SINN FEIN ON THE MED:

Hezbollah's Dilemma (Daniel Byman, April 13, 2005, Foreign Affairs)

Hezbollah is many things: a terrorist group, a guerrilla movement, a proxy for Iran and Syria to use against Israel, the champion of Lebanon's Shia Muslim community, a leading Lebanese political force, and even a builder of hospitals and schools. Through all these roles it exerts remarkable influence on Lebanon, but it is not clear which aspects of the organization would come to the fore if Syrian forces leave the country. If Lebanon is freed from Syrian domination, the United States should accept that Hezbollah's political wing would participate in the new Lebanese government. Washington should exploit this participation to push the Party of God away from Syria--and ultimately away from terrorism and anti-Israel activities as well. President George W. Bush's recent statement that Hezbollah could prove that it is not a terrorist organization "by laying down arms and not threatening peace" strikes just the right tone.

The Lebanese clamor for Syrian withdrawal has put Hezbollah in a difficult position. On the one hand, the party is naturally loath to cut ties to one of its chief patrons. On the other hand, to maintain its power in Lebanese politics following a Syrian withdrawal, Hezbollah will need the backing of the people, and siding completely with Syria could jeopardize that.

Most of Lebanon's ethnic and religious communities want Syria to leave, and even some Lebanese Shiites joined the recent anti-Syrian protests. Hezbollah has always tried to remain above Lebanon's communal fray, portraying itself as a resistance movement that transcends petty politics. But by opposing the cross-communal alliance against Syria, the Party of God has been undercutting its claims as a national organization. If it decides to forcibly intervene in domestic politics on Syria's behalf, Hezbollah risks losing the goodwill and respect of the many Lebanese who admire its social services and its past efforts against Israel. And because Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah can no longer use its anti-Israel campaign to win broad popular support. [...]

Instead of trying to ostracize Hezbollah, Washington should focus on trying to get the organization to stop pursuing its goals through violence.

Just grit your teeth and treat them like a legitimate political party and you speed their becoming one.

MORE:
Democracy Without Borders (Rami G. Khouri, TomPaine.com)
I have spent the last three days in Doha, Qatar, participating in a rich discussion among 150 Americans and citizens from Islamic countries around the world, which has clarified a few important trends in American-Islamic world relations. The center of gravity of the public debate about the Arab-Islamic world, and between Americans and Muslims, is slowly shifting. It is moving away from wars for regime change and clashes of civilizations, into a discussion of democracy and reform. Most intriguingly and significantly, a core issue in this global debate became more clear to me and many other participants here at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, organized by the State of Qatar and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. It is the issue of whether, and how, to include Islamist parties and groups in the democratic process.

As Arab and Islamic societies become more democratic, the most credible, organized and legitimate groups in society are likely to be Islamist parties like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. If they are denied participation in elections—or denied incumbency if they win—the democratic process will prove to be a sham. But, it is also asked, can they participate in politics and share in power if they remain armed? Significantly, the core of the debate now is not about whether these groups should participate politically, but how they can do so in a manner that is acceptable to all concerned.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 13, 2005 7:15 AM