Opposition in Lebanon

Two days ago, I was watching CNN’s coverage of the situation in Lebanon, in order to see how the situation was portrayed in the Western media. On Friday, the opposition had taken to the streets in order to demand a wider representation in the government or the resignation of the PM, Fouad El Seniora and his government. The opposition constituted the mostily Shiite Hizbollah and Amal alongside the mostly Maronite Free Patriotic Movement, who follow Michel Aoun and other smaller factions, such as the People’s Movement (Commoners), who follow the former MP Najah Wakim. However, according to CNN, the movement represented a Shiite coup against the Sunni leadership. It is strange how CNN just ignored what constitutes around 70% of the Lebanese Christians. But CNN’s stance is understandable and has been standard procedure for most American media outlets. More and more frequently, these outlets portray current events in the Middle East as a Shiite uprising against the mostly Sunni leadership in Arab countries. Thus, it can win the hearts of the Sunnis and assure that Arab leaders won’t take a neutral stance, or more dangerously, take the side of the insurgency. It is also not a secret that years of negligence and outright abuse of the large Shiite population in the Arab world has led us to this situation and made possible the playing of one sect against the other. In Saudi Arabia, Shiites constitute around 20% of the population. However, the government acts as it they are not there and won’t admit as to how many Shiites are in Saudi Arabia. When the Israelis were pounding Lebanon this summer, the Saudis took a stance against Hizbollah, calling their actions foolish and an uncalculated adventure. When Shiites demonstrated against Israeli aggression, some were imprisoned, allegedly for displaying pictures of the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. In Iraq, and even prior to the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988), Shiites were considered as second-rate citizens and many were dislocated from their homes. Many had to move to the more developed Sunni areas to work. After the war started, many were considered as traitors and Irani sympathizers and many others were stigmatized. In Lebanon, and after the murder of Rafiq Hariri in February of 2005, many Shiites were dubbed as traitors and accused of sympathizing with Syria and Iran. Until now, many sect leaders like Jumblat, who is the leader of the Socialist Progressive Movement, keeps hinting that Hizbollah want to convert Lebanon into an Irani state. These remarks don’t go down well with the Shiite population especially since they are a majority of the Lebanese population. Development in Shiite sections of the city is usually inferior to that in other regions, especially Christian areas. War has divided the country and Beirut into areas based on sect. And any casual observer can immediately sense the difference between Shiite, Sunni, and Christian areas. The government has long neglected Shiite areas such as the southern suburb of Beirut thus giving such movements as Hizbollah more power as they strived to replace the government in these areas.

Gaining the support of Arab leaders and the sympathy of the Sunni population will help the Americans in Iraq since portraying the opposition to the US forces and its puppet government in Iraq as mostly Shiites with dreams of autonomy will demonize the resistance in Iraq in the eyes of the Arab world. Indeed, Hizbollah’s excursion into Israel this summer has been linked to the resistance in Iraq and to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is a pity to see the some media outlets in the Arab world reflecting the American views and many residents in the Arab world buying into this story, thus creating a rift between Sunnis and Shiites and a potential of civil war everywhere. Calling Shiites traitors whenever they voice their opinions has got to stop. The opposition has legitimate claims in Lebanon now since they form around or even more than 50% of the population and thus require more representation in the government.