General Strike in Lebanon-Nasrallah claims the government wants war
May 8 2008 15:38
al-Jazeera wrote:
Lebanon's Hezbollah-led opposition supporters have clashed with those backing the government for a second day in Beirut as the confrontation spilled over to other parts of the country.Army and riot police manned checkpoints and blocked several roads while many schools and businesses in the capital remained shut on Thursday.
Tensions have been rising since Wednesday after a strike called by the main labour union to press the government for a salary increase got under way.
The demonstration quickly degenerated into violence, with rival supporters exchanging gunfire.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3EB4700B-752C-4737-BD0A-5784517E1550.htm
al-Jazeera wrote:
Hezbollah's leader has warned any crackdown by the government on the Shia organistaion would be tantamount to a "declaration of war".Hassan Nasrallah's comments were broadcast on television on Thursday, as street clashes in Lebanon between government loyalists and opposition supporters entered a second day.
The civil unrest began on Wednesday during a general strike, called by the main labour union over price increases and wage demands, which quickly developed into a confrontation between supporters of the government and the opposition.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EB1FBB50-7FF6-4F98-B646-B2C795657F02.htm
Devrim
May 8 2008 19:19
#2
Sean Sibero wrote:
but clearly, unless this union has ties to Hezbollah (which I doubt, but I don't know the labour situation in Lebanon),
The CGTL does not have direct ties to Hezbollah though there are many Hezbollah supporters who are members. I think that one of the interesting things about this is how easily it is for workers actions for what are certainly class demands (increasing the minimum wage) can get dragged into faction fights between different bourgeois factions.
This sort of thing has happened in Lebanon before. The general strike in January 2006 followed a similar pattern. The teachers/public sector strikes in Palestine in Summer 2006 also ended up in gun fights between different factions.
I think that it shows clearly the weakness of the working class in these countries, and how easy it is for them to get pulled behind different bourgeois gangs.
Quote:
there are two forces at work in the anti-government side, both of which seem diametrically opposed to each other.
Yes, ultimately the two sides are opposed to each other, but bourgeois parties are not adverse to using workers struggles as a lever in their own fights, and can still drag many workers off their own terrain (strikes) and onto the terrain of bourgeois politics (sectarian gunfights).
Devrim
May 8 2008 21:06
#3
Yes, I thought it was interesting how images of people burning tires on streets was turned into either "pro" or "anti" government supporters, which seems odd since I doubt Hezbollah militants or paid party hacks are responding spontaneously with T-shirts across their face.
May 9 2008 05:12
#4
I imagine that many Hizbollah supporters, and even government supporters, would be demonstrating with T-shirts across their face. They would also build barricades, and burn tires. Of course many Hizbollah supporters are also workers.
Devrim
May 9 2008 11:35
#5
Devrim wrote:
The CGTL does not have direct ties to Hezbollah though there are many Hezbollah supporters who are members. I think that one of the interesting things about this is how easily it is for workers actions for what are certainly class demands (increasing the minimum wage) can get dragged into faction fights between different bourgeois factions.
While I'm sure this is happening to a large extent, how much do you think it's also just media coverage which puts everything into 'government/opposition' categories?
Pretty much everywhere with a liberal democracy any kind of working class activity is put in terms of the unions and/or riots. Anywhere which isn't, it's 'opposition groups'. I think this is more journalistic laziness than a reflection of what's actually happening in any given situation.
May 9 2008 12:29
#6
Hezbollah's telephone network was an essential tool in their war against Israel last year - and Hezbollah are itching for another go.
I go along with the weight of Devrim's warning that in these sort of situations, how easily it is for the struggle of the workers to get channelled into nationalism or outright support for a bourgeois fraction. I think that this indeed is happening to a large extent in Lebanon and once again underlines the dangers of nationalism to the workers in the weaker industrial countries.
May 9 2008 12:35
#7
Just heard about it on the Kol Yisrael radio channel, and they cover it as a Hezbollah/Amal vs Anti-Syrian Opposition faction fight. No mention of the strike, obviously 
.
