Monday, January 16, 2006

When Will They Respond?

So...when will the Hizbullah/Amal Ministers return to the Cabinet? Is it after Iran's President Ahmadinejad visits Syria this coming Friday, January 20th? Is it after Ahmadinejad cements his country's strategic, military/defense pact with Syria, and by that putting all rumors at bay of an Iran-Syria axis?

When will Hizbullah and the Amal Movement return to the Cabinet? Return to the Lebanese umbrella? Or will they never after that historical meeting in four days?

After Jumblatt's 180-degrees move away from a stand he once took back then to bring all Lebanese "power-parties" together, namely extending a hand to the March 8 group, Hizbullah and Amal, and lobbying along with the Future Movement for the "sanctity" of the resistance (which burned his bridges with many in the Christian street), Hizbullah did not utter a word. No response: not in a speech, nor on the negotiating table.

And then in less than a day apart, Hizbullah and Amal respond: they respond by sending their youth on the streets to protest U.S. envoy, David Welch's visit, not absent of casualties, and then they take from all what Jumblatt has been saying for weeks on now a small, tiny sliver and attack, according to Naseer Ass'ad, the symbol of the "reconciliatory" move to bridge the gap between March 14 and March 8. That tiny "sliver" was when Jumblatt accused that some in Lebanon carry "weapons of betrayal" (silah al-ghadr); Hizbullah took it to be their weapons that Jumblatt was describing, while what he was describing was Ahmad Jibreel's Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine.

Yet, the Lebanese are still waiting for a response from Hizbullah and Amal: when are they going to return to Lebanon's Cabinet? When are they going to let the Lebanese know of their stand towards many of the questions that occupy our minds about the fate of our country?

If it is true and we do not hear from them until after Ahmadinejad's visit to Syria, then it would be disheartening to learn that Hizbullah has declared itself indeed an appendage of the Iran-Syria axis, to the detriment of Lebanon's sovereignty, to the detriment of Lebanon's unity, to the detriment of ever dreaming that Lebanon can be at peace with itself.

"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Go Jumblat!

Anonymous said...

...then it would be disheartening to learn that Hizbullah has declared itself indeed an appendage of the Iran-Syria axis

Hariri, Jumballat and their allies of little monkeys have already declared themselves and appendage of the dick-bush couple.

dearsyria said...

Guess we will know after the iranian president's visit in few days!

Hassan said...

Doha,

Not to be splitting hairs, but they were supposed to get back to the government a couple of weeks ago when they brokered a deal with Saad Hariri, who, as Sawt As-Sha’eb quoted Sanioara today, “failed to convince the other members of March 14 of the deal” (read: aborted by Jombllatt).

I see no interest for HA to return to the government unless they are full partners. If this government is to go on without proper Shiite representation, adding to its lack of proper Christian representation, then it will have no real weight. Personally, I think the good thing in their staying out of meetings is that the government dares not make major decisions, which should have been done ages ago because this government should be an interim one leading Lebanon through a transitional stage.

I blame them for not doing the best steps for Lebanon: resigning and pushing for early elections with a proper law.

As for the flow of work: as long as the ministers are carrying out their jobs in their respective ministries, it’s the maximum I expect of them under such a government.

Ramzi said...

Doha,

What compromise? There cant be a compromise under Hizb/Amal demands. The compromises that they want from the government will lead to the end of Lebanon as a nation! Jumblatt was right to veto it.

There is no compromise on Lebanon as an independent country with ONE central government, not a 2nd government in the south. And a 3rd in the refugee camps.

Hassan said...

Ramzi,

Very interesting analysis. I must admit it's the first time i hear this. Maybe you know of demands we are unaware of. What were the demands?

Ramzi said...

1- To not call the resistance a militia but as a resistance movement

2- To say that according to the Lebanese government 1559 has been implemented

3- All cabinet decisions by consensus not by majority vote

4- No to international tribunal or Lebanese/Intern tribunals

and one or two more but I forget.

Ramzi said...

