Ammar vs. Fatfat - my biased opinion

"The Orthodox are coming!!! They're coming to steal our civilization,’ geography, women, and everything we've built!!!"

MP Ali Ammar's ominous warning to Minister Ahmed Fatfat went as such in Ali Hamade's show on Future Television. Ammar was implying that the Sunnis and Shi’as should unite against the Christians as Imam Ali and Mu’awia did against the Byzantine Empire in their days. At a later point in the show, MP Ammar criticized Fatfat for being a “romantic” (In light of his own words, I found that criticism to be quite intriguing to say the least).

An Observation About the Two Individuals:

It is easy to decipher the nature of the political organizations both these men belong to from their personalities and the way they communicated with each other. Ahmed Fatfat was gregarious, witty and quick to jump into a discussion when he felt that it was in his interest to do so. MP Ammar was quiet, somber, serious, quickly annoyed by any interruptions, and gave the impression that when he spoke he did so with tremendous effort. It appeared as if he was digging deep into his reserves to express himself.

In short, I can easily imagine Fatfat in a round table discussion attempting to grind out a common decision pertaining to a certain issue. On the other hand, I cannot imagine Ammar in such a situation. Rather, I see him as listening attentively in a quiet room to someone, and/or lecturing a political philosophy class - or, in fact, a class dealing with any similarly esoteric subject matter.

My Personal Standing in this Debate

Let me be explicit: My world view is congruent with Fatfat's, so I am biased. I don't care how powerful the United States is and how many "injustices" it has committed over the past 50 years, but I simply prefer the American way of life over the Iranian way of life. I prefer the American model of governance over the Iranian model of governance. I prefer American culture and norms over Iranian culture and norms. Consequently, I ask that no one expect an unbiased opinion from me on these issues because, again, I am extremely biased.

Some Comments Concerning MP Ali Ammar

MP Ammar was extremely emotional and appeared to be very sincere when he talked. In fact, at some points, he was even convincing. However, I completely disagree with most of his arguments. The entire point of the show in Ammar's perspective was simply to convey to his audience the impending American "slaughter" of Syria and Hizballah.

To make his argument more persuasive, he claimed that there was no difference between the Syrian regime and its people; he pointed to America's slaughtering of Iraqis (I'm so glad that Fatfat pointed out that the Iraqis were pretty much doing most of the killing); and of course, he mentioned the Palestinian-Israeli struggle. The MP basically told Fatfat and his Lebanese audience that Hizballah possesses a strategy to take on the "Zionist-Imperialist-European" coalition, and not only must all accept that strategy, but they must do so selflessly (i.e. without any thoughts to their own safety and wellbeing).

Ali Ammar's view was so one-dimensional at certain points that it eventually started getting annoying. For God's sake, when Hamade asked him to respond to certain claims that Lebanon was headed towards civil war, he said that any individual who made such a claim was an "Israeli!" Now isn't that a bit too narrow-minded? Can he not relate a negative action or entity to something other than Israel or the United States? Why does every bad or negative thing have to have some sort of connection to Israel in his mind?

Concluding Remarks About Hizballah

It is now clear to me more than ever. Hizballah is in essence a military outfit. Even though its leaders do not wear the modern outfits of officers, they are very much Generals. Every nation should have Generals and an effective military to go along with them. However, all Generals must come under the command of civilian leadership. Military men are one dimensional. Politicians are not. Military men are one dimensional because being as such is good for their job. If Nasrallah was not fully convinced that what he does is right, how could he justify his son's sacrifice? Politicians, on the other hand, look at things from different angles and compromise because those are traits suitable for their profession. They consider many tools that are at their disposal to achieve political objectives - not just military tools.

Hizballah must be absorbed by Lebanese state institutions - I'm refering to its military arm. Furthermore, unless some real changes take place from within, which would reinstitute civilian leaders as a replacement to the current military clique, I can only beg the Shi'a community to form alternative nodes of power that will better serve their interests. In short, an organization that is hell bent on taking on the world militarily no matter what the expense, is one that benefits no one, least of all those whose interests it claims to represent.