May 9 2008 12:35
#8
dp
May 9 2008 15:09
#9
Direct coverage of the events here by a Lebanese Marxist-Leninist
May 9 2008 15:43
#10
The Angry Arab has got some good commentary on Lebanon in general and what's happening now.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
The Trotskyist Sursock has some good stuff too.
May 9 2008 19:19
#11
catch wrote:
Devrim wrote:
The CGTL does not have direct ties to Hezbollah though there are many Hezbollah supporters who are members. I think that one of the interesting things about this is how easily it is for workers actions for what are certainly class demands (increasing the minimum wage) can get dragged into faction fights between different bourgeois factions.While I'm sure this is happening to a large extent, how much do you think it's also just media coverage which puts everything into 'government/opposition' categories?
Pretty much everywhere with a liberal democracy any kind of working class activity is put in terms of the unions and/or riots. Anywhere which isn't, it's 'opposition groups'. I think this is more journalistic laziness than a reflection of what's actually happening in any given situation.
I spoke to someone on the phone in Beirut today, and got an e-mail from a friend there. It seems that the militias are out on the streets in force, and any talk about the minimum wage has dropped off into the background. I don't think it is just journalistic laziness.
Devrim
May 9 2008 19:39
#12
Quote:
It seems that the militias are out on the streets in force, and any talk about the minimum wage has dropped off into the background. I don't think it is just journalistic laziness.
From what I've read and understood I agree with this. Hezbollah and AMAL used and abused the original strike in order to eliminate the Future movement (Hariri) and their media apparatus. Hezbollah is not interested at all in issues of class, it's only God, government and "resistance" that's in their minds.
I know quite a few journalists based in Egypt and most of them flocked to Beirut today. What they're interested in covering is the militant groups and the intra-bourgeoisie fighting. They could have gone to cover the strikes and riots that the labour unions insitgates, but it's just not news to them (well they do cover it, but from Cairo).
May 9 2008 20:48
#13
Yeah its a shame that fighting between factions have totally outshined the strikes and demands of the working class.
I dont tend to think that the labor movement in Lebanon is very strong and they certainly didnt need that.
However the whole thing was triggered by Jumblatt deciding to attack Hizbullah's means of communications and airport security officer on the eve of the strike. Strange timing...
Now the situation is deteriorating, and Amal thugs are in the streets, under the supervision of Hizbullah it seems.
No Hizbullah are not interested in class politics and they function as a bourgeois party. However its a bit simplistic to say they are all about god, etc.... I still tend to think that they sometimes deal with working class class issues (even though mostly on a bourgeois mode). They have invested quite a lot in public services (hopitals, schools, ...) and, contrary to Hariri Inc.'s policies, which seem solely aimed at the middle-classes, their politics seem a bit more working-class-oriented (if you're not too demanding that is).
The problem then is that faiths and social status overlap. The chiites tend to have more working-class than the sunnis or the christians. Its never easy to know what drives any party's politics.
Hizbullah cadres are also made of a number of ex communist party members, but thats hardly reassuring, is it?
Whatever happens, Hariri's pictures being taken down is hardly a relief when they are replaced by Bashar al-assad's...
May 9 2008 21:12
#14
Quote:
No Hizbullah are not interested in class politics and they function as a bourgeois party. However its a bit simplistic to say they are all about god, etc.... I still tend to think that they sometimes deal with working class class issues (even though mostly on a bourgeois mode). They have invested quite a lot in public services (hopitals, schools, ...)
I wasn't very nuanced when I made that comment, I agree but I wasn't really trying to be that 
Of course they have to deal with class issues. It is nothing they can really escape. All they see is poor, not working class. And for Hezbollah the poor are more or less an object of charity (as their social policies are based on the Islamic zakat pillar, well at least in part) and their social base (it is not shiism per say, that it just coincidental. if the south was more populated with sunnis and christians I think Hezbollah would have had a broader religious base). Hezbollah like most Islamist parties are "Leninist" (centralism, cadres etc.) and are not interested in the poor/working class as subjects.
Hezbollah has had plenty of opportunities to instigate working class protests over prices, wages and the general neo-liberal policies of Hariri, but they chose to not do so. It is telling what they mobilize their cadres for (very similar to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood).
