stop with the suffocation.

Let me put it out there: I agree with the assertion that the “historical development of [what some call] Lebanon’s ‘Shia ideology’ and power is understandable.” I also agree that “Iran was the [Shi'a community's] natural choice” when it came to accepting a foreign patron that would help them face the challenges they had to deal with as a community. Moreover, like all people raised never to bite the hand that feeds them, the Shi'a community refuses to turn their backs (or, at least, hesitate to turn their backs) on their patron.

However, this reality creates what could amount to an existential problem for Lebanon. I see a fundamental clash between what, over the past 20 years has developed into this “Shi'a ideology” and the loose amalgam of usually contradictory ideas and ideals that characterize what can be said to be a “Lebanese ideology.” Specifically, Hizballah’s aggressive and chauvinist disposition, its explicitly religious cultural and political nature, its apparent need for enemies towards which it may direct all of its energies, and its absolute obsession with Israel all combine to turn the party into a significant destabilizing entity within the country as a whole.

Being a Lebanese who exists outside of Hizballah's yoke, I usually find myself saying, “as long as they remain in their quarters, let them do and believe as they wish.” However, if they seek to impose their ideas or realities (such as war) on me, then I will exercise my own right as a Lebanese to do whatever it is that I can to block and thwart them.

Come to think of it, the blessing inherent in the Syrian occupation after Israel’s withdrawal was that all Lebanese who were not Hizballah followers, somewhat naively believed that the party remained actively engaged in the South because Syria – a foreign, occupying power – wanted to use the party to secure its own goals, ostensibly, liberating the Golan Heights. Today though, the Syrian buffer between Hizballah and the rest of the Lebanese population no longer exists, and all of us are looking right at a local party and its base - both of which apparently seek nothing but to impose what they perceive as their own ideal realities on the rest of us (realities that even supporters of Aoun would fight vehemently against had they not been so blinded by their selective hatred of the political establishment and their desire for power).

In conclusion, I will say that the supporters of Hizballah are definitely not blind, uncritical followers. Hizballah has done for Lebanon’s Shi’a community what no other political entity could. And, indeed, if for nothing but a sense of gratitude, the beneficiaries of Hizballah and Iranian generosity should stand by their party. However, at this point in history, I see no reason why the Hizb does not decommission and commit more of an effort into integrating into the Lebanese political system. The time for war is over; Lebanese are tired. Now that the Syrians have left the country, Lebanese should be given a chance to prosper – as opposed to being suffocated by a local entity that is fearful of change.