Yesterday night, I watched Butros Harb on Kalam en Nass. I have to say that I was impressed with the man's knowledge of the constitution and his insistence that the Lebanese political game be played under its rules.
The question that kept nagging at me throughout that show though, was: what if a particular party or individual believes that it's or his/her role or objective surpasses
Another question that I had in mind was: what if no one accepts to lose? This whole rhetoric of no one really losing the civil war and no one winning is all nice and dandy. But, in daily politics, there is always going to be a winner and a loser, and we all need to accept that we may lose on some occasions and win in others. I fear that certain Lebanese (maybe even the majority) cannot bring themselves to accept a political lose.
My final point has to do with the Hizb. Yesterday, Walid Choucair made it clear that the March 14 forces had already promised they would provide a political umbrella for the "resistance" in international circles. The price that the Hizb paid for that promise was its alliance with Jumblatt in Ba'bda-Aley and with Hariri in
Consequently, the Hizb's recent political maneuvers can be interpreted solely as protecting its regional ally, Syria - since it already got what it wants from the relevant political parties in
Again, I can totally appreciate if Hizballah's leadership believes that it is against
I fear that the Hizb is making some very grave long term political mistakes at the expense of the Shi'a population in general. Michael Young said it yesterday in his Daily Star Op Ed. I said it a few weeks ago in an entry concerning Hizballah and its ability to accept "
The danger inherent in any religious party is that it takes itself and its mission too damn seriously. How do you expect a certain party to play by the rules when you get the impression that it will accept all hell to break loose before it changes or does something against its core mission? That is a question Hizballah and