[Oops I thought I’d posted this at 10 p.m. last night but it turns out I failed to hit the vital “Publish” button. Still worth looking at though.]
Two thoughtful and interesting op-eds about Iraq today. One by Flynt Leverett in the NYT, and one by David Ignatious in the WaPo.
Both writers make the excellent point that Hizbullah is a serious, sizeable force in Lebanese politics that is not about to be sidelined, and that its differences with the frothy activists (my words) of the much photographed anti-Syrian demonstrators will have a serious effect on developments.
David had this interesting little note:
- An encouraging sign is that Hezbollah’s leader, Said Hasan Nasrallah, met quietly Monday night in Beirut with Samir Franjieh, one of the leaders of the pro-democracy opposition. They discussed a possible deal whereby Hezbollah would agree to disarm its militia and join a new government, so long as that government wasn’t openly anti-Syrian and Hezbollah was allowed to keep its “resistance” squads. That’s a steep price, but getting Hezbollah inside the tent of political change might be worth it.
Real politics happening there. Excellent.
Thought-provoking but less above-board was something David mentioned further down:
- An interesting idea for squeezing Iran comes from an Iraqi Sunni leader named Mithal Alusi, who’s visiting Washington this week. He suggests inviting dissident Iranian Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to the holy city of Najaf to explain his view that political rule by mullahs is incompatible with Islam. That would make Tehran think twice about meddling in Iraq.
It might have been more honest for David to tell his readers that this Alusi is a former member of Chalabi’s INC who was canned from the organization after he made a much-publicized visit to Israel. So perhaps Alusi’s credibility back home in Iraq might be just a tiny bit low?
Thorough Leverett dismantling here.
Not a very thorough dismantling of Leverett.
Michael Young is economical with the truth when he comments about the Whitehouse fantasy of returning the Maronites to power. As far as I am aware the seat in the Lebanese parliament are divided fifty-fifty between Christian and Muslim. According to the CIA the Christians make up only 30% of the population so that they are grossly over represented in the Lebanese parliament.
I could go on but quite frankly I can’t be bothered with junk like that.
Helena,
I was reading your blog from this past January, and I noted your comment about my blog… and how you couldn’t leave a comment. I tried it out today, and I could not leave a comment on my blog either!
I have no idea how to fix this. I just thought no one was commenting on my blog. I guess I need to move to something other than blogspot…. any suggestions from you or your readers?
thanks.
and thanks for your kind words about my blog.
blowback, why do you equate maronite with christian . maronites occupy only half of the christian seats. and as young notes: “tens of thousands of Sunnis and Druze demonstrating against Syria in recent weeks were certainly not doing so to give the Maronites, a numerical minority in Lebanon today, their lost power back.” so your criticism is confused. Lebanese Christians even per CIA stats number 39% and include orthodox. Young’s piece did not address their (current insignificant) parliamentary overrepresentation. It addressed Leverett’s fantasy of Maronite domination.
The reason the U.S. want Syria out is so they can go after Hezbollah. Isreal wants Hezbollah ‘taken care’ of. Once Syria is out (which in my opinion will not be any time soon) the U.S. will attempt to get troops in under the excuse of ‘protective forces’ (perhaps to protect the christian minority?) so they can attack Hezbollah.
Warren
Hizbullah is a serious, sizeable force in Lebanese politics
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hizbullah controls 12 of 64 Muslim seats, out of 128 overall?
Once Syria is out (which in my opinion will not be any time soon) the U.S. will attempt to get troops in under the excuse of ‘protective forces’ (perhaps to protect the christian minority?) so they can attack Hezbollah.
The ‘christian minority’ (hardly a monolithic bloc) is under no threat by anyone and the us public would hardly endorse another military occupation. The majority of lebanese want the Syrians out. There is no evidence suggesting this is some kind of power play on the part of christians, who are rather marching arm in arm with druze and sunni for national independence. surely this should be welcomed rather than treated with sneering cynicism and pointless jabs at israel.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have also strongly stated that Syria should get out of Lebanon. Perhaps we can all agree that these nations are not pawns of Israel?
ok…leaving aside who proposed the idea, why NOT bring Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to Iraq to hear his thoughts. What say you about the idea?
Dear Helenna
I agree what you seeing about Mithal Alusi , but I would like to say I doubted he is Iraqi Sunni leader, these guys appeared on the surface either backed by US or Britt, and the reset backed or they are Iranian descend, character like Mithal Alusi I douted he got much support from Iraqis from both Sunni & Shiatt.
