LEBANON: SYMPTOM OF A DANGEROUS TREND

Lebanon’s latest crisis is yet another violent illustration of the fragile nature of a complex society and of a region that is in constant turmoil. It is a far cry from the days when the Bush administration pointed to that nation as the type of democracy President Bush planned for Iraq.
There is plenty of finger pointing about who is responsible for the latest round of violence between Islamic extremists based in a Palestinian refugee camp in Tripoli and the Lebanese army. The US and Israel claim extremists from a Sunni group called Fatah-al-Islam are being run by Syrian intelligence and are using violence to divert attention from the UN investigation of possible Syrian involvement in the assassination of the anti-Syrian Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri in 2005. That view was not supported by the EU president, Javier Solana. After a visit to the region, he said he saw no evidence at all of a Syrian hand in the latest violence.
Like everything that happens in Lebanon, what at first appears simple is in fact complex. Internecine warfare has characterized the country’s history but instability elsewhere in the region has often found its way into the politics of Lebanon.
On the face of it, this latest outbreak of violence has Lebanese troops, many of them Sunnis, battling Sunnis extremists who set up a base in Nahr-al-Bared, one of Lebanon’s twelve Palestinian refugee camps. The camp resembles a small city with apartment buildings, shops and a population of over 30,000 people. Close to 400,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon. The extremist group is said to number several hundred but that may be an over estimation of its membership. Many experts in the region say if is has one hundred active members that is about the height of it. The US and the Lebanese government claim it is linked to Al Qaeda and the White House is presently considering a request from the Lebanese president for $125 million in funding to rid Lebanon of it.
The confrontation between the Lebanese army and Fatah-al-Islam began after several members of the group raided a bank in downtown Tripoli. The raiders were cornered by the military and a gun battle ensued with violence spilling out to the edges of the Palestinian camp. Under a forty year agreement the army was not allowed to enter the camp so it began shelling it. That angered Palestinians throughout Lebanon who pointed out that they did not support Fatah-al-Islam. On the sidelines, Hezbollah, a Shia organization that has opposed the Lebanese government because of the policies of its US leaning Prime Minister, Faoud Siniora, backed the role of the army. Hezbollah’s posture was in part motivated by the fact that it sees all Sunnis as enemies, including Palestinians and members of Fatah-al-Islam and Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, Hezbollah suggested restraint, fearing if Palestinians entered the fray the country could find itself back in the middle of yet another civil war. Signs of civil strife were evident several months ago when Shias from Hezbollah and Sunnis fought each other on the streets of Beirut, reminding people of the civil war between 1975 and 1990 when Christians, Shias and Sunnis killed each other on a horrific scale.
The latest violence worried the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who pleaded with the Lebanese government to stop the shelling of the Tripoli camp. He warned it was wrong for the Lebanese government to connect Palestinians in Lebanon with Fatal-al-Islam.
Some issues at the heart of this new Lebanon crisis have been ignored. One is that Fatah-al-Islam has declared it is not run by Al Qaeda or Syria. It does not however shy from praising Osama Bin Laden. Another critical issue is that Fatah-al-Islam represents a dangerous phenomenon spreading throughout the region. The war in Iraq, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last year and Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank have contributed to a revitalization of Islamic extremism and the emergence of independent terrorist organizations, not necessarily run by a central command.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration likes to portray the war in terror in simplistic terms as though every terrorist organization and action emanates directly from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That is a dangerous myth. The reality is that when the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was routed Al Qaeda was deprived of a base. It morphed into a cell structure because it did not have the reach it had when it had the luxury of an intact central command and large training camps. Had the US not decided to invade Iraq but instead concentrated on capturing or killing Bin Laden and his ragged followers when they were holed up in the mountains of Tora Bora Al Qaeda might have been all but been wiped out. But even in that event Islamic extremism would not have evaporated. Sadly, the war in Iraq provided not only a new battle ground and training center for potential jihadists it reinvigorated Islamic extremists around the globe. Many of them have since flocked to Iraq and surrounding countries and have joined small independent groupings that have operated with Sunnis insurgents and Al Qaeda proxies. Into that mix is yet another volatile ingredient. Many of these small, self sufficient terrorist groupings have been financed from funds provided by Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia who fear their fellow Sunnis in Iraq face annihilation from Shias. Some Arab states financing Sunni terror are arming Sunnis for the day the US leaves Iraq and the country descends into civil war. When that happens, Sunnis will be sufficiently well armed to carve out a slice of Iraq for themselves.
In the middle of all this chaos are groups like Fatah-al-Islam and the tendency of the US or Israel is to define them as Al Qaeda when they are merely insurgent organizations with no central command who are driven by hatred of America, Israel and Shia Islam. Fatah-al-Islam moved into Lebanon last year during the Israeli bombardment of the country, threatening they would fight the Israeli military and send fighters to battle Americans in Iraq. That sat well with Palestinians but now that a Palestinian camp is under siege from the Lebanese military Fatah-al-Islam is no longer welcome.
The presence of this grouping among Palestinians in Lebanon points to another dangerous feature of Middle East politics. In Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas has worn the mantle of an extremist organization and has managed to keep Al-Qaeda type groups out of Palestinian territory. That is beginning to change as Hamas and the late Yasser Arafat’s Fatah engage in bloodletting and as the continued Israeli occupation generates even greater chaos in the occupied territories. While Israel and the US, and to some extent the EU have been happy to define Hamas as terrorists, they have failed to see that if the Hamas government is rejected as a partner for peace there is the risk that more extreme elements will supplant Hamas, elements that believe only in jihad.
Israel’s arrogance and its ability to persuade the West to withhold funding and to ignore the brutal character of the Israeli occupation have the potential for creating a Somali type atmosphere in the West Bank and Gaza. Whether Israel likes it or not, Hamas is prepared to negotiate with Fatah alongside it. If Hamas is swept aside as a partner for peace, more dangerous elements may take their place. Western intelligence sources know that Al-Qaeda type groupings are burrowing their way into the extremist fabric in the Palestinian territories. Therefore, unless Israel is persuaded to stop its continued seizure of Palestinian territory and to end its wall building and targeted assassinations, the future may see a new Intifada led by jihadists who reject any compromise.