Despite the recent bombs and fears of a security vacuum following a Syrian pullout, most Lebanese leaders have ruled out the possibility of a civil war.
| "Nope. Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Nope." |
Talk of foreign military interference, however, continues to surface, both openly and covertly.
| You mean, like the Syrians coming back? |
Some observers argue that a security vacuum would necessitate a foreign intervention. However, local political groups are divided on this issue with some approving or even demanding it and others opposing it very strongly. The practical consequences of enforcing an international intervention could generate violence and stir armed conflicts, though not necessarily between the Lebanese factions. Tony Nasrallah, of the Free Patriotic Movement, told The Daily Star in an earlier interview: "We do not reject a multinational force under the auspices of the United Nations to keep law and order in the case of a deterioration of security." Nasrallah added: "To those who seem to care for independence, we say the UNIFIL forces deployed in South Lebanon do not violate Lebanon's sovereignty."
However, the parties opposed to foreign intervention say that the security vacuum feared in this perspective concerns keeping internal security, a case different from protecting the country's borders. Hizbullah's leader in the South, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, said in a unity meeting of 40 Muslim and Christian clerics in Tyre Tuesday that "Lebanon refuses to become a U.S. military base and will never be a dagger in Syria's side." He added: "The U.S. is aggravating tensions and divisions between the various Lebanese communities to settle old scores with Lebanon and its people. The Americans want to disarm Hizbullah to compensate Israel for its defeat in the South." |