If you read about the Lebanese history there was always concensus but at the same time there was compromise. The position of Hizb/Amal is more of a VETO power type threat, and demands that they will not compromise.

Jumblatt tried and even Aoun tried there best to move them just a milimeter towards compromising and they have refused.

Hassan said...

So these are the same ones i know of. Please explain how they "will lead to the end of Lebanon as a nation!"

And, as a side note, please keep in mind that by holding on to majority vote, the current majority is fulfilling a strategic goal of HA. Devoting majority rule is a big blow to both the Druze and the Maronites.

Hassan said...

Ramzi,
I agree with your descriptions of the way things usually work, which is why, and according to Aoun's most recent interview, their pulling out of the cabinet is constitutional exactly because there was voting with not prior attempt to reach consensus through compromise. You see, the majority wanted to use the atmosphere of Gebran’s assassination to forcibly pass a law they had proposed before the assassination.

Ramzi S said...

Hassan,

Point 1 and 2 basically make Hizb arms permanent. So basically keaping part of lebanon perminantly out of the reach of the Lebanese Army, and keaps one sect, the Shia, the only ones with arms. So giving them extra power over the other sects. This will permanently disable Lebanon as a state.


Consensus through compromise I am all for. But I respectfully disagree. Hizb/Amal are NOT compromising on anything!

Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

"Please explain how they "will lead to the end of Lebanon as a nation!"

Because Lebanon is a nation?

Hassan said...

We apparently have a basic difference in our understanding of the Lebanese situation. I still view HA as a resistance movement and, unlike everyone else, a very mature political player when it comes to the country’s strategic interests. I say this because I think it is unimaginable for them to use their weapons internally. The constant calls relating their weapons with internal strength are rather strange, especially that they come after the Syrians have left. So either everyone just woke up and remembered that HA has guns that should be removed, or they always thought so and were keeping their mouths shut in fear of the Syrians. I don’t bet on people who can be intimidated into shutting up, as there’s no guarantee they won’t shut up again.

South Lebanon’s being outside the control of the army is a totally political issue. I am not sure how much we should relate it to HA arms in this context. In fact, relating the two in such a way merely strengthens the premise that HA arms will be used, in south Lebanon, for resistance only and not against other internal sides.

And about compromise, there's nothing to compromise about at this basic stage. It’s very simple: full partnership or nothing. The compromise I meant is what takes place after this stage.

Ramzi said...

Vox,

Lebanon was definetely a nation up to 1975. The system was good enouegh to keap the state functioning. The nation fell apart when external pressures and issues out of Lebanon's control had to be dealt with.

Is Lebanon a Nation today? Some can easily argue No, that the problems that lead to the 1975 war have not bean dealt with and neither have the new issues threatening the state. The arms with Hizb, the Palastinians have to be dealt with. The Syrians and Isreali's leaving the country was a positive step toward rebuilding the power of the central government.

Lazarus said...

Hassan -

"country’s strategic interests" is a very overloaded term. Everyone cares about the "strategic interests" ... yet what decides whose method of procuring those interests should be followed?

and - after the 2000 liberation day, there were some calls by a few players for disarmament. This, as a step, has to happen eventually. Regardless of whether they will or won't use their arms internally, HA should discuss the terms under which they will disarm.

Hassan said...

Lazarus,

"HA should discuss the terms under which they will disarm. "

I agree with this. But keep in mind that there is no trust right now, which means no real dialogue.

The basic problems of trust obviously start with Jomblat. The HA rhetoric now could become that they need more guarantees for any deal they make because the previous deal was thwarted after they brokered it with Saad Hariri and it was supposedly finalized.

Add to that Jomblatt’s calling for their help in investigations. This is already marred by a bad experience where HA investigators went on Ground Zero after Feb. 14, after a request from sides close to the Hariri family. HA soon informed the family that they were 100% certain the explosion took place above ground, a finding which all the other investigations confirmed later. Yet this information was twisted by the different anti-Syrian sides into “tunnel theories” and the like, just to throw more blame on Syria.

