Middle East Intelligence Bulletin
Jointly published by the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon and the Middle East Forum
  Vol. 2   No. 9 Table of Contents
MEIB Main Page

5 October 2000 


A Return to Religious Extremism? Not Quite
by G. Gibreel and Gary C. Gambill

The growth of public antipathy toward the Syrian occupation of Lebanon over the last year has suddenly accelerated in the aftermath of Lebanon's parliamentary elections. The political vacuum prevailing in the final month of Lebanon's outgoing government and heightened (though probably misplaced) expectations regarding the formation of a more representative government in the coming weeks produced an unprecedented political development: the release of an official statement by Maronite Christian archbishops, calling for Damascus to honor its obligations under the 1989 Ta'if Accord by beginning the withdrawal of Syrian military forces in Lebanon.

Patriarch Sfeir
Patriarch Sfeir

Less surprising, perhaps, was the flurry of insults and accusations emanating from Syrian-backed elites within the government and the highly inflammatory response from Muslim religious leaders. According to these claims, expressions of public hostility to the Syrian presence constitute both a resurgence of sectarianism and a Zionist plot to destabilize the country.

The statement, a culmination of monthly meetings chaired by Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir and a reflection of the collective views and feelings of the archbishops, was remarkably moderate insofar as it represented popular consensus among ordinary Lebanese of all sectarian affiliations. It contained little that had not been said at one point or another by Sfeir or other members of the Maronite clergy, but never before have all of its elements been combined into a single, official public statement.

The archbishops reiterated what almost everyone involved in this year's elections, and the two previous ones, admit: that it was grossly corrupt and subject to manipulation. It asserted that as a consequence of gerrymandering constituencies under the new electoral law and pressure applied by Lebanese and Syrian security agencies to ensure victory for certain lists, as well as the huge amounts money spent on buying votes, the outcome was known well ahead of time and resulted in the appointment of "deputies who do not really represent their constituents." Moreover, noting that "Lebanon is experiencing an an economic crisis of a magnitude avoided even during the [civil] war," the statement went on to tackle the country's terminal economic downward spiral. Here, it was direct in apportioning blame: much of the economic problems are due to the unchecked economic activity of nearly one million Syrians resident in Lebanon and the free flow of Syrian goods into the country.

Far from being hostile or anti-Syrian, the statement recognized and encouraged "the historical and geographical links between the two countries and the bonds of kinship, friendship and mutual interests between their two peoples," but on the basis of reciprocal respect for each others' sovereignty and independence. In this spirit it called for Syria to begin withdrawing its troops from Lebanon and to allow the Lebanese to be the masters of their land. The logic that an absence of Syria's military presence would mean a return to civil strife was dismissed as an "illusion" because "Lebanese infighting has always been an outcome of foreign incitement." It asked whether it was necessary for Syrian troops to be stationed near the presidential palace, "the symbol of our national dignity," and other politically sensitive buildings.1

The statement was seen in a positive light by many in the press. Al-Nahar editor Gibran Tueni commended its frankness as the only way to achieve genuine national reconciliation. Aley MP Fouad Saad, one of the successful candidates in this years elections, said that it "reminded the government of the Ta'if Accord's call for the Syrian Army's redeployment, and it is up to the government to act."

Surprisingly, a newspaper owned by former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, whose allies virtually swept parliamentary elections five weeks ago, published an eloquent editorial by Beshara Charbel, arguing that there would not have been a need for such a statement to be issued had the government "done its duty and used its institutions to launch a thorough debate on the political problems which everyone knows are there and will eventually surface in a violent way."2

Syrian and Lebanese officials reacted to these developments by accusing critics of the Syrian occupation of enflaming sectarian divisions and conspiring to serve Israeli interests. Lebanese Information Minister Anwar Khalil called for the public to stand firm in the "shadow of the Israeli schemes and the great pressure that is being applied on Lebanon and Syria to drive them to take the road that assures Israel and provides it with excuses not to implement international resolutions."3

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud responded sharply, declaring that the statement "dealt with the Lebanese situation from a narrow and deficient perspective, lacking clarity and encouraging sectarian bigotry" and insisting that "it is not rational or right for the Lebanese to always blame others for their war, most tools of which emerged from among the Lebanese themselves." Ominously, he added that "these tools are now presenting themselves, depending on the people's short memory and disguised in the language of peace and slogans of dialogue, freedom, democracy, and human rights."4

The leader of the Greek Orthodox church, Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, who normally avoids commenting on such issues (primarily because his seat is in Damascus), expressed indirect support for the Maronite church's appeal, saying it was "wrong to call it a provocative statement" and that "silencing voices won't improve conditions."5