May 9 2008 23:45
#15
Yes, Hezbollah is a bourgeois fraction, and almost certainly its telephone network was - as Baboon puts it - 'an essential tool in their war against Israel last year', but superpower politics still obtrude in a way some posters are either unaware of, ignore or deliberately obscure(and I'm not claiming any inside knowledge - I'm not a telephone engineer). Can the attacks on civilians/workers in uniform on either side of an arbitrary border with its disproportionate levels of destruction (and I'm not arguing for proportionate levels of destruction) be reduced to a glib 'war against Israel'? Who benefits from the inter-imperialist destruction and proxy war being fought in Lebanon? Certainly not the working class. But the class content of all conflict, mediated through contradictory channels - American, Israeli or Iranian, and so on - still has to be unpicked beyond any abstract appeals to a universalism which favours one or other bourgeois power bloc. It's not a matter of being pro-Hezbollah (or Tehran) to understand its military response to political manoeuvres inspired by Washington - but it still sidelines the outbreaks of proletarian struggle exemplified by the barricades of the general strike in Lebanon. That doesn't mean to say that such outbreaks won't ultimately - 'come the revolution' - make appeals to 'anti-nationalism', on behalf of one or other power bloc, redundant.
May 10 2008 02:21
#16
From the MarxistfromLebanon blog...
Quote:
The New Era Begins...Well, by 11:00, I heard AMAL took over Makdisi Street, by midnight I was aware that the Hezbollah/AMAL forces dominated over the Future militants, and overwhelmed them easily. When I saw Nasrallah talking on TV with a big calm smile, I knew it was going to be a rough night.
Lessons to be learnt directly
• Unlike last year in January whereby a huge chunk of the population was mobilized, Arms with Hezbollah and AMAL can be finished quicklier. Whatever area they captured, they handed it to the Lebanese Army after purging the Future, probably, Hezbollah were worried from AMAL Hooligans to get their campaigns a bad reputation.
• Hezbollah are here to stay without being disarmed no matter what under the banner of resistance, even applied on local politics.
• You can never have diplomacy from now on (not that the government was doing better diplomacy), if two coalitions reach a dead end, arms will be the name of the negotiations, most probably will be won by Hezbollah.
• Hezbollah for the first time directed their weaponry to the inside under the leadership of Hassan Nasrallah, and hence the party transformed to a local militia party with foreign sponsors, like almost everyone else. There operation was "freeing the Sunnis from Future Movement; I doubt it will solve any crisis by dismantling their movement's primarmy centers.
• AMAL Movement, based on their ground performance yesterday, are highly trained in guerrilla warfare, unlike being loose Orcs in the 1980. They way they swept through West Beirut, it shows their training on the ground to the extent of making them the second most powerful militant party in Lebanon. Of course though, it doesnt mean that their hooligans didnt forget to terrorize the majority of the residents they penetrated.
• What Hezbollah planned, it was achieved: a quick military victory in West Beirut over the Future Movement before they can re-organize themselves, and witness the rise of the Cantons. Yet, it was expected against by a party that was capable of defeat the Israeli Infantry side with their supreme military, not to forget they were accompanied with AMAL.
• Hassan Nasrallah's plan was unveiled: Blame everything on Walid Junblatt in his speech, and go after Future Movement and disarm them from everything, and deliver them to the Lebanese Army as if they were criminals. Now, Walid Junblatt is accused to drag Harriri Jr. to this mess by a lot of 14th of Marchers: hence = Divide and Conquer.The total obliteration of Future to the extent of burning to the ground their station and cutting all broadcasting machinary showed to what extent they targeted Future Movement. More to the point, if it wasnt a Sunni Shiite collission then what was it? Misunderstanding?
• Hezbollah and AMAL made sure to enter different areas of West Beirut wherever there were Sunnis and even uproot their snipers with minimum civilian casualties.
• The Media of AMAL and Hezbollah (and Future before closed down by AMAL then burnt down) were behaving as if they were in a war with the Israelis. Wherever front they won, they behaved as if they defeated the Israelis, and not realizing that these are Lebanese people like them.
