Sunday’s deadly riots echoed the disturbances of exactly one year ago, when on January 23, 2007, opposition action paralyzed all of Beirut, and two days later clashes at the Beirut Arab University resulted in three dead and 150 injured. 

Apart from the unrest in southern Beirut that left seven dead and 20 injured, this month has seen, two car bombs, one targeting an American embassy vehicle and the other killing Internal Security Forces Captain Wissam Eid and 10 others. All have contributed to a mounting nationwide sense of panic.

Last year’s strike was organized by opposition leaders like Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who used it to mark the fifth day of Ashoura, and Free Patriotic Movement leader General Michel Aoun, who called the strike “the first step in building a state where freedom, security and prosperity for all will prevail.” Strikers blocked roadways and set ablaze tires and cars, calling on the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to step down. The strike followed the recent resignation of Shia ministers from Siniora’s cabinet and a massive December 1, 2006 protest in downtown Beirut.

Last week’s strikes, on the other hand, were ostensibly organized by the General Labor Confederation (GLC) to demand that the state and private employers raise wages 15-20% to keep pace with the rising cost of living. Sunday’s riots were supposed to have been a spontaneous protest against continued power cuts in the Dahiyeh, the largely Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut. 

By some accounts, what was a more or less peaceful demonstration turned violent only after an unidentified gunman killed Ali Hassan Hamza, an Amal party activist, who Hezbollah and Amal MPs said was coordinating with the army to disperse the crowd.

“Were they killed by the army? Who gave the orders? Who bears responsibility? Or, is there another party who was shooting at demonstrators?” asked Hezbollah MPs and officials in a statement Monday, insinuating that a third party might have been responsible for killing Hamza to exacerbate tensions between the protestors and the army.

March 14 leaders, however, were quick to call both episodes of civil violence part of an opposition strategy to further destabilize the country. “The forces of the Syrian-Iranian axis are fomenting the unrest, and these events are very dangerous,” said a March 14 statement on Sunday. “The opposition, which answers to Syria and Iran, is solely responsible for the blood spilled today.”

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, meeting with students on Thursday, suggested forming a representative committee to replace the GLC, which is largely seen to be dominated by its pro-opposition leadership. “If we need to strike, we must do it against the ones obstructing the presidential elections,” he told the student delegation, “since there is no hope of redressing the economic and social situation until constitutional life returns to normal.” 

In response to rumors that Hezbollah might be planning imminent and openly political demonstrations, Ghalib Abu Zeinab, a member of the party’s political bureau, told NOW Lebanon that Hezbollah had not yet instigated any civil disobedience, but that it is not out of the question. “As long as there are political and diplomatic efforts underway, we will still give this a chance,” he said.

The opposition has denied it was behind the recent protests, held mostly in opposition-controlled areas, over rising food prices and electricity cuts. Nasrallah, in a widely watched speech to mark the end of Ashoura, explained why:  “I tell you honestly, we will not hide behind livelihood and social demands, as [March 14] thinks. We will not live behind the loaf of bread, which has ceased to look like one, or behind power outages, or discrimination against regions in power supply... We will not hide behind people's hunger and thirst.”

After Sunday’s meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo to evaluate progress on the Arab League’s initiative for Lebanon, Abu Zeinab said, the party will have to evaluate its options. If the opposition feels that it has reached a dead end, then it will consider civil disobedience, once again, as an alternative. Strategies might include not paying bills or not going in to work one morning. 

The Arab foreign ministers in yesterday’s meeting, however, made very little headway. A jaded Lebanese populace has already reacted to the League’s call to elect Army Commander General Michel Sleiman to fill the vacant seat of the presidency on February 11, calling it either naïve or overly optimistic. There are, however, few other diplomatic alternatives.

“Of course, taking to the streets is a democratic tool. The opposition is basically asking for partnership, not for eliminating the other [side],” Abu Zeinab explained. “The goal is to force to government to resign or submit to the opposition’s demands.” 

Many, however, fear that “civil disobedience” might be something of a misnomer, as Hezbollah also controls a heavily armed militia wing, which its leader has vowed never to disarm. Peaceful demonstrations, furthermore, have done little in the past to advance the opposition’s platform either internally or internationally, giving rise to fears that some within the opposition – though perhaps not with Hezbollah’s blessing – might try to up the ante.

Minor clashes in Beirut of late, for example, have taken place mostly between Amal and Future Movement youths, not between armed militia groups. Given the current political situation and ever mounting tensions, the greatest threat is that even peaceful civil demonstrations might turn into civil infighting as shouting slogans escalates into throwing insults and from there to throwing rocks, just as happened on Sunday night and in January 2007.

Today, Lebanon observes a national day of mourning for the seven killed, with schools and universities closed. And, just like last year, with a painful January déjà vu, Beirut residents are making plans to stay at home, unsure what the next week might bring.