Syria backs down; will leave Lebanon

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its the normal course of human events that no two actors agree about everything.

Fine- so what exactly has come up that would have had Hezbollah disagreeing with Syria or Iran? This si what you have failed to make clear.

theyre lebanese, but im not sure theyre a normal political party - more of a "militant" group, playing as in independnet actor in the regional game. Not one commited to the Lebanse political process.

Correct- this is why Hezbollah calls itself a resistance group. As for its commitment to the Lebanese political process, it partakes in it, obviously.

follow the money as an indicator of influence does not = for sale to any bidder.

My local 7-11 clerk will run the store however his boss says - but he wont go over to Al Qaeeda for a sufficient commision. Doesnt mean hes an independent actor from his boss.

Of course the clerck is an indepdent actor- his job is only one minor bit of his life, and of course, the clerck chose to work at the 7-11 and can quit at any time if he has a reason to disagree with the Boss. But, going back to the earlier point, the clerck may not encounter any reasons to disagree with the boss, or be likemminded with the boss when it comes to area in which they can have mixed interests (in this case, the workings of the 7-11, as opposed to say the clercks marital life, an area over which the boss has no say). I would thus not call the clerck a puppet of the owner, because the clerck obviously is NOT.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

No guarantee that we'll stay.

No guarentee the Lebanese civl war won't restart once Syria leaves, now is there?

I think so. Israels presence was Syrias old excuse. Israelis gone 5 years ago, courtesy of Ehud Barak. Anyone remember him? Syrias still there.

Because Syria and Israel still have unfinished business (ie, the Golan)

Why not?

This would assume that a working Lebanese government took power while leaving Hezbollah out.

A parliamentary democracy, which is what i think the lebanese mainly want.

Well, given that Hezbollah participates in the Parlimetary system, they are part of the system, NO? And, theoretically, a democratically elected Parlimetary system could allow Hezbollah to keep its arms.

[Ramo]

Im not saying that communal voting quotas are right, but I hardly think support for them is necessarily fascist. As for corporatist, im not sure it means what you think it means. Musso saw it as a way of organizing society and the economy - Lebanon is largely free market in economy.

Fair enough, I'd heard Lebanon wasn't very free market. Guess I was misinformed.

Which says something about Syria's 29 years as an occupier, doesnt it? And its 16 years since the Taif accords, which called for precisely that. Seems theyve put theyre deals with the Maronite and Sunni communities, to keep support for their troops there, ahead of Shiite rights. And yet the Shiites support a pro-Syrian party? Made sense when the Israelis were there and occupying Shiite villages - hasnt made sense for the last 5 years.

I'm not saying that Syrians are good occupiers, or that they're pushing for Shia rights, just what I think the perception is. Why else would both Hezbollah and Amal support the occupation?

I really dont know Lebanese voting patterns - does Amal get votes in the Hezb dominated south? IIUC there are Shiites in other parts of Lebanon as well - esp the Bekaa Valley, and parts of Beirut.

If Amal gets most of its votes outside of the South, I don't know if that implies Hezb intimidation. The South after all has been more radicalized by the Israeli occupation, so one would expect Hezb dominating there.

You must forgive me - thats such (IMHO) a typical unrealistic conspiracy theory for the region, that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it as an indicator of general political beliefs. My impression from Iraq is that there are folks who will say the US is the grand conspirator behind everything, yet manage to work with the US anyway.

Not the Druze, though. Doesn't it seem odd to you that if the Sunnis were predispositioned to opposing Syria, they'd tend to blame Syria for killing their own popular ex-PM? OTOH, the Druze did blame Syria, by and large.

I dont know about Lahoud - it seems Hariri broke with Syria over extending his term, and that started the whole chain of events, so I cant see how hes irrelevant.

Irrelevent in terms of public opinion. I've read that Lahoud is pretty unpopular. That's why the Lebanese got particularly pissed at his extension.

The same point - IIUC you were arguing that fewer Lebanese than we think are pro-Syrian withdrawl - you were arguing based on polls that many non-Shias are pro-Syrian, yet seemed to assume that all Shias are pro_Syrian. Im simply arguing that views of Syria dont break cleanly on communal lines.