• Anyone opposing Hezbollah is called Israeli, and anyone supporting the government is called Iranian (we dropped now the use of American and Syrian).
• The government is on its own, all the money spent in purchasing arms to impose some power on Hezbollah and the Opposition proved futile.
• Not anyone who oppose Hezbollah means in defecto they are US citizens, and vice versa, Iranian.
• NBN media is asking people to celebrate about it on TV: "It should have taken earlier to take out the crisis between the Sunnis and Shiites", how by demolishing their leaders without solving anything on the system?
• Walid Junblatt had to seek Berri's permission for survival and then go attack the Opposition
• If the US were depends on a civil war, they miscalculated.
• Based on what we have seen (and probably the 14th of March figureheads were lucky), the followers suffer while the leaders live respected and honored.
Now,
I have two flashbacks:
• When a tiny truck came wondering selling bread instead of the supermarkets (again war images)
• When the old dominant political party during the war was in control, there flags are back again.
Sad Event:
While My family member was doing her coffee, an AMAL militant saw her, and aimed an RPJ on her balcony.
May 10 2008 06:59
#17
Quote:
However the whole thing was triggered by Jumblatt deciding to attack Hizbullah's means of communications and airport security officer on the eve of the strike. Strange timing..
Well, the decision to attack Hezbollah's independent communication's network was taken on the 6th of May. The labour protests started on the 8th and Nasrallah's speech happened that same day. Now whether this last thing happened coincidentally or they deliberately chose to use the labour protests as a cover speaks volumes about Hezbollah's attitude to organized labour/ the working class. They don't really give a flying fuck.
Quote:
superpower politics still obtrude in a way some posters are either unaware of, ignore or deliberately obscure
I don't think it is being deliberately ignored. Probably more unaware is likely. That and that a lot of posters here are probably sick of the glorification of Hezbollah by the anit-imperialists. And the super-power involvement is hard to get your head around.
The Angry Arab claims that Hezbollah's elimination of the Future movement can be seen as a parallel to Hamas' coup in Gaza. The latter came because Dahlan and his Jordanian trained and US outfitted thugs were about to kick off a civil war/push for power. Hamas just acted preemptively. The similarities between the Future militia and Dahlan's thugs are striking. Future militia also were trained in Jordan (as all US/Israeli/Saudi proxies are) and armed with US weapons. And then on the other side you have Iran/Syria supporting AMAL and Hezbollah.
What is disconcerning about these latest events is that Hariri is now just left with a bunch of militant salafi jihadist to use (the ones from the Nahr el Bared catastrophe). Or rather they're saudi controlled, and Hariri is their stooge. This could mean lots of bombs going off and a turn towards another country with heavy sunni - shiite fighting.
May 10 2008 12:40
#18
Quote:
Well, the decision to attack Hezbollah's independent communication's network was taken on the 6th of May. The labour protests started on the 8th and Nasrallah's speech happened that same day. Now whether this last thing happened coincidentally or they deliberately chose to use the labour protests as a cover speaks volumes about Hezbollah's attitude to organized labour/ the working class. They don't really give a flying fuck.
Yeah i tend to agree but i dont know how things exactly happened or what the exact chronology is.
It seems Hizbullah were supportive of the strike at some point. The Guardian reports :
Quote:
Earlier in the week the government protested when Hizbullah surveillance cameras were found at Beirut airport. It sacked an army general in charge of security who was described a sympathetic to the militant Shia group. When Hizbullah supported a general strike called to demand an increase in the minimum wage, the government pre-emptively raised wage levels and went on the offensive.
Now how and why they supported the strike i dont really know. I tend to think : not very actively and probably mostly cos they are in the opposition, aiming to gain more weight and influence in the political process.
What Angry Arab says about a preemptive move from hizbullah and friends makes some sense.
As for the Future militias, well they do seem to be around, according to Angry Arab :
Quote:
The Cedar Revolution Marches on (this will not be mentioned in the dispatches of Robert Jumblat in the Indpendent): attacks on Syrian workers in Lebanon continue at the hands of Hariri armed goons.
