There are quite a few interesting points in this piece by Nayla Assaf in the Beirut Daily Star today.
If y’all are interested you can go read it there. But here’s the lede:
- Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday that Hizbullah should be allowed a role in the country’s politics. His statements came at a time when sources close to the party told The Daily Star that they were holding ongoing meetings with representatives of Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir to defuse the mounting political tension in the country.
Regarding Lavrov, Assaf makes the point that it was after a meeting with Walid Jumblatt that Lavrov made those comments. And she wrote,
- Jumblatt and other members of the opposition have repeatedly called for dialogue with Hizbullah, which they acknowledge as the only legitimate party in the loyalist camp and an essential partner for a national entente.
Regarding the Hizbullah-Sfeir contacts (also called the “Let’s let the two wise Nasrallahs sort the country out between them” project), Assaf writes:
- An unnamed source close to the party said two of its members, Nawwaf Mussawi and Ghaleb Abu Zeinab, were holding ongoing meetings with two Sfeir representatives: Samir Mazloum and Hareth Shehab.
Mussawi and Abu Zeinab are both Hizbullah politburo members. Abu Zeinab is in charge of the party’s relations with non-Shiite confessional bodies and leaders in Lebanon and has done a really good job in that role over the years. He was one of the H people I interviewed last November. (Is there still any need to plug my upcoming Boston Review piece, in which snippets from that interview occur? probably not.)
Assaf also adds this significant note:
- On Friday, U.S. officials insisted they still view Hizbullah as a “terrorist organization has not changed,” but said that they will recognize any party that can win support democratically.
I’ve also been reading this article by Salama Naamat in today’s Hayat.
I’m still working on the Arabic there. But Naamat is reporting from Washington and the import of the article seems to be that unnamed administration officials have been saying that they’re getting kind of worried that, following the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, Hizbullah will just expand to fill both the security and the political vacuum there, inheriting Syria’s role in both dimensions throughout the country.
H’mmm, back to my Hans Wehr dictionary here…
Shirin? Salah? Anyone? Does any of you want to give that short piece by Naamat a quick read and tell me whether I’ve got the gist of it right?
I read the article of Al-Hayat . It simply says that the implementation of the part of resolution 1559 concerning disarming Hizbullah will not be easy . The choices that the American administration has are limited and the team responsible for studying these problems has not finished its report that contains its recommendations to deal with Hizbullah . The administration will consult with its allies in the area beginning with King Abd Alla of Jordan next monday .
(I think such consultations will extend to the other 2 regimes i.e Saudi Arabia and Egypt . The aim will be to use these regimes to put pressure on Syria and President Lahoud to do the disarmement . Today President Lahoud said that he refuses to disarm Hizbullah even if the UN resolution demands this. )
Interestingly the second paragraph of the article said that the unnamed American official said ” Hizbullah may sweep the elections if they occurred without foreign interference ( i.e. truely free elections )
Regards
Thanks so much, MH. Yes, that was more or less what i figured.
If Hizbullah sweeps the elections, would the Hizbullah militia be merged into the Lebanese army or would there continue to be two different armed forces?
If Nasrallah or someone close to him becomes Prime Minister, would they still be interested in the Shaba Farms and other confrontations with Israel?
As Assad declines, Nasrallah rises. Is this good or bad?
If Nasrallah was a terrorist in the 1990’s, is he still one now?
Nasrallah a terrorist in the 1990’s? Those were the years when Hizbollah was busy liberating South Lebanon from Israeli imperialism. Since when are attacks against a well armed, occupying military force “terrorists acts”? The last time I counted Israel has had at least THREE prime ministers who were terrorists: Begin, Shamir and Sharon. Plus Israel has had plenty of cabinet ministers whose enthusiasm for ethnic cleansing puts Milosevic to shame.
So is Nasrallah still into suicide bombing?
If Israel had a taste for ethnic cleansing there just wouldn’t be any Palestinians left in the West Bank or Gaza.
“If Israel had a taste for ethnic cleansing there just wouldn’t be any Palestinians left in the West Bank or Gaza.”
I see, Warren. So, by your criteria, if you don’t remove 100% of the unwanted population, and do it all at once, it does not qualify as ethnic cleansing.
Forcing 90% of the Palestinians out of what became Israel in 1948, demolishing hundreds of their villages, and refusing to allow them to return was not ethnic cleansing.
Expelling 95% of the Syrians out of the Golan Heights in 1967, and demolishing 96% of the villages was not ethnic cleansing.
The slow and steady confiscation and colonization of land in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip is not ethnic cleansing. Neither are strangulating villages by confiscating all the land around them, making building permits virtually unobtainable, demolishing homes and businesses that end up “too close” to Israeli colonies, “bypass” roads, or the strange path of that wall ethnic cleansing.
How very, very convenient.
Why is it that Syria is resisting requests by the UN to remove its intelligence agents from Lebanon?
Isn’t it just fair that the Lebanese elections in July (June?) be held in a free and open setting with international monitoring and without rigging (like in the past)?
I read somewhere that Hezbollah has only 9 out of 150 seats in the parliament. But I could be wrong.
Obviously they are not a very popular party. Especially that they are being paid by a foreign power (Iran).
Unlike what Helena says, it does not appear that Hezbollah would be able to win too many seats in the parliament and become a threat to civil society in Lebanon.
Juan Cole says (and I bet Helena agrees): “With regard to Hizbullah’s paramilitary, last I knew it was only 5000 men or so.”
Obviously it has never occured to Cole that 5000 trained thugs with Klashnikovs and RPGs can easily rule over 500,000 non-violent and civil individuals.
As they say, 1 gunman has the vote of 100 citizens. I may add, 1 RPG runner has the vote of 1,000 citizens.
BTW Helena – You shout on your frontpage that the UIA list is “prevented from taking power”. Obviously you are uninformed about constitutional matters where the head of state needs a supermajority to get elected. This is the case in all civil societies, FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
How could you have missed this simple constitutional matter in your infinite wisdom? LOL
Razavipour,
Maybe you could specifically name the ‘civil societies’ (= deomcratic governments?) which require a ‘hypermajority’ to form a government? I’d be very interested to know what you are exactly referring to. According to the European parliamentary system (Britain, France, etc.) a simple majority of parliamentary seats is required, and the UIA would be able to form a government.
By ‘hypermajority’ you are evidently referring to the two-thirds majority imposed by the U.S. through its sponsored interim government of Allawi. I’ve never met the term or requirement anywhere else; perhaps the odd word was coined by U.S. officials.
Juan Cole also makes this point about the two-thirds majority rule. Would you please explain yourself? One of us is obviously mistaken about ‘constitutiional matters’.
“If Israel had a taste for ethnic cleansing there just wouldn’t be any Palestinians left in the West Bank or Gaza.”
Yes there are Palestinians left in the occupied territories just as there are still Muslims in Bosnia but both communities are there despite the best efforts of ethnic cleansers like Sharon and Milosevic.
Quentin – read my post again. It says “supermajority”. Why do you have to invent things? Or is your anti-liberal left-fascist filter in front of your eyes automatically convert supermajority to hypermajority?
Now get an education:
Turkish Constitution
ARTICLE 102. The President of the Republic shall be elected by a two-thirds majority of the total number of members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and by secret ballot. If the Turkish Grand National Assembly is not in session, it shall be summoned immediately to meet.