Fath al Islam: a quick update

Itani has a little update on the state of affairs regarding the bad guys in the north and their friends in the south, in the Palestinian camp of Ain el Helweh. I just want to point out one or two things that I think we can conclude from everything that happened pre and post the Nahr el Bared debacle.

1- Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the US voluntarily and involuntarily had a hand in making circumstances ripe for Fath al Islam and other darker versions of “Islamists” militants to emerge. Syria, by kicking “al Qaeda” elements out of its country in order to clean its landscape and throwing it back on us. the US through the Mustaqbal movement, and actually the Mustaqbal movement on its own by trying to co-opt these wild creature and try to tame their zealousness with a bit of cash and status promises, and Saudi Arabia by simply sending official delegations to Lebanon for some conference who never went back. It seems also that the international “Rafic Hariri” airport of Beirut has unfolded red carpets for many of these dudes.

2- When something happens, like a crisis or something, the stupidest thing to say is “he’s the guy responsible for it”. Even in the case of an assassination or the start of a war. What’s important is why in the first place such an event is possible and in this case political circumstances are many, are multi-faceted and at the end of the day, what counts is who gets to gain from it, and who gets to lose.

This entry was posted in Fath al Islam, Lebanon Groups, Nahr al-Bared, Palestinian camps, Saudi Arabia, Syria, US Foreign Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Fath al Islam: a quick update

  1. Anonymous says:

    Bech,
    very synthetic and very light post, also might seem a bit “superficial” or quick to some, but I like it (maybe I only like posts that express my point of view :P)
    But I retained one thing : you passed on “voluntarily or unvoluntarily” too quickly for me because it’s the most important element to me. Then, you can draw some kind of intention of all the mentioned and that’s a very important element. Who do you think acted voluntarily ?
    I take it that Syria did, because prisoners in Syria – common say (maybe false?)- never get out unless it’s for a specific reason.
    The US : can you elaborate ? Do you think it was intended?
    And finally and probably the less visible to me :
    “Saudi Arabia by simply sending official delegations to Lebanon for some conference who never went back” I didn’t know about that, can you comment more about it or post a link to further info ? Do you think saudis did it intentionally ?
    Thanks

    S.

  2. bech says:

    Did you read the article?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Hello.
    I am an “anonymous reader”.
    I’ve been visiting your blog for a while; about twice a week, often once every two weeks; sometimes once evry month.
    I’ve just read your “suicidal” entry bout ending the blog.
    I don’t know why you write in this blog. How much satisfaction you end up having.
    But I just like to say that to me your blog matters.
    Don’t kill it.
    Anonymous reader.

  4. Anonymous says:

    No, I haven’t read the article. I tried but I’m having trouble reading Arabic, takes too much time and concentration which I don’t have by evening when I waste my time here. Maybe no good in Arabic cause I’m a lebanese christian snob.
    Sorry za3ajtak

    PS I don’t read Phoenician either or Aramean if that can comfort you.

    S.

  5. bech says:

    lah ya S. ma tekhdiya ghalat kenet bass 3am da2e2, la2ano el jaweb la so2alik bel ma2al. but basically I’m just restating in my points what the journalist is saying.

    As for the “voluntarily and involuntarily” you could probably scrap this distinction because it does not really make sense. All these actors act voluntarily but are constrained by the circumstances that are available to them in the present.

    And “anonymous reader” thanks for your encouragements.

  6. nona says:

    “Rafic Hariri” airport of Beirut….
    why the quotation marks?

    Tuk Moot: yes it’s Rafic Harriri International Airport😛

  7. Anonymous says:

    Beirut’s international airport is Beirut’s. If your ass is owned by the Hariri family, not everyone else’s is. As for the “tok wou moot”, only an idiot would say that to another fellow citizen. You people are really fucked up.

    S.

  8. nona says:

    S,
    So the JFK airport means american ass is owned by the kennedys? Or Charles de Gualle means france ass is owned by the Degaulle’s?
    Airports are often named after important figures in a country, Whether you personally liked him or not Harriri was an important figure in Lebanon.
    As for the “Tuk Moot” it was obviously a joke also helpfully indicated by the😛. I understand these are trying times, but don’t lose ALL sense of humor please.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Nona,
    Hariri was an important figure for lebanon how ? By increasing the debt ? By letting big confessional cities like Tripoli become more racist ? Stealing ? Letting the Syrians do whatever they like by bringing corruption to its “apogée” and institutionalizing it? By controlling every god damn thing that happened in the country to establish a saudi plan ?
    WHAT did he do ? Steal people’s money and businesses so we can have a couple of nice buildings in down town ?

    Are you seriously comparing CDG and JFK to Hariri ? Are you really serious about it ?
    I’m gonna go along with this for a minute, and suppose they were comparable.
    1. Can you say Hariri was a consensual politician liked by all Lebanese like JFK and CDG were ? All french and Americans with no exception take pride in those men. Not all lebanese take pride in Hariri and his clan- I’d say most of the lebanese hate their gutts and you probably know that very well.

    2. If we had a couple of airports in Lebanon, it would be less frustrating. If the CDG and JFK’s airports were the only airports in France and the US and called like that, Maybe then you’d have some kind of half a point.
    But Beirut’s airport is the ONLY airport. Can you see the symbolism in calling it Hariri’s ?

    You don’t seem to be completely illogical so tell me if you really think all three are comparable or rather that you only tried to use some kind of very quick argument.

    S.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s