I am aware there are sides which called for the removal of the weapons, and HA was calling for negotiations very early but got the standard answer “after the elections.”

HA was justly alarmed by the change of tone following the Syrian withdrawal and the election results. A Maronite bishops declaration labeled HA fighters as “armed groups outside the reign of law.”

The change of tone when they gained power meant that many March 14 sides would not negotiate HA as equals. This is what is happening now, with Jomblat saying that it is March 14 sides, minus Aoun, who should exclusively rule the country.

Ramzi said...

Hassan,

No disrespect to Lebanese Shites who are just as nationalistic as any Lebanese. And who want a strong and just Lebanese state like everyone else.

But discussing Hizb. without discussing the major influence of Iran and Syria on them will not give you a clear picture.

Now many will say well the USA / Saudi etc. have influence on March 14 groups and on and on.. But it is NOT to the same degree of influence or control. Hizb gets on estimate $100 million a year from Iran. Plus all their arsenal from Syrian and Iran.

I mean let’s be realistic, there is only so much Nasrallah can do even if he wanted to, his hands are tied. Hizb is a Syrian and Iranian card in Lebanon. So it is understandable why the rest of the Politicians in Lebanon most dramatically Jumblatt are frustrated with the lack of progress in getting Hizb to change their tune.

And to say that the March 14 group is the stronger party is ridiculous. One by one the leaders are getting assassinated. Jumblatt sees this and he is making a stand. Taking it up a level to see who blinks first. Maybe that is the only way to get Hizb to feel the heat and make the compromise necessary to disarm and stop supporting Iranian and Syrian foreign policy on Lebanese soil.

Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

Lazarus, for me Lebanon is a territory with a state, not a nation. Lebanon is a country of 19 communities. You already know 18 of these communities , I don't need to enumarate them.

The 19th community is the Lebanese community. This community consist of persons whose loyalty goes to the country and not to their sect. All the others are not Lebanese, they are Shia Lebanese, Sunni Lebanese, Maronite Lebanese etc... And the Lebanese community in Lebanon is a minority among other minorities.

I already said that the state should officially recongnize this 19th community. The people who primarily consider themselves as Lebanese and don't want their lives to be run by religious clerics would be able to 'convert' if they want. Some people don't want to pass through a sheikh or a priest to marry, to inherit or to divorce. Of course, I don't need to say that the personal statute of this new community would be a copy of those you find in Europe.

But as I said, 'Lebanese' is a minority amongst other minorities. Until this community is officially recognized and becomes a majority, I will consider Lebanon as a multinational state (which is not shameful, there's plenty of respectable multinational state in the world).

Vox Populi - Agent Provocateur said...

Sorry, I meant Ramzi.

Raja said...

Vox...

the 19th community.

I like that!

I like that a lot!

Ramzi S said...

Vox,

I agree with you. Very well said.

Ramzi

Raja said...

Hassan,

you say that you still view HA as a resistance movement. I believe that all of us, including yourself, should look at that assertion critically.

First we should ask: resistance against what?

The answer is obvious (or is it?)

Then we should ask: resistance to what extent?

In other words, assuming we all know who our enemy is, when do we stop fighting this enemy?

Before we argue over (in Lazarus' own words) "over-loaded" terms, we need to define exactly what they mean. So, Hassan, what exactly do you mean by "resistance"? And, more importantly, do you know what Hizballah means by "resistance"?

Allow me to also make a political argument with an analogy to the United States.

Let us assume that a faction of the Republican or Democratic parties has formulated a foreign policy agenda that is truly in the best geo-strategic interest of the United States of America. The reality of the matter is that if this faction of either party is not able to get into office, it will not be able to implement its policy - no matter how good it is!

Let use another analogy: state-department vs. congress. The former is the pre-eminent foreign policy expert of the US. The latter houses fat representatives who, in most cases, don't know where Frankfurt is. If Congress, with all of its stupidity, decides against a State Department policy, Congress wins, and the State Department accepts... it does not matter how brilliant that particular policy is.

