed Saniora ordered the Lebanese army to confiscate Hezbollah's supplies of weapons - his sharpest attack on the prime minister since the August cease-fire that ended the fighting. "Didn't the prime minister of Lebanon work to cut off the supply lines?" Nasrallah said. He added that government officials had asked American envoys to persuade Israel to destroy Hezbollah. "Those are the ones responsible for the war, not the resistance," Nasrallah said. The crisis has taken dangerous sectarian overtones, with Sunni Muslims largely supporting the Sunni prime minister against the Shiite Hezbollah. Christians were split between the two camps.

In his comments yesterday, Saniora singled out the Hezbollah leader's attitude toward his opponents. "You are not our Lord and the party is not our Lord," the Sunni prime minister said of Nasrallah, a Shiite cleric. "Who appointed you to say I am right and all else is false?" "Is Israel here to fight it?" Saniora added. He accused Nasrallah of threatening a coup and said the protests will lead nowhere. Emboldened by international support for his US-backed government, Saniora has repeatedly insisted he would not give in to the demonstrations.

MORE

[msmcghee]

1. I find this interesting.

Nasrallah . . added that government officials had asked American envoys to persuade Israel to destroy Hezbollah. "Those are the ones responsible for the war, not the resistance," Nasrallah said. The crisis has taken dangerous sectarian overtones, with Sunni Muslims largely supporting the Sunni prime minister against the Shiite Hezbollah. Christians were split between the two camps.

Perhaps these pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into place.

If Israel's heavy-handed response was in part due to a request, via the USA, for Israel to destroy Hisb'allah - then none of the parties, Saniora, the USA or Israel, would be able to admit to that without Saniora suffering great damage politically.

While Israel attacked all known Hisb'allah assets in Lebanon, Saniora and his government wrung his hands and hoped for the best - which did not materialize.

That all seems quite plausible to me.

[msmcghee]

2. Here I am suggesting that Nasrallah may be . .

. . telling the truth and no comments from the pro-Hisb'allah side.

Some further thoughts on this:

If this actually happened as Nasrallah claims, did Saniora provide any intelligence to Israel about potential bomb targets, especially around Beruit?

Was Israel expecting greater support from the Lebanese Army that never materialized? Is that what finally convinced Israel that it was on a fool's errand - and to call off the offensive?

Was Israel's success in hitting some Hisb'allah targets in Beruit that were supposedly unknown to the IDF - the basis for Narallah's claims? Or does he have any actual evidence? Did someone in Saniora's circle turn?

I suspect that if he had the evidence he would have presented it to his followers at the rally by now.

I suspect we'll know what the answers to all these questions before too long.

[bemildred]

3. Always a pleasure when we can agree.

It's clear enough it was done with US support. What role Saniora and his minions had in it is unclear, though, and it is worth remembering that Nasrallah has his own motives for attacking the government. One can see why Saniora might like the idea, if suitably talked up about it first, but one should not assume that he secretly took such a treasonable position on Nasrallah's word alone.

[msmcghee]

4. I'm not sure I fully understand your take on this.

My understanding of the meta view - is that secular Lebanese have been fighting a losing battle against fundamentalist Islam for the last 20 years. Beruit used to be the Paris of the ME and Lebanon was developing a strong educated middle class, the best universities in the ME were flowering, etc. As I understand it they have a 50/50 split between religious and secular power in their parliamentary structure which has allowed Lebanon to become a modern state with more human rights for its citizens than almost any other Arab state in the region except perhaps Turkey. But as fundamentalism has grown and religious based strife has repeatedly broken out - with Syria's and Iran's Shia support of Hisb'allah - many Christians and the educated classes have been leaving.

I think of the current Lebanese government as the last chance for Lebanon to retain a non-theocratic non-fundamentalist society. Hisb'allah wants Lebanon to be a client state for Syria with the mission to attack Israel from Israel's northern border.

