Lebanon is currently facing a major political crisis, as armed battles have erupted in multiple districts in Beirut between pro-government forces and the political opposition backed by the Lebanese movement Hezbollah.

Today Lebanon’s government has maintained a contested hold on official state power in Lebanon without representation from Hezbollah or other opposition parties for over one year. This week the government announced that Hezbollah’s independent communications network or telephone system operating in Lebanon as illegal, sparking the current crisis. Hezbollah’s independent telephone or communications system is considered to be a critical element to the success of the Lebanese resistance to Israel in successfully halting Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon.

Lebanon’s current crisis revolves around pointed divisions on the future definition for the country, a division involving countless perspectives in Lebanon. It is a conflict that pits the pro-U.S. government against a Hezbollah-led opposition that opposes western intervention in the Middle East.

Samah Idriss is a co-founder of the Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel, a lexicographer, a literary critic who earned a Ph.D from Columbia University in 1991 and editor-in-chief of al-Adab, a Lebanese arts and culture magazine based in Beirut. Samah is also deeply involved in Civilian Resistance Campaign in Lebanon that organized between people in Lebanon and internationals to provide direct aid at a grassroots level to people impacts by the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Idriss spoke with Tadamon!’s Stefan Christoff concerning the current political crisis in Lebanon.

Stefan Christoff: Can you describe the current situation in Beirut?

Samah Idriss: Now everything is relatively calm. All the offices of the government-backed Future Movement in West Beirut have surrendered and many of the pro-government “fighters,” many who were invited to come from Northern Lebanon, often without even knowing that they were going to fight, have surrendered to the opposition and the opposition has handed these people and offices over to the Lebanese Army.

Now that the forces from the March 14th “movement” have lost this battle, pro-government forces claim that they weren’t preparing for a war, that they aren’t organizing armed militias and that they weren’t instigating the fighting, while claiming that Hezbollah is acting on behalf of Iran and Syria.

It is critical to remember that this current situation started when the Lebanese government, a couple days ago, decided to declare the Hezbollah communications system or independent telephone grid as illegal. This is critical because this communications system was a major reason behind Hezbollah’s victory against Israel in July 2006. Given that the Hezbollah system isn’t wireless, it is harder for Israel or the U.S. to crack or decode this communications network. This communication system was key to Hezbollah preventing Israeli forces from knowing the positions and movements of Hezbollah and its leadership during the war in 2006.

So this current scenario commenced with instigation from the western-backed government. Additionally the government wanted to kick-out a person in charge at the international airport in Beirut who is close to Hezbollah, in order to replace them with another person who would not be able to assist Hezbollah to know who travels in and out at the airport.

These two actions from the government, the declaration of Hezbollah’s communication network as illegal and the attempt to oust a Hezbollah sympathetic person at Beirut’s international airport, instigated the attack from the opposition.

Could you offer your critique of the mainstream media’s coverage concerning the events in Beirut, both western media and media in the Middle East?

Media that is allied with the government in Lebanon aims to present the current situation simply as sectarian strife. Equaling coverage that claims the Shi’ite are invading the Sunni West Beirut. First it’s important to highlight that Beirut was never strictly Sunni, while the people who are now fighting for the opposition, many belong to Beirut, live in Beirut, a city that has never been just Sunni but a mixture of all religious sects in Lebanon. This is one critical point.

Clearly there is a strategy from the government and pro-government forces to portray Hezbollah as the outsiders, to try to portray Hezbollah as a force coming to change the nature of Beirut by bringing in Shi’ite elements, Iranian elements, Persian elements, barbarian elements, etc. All oriental stereotypes that mainstream western media and some mainstream Arab media will quickly adopt. Not certain however that this portrayal for Hezbollah could work in the Arab media because Hezbollah is widely respected as the major defender for the Arab cause, for the Palestinian cause.

Across the Middle East the mainstream Sunni populations don’t view Hezbollah or its leader Hassan Nasrallah as a sectarian leader or simply a Shi’ite leader. However the mainstream pro-government media in Lebanon attempt to portray Hezbollah as completely a sectarian movement, in tune with the political lines fostered by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, France and the U.S.

Concerning recent events that led to the current situation, there was a call for a general strike put forward by the General Labour Confederation for May 7. Clearly there is an economic reality to the current situation in Lebanon, growing poverty rates, little employment opportunities in the country, which presents a larger economic context to recent events. Could you offer a critique within an economic framework in the context of the current situation in Beirut?

Unfortunately the opposition isn’t directly connecting the current situation to Lebanon’s economic crisis, a major political defect to the opposition.

