 On October 14th, a group of people marched down Beirut, as happens in many other parts of the world. Suddenly, shots were fired and by the end of the day, seven people had died. This incident has led to a huge increase in tensions in Lebanon, with many even fearing that the sectarian war and conflict of the decades past might resume again. Why were these people marching? What was the nature of the tension? Let's talk about this in this episode of Mapping Fault Lines. We are joined by Prabir Purqaista. Prabir saw this protest of course was conducted by supporters of Hezbollah and Amal. The two parties associated with the Shias, the protest was about the Beirut blast probe. And after the shooting, Hassan Asrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, gave a speech. Now in this speech, he of course was very defiant. He said that, you know, there would be justice for his supporters who were killed. He made statements specifically targeting Sameer Jaja, the leader of the group called Lebanese forces. So there's a lot of history to unpack around here. What has led to these tensions? What is the background? But let's maybe first start with the current situation in Lebanon, which is going through a massive crisis. So could you maybe take us through the main factors or dimensions behind this crisis? As you know, Lebanon has been split around confessional lines as it is called, which is basically each religious identities given a certain number of seats in parliament. So a kind of organized, if you will, state in which different religious identities get different numbers of parliamentary seats and share power in some form or the other. So you have the baronite Christian section. You have the Shia sections. You also have Sunni Arab sections. These are the three major groups which have been there. We know there has earlier been a really civil war virtually between these groups. There's the Cheryl Uneasy peace in which the jockey for powers in the parliament and for president. At the moment, we have Michel Aoun, who is the president of Lebanon. He's a Maronite Christian. But you also have other forces who have been trying to unseat a tacit alliance between Hezbollah and Michel Aoun and other sections. They have come together for trying to give a kind of stability to Lebanon, which is not pro-Israel or pro-United States, which is where the false lines also lie. So there is this uneasy peace seems to have been disturbed by two events. One is, of course, as we know the ammonium nitrate explosion which took place in Beirut port. Now this ammonium nitrate was stored there, very large amount of it for almost seven years. And this is a known hazard. Therefore, given the fact that the Lebanese state was in some sense in the state of decay, the fact that this large explosion took place is not so surprising as it otherwise might be. Why was it stored there for so long? Knowing that it is a huge hazard, destroyed parts of Beirut, killed a number of people. These are questions which is what the judge was probing. But unfortunately, there is also, again, a confessional element to this. Who do you blame? And it seems that the judge, like an earlier judge, was focusing more on Amal's representative in the ministries. And therefore, it appears that Amal and the Shia forces were being targeted. Amal and Hezbollah are in close alliance at the moment. And therefore, it was an indirect attack that could be constituted on Hezbollah itself. So the basic issue was that Amal and Hezbollah felt it was not an independent, impartial probe as it should be. They are much more under American pressure, Israeli pressure and also Syrian pressure, which is the one for the last two to three years, has been destroying the Lebanese state. Now, you know, Lebanon has been for a long time in a state of unstable equilibrium, as you have talked about, had civil wars earlier. But a part of this that everybody felt that we have to let Lebanon work in peace. And let us see how these forces with Lebanon can come and work out a peaceful alliance. Now, that has been disturbed for Israel with the belief that Hezbollah has become too powerful. It poses a certain threat to Israel. They tried to take Hezbollah out earlier occasions. Last one failed miserably. They could not proceed more than two to three kilometers or miles beyond the Israeli border. Given Hezbollah's increased military strength, it does appear that the United States and Israel believe the destruction of Lebanon may be a better alternative. A failed Lebanon might be a better alternative than to have Hezbollah operating within the structure of the Lebanese state. And therefore, the feeling that whether it's the Lebanese banks, whether the Lebanese financial institutions or the judicial institutions, they are actually operating in the behest of other powers. How far this is true? We don't know. But it is also true that Saudi Arabia, United States and of course Israel plays a huge role in Lebanese politics just as Hezbollah also supported by Syria today and Iran play a role in Lebanese politics. So I think this is really the background of not just Lebanese fractures but also the international forces which are in play in Lebanon at the moment. And I think if people don't realize that people don't come together, we might see a repeat of what we saw earlier. And that's the reason Hezbollah has pointed his finger at Samir Jojo who was very much a part of Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. And that is the history which of course Hezbollah remembers because that was a very bloody chapter in the history of Lebanon and of course Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. So coming to that, in fact it's interesting because Hassan Nasrullah also pointed out that the Lebanese forces led by Samir Jojo according to him they worked with ISIS in Iraq while Hezbollah was the one protecting the Christians. So he was also trying to in some senses diffuse the clear sectarian element to it and also telling the Christian community that Hezbollah looks after your interests as well. But coming back to the point that you were mentioning about the past so to speak where the Lebanese forces for instance were backed by Israel, were backed by other regional powers as well. Could you maybe take us quickly through those time periods and time periods and how they continue to have an implication today? You know the Maronite Christians thought they are superior to the Arab Muslims, both Shias and Sunnis. And part of it was also they considered themselves some way remnants of the Phoenicians who were in this part of the world. They also were very close to the Spanish colonial powers. This is a long history where the what are called the phalangists and this is really political descendants of phalangists in Europe. Nazi forces owed their allegiance to an ideology which was very similar and the belief that they are superior to the rest. And therefore they could in southern Lebanon rest political power militarily and there were international battles, killings. It