I think its possible that Soniora, possibly with Israel's inclusion somehow, thought it would be wise to use this summer's kidnapping / rocket episode to knock Hisb'allah back a few notches - and with luck possibly even destroy a good part of the Hisb'allah leadership.

I may be wrong about this perhaps simplistic view as it seems pretty complicated.

But, to me, of course Nasrallah wants to kick out Soniora and place Hisb'allah in effective control of Lebanon. And of course, Soniora is dedicated to preserving Lebanon as a secular state as far as possible.

I don't see how that could be seen as treasonous on Soniora's part. I'd call it asking for help from the state that Nasrallah most wants to attack and destroy if Nasrallah gains control of Lebanon's government. He and his followers would see it as a Arab / ME kind of way way to preserve the present constitutionally preserved balance of power between religious factions and the secular government. Seems like a practical solution to me.

I welcome you (or anyone) who could help educate me on this confusing topic.

Note that I am not claiming that such a conspiracy occurred as described in my previous post, just that the possibility is interesting.

[pelsar]

5. interesting bed fellows...

The saudis were also rooting for israel to destroy Hizballa.....how much "intel" israel received from the Lebanese and Saudis? probably not much..... I would question, nor would i believe for a second that israel wanted/needed the lebanese army to join in (they are considered no more than heavily armed policeman). The last thing israel would need would be a "blue on blue incident"....(IDF shooting up the Lebanese Army).

the whole region is afraid of Iran and their lackies (Hizballa) with Syria playing a very dangerous game trying to balance the two. If Lebanon falls to Nassralla we can expect further bloodshed on Israels N. Border. Having religious fanatics in power is based on irrationality, 10x worse than a mere power hungry dictator....

[msmcghee]

6. Thanks for your comments.

Your views as an Israeli add a tremendous depth to this forum. I always learn something new from reading your views.

[bemildred]

7. You said Siniora would suffer great damage politically

were he to admit encouraging the Israeli attack. Why would that be, if not that it would be seen as treasonous? I can understand that one might disagree with that characterization, but I don't see how a reasonably intelligent person could be unable to see how some Lebanese might characterize it that way.

[msmcghee]

8. Reasonable question.

I think what I meant was that while maybe half of the Lebanese hope to retain the present government - if that government was seen to have openly colluded with America or Israel to help them bomb Soniora's enemies (the hero of the other half) - Nasrallah would have certainly characterized it as treasonous. And I suspect some currently pro-Soniora Lebanese would have been persuaded to see it that way.

I don't think Soniora would have seen it that way - but he would have a hard time defending his actions to the people. I suspect that few of those Lebanese who support Soniora are pro-American - and even fewer pro-Israel. There were quite a few pro-Israeli Lebanese (or pro-peace-with-Israel Lebanese) in the past as I understand it. I think many of those were convinced to live elsewhere and are gone now.

Your statement "One can see why Saniora might like the idea, if suitably talked up about it first, but one should not assume that he secretly took such a treasonable position on Nasrallah's word alone." - leaves me totally confused about what that means. My brain hurts when I try to figure it out probably as a result of my less than "reasonable intelligence". ;-)

Hopefully this reply will help you understand what I meant.

[bemildred]

9. You yourself explained why it might be attractive to Sinoira.

I just don't see that one should judge whether that was indeed what he thought or did on the basis of Nasrallah's allegations, as I explained. Sinoira might have felt or thought that it would have been treasonous too, or decided against it for some other reason, or it might never have been discussed at all; and Nasrallah might very well lie about it as part of trying to bring Sinoira's government down. In other words: even though it is plausible, Nasrallah might still be making it up, for reasons of his own. Just because it is plausible, that does not mean it is true. And just because Nasrallah said so, that does not make it true either. So it might not be true.

[msmcghee]

10. Thanks for the explanation.

I think I agree. As I said in post #4,

"Note that I am not claiming that such a conspiracy occurred as described in my previous post, just that the possibility is interesting."

I agree that it's also very possible that Nasrallah is just making shit up.

[bemildred]

11. Again, always a pleasure when we can agree. nt