Yesterday, Walid Jumblatt and Hariri Jr. spoke their minds. The crux of their message was very simple: Hizballah, we acknowledge the victory you claim, and the efforts of your fighters in the face of the Israeli military machine. However, we ask you, for the sake of Lebanon, to "de-commission."
Jumblatt, I believe, for the very first time, used the term "civil war," in the sense that if Hizballah did not act in Lebanon's interest, a new civil war might ensue.
As I watched both press conferences, one thought kept recurring in my mind: "strength through weakness."
It is obvious that the most fragile entity in this mess is Lebanon. Both Hariri and Jumblatt painted the country as being on the brink - and that if Hizballah did not make the right decisions for the sake of the country, Lebanon will crack.
Today, Hizballah needs to weigh two contradictory imperatives. On the one hand, its leadership feel that it is an integral part of the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballahi coalition, and that if it drops out, it will leave its allies weaker and more vulnerable. Let me add that Hizballah is especially crucial to that alliance because it is the only member that (prior to July 12, at least) could physically launch attacks on Israel, and “stir things up” whenever the alliance felt the time was right. On the other hand, Hizballah is also being made to feel that nothing less than the fate of Lebanon as a state and a country is at stake here.
Will this political maneuver work? Will Hizballah respond positively? We cannot but wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I wish they, and others and the press, would try to elaborate on the logical cobclusion of all this:
Further possible deadlier Israeli attacks, a collapsed army, other Lebanese communities won't stay silent forever, economic calamity for all...
Al,
ya habibi. your "analysis" is basically haki salon! ace, king, queen, bla bla bla... what the hell, man?
your notion of politics is extremely warped, to say the least! At a time when the national leaders seek some sort of compromise, to reach common ground and save the country, you come out screaming hail mary! I don't get it! Would you rather every single person take an Absolute position based on some sort of Principle, get guns, and start shooting at each other?!?!?
Lebanese need to get it THROUGH THEIR THICK SKULLS: Compromise is a VIRTUE in politics. Maybe not in religion, or business, but definitely politics. That, my friends, is why I believe Hizballah, and its "divine obstinance" may eventually ruin Lebanon!
al,
you're trying to get away with "coexistence" as a compromise?!?!?!?! I'm sorry dude, you're definitely going to have to do better than that! In fact, MUCH better!
al,
on one side of this divide, you have a loose coalition of most of Lebanon's political forces that represent most of the country's sects. Even Michel Aoun, at least principally, is on that side of the divide (several of his MPs, for example, have said that it is time for the "resistance to morph into an unarmed movement").
On the other side of this equation, you have a lone hold-out that goes by the title of Hizballah.
Seeing this in front of you, (i.e. all your countrymen except for yourself on one side of an issue), who would you say needs to compromise?
Raja, is Amal on Hizballah's side or not?
al,
can you pleace tell me why did shia turn against Israel? (After 82, I mean)
"No Syrian control (replace it by USA's control)"
What exactly does "USA control" mean to you?
Does the US control Britain? Israel? Pakistan? Egypt? Jordan?
How? What are the impacts on the policy/governance in each of those countries? How do you explain the wide variance in policies/governance in each of those countries?
The fact is, if Lebanon wants to end the wars there are two - and only two - things it needs to do. First, sign a peace deal with Israel. Second, keep - and make sure that all Lebanese groups keep - the peace.
In the context of a peace deal, you can discuss the issue of land, water, prisoners and the end result will probably be an Israeli commitment to leave Shaba'a to Lebanon provided that Syria agrees, Israel reiterating that it does not have any designs on Lebanese water (but possibly offering to pay for some or engage in joint and mutually beneficial development projects) and Israel releasing Nesser to Lebanon (spies can go free, no big deal), keeping Quntar (child murderers should rot in jail) and again and again saying that they don't have Saqaf.
Where's the problem?
Jordan is starving ? I heard that their economy is very high right now, with all those who sold iraq, living in Amman now, spending their milions... Israels economy is based on hi-tech, agriculture, weapons, turism. There is a - lot left for you, once you start working, and stop pointing fingers (and note that we don't sell to arab countries (not much) and you can do it friely)
please consider linking to my blog on your list of "Bloggers of Lebanon"
http://ibnbintjbeil.blogspot.com/
al,
you and i can sit here til kingdom come, and argue. I can bring in all sorts of rationale, reasoning, examples, etc..., etc.... You, no doubt, can do the same.
let us assume that you and i lived in a country and had to somehow rule it together. how do we come to agreement? you think you're completely right. i think i'm completely right. how is it that we decide what to do?
well... we sit down, and both agree to abide by a decision-making mechanism. We say, "no-matter how much I think I may be right, for the sake of the country, I will abide by the results of this decision-making mechanism."
If either of us decides to break-away from the mechanism, and do whatever it is that we like whenever we like to, then we're basically condemning our country to nothingness.
do you understand?
GSH,
It's funny you should say that, because I had a blogger comment on my blog that the reason the peace between Israel and Egypt is stable is because it was entered into as a peace between equals.
viva la difference, I guess . . .
"once you go to sign peace with Israel what would be the conditions?"
The conditions I set out above. Do you have a quibble with the conditions?
"How Israel would look at Lebanon? as an equal partner in peace or not?"
As an equal partner in peace. Of course - why would it be otherwise? The only thing the Israelis would ask of Lebanon is that it prevent attacks from Israel from within its territory (or at least try to do so - nobody can prevent all attacks, but there's a difference between trying and failing and not trying at all; it's the reason why a terror attack from jordan would not be greeted the same way as a Hezbollah attack)
Look, I'm not an Israeli, and I can't speak for them. But every Israeli comment I read, from every area of the spectrum, talks about what a shame it is that they had to attack Lebanon because they see the Lebanese society as very much like Israel's, particularly in the last year or two: secular, democratic even with some ethnic tension, fun loving, etc.
>>there is a biblical reference to the land of israel form euphorates (furat) to nile.
jews never publicize, it, but i think the idea is that jews in that state lead and arabs serve. :-)<<
um . . . no. Not sure where you get your information about jews (or Israelis, who for the most part are irreligious), but maybe you should look into different sources.
And Egypt is not allowed to have an army in the Sinai for the simple reason that the only need for one there is to attack Israel.
Post a Comment