Never said anything about "all" of any group. Generalizations in Lebanon are next to meaningless. I was saying that sectarianism drives Lebanese politics.

I didnt say theyre irrelevant. Im just questioning the implication that the call for withdrawl is just a power play on the part of the Maronites, which will lead to renewed Christian-Muslim civil war, and thus ( i think this is the implication) Western calls for Syrian withdrawl are irresponsible, and possibly anti-muslim.

I'm not saying that this is a Maronite power play, or that Syria should stay. I do think that only calling for Syrian withdrawal, and nothing else is irresponsible. There are pretty significant social problems than need to be addressed.

Thats why the most revolutionary thing we saw was NOT the numbers demonstrating against Syria, but the unity among Maronites, Sunni Muslims, and Druze.

Sadrists and Sunni Arabs united against the US occupation for a time. That was a reflection not of sectarian unity, but common interest. The same applies here.

By denouncing the opposition they seem to be going with the latter, although what ive read of their speeches looks like theyve left themselves some wiggle room.

Denouncing the opposition has little to do with embracing/renouncing violence. By and large, Hezb has been moving from Sein Fein to IRA in recent years, with no relation with the Syrian occupation from what I can tell. Frankly, two other occupations have been a lot more relevant to this process - Iraq and Palestine.

Hell, Hezb's Parliamentary delegation has 2 Sunni and 2 Christian mp's (out of 12 total). That's not something a purely terror organization would do.

[Drake Tungsten]

Unlike you I follow the money because in the real world the people who control the money control the power.

Yep.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Azazel

I think the UN and the international community needs to step it up and provide a mountain of assistance to Lebanon to make sure they get off to a good start.

Lebanon is hardly the proper place.

They are one society that can do it by itself. They just need stability.

Hence the international assistance to provide stability.

Too much of a possibility of in fighting.

[pchang]

Well now we have an opposition rally reportedly of about 1 million people.

[GePap]

A million is far fetched, but all reports say its bigger than Tuesday's rally. So, weill we then get a counter-rally? Probably not.

Supposedly Gen. Aoun and other exiles are planning to return...the opposition still refuses to join the Karami gov., but I doubt Karami will quit this time. So it seems Syria wil leave, but Syria leaving does nothing in the end to fix the remaining rifts in Lebanon's society.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
A million is far fetched, but all reports say its bigger than Tuesday's rally.

No, 2 million is far fetched. 800,000 was AP's estimate before the protest began, so 1 million isn't that far out there.

So, weill we then get a counter-rally? Probably not.

Wouldn't that be a counter-counter-counter rally?

[Sirotnikov]

The question is will Syrian intelligence stay there and have as much affect on government as they do now.

[GePap]

All the rally numbers are probably all inflated- I doubt Hezbollah got 500,000 people out, and I doubt the opposition got 800,000 people out. That said, both rallies were huge, and the current opposition one has been the biggest.

And yes, a new rally would be a counter-counter-counter rally.

Yahoo news had a link to an interesting Knight-ridder newspaper link, saying that maybe Syria's supporters could always change the way Lebanon is governed to end the inflated power of the Christian communities in order to strenghten the hand of Hezbollah.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
All the rally numbers are probably all inflated- I doubt Hezbollah got 500,000 people out, and I doubt the opposition got 800,000 people out. That said, both rallies were huge, and the current opposition one has been the biggest.

And yes, a new rally would be a counter-counter-counter rally.

Yahoo news had a link to an interesting Knight-ridder newspaper link, saying that maybe Syria's supporters could always change the way Lebanon is governed to end the inflated power of the Christian communities in order to strenghten the hand of Hezbollah.

that strengthens the hand of the Shiites - it probably weakens Hezbollah within the Shiite community, since it might reduce Shiite alienation from the Lebanese polity. I presume that after Syria leaves, and the new parliament is elected in April, there will be negotiations, including Hezbollah, to form a new govt. Electoral reform will certainly be on the table, as will disarmament of militias, and other issues. Presumably also the question of foreign funding for parties in Lebanon will come up as well. Hezb will get some of it wants but not all, and will have to choose what it wants most. Its hard to see what coming out so strongly for Syria will gain them in negotiations with other Lebanese.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The question is will Syrian intelligence stay there and have as much affect on government as they do now.

apparently the overt presence is going. There will undoubtedly still be a covert presence (as there is for many countries intell services in Lebanon, I would assume) but without the huge overt presence it will be that much more difficult to control the govt, IIUC.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

I'm not saying that Syrians are good occupiers, or that they're pushing for Shia rights, just what I think the perception is. Why else would both Hezbollah and Amal support the occupation?