However, Syrian and Lebanese officials encouraged high-ranking Muslim clerics to condemn the statement and accuse the Maronite church of religious bigotry. The Sunni Union of Ulama' in Akkar, an area heavily occupied by Syrian forces, accused the Maronite Church of "instigating fanaticism and strife and blaming others for the country's ills."6 Sheikh Bahjat Ghayth, the Druze religious leader, said that "the country does not tolerate the strongly-worded statements that run counter to the unity of the Lebanese people, coexistence, and the Islamic-Christian dialogue."7 The vice-president of the Higher Shiite Council, Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, and Sunni Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani issued a joint statement expressing "astonishment" at the Archbishops' statement, reminding their followers "that sisterly Syria has made very big sacrifices to safeguard Lebanon's unity and maintain its security and stability" and urging that "any Lebanese position concerning this presence be decided by the official authorities."8 Not wishing to be outdone by his colleagues, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Shaykh Na'im Qasim suggested that the statement reflected an "American hint on the need to disturb the Syrian presence in Lebanon . . . to blackmail Damascus and pave the way for applying pressure on it to make concessions in the settlement process [with Israel]."9

That many Muslim religious leaders publicly condemn criticism of Syria does not, of course, reflect the feelings of their constituents. In many respects, Lebanese Muslims have experienced more persecution under the Syrian occupation than Lebanese Christians have (largely because retribution against Lebanese Muslims neither raises questions nor condemnation in the West). The vast majority of Lebanese abducted by Syrian forces during and after the civil war, for example, were Muslim.10 More relevant than the fact that Muslims have suffered enormously under the occupation, however, is the fact that Muslim religious figures have not enjoyed the kind of immunity from punishment by the Syrians that their Christian counterparts have. Whereas the abduction and assassination of Christian clergymen by Syrian forces or their militia allies has been relatively uncommon, outspoken Muslim clerics have frequently been kidnapped or killed. It is no surprise that the Sunni Grand Mufti now parrots the Syrian line--one of his predecessors, Sheikh Hassan Khalid, was assassinated in May 1990 just days after publicly condemning the Syrian occupation.

To uninformed observers (as well as many informed observers), the spectacle of President Lahoud and the pro-Syrian political establishment decrying the rise of sectarianism makes little sense. Until recently, the conventional view parroted endlessly by Lahoud and other representatives of the state was that a unified Lebanese nation had emerged under Syrian tutelage since the end of the civil war. In reality, of course, sectarianism in the political system has been re-institutionalized under the Syrian occupation (in fact, most of the top militia leaders who perpetuated the civil war were given high-ranking positions in the Lebanese state), but this is precisely why the legitimizing narrative of pro-Syrian politicians has generally been to deny sectarian divisions.

Michel Suleiman
Gen. Michel Suleiman

What, then, is the purpose served by the regime's bizarre claims that public expressions of opposition to the Syrian occupation constitute manifestations of religious extremism and treasonous collaboration with Israel? The notion that these claims are merely intended to justify the Syrian occupation (without which these figures would have no political future) is widely accepted, but dead wrong. Few, if any, Lebanese are gullible enough to accept such spurious reasoning. Lahoud and other political elites are well aware that their arguments are not taken seriously. The purpose of such public statements, rather, is two-fold.

First, the claims are intended to threaten those who criticize the Syrian occupation. The implied threat in these arguments--that calls for a Syrian withdrawal are considered by the regime to be a threat to national unity and state security--was later made explicit by the commander of the Lebanese Army, Gen. Michel Suleiman, who declared that the military will "impose security" in the event that this "Zionist" plot enflames sectarian divisions. "Whenever the enemy gets perplexed in its negotiating stand we witness the emergence of an atmosphere of sectarianism aimed to undermine liberation and distort the image of national unity," said Suleiman during an address to fellow officers and soldiers on October 27. "But the army, built on rejecting confessionalism . . . won't permit such actions."11 In short, the unmistakable message to those who raise the banners of national sovereignty, democracy, and human rights, is that the military will take power, if necessary, to prevent any real change from occurring.

Second, this carefully crafted narrative--in which "Christian extremism" raises its ugly head and is condemned by Muslim religious leaders--plays an important role in legitimizing the occupation, not to the Lebanese people (who scoff at such ridiculous interpretations of an essentially nationalist movement opposing the Syrian presence), but to West. According to this rendition of Lebanese politics, which is bought hook line and sinker by Western officials, the Syrians occupied Beirut in 1990 to extinguish sectarianism and instability (and the terrorism against the West which fed off of both) and have insulated the Lebanese body politic from these evils ever since. Now that domestic and international pressure for a Syrian withdrawal has begun to materialize, lo and behold, we have an apparent resurgence of sectarianism and signs of instability. The logical conclusion of this legitimizing narrative, of course, is clear to any Westerner who buys into its questionable claims: the Syrians should be permitted to stay in Lebanon and keep a lid on things.

Notes

  1 See Declaration of the Maronite Archbishops' Council, Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, October 2000.
  2 Al-Mustaqbal (Beirut), 22 September 2000.
  3 Radio Lebanon (Beirut) 21 September 2000.
  4 Al-Safir (Beirut), 22 September 2000.
  5 The Daily Star (Beirut), 4 October 2000.
  6 The Daily Star (Beirut), 4 October 2000.
  7 Al-Safir (Beirut), 22 September 2000.
  8 Al-Safir (Beirut), 21 September 2000.
  9 Al-Manar Television (Beirut), 23 September 2000.
  10 Although the exact percentage is unclear, it is noteworthy that of the 121 Lebanese detainees released from Syrian prisons in March 1998, only thirteen were Christians.
  11 The Daily Star (Beirut), 29 September 2000.


� 2000 Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. All rights reserved.

MEIB Main Page