So you see, Hassan. These analogies are supposed to convey the message that Hizballah must accept that it represents a minority of the Lebanese population. If the majority of Lebanese, as represented (however imperfectly) by their parliamentarians, decide that a certain policy is not what they support, Hizballah must concede to their will.

Hizballah cannot act like the Guardian Council in Iran, which asserts that it knows better than the people, and will veto whatever the people ask that is disagreeable. Lebanon is not Iran, therefore, Hizballah does not have that sort of legitimacy. Unless it desires its own mini-state, I believe that Hizballah reconcile itself to that fact and act accordingly.

Lazarus said...

Raja -

"convey the message that Hizballah must accept that it represents a minority of the Lebanese population"

?

June - July elections 2005 ...

HA represented a minority? Does it represent a minority now?

If the "strategic" alliance did not exist ... the current majority would not exist. You can tell me: Yet they do exist. Which means that we should all concede to them.

This majority was supposed to be a majority that included HA.

If we really want to discuss majorities - then another election should take place, with the updated election law.

I agree that there should be rule of majority - this consensus will be destructive, and already is proving that.

However - the government was formed as a consensus government, and we can't just have it both ways whenever we feel that it suits our interests more. We either want HA to come back, because they DO represent a significant amount of the population, or we do not mind that they withdraw. In that case let them go, but also expect them to withdraw from parliament. In the elections that result, I doubt that they will "aide" the current majority. And at that point, today's antics by certain charlatans will show themselves to be what they actually are - immature, a-strategic, and potentially destructive.

Hassan said...

Ramzi,

Ramzi,

As for the Syrian influence, I really think it is non-existent. I think the Iranians are calling the shots even for Syria now to help the idiots in the Baath and keep the Americans one step away from them. I also believe that the relation between HA and Iran is more of the “allies” nature than the “card” nature. Even when Syria was inside Lebanon, HA were the only ones who treated the Syrians as peers, rather than as masters.

“So it is understandable why the rest of the Politicians in Lebanon most dramatically Jumblatt are frustrated with the lack of progress in getting Hizb to change their tune.”

Sure, in absolute terms, this seems very sound, but I have to be critical of many facts, most notably that Jumblatt’s actions are triggered by many things other than his worry over Lebanon. I believe his main aims are to keep what he called, in a recent BBC interview, “an ancestral leadership of the very small Druze community” and to keep this community from being overwhelmed by the majorities in the country, especially with the current vagueness in Lebanon and the region. Two days ago, HA said “if treachery were a man, its name would be Walid Jomblat”; but a month ago they had said “if anxiety were a man, its name would be Walid Joumblat.”

Add to that what you say of external influences, and the fact that he is not someone who can be trusted especially with his extortion methods. They already made many moves with Saah Hariri and these moves were aborted, supposedly by Joumblat. His own escalation in tone makes it stupid for HA to back off and compromise. They already gave the Future-Jumblatt-LF alliance the Baabda-Aley seats because they thought it would shut him up, but he follows a clear policy of making gains then going for more, and, frankly, it is high time someone stops him.

I also think that what started as Joumblat’s outbursts against Iran escalated to this point mostly because the Iranians stopped paying him, a few months ago, all the money that they used to pay him. This is similar to when Rafiq Hariri stopped paying him a few years ago and Joumblatt totally went against him, opening fire with an escalating tone for a couple of days.

The biggest issue in my opinion now is that many sources are quoting HA insiders that at least one of the explosions was not carried out by the Syrians, and they are usually right when it comes to this domain. This creates a whole new array of scenarios and makes us start a new understanding of the issue.

Hassan said...

Raja,

please keep in mind an earlier side note of mine:

"by holding on to majority vote, the current majority is fulfilling a strategic goal of HA. Devoting majority rule is a big blow to both the Druze and the Maronites. "

I really see that Joumblat is falling into a scheme that HA never even dreamt of playing. They are justly sure that, with a really democratic electoral law, they will gain a greater share and can form a majority with one alliance (FPM or Future). If this is how they are being treated now, i reall expect them to retaliate very aggressively, and the first victim will be Joumblatt's political prospects. They will be able to impose their own "Druze leader".