In the case of Hezbollah, cause Syria protects them, assuring theyre the only militia that isnt disarmed, and allowing the flow of funds from Iran. Which, ISTM, is MORE what Hezb is interested in, than reforming the Lebanese electoral system. You seem to be starting with the assumption Hezb is NOW mainly a political party - why else support the occupation - if you assume theyre mainly a terrorist/militant group that question answers itself.



Amal has been with pro-Syria since the 1980's certainly they seem to have thought Syria is more on their side than the Maronites, but im not sure how tied that is to the electoral system.

If Amal gets most of its votes outside of the South, I don't know if that implies Hezb intimidation. The South after all has been more radicalized by the Israeli occupation, so one would expect Hezb dominating there.

True - i think without better info from on the ground in South Lebanon, we cant really know the answer.

Im not saying that this is a Maronite power play, or that Syria should stay. I do think that only calling for Syrian withdrawal, and nothing else is irresponsible. There are pretty significant social problems than need to be addressed.

Yes, but ultimately those are internal issues. We can, as part of support for democratization, support electoral reform, but its not an international issue in the same way that Syrian presence is, or for that matter the presence of an armed group willing to fire rockets across Lebanons borders at Lebanons neighbors is.

Thats why the most revolutionary thing we saw was NOT the numbers demonstrating against Syria, but the unity among Maronites, Sunni Muslims, and Druze.

Sadrists and Sunni Arabs united against the US occupation for a time. That was a reflection not of sectarian unity, but common interest. The same applies here.

pardon, while i understand that common interests is important, i really think the dynamics are different. In Iraq you had political groups, the Sadrists, and the AMS, that were both essentially supporting terrorist violence (yah, i know we disagree about the Sadrists and the AMS, but thats how i see them) against the national interest - in Lebanon we see different groups uniting to reaffirm the progress that Lebanon has made. Now we're getting to the Q of whether the US occupation in Iraq is "like" the Syrian occupation of Lebanon - thats a topic sure to generate more heat than light, so lets agree to disagree.

By denouncing the opposition they seem to be going with the latter, although what ive read of their speeches looks like theyve left themselves some wiggle room.

Denouncing the opposition has little to do with embracing/renouncing violence.

I cant see how it doesnt. If you want to reounce violence, its presumably to play the Lebanese political game instead. I cant see what they gain in that game by massive denunciation of the opposition, and esp. support for Syria. Its a strat that makes sense only if you want to keep playing the role of violent spoiler, with Syrian and Iranian support.

Hell, Hezb's Parliamentary delegation has 2 Sunni and 2 Christian mp's (out of 12 total). That's not something a purely terror organization would do.

Why not? Fatah commited terrorist acts for years with a multi-communal leadership. more terrorist != more fundamentalist. Which is not to say Hezb is secularist like Fatah - rather its Khomeinist - that is to say its a form of Islamist extremist with roots in Shiite populism, but which looks for alliances in the Sunni world - thats what Iran did right after the 1979 revolution, one of the reasons they frightened the Sunni establishments so badly. Look at the Sadrist alliance with Sunnis, thats not only common interest, but stems from Khomeinist ideology. And, if you beleive both Israeli Intell and Abbas, there is Hezb support for Hamas. And there has been Iranian support for Hamas and IJ for years. Iran and the Khomeinists have long been willing to work across communal lines in the interest of defeating the US and its regional allies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


that strengthens the hand of the Shiites - it probably weakens Hezbollah within the Shiite community, since it might reduce Shiite alienation from the Lebanese polity. I presume that after Syria leaves, and the new parliament is elected in April, there will be negotiations, including Hezbollah, to form a new govt. Electoral reform will certainly be on the table, as will disarmament of militias, and other issues. Presumably also the question of foreign funding for parties in Lebanon will come up as well. Hezb will get some of it wants but not all, and will have to choose what it wants most. Its hard to see what coming out so strongly for Syria will gain them in negotiations with other Lebanese.

