While most of the sources I use for the daily Lebanon sources are indeed local sources (Lebanon Wire, Daily Star, Naharnet), they are more favorable to the events going on specifically because they are local. But what is the rest of the Arab world saying? How do they view this? In this post, we’ll peruse some news articles an editorials from leading news sites in the region such as Al-Jazeera and Arab News.

Let the Lebanese sort out their own problems by Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed at Arab News:

As the world watches, Lebanon throbs. To be a politician, one has to be quite shameless and without scruples. In Lebanon, such qualities are magnified. This comes from a long tradition of democratic practice that is in many ways faulty, yet shines vibrantly in the dimness of the Arab world. Hariri????????s legacy is now consigned to history. He will take his place among the dozens of slaughtered officials in this country????????s long history.

What is left are some familiar faces who should understand that their fellow citizens and all the Arab people will judge them harshly if they fail to bring about the peace and prosperity that Lebanon deserves. Syria????????s role in Lebanon has been good at times, bad at others. What was achieved should not be forgotten. But Lebanon is now ???????old??????? enough to take care of itself without supervision.

Others should also understand that Lebanon is not a battlefield. If America wants to ???????get??????? Syria, it should not do so in Lebanon. Israel should not make peace with the Palestinians only to ignite its northern neighbor. President Chirac should not use his personal preferences to steer his country and the European Union into positions limited by political nearsightedness. In other words, leave the Lebanese to sort out their problems. They can and will do it if given half a chance.

Basically, the author is averse to foreign influence being present in the future events of the country. But he never addresses how the people of Lebanon would have reacted if they hadn’t had the wide international support they now enjoy. If the world hadn’t been watching, or didn’t care, could Hariri’s death resulted in nothing? As the author says:

“Then Syria overplayed its hand by insisting on extending President Emile Lahoud????????s term and bringing in a government to its liking. This would have passed like many other incidents in Lebanese politics without much ado. But the brutal assassination of Hariri brought the cauldron to a boil. The incident became a popular referendum on Syria????????s presence in Lebanon.”

Lahoud’s term being extended passed without much ado. Earlier in the article, he says how much people were divided under Hariri. So why was this event different? I think it is because the Lebanese know they can get away with it this time.

Al-Jazeera of all places actually has an article, I have found, similar to what I am doing here. Let me cite the specific differences it gives. Arabic dailies differ on Lebanon.

al Hayat

In its editorial, the London-based daily al Hayat urged Arab governments for a quick act to preserve Lebanon-Syria co-existence, and save them from foreign intervention.

“The dangerous fall-out targeting the unity of Lebanon can not wait until Arab summit is held in Algeria next March. Tunisia – the previous rotating president of the Arab summit -the current president Algeria, the Arab League secretary general, Syria and Lebanon should work together to seek a quick end to the speedy developments that mar the Syrian-Lebanese relations.

“If a settlement is reached, it will make US pressure unjustified and will stop some from claiming the UN Security Council liberation of Lebanon from Syria.

“On the contrary, if Syria affirms that Shabaa farms belong to Lebanon, this will give the right to the Arab world to call for an Israeli withdrawal from the area in accordance with resolution 1559, which stipulates the pull-out of foreign forces,” Al Hayat concluded.

Asharq al-Awsat

Asharq al-Awsat, another major daily, also based in London, has warned from the eruption of a new civil war in Lebanon, and blamed the Lebanese opposition for the deteriorating situation.

“Political assassination may cause catastrophes, but societies should remain in control of their destiny. It is not in defence of Syria, Lahud or Umar Karami to say that Lebanese opposition will put Lebanon in major danger if it proceeds with its current political march.

“It is true to say it is unlikely to witness a new civil war in Lebanon because Lebanese people have learned the lesson from 15 years of suffering.

“But calling for regional and international interference, which reached the extent of demanding armed European or American mandate, will certainly keep the danger of civil war looming.”

It then notes the Lebanon Daily Star’s pro-opposition stance. Last, but not least, of course.

There is also a feature story on “who benefits most” from Hariri’s death, woven with conspiracy theories abound.

Bushra al-Khalil, a Lebanese lawyer and political activist, told Aljazeera.net the plot against al-Hariri’s life also targeted Syria.

“If we look at the way the assassination has been conducted, it is very sophisticated, I knew al-Hariri’s security measures – no local system could have breached them.

“The question is, who stands to benefit from his death? Syria’s enemies. I think al-Hariri’s death is part of the plan to divide the region into tiny helpless sectarian states. This plan has started in Iraq and it will continue to hit all other Arab countries.”

Al-Khalil said the killing was an attempt to force Syria to leave Lebanon before striking it and commencing the region’s carve-up.

“If we look at who all have been adding fuel to the fire in the recent past, we will find sectarian leaders and promoters of sectarian division such as Walid Jumblatt and Amin al-Jumail, who had killed a lot of Lebanese people during the war just because they were not from their sects.”

Al-Khalil considers the killing of al-Hariri as the most dangerous and destabilising incident since the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat in 1981.

“Al-Hariri was the guardian of stable Arab-Western relations. His success in this area had pulled the rug from under the feet of the traditional godfathers of such relationships.

Stability is so overrated. But losing that stability seems to be the thing that scares many naysayers the most. Just what will happen to Lebanon and the Arab world once it goes free and democratic? And Iraq? And Afghanistan?

Most Arabs know the problems and politics of the tyrannical regimes of their region. At the same time, many have not had long-term exposure to the freedom and democracy which has made the West so flexible. They can’t predict what will happen in a free Lebanon, and it’s scary. But that sentiment is only amplified multiple times over by the actual rulers of such governments. That’s why they crash and burn so hard when they finally do fall. Once they are able to see how democracy works for those who practice it, other Arab nations will shortly follow its brave predecessors.