Doha said...

I disagree to your last sentence Hassan.

hummbumm said...

Hassan,
All your stuff is very interesting, but it does not refute Raja and others basic premise. HA by dint of possessing arms has the ability to drag lebanon into a conflict that the majority does not want. Furthermore HA has expressed foreign policy goals that are not in sync with what the rest of lebanon wants. Ie by formulating a foreign policy independent of the state and by having the military means to implement this policy, it is acting as a separate state, whose loyalties and alliance are not the same as the rest of lebanon. You and other readers may attack Jumblatt for all you want. Yes he is mercurial, yes he does not represent a large segment of the populace (though his more recent statements I would wager a large segment agree with) etc... but when you go to sleep at night and think of nightmare scenarios for lebanon, it is not Jumblatt that keeps you up, be honest, all nightmare scenarios pass through HA.

Lazarus said...

"all nightmare scenarios pass through HA."

Well, not really.

Hassan said...

Doha,

It is your right to disagree, but please humor me and say why.

Hummbumm,

I haven’t been psychoanalyzed in a long time. And this invitation to “be honest” is too patronizing for me to answer, but I’ll stick to the rest of “your stuff”.

To separate things, I’ll say that almost every party is formulating its own foreign policy independent of the state. This is reinforced by the fact that the current government’s stands on many issues are inconsistent, and there is not real “national stand” on most foreign policy issues. For example, Saad Hariri’s entire foreign policy can be summed up in “The Truth”. What does this make him?

Also,

“HA has expressed foreign policy goals that are not in sync with what the rest of lebanon wants”

And what does “the rest of Lebanon” want. First, Joumblatt’s rhetoric was “What’s after liberating Shabaa?” now he’s opposed to fighting for Shabaa unless it’s “proven Lebanese”.

And speaking of generalizations: Does this “rest of Lebanon” include or exclude the other parties like the Communist Party.

Anonymous said...

Lebanon is like mosaic pieces that need someone to build a the final mosaic. There is no one in Lebanon with strenght, vision and dedication who will gather these pieces together. The lebanese seem to breed leaders who get quickly corrupted, who forget the people to concentrate on their power by demagogically appealling to their religious community. No community in Lebanon wants to loose the power they had to the majority( the Shia). See how the Sunnis in Iraq are horrified when they realized they are a minority and that they are loosing power.
Unfortunately there must be losers and winners and that absurb illusion that there could be a nation without winner and losers is ridiculous if you look at the history nation building (The south lost against the North in the USA etc...)
The Druze community have the most to loose, because they lack the support of a big nation, therefore Joumblatt is trying to associate himself to the USA for protecting his community's interests. He is trying to avoid that a deal is made by the Christian ( supported by the west), the sunnis ( supported by Saudi arabia) and the Shia who are the majority in Lebanon now and have the support of Iran. So the struggle is bound to continue...

Hassan said...

Anon,

Thanks for this! Very much to the point.

Hani G. said...

Hassan I think playing the sectarian card is dangerous, but I won't only disagree with your last statement, I will repudiate it also. It is not up to you or Hizbollah to impose a Druze leader or to remove Walid Joumblatt from the helm. With respect this is not a subject that you have a say in.

It seems Joumblatt has become a thorn in your sides. What does this say about the man who presides over a minority?

Joumblatt today, and while his life is in grave danger, is simply expressing the thoughts and speaking the minds of the the majority of the Lebanese people.

I will second humbumm in his analysis that when we go to sleep at night it isn't Joumblatt's statements that keep us up, although on the other hand, his killing is also a nightmare scenario for all of Lebanon.

hummbumm said...