is not that they were the only ones who were doing the killings. Bashir Jamal of course was the leader of this whole phalangist movement in which of course also we had Georgia also as an important leader. There are the leaders, so they were not the only ones of course but the number of killings that took place were very large. Occupation of southern Lebanon by Israel started in 1985 and continued up to 2000, a 15 year period in which it was backed by southern Lebanese army which was of course a completely fascist formation working with Israeli forces but also what is now called the Lebanese forces but essentially the phalangist movement, phalangist party and that is led by Bashir Jamal as I said committed a huge number of atrocities. Again no issue that it was only one sided, it was not. But nevertheless it was a sectarian battle in which the phalangist and openly fascist force aligned with Israeli armed forces against the Lebanese nation and against its own population. This is the history of Samir Zhozho. Of course there was after the ceasefire, after there was a peace agreement which was brokered partly by the Syrians. They all agreed that all these atrocities would be forgotten. Samir Zhozho was not charged with these atrocities but with planning to kill certain politicians, certain figures in which which was not covered by this amnesty so to say and that's why he served 11 year in jail. But after he came out he also did say that he had repented there were statements he made expressing sorrow about all this internecine battles that had taken place, some kind of peace and reconciliation but those who criticise Zhozho also say that he continues in the phalangist for formation what is called the Lebanese forces, it's not the Lebanese armed forces. This is really an out-shoot of the phalangist parties, fascist group essentially and that therefore he has not changed his basic ideological position. Unlike some of the other Christian leaders who had done so. So therefore there's always been a question about what Samir Zhozho's positions are and in this particular case clearly he wants a downfall of the Michel Aoun presidency he wants the government which has seen Amal and Hezbollah come together to form a ministry this to be dislodged therefore the belief that this particular firing was trying to provoke again an internecine battle between the forces in Lebanon and therefore bringing back a kind of civil war which destroys the Lebanese state and here it is interesting Newland was there in Liberu that day it has been charged that there had been also firing some of the US embassy rooftops no evidence who has done the firing as yet but some indications that it might have been Lebanese forces people because this is an area which has memories and that memories of the bus killings where a number of killings people shears were killed and this led to actually the sectarian war. So given the significance of that this area and the fact that it takes place in an area where Zhozho holds a certain degree of political power the question of course is did he give the green signal or did this happen by forces that we still don't know about or is it like what is called the Maidan firings Asian provocators who want to destroy Lebanon actually firing from the rooftops so this is the really the question mark that remains today. Prebrenan finally a question you basically touched upon also in the first answer which is the regional significance of Lebanon so we know like you mentioned Hezbollah key player in the region an ally of Iran as well vital in saving Syria from and Iraq for that matter from IS forces but Lebanon is also used in a very strategic way by Israel in violations of international law so could you talk a bit about that as well? That's an interesting question you raised because Lebanon is getting increasingly drawn into what Israel perceives as a battle between Israel, US supported countries and of course Iran and allies of Iran so this has been the way it has framed itself and given that Lebanon was earlier an easy target but now that Hezbollah has a lot of rockets in its arsenal and it seems to be quite sophisticated in the way it can use it a direct attack on Lebanon is no longer feasible what has happened is that Syrian war gives it a pretext of trying to hit at Iran's what it considers assets in Syria but essentially to destabilize Syria itself and bombard Assad and his forces the idea is that if Syria can be kept boiling in a state of civil war that weakens a possible alliance against Israel which might encompass now Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and this all of these countries have passed to different phases of war they are now battle hardened like the forces that Israel faced earlier wars against the Arab countries so given this this is seen to be Israel a threat and therefore the need to keep Syria under attack and this is why what you talked about if you see therefore the map in which you can see the attacks that have been launched against Syria you will see they have been largely launched from Lebanese air force air spaces that is a very simple reason if Israel launches for an airspace then Syria gets reason to retaliate against Israel if we launch it from Lebanese airspace who has launched it of course everybody knows it is Israel but what does Syria then do and it also makes it much closer to Syria than if we launch it from Israel so for both these reasons you will see number of airstrikes have been launched from Lebanon to Syria now this this part of it is what of course is also destabilizing the region but Syria now armed with anti-aircraft batteries of different kinds is able to take out a lot of those missiles in fact in the last salvo that was fired from Lebanese airspace most of them seem to have been taken out by the whatever batteries now the Russians have given to the Syrians and most of these missiles could not hit so there is some equality being established there as well which way it will go is not clear but it is in Israel's interest to see that Syria is kept destabilized and that's what we see in the way they want to play Lebanon seems to be the short-term target is destroy Lebanon internally destroy its economy keep get back into our unstable equilibrium in which you have sectarian battles and in Syria keep the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad defensive with certain some these kind of airstrikes that seems to be the Israel policy and of course we know the United States fully backing these policies again the question mark can this kind of the attempts to keep people divided keep people fighting each other survive that is a long-term question I don't believe this this kind of policies destructive policies help anybody it can destroy certain countries but at the same time it does not bring back peace or security for Israel as well Thank you Prabir that's all we have time for today keep watching news click as well as mapping fault lines where we will be covering geopolitical issues from across the world