The twin suicide bombs outside the Iranian Embassy in Beirut on Tuesday killed 23 people, including the Iranian cultural attaché, and wounded 146 others.
A few hours later, an until-now obscure al Qaeda-affiliated group called Abdullah Azzam Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. The group said it will continue with such attacks until Hizbollah forces withdraw from Syria, where they are fighting alongside the Assad regime forces.
Abdullah Iskandar, the managing editor of the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, wrote: “Targeting the Iranian embassy in Beirut is a terrorist act.
“It cannot, in any shape of form, be justified as retaliation for the Iran’s policies in Lebanon, Syria or anywhere else in the world, regardless of how criticisable these policies may be.”
This latest episode of terrorism deserves double condemnation because it targeted a diplomatic mission that is supposed to be immune to political conflicts, and because it took place in Lebanon where, more than anywhere else, the Syrian opposition needs a safe zone to provide aid and assistance to Syrian refugees.
Sabotaging this safe zone inflicts damage on refugees and on the Lebanese alike.
If the perpetrators wanted to send a message to Tehran, they used the worst possible way to do that. Their plan backfired.
Political responsibility for this incident is obvious whether one considers that turmoil and terrorism in Lebanon serve a cause in Syria or whether one looks at the issue from the point of view that Lebanon is an extension to the battlefield in Syria.
“After the Lebanese, the main victims of the attempt to spread turmoil and terrorism in Lebanon are Syrian refugees and the Syrian opposition’s cause,” he wrote.
“Security considerations will lead to intensified measures that constrict refugees who are trying to flee the war zone.”
Terrorist acts, in Syria or elsewhere, is most harmful to the Syrian opposition.
Lebanon is torn between a pro-regime groups that are taking an active role in the fight against the rebels and pro-opposition groups that are actively supporting the rebels.
While the March 14 bloc and the Future Movement with Sunni majority call for a “self-distancing” policy towards Syria, their political rivals – especially the March 8 bloc and Hizbollah – staunchly defend the need to side with and support the Syrian regime.
“Binding Lebanon to the Syrian battlefield through terrorism is in fact a total immersion in the conflict,” the writer added.
This form of terrorism, which has been hitting several targets throughout Lebanon, doesn’t support the Syrian opposition’s case or impose any pressure on its rivals.
Militias raise the fear of a civil war in Libya
The clashes in Libya’s capital on Friday and Saturday that killed 43 and injured another 461 have raised fears of a civil war in Tripoli, wrote Tawfik Al Madini in the Qatar-based newspaper Al Sharq.
Libya is swiftly descending into chaos as armed militias dominate the political and military arena. This is shown in political assassinations of officials and the kidnapping of prime minister Ali Zeidan, the writer said.
Libyans and Arabs thought the overthrow of Muammar Al Qaddafi was a real revolution that would put the country on the road to democracy and freedom. But these goals now seem unattainable, as gunmen have taken the place of the former dictator.
Despite conducting the first democratic elections in the modern era, Libya’s new government, faced with the power of tribal and religious militias, appears to be unable to build a modern state. New Libya has inherited weak institutions, parties and civil society organisations.
Illegal militias are the biggest challenge facing post-Qaddafi Libya. The National Transitional Council and the current government have failed so far to counter these militias.
Even worse, these armed militias have turned Libya into a terrorism hub that threatens other North African countries, with reports that weaponry and bombs are being smuggled to Tunisia and Algeria, possibly ending in the hands of terrorist groups there.
Bias against Emirates revealed by coverage
Emirates Airline has revealed the contradiction of Western countries, wrote Sami Al Reyami in yesterday’s edition of the Dubai-based Al Emirat Al Youm.
Answering a question at Dubai Airshow about the success of the airline, Emirates chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum said: “Customers, including Europeans, are the beneficiaries of the competitiveness of Emirates Airline, and governments should seek the interest of their customers, rather than siding with companies against people’s interests”. He added jokingly: “We have bought from them 200 airplanes. If we fail to operate them, then we’d better return them.”
This lays bare the contradiction. The Western media disregarded everything Sheikh Saeed said during the conference except the last sentence. Instead of putting it in its context, headlines suggested that the chairman of Emirates had threatened the West to open their airports or they would cancel the deals, he noted.
The statement caused fear among Western airlines that cannot compete with Emirates and have resorted to pressuring their governments instead.
While the West has been urging the world to open markets, they are attempting to deny Emirates Airline landing rights.
* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
translation@thenational.ae
