Three years after Al-Hariri's assassination, Lebanon is still in a powder keg, reads Doaa El-Bey The failure of the Arab League mission in Lebanon, together with the escalation in the political stands of both the majority and the opposition, coincided with the third anniversary of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri, or the earthquake, as some newspapers chose to call it. All these events further brought Lebanon to the limelight. Bassem Al-Gesr wrote that Lebanese political leaders Walid Jumblatt and Saad Al-Hariri waited for long before showing a clear escalation in their political stand and readiness to meet the opposition's challenge with a stronger one of their own in two fiery speeches this week. They both said they welcome havoc or war if that is what the opposition wants. It became clear, as Gesr continued in the London- based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, that by thwarting the third mission of Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, the opposition does not want to elect army chief General Michel Suleiman as the president of Lebanon and wants the situation in Lebanon to remain as is. Gesr questioned what would be the opposition's reaction -- especially Hizbullah -- to the majority escalation of its political stand. Would it take the shape of protest marches, insurgencies or explosions and new assassinations? But the more importance question is what if the escalation in political views between the majority and the opposition leads to a civil war in Lebanon? "Would 14 February pass peacefully? Would the new majority force the opposition to adopt a different attitude?" Gesr concluded by asking more questions. He did not answer them and there is no sign that he has an answer. Zuhair Qusaibati wrote that whoever listened to Jumblatt's speech would realise that Lebanon is approaching the brink of war after months of havoc and ethnic and sectarian conflict. It is not convincing that Jumblatt adopted this tough approach to mobilise as much followers as possible to the anniversary of the assassination of Al-Hariri which comes at a time when Lebanon is suffering from a presidential vacuum. However, Qusaibati expressed his belief that the state of erosion affecting all Lebanese institutions is hampering the efforts exerted to carry out the Arab initiative. Meanwhile, the increasing demands of the opposition or some of the opposition parties are taking Lebanon into a state of complete havoc. "On the eve of the third anniversary of the earthquake, Lebanon is close to establishing an international tribunal, but it is also on the threshold of small but destructive wars as a result of the failure of the Arab initiative. As for reaching an Arab consensus on one of the two pressing priorities -- settlement in Lebanon and Arab unity -- it is still too hard to reach," Qusaibati wrote in the London- based independent daily Al-Hayat. Hassan Abu Neema wrote about the Arab League's impossible mission in Lebanon. Everybody initially thought that the Arab initiative could resolve the crisis in Lebanon as it has the leverage of the Arab League, the support of all the Arab foreign ministers and is based on the agreement of all the Lebanese parties to elect Suleiman as their president. More importantly, it gained the support of the Saudis who allegedly control the Lebanese majority and that of the Syrians who allegedly control the opposition. However, it turned out to be a mere sedative for a deep crisis. "The conflict in Lebanon is not on chairs, but on long-term policies. It is not on the number of seats that this or that party would occupy in the expected government, but on its authorities," Abu Neema wrote in the Jordanian political daily Al-Ghad. However, the conflict in Lebanon is linked to the conflict in the region between two political trends: the majority which accepts peace with Israel and conforms with the international community, the Quartet, Europe and the US. The other rejects the offered strategy for peace because it proves to be unjust and biased to Israel. The two trends are in continuous conflict. As a result, the gap between them is gradually increasing and trust is eroding. Abdullah Al-Alyan wrote that in a few weeks time the Arab summit is expected to be held in the Syrian capital Damascus amid speculation that a new Lebanese president would be chosen and the differences between Lebanon and Syria resolved. However, this requires that all parties agree on a president, form a national unity government and issue a new election law that all the parties would accept. Moussa's recent visits to Lebanon contributed to bridging some of the gaps, but failed to uproot the differences between the parties. Al-Alyan believes that at present Syria is keen to resolve the Lebanese crisis in order to pave the way for the success of the Arab summit. Damascus also believes that if the difference between the majority and opposition in Lebanon progress into a conflict, that conflict can be easily moved into Syria. In that case, the beneficiaries of the conflict would be Israel and the US who would implement their plan of establishing a new Middle East. The fact that the differences between the Lebanese parties are not sectarian but political proves that there are external powers trying to divide these parties and stop them from reaching an agreement. "The political vacuum in Lebanon together with the disagreement between the different parties have dangerous repercussions on Lebanon. The ball is now in the court of both the majority and the opposition. Either they reach an agreement and save their country or be governed by their personal desires and leave the situation in Lebanon exposed to all possibilities," Al-Alyan wrote in the United Arab Emirates political independent daily Al-Ittihad. Ahmed Melli agreed with Al-Alyan that the crisis in Lebanon is controlled by external powers, mainly the US. He referred to the famous American diplomat and academic William Quandt who said that Lebanon is important to the US because it is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus it is a negative rather than a positive relationship that is directly connected to two factors: Israel and Syria. Regarding Israel, the US gives top priority to its security. For instance, there is no way the US would accept the 2002 Arab initiative that calls for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. However, the US would try to naturalise them in their country of abode. If it managed to persuade Beirut to naturalise Palestinians living there, it would have a catastrophic effect on Lebanon. Lebanon is also likely to be affected by the so-called "project for the new American century" in which the US and Israel aim to change the Middle East and spread democracy there. "Lebanon is now in a stage of re-establishing its authority. I am afraid that the US could deal with Lebanon with the 'fast food' or 'quick delivery' mentality and act in a way that destabilises the balance in the Lebanese community. Lebanon cannot withstand any adventures like the US adventures in Iraq," Melli wrote in the Lebanese political daily As-Safir.
