Jumblatt to Bush: Send car bombs to Damascus

I'm attending the "Weinberg Founders Conference 2007" of the Washington Institute for Near East policy in Virginia. I will probably write a lot more about it, but here are some comments on the issue that was discussed both in the first and the second day quite extensively (a word of disclosure: The Institute is paying for my hotel and meals as I attend).

1.

Did he go too far? If he did, it didn't seem to bother him.

In fact, Walid Jumblatt, the outgoing Lebanese leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, seemed quite amused by the reaction to his blatant suggestion for the Bush administration. He proposed the US "send car bombs" to Damascus as a way to prevent further Syrian interference with Lebanese politics.

It happened at the opening plenary of the conference. The video provided by the Institute does not capture this mini-drama, as it only includes the written, prepared, remarks he was making. But these are also harsh enough in nature.

The car bomb comment, maybe humorously, maybe not, came when he was asked to specify how America can contribute to the struggle of the Lebanese people against Syrian intervention and terror. "I was just joking," he later said. But he probably knows better than anyone that counting on Bashar Assad's sense of humor is not a safe policy.

2.

Jumblatt's forceful remarks were a tough act to compete with. Today, when an Israeli general and an American journalist were discussing the fate of Lebanon, his words were still hanging in the air.

Nicholas Blanford of the Christian Science Monitor covered a lot of ground and proved to be quite knowledgeable as he was describing what's going on in Lebanon today, and the extent to which Hezbollah was recovering a year after the war with Israel. One suspects that he might have over stated the case when he was describing his visit to a Hezbollah bunker. He was very much impressed with the things he saw in this bunker. But does he really knows whether this is the one fine bunker they have or just one out of many?

Major General Moshe Kaplinsky seemed to think that Hezbollah has not yet recovered from the war. He also promised to take better care of Hezbollah in the next round. We know how to do this, he said, and Blanford reminded him that Israeli generals were making similar statements when the war started, and proved to be wrong. Kaplinsky also said that maybe it is time for the international community to engage with Syria, using "carrots and sticks" (instead of just sticks I guess).

3.

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post was making this argument two weeks ago (he is also at the conference):

"Lebanon has long been described as a theater where the larger tensions and conflicts of the Middle East are played out in miniature, and in the past three years its drama has seemed particularly representative . . . For the past year, Lebanon, like the Middle East, has endured a tense and dangerous stalemate between the forces of Damascus and Tehran, spearheaded by Hezbollah, and those of the United States, Europe and Sunni-ruled Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are backing the government of Fouad Siniora. Middle East analysts and many Lebanese tend to shruggingly conclude that nothing can be resolved until the larger regional standoff is settled - or one side decisively gains the upper hand".

If one needs a proof that Diehl was right, this conference is a good starting point. The elaborated discussion of Lebanon, both with Jumblatt in the evening and the panel in the morning, was not focusing on Lebanon as a separate, isolated case. It was about Syria, Iran, moderates vs. extremists, proxy wars, Shiites and Sunnis, central governments and terror organizations, international forces, UN resolutions, smuggling of weaponry, democratization.

Most of these elements can be used in a similar manner in almost any discussion about the Middle East.

Think Gaza and Hamas. Think the war in Iraq.

4.

So, was Jumblatt going too far?

Polling some of the people attending this event I came up with these two answers:

1. The Syrians are already going after him. At this stage, he has nothing to lose and can speak his mind.

2. This was too much, not because of the Syrians but rather because it will make his Lebanese friends uncomfortable. Opposing Syria is one thing, inviting a violent American intervention is quite another.

Jumblatt is scheduled to speak Sunday morning on CNN. It will be interesting to see whether he will be scaling down his tone toward Syria.

5.

Jumblatt is angry and concerned for a reason. Saturday, the foreign ministers of France, Italy and Spain were in Lebanon, to try to prod rival factions to agree on the election of a new president. The Lebanese parliament failed to elect a president last month because of a boycott by the opposition (namely, Hezbollah) that denied the legislature a quorum. So far, the lawmakers could not reach an agreement on a consensus candidate - one that will be acceptable both to the anti-Syrian camp and to Hezbollah.

Failure to elect a president could lead to a power vacuum, or possibly the creation of two rival governments. Jumblatt doesn't want this to happen, but he also indicated that compromise with Hezbollah was not something he can support.

What's your prediction, Blanford, the expert, was asked.

Ask again in a month, he wisely suggested.