May 10 2008 17:32
#19
Quote:
There are strong indications that the army has been joining in on the side of the opposition.
From Sursock.
[Opposition here refers to Hezbollah, AMAL and SNNP, CP]
May 11 2008 11:46
#20
Syria Comment has had some good analysis as well.
May 11 2008 12:08
#21
The army is supposedly neutral, but its always been fairly sympathetic to the opposition.
It is one of the reasons why Hizbullah were happy to leave the buildings occupied in West Beirut to the Army. But it does not seem that they ever intended to occupy West Beirut. Funny though how most of the articles headlines were about how Hizbullah were occupying West Beirut, while at the same time in the body of the article you could read that they were handing over the places to the army.
After all the internal fighting between pro-opposition militias and pro-government militias to know whos strongest, now it seems that ugly acts of retaliation are being taken against Syrian workers amongst others :
Quote:
This is something that will not be mentioned in the media of March 14 or in the media of the opposition because both could care less about the plight of Syrian workers in Lebanon. Today, Hariri militia men in the North stopped a bus carrying Syrian workers and shot at them.
We were wondering where the militias of Hariri and Jumblatt were. Well they are now killing workers and some of the opposition members in North Lebanon (Tripoli) and on the East of Beirut (Aley) :
Quote:
Today, Walid Jumblat said that the recent events proved that Jumblat and Hariri don't own militias in Lebanon. In other news, the non-militia of Hariri clashed with Ba`l Muhsin in Tripoli and assassinated SSNP members, while the non-militia of Jumblat clashed with Hizbullah in `Alay.
Quotes taken from Angry Arab
Here a picture, it seems, of Hariri men (they are Sunnis), with a portrait of Sadam Hussein in the back :
Hariri militia men
An interesting article from a blog, about how 'Nasrallah speaks as if there is no future, but Jumblat, Hariri and Sanioura speak as if there is no past' :
Land and People
May 11 2008 12:38
#22
Quote:
After all the internal fighting between pro-opposition militias and pro-government militias to know whos strongest, now it seems that ugly acts of retaliation are being taken against Syrian workers amongst others
True that. Though this was very common even before the latest events.
May 11 2008 15:02
#23
thanks khawaga and others for the links to blogs.
May 14 2008 16:25
#24
thanks all, interesting stuff
May 15 2008 16:33
#25
An analysis of the recent events on the Attac Lebanon website. Not exactly in-depth or subtle but from an interesting angle. I mean they would never go very far in their attack against capitalism (theyd rather talk of neoliberal policies) but theyre clearly supporting the workers, farmers, minorities, etc...
--
The violence in the streets of Beirut is the climax of verbal sniping and attacks that has been accumulated for the past 2 years even faster than the national debt. The source of these verbal volleys and the gun battles in the stress is found in all the sectarian leaders and politicians speaches, those same leaders who control the political and economic system of Lebanon.
* First, the Opposition have used the General Labor Confederation’s call for a general strike for it’s own purposes. It instrumentalised the workers’ socio-economic demands to create political pressure on its rivals in the government.The leadership of the union is allowing itself to be coopted by the political designs of the Opposition. Indeed, as soon as they were on the ground, the “protesters” forgot all about demands of the workers.
* On the other hand, the government has recklessly implemented plans for its own interest, mostly congruent with the US vision for the “new Middle East”. Its leaders have presided over the collapse of the Lebanese state structure, where its institutions have been virtually paralyzed and its self-serving, sectarian parliamentarians have made the parliament a moribund and irrelevant institution. In the sectarian system that it has reinforced, the government talks about electoral majorities and minorities as if it were a secular system without democratically adhering to the political and demographic realities of Lebanon...
The rest here : http://lubnan.attac.org/spip.php?article125
Most of the people writing about this incident seem to be tying it down to two sides "pro" and "opposition" to the government, but clearly, unless this union has ties to Hezbollah (which I doubt, but I don't know the labour situation in Lebanon), there are two forces at work in the anti-government side, both of which seem diametrically opposed to each other.