Read on Twitter
Long [THREAD] on the developing situation in Lebanon following the explosion in Beirut, as the politics and politicisations begin to set in.
To put it most succinctly, the idea making the rounds today can be summarised very simply: it is the 2005 scenario anew. In order to understand what this means for us today, we thus have to begin with a little history lesson.
The 2005 scenario refers to the assassination of PM Rafiq Hariri in 2005, for which the finger was immediately pointed at Syria and then Hezbollah. The impact that has had on Lebanon and the region simply cannot be overstated. Its effects reverberate to this very day.
That event has shaped the entire Lebanese political landscape since, dividing Sunni and Shi'a communities, demonising Hezbollah, splitting the Lebanese into pro and anti-resistance, with Sunnis (unfortunately) in the anti-resistance vanguard under 'champion' Saad (son of Rafiq).
In 2005 the Palestinian cause died in the hearts of many Sunni Lebanese. 2005 set up Iran as the new bogeyman instead of the Zionist state. Of course, in the 2006 war, many Sunnis remained loyal and it was 2011's War on Syria that continued the trend- but it *began* in 2005.
Much evidence emerged since, squarely pinning it on the Zionist entity, including intercepted aerial footage of their drones monitoring the road he would be targeted on before the event, as well as the fact that Hezbollah were cementing a close alliance with Rafiq at the time.
That was no doubt part of the reason Rafiq was chosen, other than the simply latent potential to galvanise Sunni opinion against the Resistance: they managed to turn an emerging Sunni-Shi'a alliance into sectarian Sunni-Shi'a strife.
But proof of the Zionist role came far too late; events had been set in motion on the basis of the immediate emotional reaction in the confused aftermath. I was young but I clearly remember an aunt declaring on the day "if his son [Saad] runs, I will be the first to vote for him"
This was all pre-meditated, planned well in advance. The colour ("Cedar") revolution that followed and the ejection of Syria was one of the immediate goals, but the extent to which the imperialists benefited goes several degrees beyond that.
It was also meant as groundwork for the 2006 war, the idea being that a thus-weakened Hezbollah would fall to a Zionist onslaught, and could thus be excised from Lebanon. This was neither the first nor the last time their plots diverged from the reality that was to manifest.
These are some of the political consequences of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri in 2005, and what people refer to when they talk about "the 2005 scenario" in terms of the Beirut blast. It is what we must bear in mind, when we consider what awaits us in the days to come.
(I will have to take a brief break, but will continue the thread a little later on insha'Allah and start delving into what implications the 2005 scenario would entail in our present situation).
So, now how do we make sense of today in light of 2005? For now, we don't even need to go into whether it was truly an accident, or an attack from the Zionist and/or US side. Irrespective of the cause, the effect will be the same: it will be used in the same way that 2005 was.
(That's not to say that it makes no difference whether it was a genuine accident or not- but we will go into that question a little later on).
Of course, it did not take the usual suspects long to make very telling remarks. The Future party (i.e. Hariri) made this statement the day after the blast:
"The assassination of Beirut is no less tragic than the assassination of Rafiq Hairi [in 2005]" https://twitter.com/Almustaqbal/status/1291006110825099265?s=20
"The assassination of Beirut is no less tragic than the assassination of Rafiq Hairi [in 2005]" https://twitter.com/Almustaqbal/status/1291006110825099265?s=20
The message could not be clearer. To call what happened an "assassination" naturally evokes the idea of an assassin.
And equating this to 2005 speaks for itself, immediately filling out the intended identity of the assassin silently implied: the same people blamed for 2005.
And equating this to 2005 speaks for itself, immediately filling out the intended identity of the assassin silently implied: the same people blamed for 2005.
This was not even 24 hours after the blast; the media was already at work. At the face of it, it may have seemed like an innocuous statement, but loaded within it is a wealth of subliminal messages, and a finger pointed in silent accusation.
This is only the start; as the dust settles, various other cogs spin into motion. An early point of contention has already announced itself: should the investigation into the matter be handled domestically and nationally- or do we bring in an "international" investigation?