Who needs other Lebanese when they are the main spokespeople for the single largest and least represented group?

The main question will be if Hezbollah is disarmed or not. That will probably be Hezbollah's red line, and I can't see any democraticly elected Lebanese government having thew power to do so without Hezbollah's OK.

I also doubt that the Christian communities will be very willing to give up their power to the Sunni and Shiite communities.

As I said earlier, Syria leaving does nothing to solve the inherent problems in Lebanon.

[Ramo]

Why not? Fatah commited terrorist acts for years with a multi-communal leadership. more terrorist != more fundamentalist. Which is not to say Hezb is secularist like Fatah - rather its Khomeinist - that is to say its a form of Islamist extremist with roots in Shiite populism, but which looks for alliances in the Sunni world - thats what Iran did right after the 1979 revolution, one of the reasons they frightened the Sunni establishments so badly. Look at the Sadrist alliance with Sunnis, thats not only common interest, but stems from Khomeinist ideology. And, if you beleive both Israeli Intell and Abbas, there is Hezb support for Hamas. And there has been Iranian support for Hamas and IJ for years. Iran and the Khomeinists have long been willing to work across communal lines in the interest of defeating the US and its regional allies.

Because the goal of Fatah (or, more relevantly, the al-Asqua Brigade) is to end the Israeli occupation. While there may or may not be Hezbollah funding of Hamas/IJ, that hasn't been Hezbollah's primary goal for a few years now. I would argue that the primary goal of Hezb is Shia Islamism. Cooperating with Christians to extent of including them in the Hezb parliamentary delegation make little sense if you suppose that it is an organization that's using terror to create a Shia Islamist state. How many Protestants are in Sein Fein? How many Jews are in Hamas?

I cant see how it doesnt. If you want to reounce violence, its presumably to play the Lebanese political game instead. I cant see what they gain in that game by massive denunciation of the opposition, and esp. support for Syria. Its a strat that makes sense only if you want to keep playing the role of violent spoiler, with Syrian and Iranian support.

Or maybe they want new rules in the Lebanese political game, and are using Syria as leverage?

pardon, while i understand that common interests is important, i really think the dynamics are different. In Iraq you had political groups, the Sadrists, and the AMS, that were both essentially supporting terrorist violence (yah, i know we disagree about the Sadrists and the AMS, but thats how i see them) against the national interest - in Lebanon we see different groups uniting to reaffirm the progress that Lebanon has made.

Except the Sadrists and the AMS never united on what could reasonably be called terrorist acts (in fact, I don't think the Sadrists were involved in very much terrorism, though I am suspicious of the AMS). The unity was based on opposition to violence of the US occupation (what many Iraqis would characterize as terror): the destruction of Fallujah, the bombing around the Imam Ali Shrine, etc.

Yes, but ultimately those are internal issues. We can, as part of support for democratization, support electoral reform, but its not an international issue in the same way that Syrian presence is, or for that matter the presence of an armed group willing to fire rockets across Lebanons borders at Lebanons neighbors is.

It's a bit absurd to say that Lebanese democracy's not an international issue, given the rhetoric behind US foreign policy.

In the case of Hezbollah, cause Syria protects them, assuring theyre the only militia that isnt disarmed, and allowing the flow of funds from Iran. Which, ISTM, is MORE what Hezb is interested in, than reforming the Lebanese electoral system. You seem to be starting with the assumption Hezb is NOW mainly a political party - why else support the occupation - if you assume theyre mainly a terrorist/militant group that question answers itself.



Amal has been with pro-Syria since the 1980's certainly they seem to have thought Syria is more on their side than the Maronites, but im not sure how tied that is to the electoral system.

But your explanation for Hezb motives makes little sense in light of Amal's actions. I'm not saying that Iranian money is not an incentive, but it's certainly not the only incentive. If the Shia see Syria as useless, why shouldn't Amal denounce Syria, thus taking away some of the discredited Hezb's constituency?

The way the election system is tied into this is that equal representation could be seen as a veto to Maronite abuse, just as the Syrian occupation has been (the Assads are after all Alawites, a subset of the Shia). The Hezb militia is seen in a simlar light.