His view it might benefit to US to explorer the Iranian opposition might get a ground to play inside Iran in future
The US and Israel have both been trying to destroy Hizbullah nonstop since its founding in the mid-1980s. They never succeeded, and it is extremely unlikely they’ll succeed now. Flynt Leverett most likely participated in that effort when he was part of the Clinton administration– and I am intrigued to see that he seems to have concluded from his experience there that it’s not possible.
The Shiites constitute around 50% of the Lebanese population, and Hizbullah probably has about 80% support in that community, plus significant support from many Sunnis and other lebanese. But the party’s leaders recognize they are not a majority party and therefore have really honed their coalition-building skills over the years.
The main reason they have only 12 people in parliament is because of the notably skewed and antidemocratic way parliamentary elections are organized. (There are no fixed rules for these elections, but each parliament gets to make them anew… Go figure!) The municipal elections–which Hizbullah successfully got reinstated countrywide in the mid-90s after there had been none at all since 1963 or so– are much more fairly organized. In those, Hizbullah has done much better and has increased its showing due to their generally successful and honest administration of municipal affairs… Unlike just about every previous municipal administration in Lebanon where most traditional politicians have never had “good governance” high on their list of priorities…
You can read all about this in my upcoming article in Boston Review. I’m doing final work on the proofs this weekend.
The Shiites constitute around 50% of the Lebanese population, and Hizbullah probably has about 80% support in that community
From where do you draw either one of these statistics? It is my understanding that no census has taken place in Lebanon for many years. Juan Cole has placed the Shi’ite population at 40%. Most estimates I have seen place total lebanese Muslim population at 60%.
The US and Israel have both been trying to destroy Hizbullah nonstop since its founding in the mid-1980s.
It is my understanding that the Taif accords call for disbanding of armed militias. Why does Hizbullah continue to maintain theirs?
The CIA World Factbook in 1998 reported that the Muslim popultion of Lebanon was 2,414,704 (70.00%) while Christians were 1,034,873 (30.00%).
The Britannica Book of the Year 1997 reports that the population was 1,230,000 (33%)Christians and 2,510,000 (67%) Muslims.
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center reports that the pouplation consists of 2,587,145 Muslims (70%) and 1,108,776 (30%) Christians (the totals for different Christian sects appear a bit dodgy.
Why the current CIA World Factbook has reverted to a Muslim 61%/Christian 39% split is beyond me but the other figures support the Muslim 70%/Christian 30% split.
BTW, the reason that there has been no census since 1932 is that if there was then there would be even more pressure to remove the current 50/50 splits parliamentary seats between Christains and Muslims. It used to be 6 Christians to each 5 Muslims. However it should be noted that altough the population is probably split Muslim 70/Christian 30, because you have to be 21 to vote, the split on the electoral roll is reported by libanvote.com as Muslim 57/Christian 43. This agrees with figures on adherents.com for the 1980 population.
Unless otherwise stated figures were obtained from adherents.com.
‘A Heretic’s Blog’ — Ammar Abdulhamid writes from Syria
His outline of potential scenarios in Damascus is frightening indeed.
FYI, from another angle, the recent State Department 2004 International Religious Freedom Report also sticks with the reference to “most observers” putting Muslims at 70% of the total Lebanese population. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35502.htm
Oddly, however, the report refrains from giving a specific percentage to the Lebanese Shia.
FYI, this year’s IRFR did not have a section on Iraq – on the LAME excuse that the US government doesn’t report on itself. Yeah right, could it be also that the rapidly deteriorating situation for Iraqi Christian communities (with reports of substantial flight) might be yet another black eye for the US “liberation” of Iraq….
Say Helena, great to read you will be publishing a Lebanon essay in Boston Review. Can you clue us in one just when that essay is slated to appear? (The current Feb./Mar BR issue has a refreshingly candid (!) debate over US definitions of “National Interest” — available on-line)
Thanks all for the comments. Special thanks to Blowback for pulling those different numerical estimates out of the Adherents table, which looked incredibly complex to me!
BB is quite right, too, about the reason there hasn’t been a census for 73 years now, in Lebanon.
The 1989 Taef Accord called for the eventual dismantlement of the “confessional” distribution of political posts– but for the 50-50 basis to be used in the interim. Maybe now, 16 years after Taef, it’s time to go to (gasp!) a one-person-one-vote political system?