Lebanon Restaurants Partially Reopen, Face Faltering Economy

A woman rides her bike past a number of closed bars along a major nightlife hub during the coronavirus pandemic, in central Beirut, Lebanon, May 3, 2020. (AP)
A woman rides her bike past a number of closed bars along a major nightlife hub during the coronavirus pandemic, in central Beirut, Lebanon, May 3, 2020. (AP)
TT
20

Lebanon Restaurants Partially Reopen, Face Faltering Economy

A woman rides her bike past a number of closed bars along a major nightlife hub during the coronavirus pandemic, in central Beirut, Lebanon, May 3, 2020. (AP)
A woman rides her bike past a number of closed bars along a major nightlife hub during the coronavirus pandemic, in central Beirut, Lebanon, May 3, 2020. (AP)

It's not just a lifestyle, it's a livelihood. That was the motto used by some of Lebanon's best-known nightclubs to raise money for thousands of bartenders, waiters and support staff who have been without a job since the country imposed a strict coronavirus lockdown in mid-March.

The club owners pulled together a three-day fundraising marathon: 150 DJs from around the world spun their records in five different virtual rooms over the weekend in a non-stop electronic music festival. By Sunday night, they had raised the equivalent of $36,000.

The initiative is unlikely to make a dent, reported The Associated Press. The hospitality industry has been hit particularly hard by the government-mandated closures which followed a series of bad seasons. The pandemic delivered just the latest blow to an economy already devastated by the worst financial crisis since the country's 1975-90 civil war.

Lebanon is entering a new phase of the lockdown Monday, allowing restaurants to open at 30% capacity during the day. But many business owners say they won't reopen because they would be losing more money if they operate under such restrictions during a faltering economy.

Maarouf Asaad, a 32-year-old bartender who was paid for one of the two months he stayed home, was expecting to return to work Monday, where his bar would operate as a daytime cafe. Then new government regulations Sunday ordered cafes to stay shut until June, along with clubs and bars. There was no explanation for the distinction between restaurants and cafes.

Asaad said his basic salary won’t keep up with new inflated prices while his customers will be feeling the pinch of the sudden severe currency depreciation. In recent weeks, the Lebanese pound lost nearly 60% of its value against the dollar and prices of basic goods soared.

"It won’t end even when I go back. It is not just coronavirus, it is also a collapsing economy,” Asaad said.

At least 150,000 people are employed in Lebanon’s hospitality industry. Some 25,000 of them already lost their jobs even before the pandemic. None are unionized and not all are insured or can even secure minimum wage.

The lockdown topped months of a spiraling economic crisis that already had a staggering impact on the hospitality industry, a resilient sector in this small Mediterranean country that survived political instability and contributed as much as 18% of GDP in 2017, a peak year.

Around 800 small and medium businesses have folded between September and January, according to Maya Bekhazi, secretary general of the syndicate for owners of restaurants, cafe and bars.

Bekhazi said she expects losses for February and March to be “huge."

“Since this morning, we're getting messages: 'We are not opening; this place is going to shut down; this hotel is going to shut down for good.' It's really drastic,” she said.

And those still in business are struggling. Supplies are priced at the pound-to-dollar black market rate while restaurants and bars are still expected to use the official set rate.

“Every item I sell today I sell at a loss,” she said of her own business, a patisserie.

The International Monetary Fund projected that Lebanon's economy will shrink 12% in 2020, nearly double the contraction of the year before.

The government on Friday formally asked the IMF for a rescue plan for the difficult years ahead.

Amid the gloom, the three-day Electronic Labor Day festival, launched May 1 to commemorate Workers Day, offered a non-stop party as immersive as any real clubbing experience in Lebanon could be.

With DJs from over 30 countries — including Germany, the United States, France, Egypt and Lebanon — the lineup rivaled Ibiza’s popular opening May parties. DJs played over footage from previous parties, replicating the club vibe at home.

Many DJs displayed signs saying “We Got Your Back.”



India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.