The links to 2005 are almost sublime; history repeats word-for-word. The same debate in the wake of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri led to the so-called "Special Tribunal for Lebanon", which proved one thing: an international investigation means an investigation run by the US.
In a twist of historical irony (or perhaps something more meaningful than that?), the verdict of this Special Tribunal looking into 2005 was meant to come out days after the exposion in Beirut. But it has now been delayed.
And it has been delayed- precisely because that verdict was never anything other than a piece of theatre. With everyone distracted, that verdict cannot any longer reach its intended purpose: to finish what started in 2005, and re-ignite the sectarian fuse.
But as fate would have it, it's almost immaterial now; the 2005 chapter has been closed, and the 2020 post-Beirut blast chapter opens up, and with it, the same debate begins again: a national investigation, or an international tribunal?
Of course, the debate will be framed in a sophisticated way: they will argue for an international investigation because a national one would be mired by corruption. But the reality is, they want an international investigation to allows the US to point whatever fingers it wants.
Again, the links to 2005 are irresistible; even as the theatricals of that international investigation splutter to a close, we begin a new cycle all over again. And no doubt it will be part of what grips us in the coming days.
But that will not be all by far. Emmanuel Macron, head of the French state that subjugated and colonised and divided us, turned up today in the middle of Beirut and was received by certain elements of Lebanese society as the archetypal White Saviour.
He hugged the emotional crowds and flounced around the devastated capital. The *emotion* here is key. The emotional outpouring in 2005 was the cement with which the new political foundation was built. The high emotions now will serve as catalyst for something uncannily similar.
Among the neo-colonial drivel spewed, some very telling statements emerge that give us indication on the road ahead. His vision of the "beginning of a new era" sounds suspiciously like Condaleeza Rice's "birth-pangs of a new Middle East" in the midst of the 2006 Zionist onslaught
His vision of a "new political order" in Lebanon- to be imposed externally by France and others- tells us all we need to know. This, like 2005, is a historical moment for the imperialists and their allies to impose the same kind of 'change' on Lebanon that they did in 2005.
And this below, I believe, is the cherry on top of Macron's visit, which was more akin to the visit of a new overlord than it was a visit from a friendly head of state. https://twitter.com/UpdatesLebanese/status/1291421238674563073?s=20
There is no more doubt about what his "reform" means: it means fulfilling the imperialist-Zionist ambitions of excluding Hezbollah from power in Lebanon by force (to hell with democracy), and isolating them just as 2005 was meant to, opening them up for another Zionist assault.
And whoever resists this "reform"- naturally, those who it is meant to exclude and isolate- will be punished by France and its masters. This is the new status quo they want: where the west can decide our political system, who gets to participate, and punish those who refuse.
But... they will fail, insha'Allah.
That will be all for today, I think; insha'Allah I will continue tomorrow.
For now, food for thought: given all the benefits that the Zionists and Imperialists are set to reap from this, can we truly rule out that they were not behind it in some way, like they were behind 2005?
For now, food for thought: given all the benefits that the Zionists and Imperialists are set to reap from this, can we truly rule out that they were not behind it in some way, like they were behind 2005?
Consider also the timing: at a time the Lebanese economy is already in ruins, and the Zionist army has been living day after day of utter fear and panic.
Of course, coincidences do happen; but to raise questions is not to be a conspiracy theorist. We've lived this all before.
Of course, coincidences do happen; but to raise questions is not to be a conspiracy theorist. We've lived this all before.
Until tomorrow, friends and comrades.
Look also at who suffered most visibly from this blast: the Christian neighbourhoods. If 2005 was an assassination of a Sunni figure to be blamed on the resistance, 2020 is an “assassination” of Christian Beirut to be blamed on the resistance.
2005 isolated the resistance from their Sunni compatriots; now 2020 seeks to isolate the resistance from their Christian ones.
If this was a Zionist attack, it was a very intentionally targeted one: the Christian political climate has been moving from pro-resistance FPM to anti-res. right-wind parties; this targeting of Christians will now hugely exacerbate this, and isolate the resistance further.