Hassan, maybe every party is seeking foreign patronage of a sort but only one has the weapons. It is the weapons and their potential use that is the problem. If HA was disarmed, They could lay out their political agenda and I would disagree and life would go on. I still can't believe that we have to argue about the fact that having an armed militia is a destabilizing factor. I mean why not have a syrian resistance fighting for the Golan that is not part of the syrian state? And what are we resisting at present here in lebanon? and when does resistance end? And what form should resistance take? and at what cost? are those not questions for everyone or is Nasrallah the only one qualified to answer these questions?

Lazarus said...

"speaking the minds of the the majority of the Lebanese people"

once again. let's not generalize too rashly with the word "majority".

Hassan said...

Hani G

I said this to show how stupid it is of him to actually call for a majority rule. Please re-read what i wrote.

Hassan said...

Hummbumm,

“If HA was disarmed, They could lay out their political agenda and I would disagree and life would go on.”

Even now, you can disagree and life can go on. It’s being done everyday. It’s what Walid Joumblat did, and he’s still alive and kicking. And as Hani G says, killing him now would bring a nightmare to Lebanon, so I trust HA not to do it.

“I still can't believe that we have to argue about the fact that having an armed militia is a destabilizing factor”

It is a destabilizing factor, which brings us to your next point. I think they are a resistance movement. You say they are a militia. For all the answers on who should answer these important questions that you ask, refer to my previous comments to Lazarus:


Lazarus,

"HA should discuss the terms under which they will disarm. "

I agree with this. But keep in mind that there is no trust right now, which means no real dialogue.

The basic problems of trust obviously start with Jomblat. The HA rhetoric now could become that they need more guarantees for any deal they make because the previous deal was thwarted after they brokered it with Saad Hariri and it was supposedly finalized.

Add to that Jomblatt’s calling for their help in investigations. This is already marred by a bad experience where HA investigators went on Ground Zero after Feb. 14, after a request from sides close to the Hariri family. HA soon informed the family that they were 100% certain the explosion took place above ground, a finding which all the other investigations confirmed later. Yet this information was twisted by the different anti-Syrian sides into “tunnel theories” and the like, just to throw more blame on Syria.

I am aware there are sides which called for the removal of the weapons, and HA was calling for negotiations very early but got the standard answer “after the elections.”

HA was justly alarmed by the change of tone following the Syrian withdrawal and the election results. A Maronite bishops declaration labeled HA fighters as “armed groups outside the reign of law.”

The change of tone when they gained power meant that many March 14 sides would not negotiate HA as equals. This is what is happening now, with Jomblat saying that it is March 14 sides, minus Aoun, who should exclusively rule the country.

Hani G. said...

"And as Hani G says, killing him now would bring a nightmare to Lebanon, so I trust HA not to do it."

Hassan, how much thought did you put into this comment? I don't know you, so I will presume you wrote it in haste, but after your preceding comment I can only analyse your conviction as a message to those concerned that Hizbollah can kill him, or have considered it but won't do so because of an apparent nightmare scanrio.

"The basic problems of trust obviously start with Jomblat"

Hassan this is a feeble excuse! It is clear that unnecessary time is being bought at the moment! All at the expense of the country.

These discussion were on the table long before any of the current Joumblatt-Hizbollah debacle.

Hassan said...

Hani G,

"Hassan this is a feeble excuse! It is clear that unnecessary time is being bought at the moment! All at the expense of the country.

These discussion were on the table long before any of the current Joumblatt-Hizbollah debacle.
"

And HA were calling for negotiations since then.

As for the unnecessary time that's being bought. I agree. As i said earlier. They should resign from the government and go for early elections. Also, Aoun's suggestion of a national unity government is appealing to me, but will definitely by opposed by, you guessed it, Joumblatt.

hummbumm said...

Hassan, we shall see as they say. Let us hope this question is not put to the test if there is further escalation between US and Iran. Will HA remain neutral as they should if they were putting Lebanon's best interest, or will they fire missiles into Israel? HA taking action on behalf or in support of Iran is not my idea of resistance. My idea of resistance ended in 2000 upon the withdrawal of the occupying force...
It is my fear, you may think me wrong, but I don't think I am alone in this fear that HA will involve Lebanon in regional conflicts in which we could and should stay out of... If my fear proves unfounded then I will reassess

Lazarus said...

