printMichael Young of Reason Magazine has penned an outstanding analysis of the Lebanese political landscape in the New York Times. Young is the opinion editor of The Daily Star, an English-language newspaper published in Beirut. Skip the ideologically slanted positions proffered on the blogs, left and right, in favor of this forensic breakdown:
“The great fear expressed by many Lebanese is that the country can absorb neither a Hezbollah victory against Israel nor a Hezbollah defeat. If Hezbollah merely survives as both a political and military organization, it can claim victory. The result may be the expansion of the party’s authority over the political system, thanks to its weaponry and its considerable sway over the Lebanese Army, which has a substantial Shiite base. This, in turn, might lead to a solidification of Iranian influence and the restoration of Syrian influence. A Hezbollah defeat, in turn, would be felt by Shiites as a defeat for their community in general, significantly destabilizing the system.
As one Hezbollah combatant recently told The Guardian: ‘The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let’s finish with the Israelis, and then we will settle scores later.”
This essentially repeated what Hassan Nasrallah told Al Jazeera in an interview broadcast a week after the conflict began: ‘If we succeed in achieving the victory . . . we will never forget all those who supported us at this stage. . . . As for those who sinned against us . . . those who made mistakes, those who let us down and those who conspired against us . . . this will be left for a day to settle accounts. We might be tolerant with them, and we might not.’
Meanwhile, the country has sunk into deep depression, and countless Lebanese with the means to emigrate are thinking of doing so. The offspring of March 8 and March 14 are in the same boat, and yet still remain very much apart. The fault lines from the days of the Independence Intifada have hardened under Israel’s bombs. Given the present balance of forces, it is difficult to conceive of a resolution to the present fighting that would both satisfy the majority’s desire to disarm Hezbollah and satisfy Hezbollah’s resolve to defend Shiite gains and remain in the vanguard of the struggle against Israel. Something must give, and until the parliamentary majority and Hezbollah can reach a common vision of what Lebanon must become, the rot will set in further.”
I am not a hard-hearted person. Nor do I want to see more misfortune fall to the Lebanese. But, unfortunate as the facts may be, the Lebanese are nothing more than lame players in a big game over which they have no control nor any say in the outcome. The end-time struggle between Israel and the muslim world has consumed and will continue to consume Lebanon. The larger issues manifested in this struggle will have to be settled before the Lebanese can be helped in a meaningful way. The meek may inherit the earth someday, but not until the big guys get through with it.
Iran can only support Hezbollah if they have oil to sell. No money from Iran no Hezbollah.
Ilana, the Lebanese have to be completely nuts. They threw away a golden opportunity to have a secure country with all the development assistance they could ever want. All they had to do was side with Israel.
They would have been free of hezballah, had a safe, secure border with Israel, and a tough ally to keep Syria from meddling in their country’s affairs. It seems some people never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.
Your post brings two things to mind:
First, the description of how Hezbollah cannot be allowed to fail because it would be viewed as a Shiite community failure illustrates that they do not see the division between religion and government or politics that Western philosophy holds so important. To them, they are the same thing. For us to ignore this is folly. The West is pretending there is a difference, and basing strategy, policy, actions, and goals upon it.
Second, what Hezbollah is promising in the aftermath has happened before, many times. The actions of the West do not match the promises. Those who are sympathetic to the West and who dared let it be known in any way will suffer deadly reprisals after the half-measures fail.
Hezbollah is right about the West on one crucial aspect; it underlies their entire strategy. This is the policy of Western Betrayal, as described in the Wiki journal by that name. Regardless of what is said or by whom, the policies and actions are quite predictable. The end result is that the people we try to protect end up dead.
From Poland before World War II to the Kurds, our systems have consistently betrayed those who we encourage to resist. And now, ‘Moderate Muslims’ will learn the same lesson.
This is why Hezbollah is claiming victory, Syria and Iran are thumbing their noses at us, and even Lebanon who are powerless to resist either side are dictating the terms they will accept an occupying force (?!).
Hezbollah counted on a half-measure response, and that is what happened, even if was stronger than they originally thought. Their opinion that the West is weaker than they are, that the West will lose the will to fight before victory is achieved, is based on historical observation and fits nicely into their view of infidels as weaklings.
While we pretend that democracy will fix the problems in the region, the price of ignoring the reality of their philosophy and being wishy – washy is the lives of the victims.
–John Danforth–