Lebanese opposition forces are warned by Arab commentators that opening the door to foreign intervention might turn the country into another Iraq, writes Rasha Saad Coverage continued of the repercussions following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri. The Syrian decision to pull back its troops in Lebanon to the eastern Beqaa Valley, though stopping short of a rapid withdrawal as demanded by the UN Security Council, was seen as a result of pressure from demonstrations in Lebanon and the international community as represented by the US and its Arab allies. The editorial of Syria's Tishreen, mouthpiece of the Syrian Baath Party, downplayed suggestions that Syria would stay put. "Syria has a genuine interest in making such a move and does not suffer from a spiritual dilemma." To prove its point, the editorial reminded readers that Syria started a voluntary redeployment in 2000, four years before Security Council Resolution 1559. Sixty-three per cent of the 40,000 Syrian troops were withdrawn. The editorial said it was not in Syria's interests that its presence in Lebanon be a source of friction and division among Lebanese powers. "[After the pullback] Syria on the contrary will have freedom of movement and more flexibility in dealing with Lebanon." The paper stressed that the pullout from Lebanon does not mean abolishing or overshadowing Syria's role, which the paper said is controlled by many geographical, historical, economic and cultural factors. Hazem Saghieh, a staunch opponent of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, warned in the London- based Al-Hayat that the Lebanese people "want Syria to withdraw from their souls and homes before a physical withdrawal." Saghieh hailed the solidarity expressed by Syrian intellectuals with their Lebanese counterparts and the Lebanese people in their moment of sorrow, demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces and the return of sovereignty and independence to Lebanon. "Their solidarity was for the first time free of the familiar Arab nationalist and resistance rhetoric." Saghieh added that the intellectuals "know more than the Lebanese what it means to ask a dictatorial regime to withdraw" claiming that some of those intellectuals have spent years in their country's prisons and participated in the Damascus Spring, the reform movement that followed the death of former Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad and which, according to Saghieh, represented the first quake to shake the Baathist regime. Saghieh concluded that "in this sense, they [Syrian intellectuals] are partners of the Lebanese in being subjected to tyranny and oppression." Human rights activist Abdul-Rahim Sabir and Shaazka Beyerle, an expert on non-violent conflict, wrote in Al-Hayat that the resignation of the Damascus-controlled government and the mass mobilisation seen in Beirut were the first victory of what they labelled the Lebanese "Intifada for independence". It was written that the Lebanese Intifada would be the first in a series of other Intifadas that will spread in the Arab world and impose the power of the people. In "Lebanon's non-violent Intifada: Arab people's power arrives", Sabir and Beyerle said the Lebanese Intifada was being watched by millions of Arabs -- from Egypt to Mauritania, Saudi Arabia to Morocco and Syria -- "who firmly believe they are partners in this struggle for freedom and democracy." They said the Lebanese people were inspired by Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the most recent of a long line of successful people power movements. However, they warned that non-violent movements cannot be created or directed by external sources; they must be homegrown. The population needs to believe in the cause and righteousness of the struggle in order to stand up in the face of repression and say "enough", as many are now doing in Egypt. The writers believed that "people power was finally reaching the Arab world. Those rulers who until yesterday refused any changes are today realising they may have no choice." The external factor in Syria's decision concerning Lebanon was the concern of many writers. Abdul-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi was obliged to warn that American and Arab pressure which succeeded in pushing Syria to accelerate its pullout from Lebanon but might cost plenty. According to Atwan, the US administration which does not have any clear vision of what might transpire in Lebanon in the coming days and weeks, is repeating the same mistake it did in Iraq, i.e. winning the war but losing the battle for peace and stability. Atwan said that while the Lebanese opposition made use of the great popular sympathy resulting from the assassination of Al-Hariri and won the first rounds of confrontation (with pro-Syrian movements), the victory remained limited and might turn into a curse if the opposition movement did not check this rush towards the US. Atwan also warned that Syria might appear the loser in the short term but down the road the losers will be the US and Israel "because Lebanon will turn into a quagmire the way of Iraq and Afghanistan". The Syrian withdrawal, according to Atwan, is the easiest part concerning Resolution 1559. But the US and the Lebanese opposition can not expel Hizbullah from its land nor can it disarm its militias as 1559 stipulates. "The US with its 150,000 forces, together with thousands of Iraqi and Kurdish militias, have been unable to confront a newly born resistance in Iraq. How then can it disarm a well-trained and experienced resistance as Hizbullah?" asked Atwan. Atwan claimed the Lebanese opposition, most of which are credible in their national motives and in their pro-Arab and Islamic stances, would be making a big mistake if they lose Hizbullah with its weight in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic worlds. "This party has, after all, liberated Lebanese territories and has achieved the first victory in the history of the Arab world by forcing Israel to unconditionally withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories." Lebanese writer Talal Salman also warned of the "inferno of international intervention in Lebanon". According to Salman, the Syrian pullout from Lebanon is taking place amidst major international pressure that has to do with the American plans to re-draw the map of the region more than it has to do with legitimate Lebanese demands. In his article in the Lebanese As-Safir Salman laments that the Lebanese pullback was deliberately portrayed as a "withdrawal" and was celebrated by some Lebanese political powers as a historic victory over an occupier. Salman also warned of the exchange of the Taif accord of 1990 for Resolution 1559. The former, according to Salman, is an agreement among the Lebanese people under Arab auspices; the latter an international agreement targeting the Lebanese and the Syrians that does not recognise any Arab role in Lebanese affairs and at the same time puts all matters in the hands of American and Israeli powers "who do not sleep as a result of their concern for establishing Lebanese sovereignty and democracy", he said in sarcasm. The UAE's Al-Bayan reflected its hope that the Syrian pullback would in itself push Lebanese opposition powers to refrain from seeking foreign support, and reminded them of Iraq. "The Iraqis sought foreign support for their salvation but the outcome needs no comment." The Saudi Al-Riyadh newspaper wrote that the Lebanese situation was extremely sensitive and more crucial than that in Palestine and Iraq. In its editorial, the paper wrote that international moves towards Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon were not a coincidence but part of US plans to re-draw the Middle East.