Hummbumm says: "upon the withdrawal of the occupying force..."

either shebaa is lebanese, or it isn't. If it isn't, let the government issue a final decree, saying that it is purely syrian land. until that time, you can't say a resistance has expired .. just because the occupying force withdrew from most of the land.

What is astonishing about these arguments is that it began with an analysis of HA's position on local issues. Then, when someone brings about a historical trinket to remind those who have selective memory about what has happened in the past months, the discussion of "arms" is brought up, as a "card" that has no answer at this moment. Yes, they should disarm. I think we have all agreed on that. Let's move on. In the meantime, within all this commotion over nothing, some more serious schisms are occuring that can not be blamed only on HA. It fascinates me - it really does - how jumblatt is supported only when he stands for something person X stands for, only for person X to cast aways Jumblatt's comments when Jumblatt says something that doesn't fit into X's agenda. I understand that this can happen over time, but not within a week!

So - Jumblatt is either a destabilizing force, or he isn't. If he isn't, then show me what he has done in the past month that has attempted to unify Lebanon. Talk is cheap.

Hassan said...

Hummbumm,

There’s always talk on the Lebanese blogs of how we should change our paradigms, and I would really like to have a blog devoted into that. You see, one of my major convictions is that we always need to “reassess” our beliefs and thoughts, rather than wait till something happens and react then. Just a thought.

hummbumm said...

WEll, so far HA is acting exactly as I perceive them. A destabilizing force aligned with despotic regimes in Syria and Iran. HA does not view itself as solely a leb organization. It has a regional focus and regional aims that run counter to what is best for lebanon, or at the very least counter to the stated policy of the leb government. So maybe you should reassess. Like I said, if they prove me wrong, I will admit it. But as March 8th and other actions have demonstrated. And as to shebaa, please my family farm in the South was bigger than that plot of land, and by the way HA has hedged on that matter. If it is declared and agreed upon to be Syrian, or if made officially lebanese and then the Israelis withdraw, will HA deem the resistance over? I don't believe it. And by the way they are not doing anything re. resistance, which goes back to if it is a national resistance, should not the timing and methods of national resistance be discussed by all the national groupings? Moreover from a purely personal standpoint, it is a party based on fundamentalist religious tenets, that run counter to how I live my life. So, at best I tolerate HA, because I acknowledge the breadth of their support, much to my chagrin, and yes I cheered their actions in the nineties. but support them and their societal vision drawn largely from Iran. Never.

Ramzi said...

Hassan,

"because the previous deal was thwarted after they brokered it with Saad Hariri and it was supposedly finalized."

We don't know what the details of this "deal" is. So we are not in a position to criticise or congratulate Jumblatt for his stand against the deal. But the fact that the deal was brokered in Saudi Arabia. Outside the territory of Lebanon is not good.

And also I would rather have the cabinet resign then modify the cabinet statement which I think is a good starting point for negotiations. Again Hizb is an unfair negotiating partner because they have arms.

Anonymous said...

Lebanon is being set up for a fall by Israel and America. First of all everyone here knows that most Lebanese politicans, Christian, Muslim, and Druze, and even Arab politicans are crooks. Even the assasinated former Prime Minister and his son our crooks. Everyone talks about Lebanon being threatened by so and so...well let me tell you the biggest threats and traitors to Lebanon are its own leaders. Al-Hairi was a crook who became rich off development contracts oppointed to himself and favouritism with Saudi Arabia. As for Syria the Maronite elite traditionally supported them and had many agreements over power in Lebanon with them. As for Iran I can say that out of Lebanon's friends and neighbours it is the best. All of them want to have some control in Lebanon, but Iran seems to sincerly want what is best for Lebanon. This might have started out with the Shias, but Iran seems to really consider Lebanon sacred. I see no enemy in Iran, a traditional Lebanese ally and friend, but I must warn all of Lebanon that there is confrontation brewing and Lebanon will be dragged in by Israel and America.