Currently Lebanon is experiencing many major economic problems, the minimum wage rests very low and the General Labour Confederation called a strike to demand a rise for the minimum wage in Lebanon. The government conceded just prior to the strike to slightly raise the minimum wage, not meeting the just demand put forward by the national union of workers for fair wages in Lebanon. Still even with the raise to the minimum wage proposed by the government one could not sustain themselves or their family on this very low wage.

It could be argued that the motivation for the youth to take the streets to participate in the current clashes is directly connected to the lack of opportunities economically or for employment today in Lebanon today. Could you comment on this?

Clearly the terrible economic situation plays an important role in the current clashes. However the people who are now fighting for the opposition are organized, it’s not a popular uprising or rebellion in the traditional sense, the opposition is being led by organized elements who have specific goals and a specific agenda. At the same time there are some unorganized elements who burned things randomly, however they are a minority. Broadly speaking the opposition is a political movement that is extremely well organized.

Also it is critical to note that many pro-government forces who fought against the opposition in recent days were people traveled from extremely impoverished areas like Akkar in Northern Lebanon, led to Beirut by the Future Movement, which was offering money to impoverished people to fight against opposition forces in Beirut. In certain cases people coming from Akkar weren’t even aware prior to arriving in Beirut that they were coming to the capital to fight, thinking that they were coming to Beirut to fill labour positions, these are people who were manipulated by the Future Movement.

Many people from Akkar in this context quickly surrendered to opposition forces in West Beirut, declaring that they weren’t aware that they were being led by pro-government forces, mainly the Future Movement, to Beirut to fight the opposition. Also some youth who fought for the opposition forces were led to fight with money, however this is a minority. However it’s important to recognize that the terrible economic situation in Lebanon is leading people to fight in multiple cases.Unfortunately, the critical economic issues that the General Labour Confederation put forward have been lost in the mainstream discussions surrounding the violence of recent days, while economics played a critical role in creating the current situation.

Let’s focus on the current government in Lebanon. Over one year has passed since Hezbollah representatives quit the government. Can you present your perspectives on the current government in Lebanon, led by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora?

Lebanon’s government today is unconstitutional. A government that isn’t in tune with Lebanon’s constitution in the sense that the government is supposed to represent all sects and communities in Lebanon.

As soon as Hezbollah’s ministers withdrew from the government it became an illegitimate government. Now the government maintains that it remains constitutional or legitimate as it refused to acknowledge the withdrawal of the Hezbollah ministers, not choosing alternative ministers to represent the Shi’ite community. However clearly it’s an unconstitutional government.

On an international level, obviously this government is allied with the U.S., with France, with Saudi Arabia, with Egypt, viewing itself as part of the U.S. or E.U. political agenda in the Middle East. Today the government presents itself to the West as fighting a Syrian and Iranian axis that is based on a culture of martyrdom or a cultural of death, as the government claims, while the current government represents western values in Lebanon, values put forward with empty slogans that utilize words like, “freedom,” “sovereignty” and “independence.”

Actually the government also uses language to present Hezbollah as somehow an external force to Lebanon, using similar language that we use in Lebanon to describe Israeli forces. While at the time when a real external threat, the Israeli army, invaded Lebanon in 2006 the current government did nothing to resist, contrary to their slogans about sovereignty, independence and freedom.

Could you expand on the ways in which the current crisis and the 2006 Israeli invasion are intertwined?

Hezbollah’s telecommunication network is an important weapon for the resistance movement in Lebanon, playing a critical role in 2006 war. In a sense the communications system is even more important than Hezbollah’s rockets or weaponry. In 2006 the entire weapons arsenal would have done little without the telecommunications network. Now for the Lebanese government to demand to control this communications network, or for it to be dismantled, is equivalent to demanding that Hezbollah hand-over their arms to the government.

Israel and the U.S. first wanted to disarm Hezbollah through U.N. Resolution 1559 politically, with support from western-backed forces in Lebanon. Once this strategy failed the U.S. and Israel tried to disarm Hezbollah by force in 2006 through an invasion. In a sense it was the U.S. that invaded Lebanon in 2006. This attempt to disarm Hezbollah failed due to the Lebanese resistance.

Now again the same forces are attempting to disarm Hezbollah, however through a different strategy, using different titles, this time the focus is on the telecommunications network of Hezbollah in Lebanon a critical element to Hezbollah’s arms.

Given this context it is clear why Hezbollah, as expressed by a press conference given [last] week, was outraged by the government’s decision to attempt to dismantle this telecommunications network, that without a doubt assisted in saving Lebanese lives during the 2006 Israeli attack.

Stefan Christoff

Stefan Christoff is a musician, community organizer and host of Free City Radio that airs weekly on multiple stations across Canada. X: @spirodon / Instagram: @spirochristoff