September 13, 2006
A STATE OF THEIR OWN AND SECURITY WITHIN IT:
Lebanon - a reassessment (ASHER SUSSER, 9/14/06, THE JERUSALEM POST)
In the Arab world, views vary from the one extreme, which sees the ultimate victory of the Arabs in more missiles and rockets that will surely bring Israel to its knees in the not too distant future, to those at the other end of the spectrum, according to whom Hizbullah, Lebanon and the Arabs have, in fact, been defeated. [...]Even a cursory perusal of the Arab press, will reveal that Hizbullah's status in Lebanon has changed for the worse, as many Lebanese come to the rather shocking realization that the south of their country, unknown to them, had in fact been transformed into an Iranian and Syrian launching pad against Israel posing an existential threat to their own livelihoods and to their entire country. Hizbullah is now on the defensive, trying to protect its political assets against a more assertive Lebanese domestic majority, that seems more determined than ever to contain Hizbullah's "state within a state," so that they are not drawn again into a destructive war with Israel, without as much as a word of consultation.
Many in Lebanon, especially non-Shi'ites, but also some important Shi'ite spokespersons, are calling for an end to the armed phase of Hizbullah's development and its integration into the Lebanese political system, like all other political parties, lest further provocation of Israel will expose Lebanon to even greater devastation in the future. In other words, they are demanding the disarming of Hizbullah.
Muna Fayyad, a Shi'ite professor at the University of Lebanon, and the Mufti of Tyre, Sayyid Ali al-Amin, for example, both questioned the right of Hizbullah to bring disaster on the Shi'ites of Lebanon, by dragging them into an ill considered adventure they never wanted, in the interests of a foreign power like Iran, about whom they were never consulted.
NASRALLAH NOW has to contend with his newly constructed image as the destroyer of Lebanon rather than its protector, as he himself regularly claimed before the war, as a main justification for the very existence of his militia.
It's all to the good if thery insist that Hezbollah not bring down another war upon them, but what stake do the Shi'a have in a Lebanon that sidelines them? Permanently dividing Lebanon is a victory for Nasrallah and the Shi'a. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 13, 2006 10:36 PM
No. A victory for the Shia. A defeat for Nasrallah, who has never cared about the Lebanese Shia.
They'll take the victories.
Posted by: oj at September 14, 2006 12:46 AMHow is it that you question whether an Israel that encourages its Arab population to separate from it is worth having, while you see it as nothing but a good thing for the Shi'a to cause Lebanon to be severed so that they do not have to contend with other ethnic/political blocks within their polity?
Now, I agree that it would be very bad form for Israel to make its mostly loyal and worthy Arab citizens unwelcome, but I'm just saying.
Posted by: rds at September 14, 2006 11:19 AMBecause the Shi'a are the overwhelming plurality and the Christians and Sunni conspire to deprive them of power. If thyey held free and fair elections for all levels of government the Shi'a would win, which is why those elections won't happen.
Israel is likewise being forced to give up Palestine in order to maintain a Jewish majority. But they';re only buying time. Demographics likely doom the Jewish state.
Posted by: oj at September 14, 2006 11:24 AMWell, if you really think that internal Iraeli demographics will doom Israel as a jewish state, you can hardly question whether that state is "worth having" if it encourages its Arab citizens to leave, since that is the only way you see that state still being there for the having.
Posted by: rds at September 14, 2006 11:34 AMYes, a people who won't reproduce don't have a society worth saving either.
There is good news though, Israelis may be reversing their demographic decline finally.
Posted by: oj at September 14, 2006 11:42 AMOne of the things that is important to know is that modern Lebanon was created by the French from the Mount Lebanon district (historically Christian and a polity in the Ottoman Empire) and surrounding - mainly Shi'ite - territory in order to created a larger Lebanon state. It was gerrymandering, similar to how the Northern Ireland was created to extend a hegemony of four Protestant counties over two primarily Catholic counties.
If Lebanon split into two, it would not be surprising. I only have three caveats. One is that I have never heard any demands by the Shi'a to form their own state. Two, that Hezbollah had a Christian ally in Parliament counteracts OJ's assessment that it is impossible for the Shi'a to find political allies and thus be incorporated into Lebanese politics. Three, a divided Lebanon would make it easier for Syria to devour both states into a greater Syria.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 14, 2006 12:51 PMWhy should they need to pursue allies rather than have fair representation?
Syria uses Hezbollah, it can't and wouldn't want to absorb a destabilizing Shi'ite population.
Posted by: oj at September 14, 2006 1:03 PM