There was some fighting tonight in Beirut — what they call “clashes,” in that euphemistic way — between supporters of the opposition Shiite Amal Movement and supporters of the majority Sunni Future Movement. One woman, a bystander, was killed in the crossfire.
Amal is led by Nabih Berri, who was recently re-elected as Speaker of the Parliament. Future is headed by Saad Hariri, who was tonight elected Prime Minister. (Some reports suggest this may have begun with something as benign as celebratory gunfire after Hariri’s election.) It’s clear that there was a deal made between the two parties to support the other one’s candidate, although as Ms. Tee points out, the deal was made begrudgingly. And supporters of both parties seem to bear the brunt of the lingering resentment.
All evening people have been saying to me that this is a reminder of how delicate the peace is here, but what’s even more striking to me was the Army’s response. Immediately the shooting, the LAF was in the streets, with tanks and artillery, and essentially declared martial law: anyone spotted carrying a weapon in the streets, they said, would be shot. An unacceptable burden for a city, I would normally think, except that this is an exceptional place, with an exceptional past; are such measures commonplace?
More on these topics:
Ms. Tee says:
Hey Joshua, thanks for linking.
elnashra.com reported that the decision to shoot at anyone carrying a weapon was made by the shared Amal and Mustaqbal security committee. It is essentially a message from the parties to their supporters to pack it up and go home. So, while the talk sounds tough, the process behind it provides guarantees (not foolproof, of course) to the army that the decision does not need to translate into reality. That would be too risky.
Joshua Hersh says:
That's interesting -- and reassuring -- to hear. I assume that there are also some more nuanced rules of engagement involved rather than just shoot on sight. I hope.