Syria backs down; will leave Lebanon

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

And clearly, they're attributing that at least in part to the Syrian occupation.

Its hard to tell, as Hezb is unclear in its stand on the occupation, as the articles from the Star show.



I'm not saying that the opposition to Syria if fascist, but that the opposition to an equal Shia vote is fascist. Which doesn't include the entire Maronite community, but some of it. Anyways, to a large extent corporatist policies dominate in Lebanon IIUC.
[/q]


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.

It's a question of control in the gov't. As I said, the Shia are shut out despite their plurality. They don't trust the central gov't. The militia remains, and they're backing Syria, because they see them as bargaining chips over the other sectarian factions. There's no timetable for Syrian withdrawal because there's no timetable for Shia political inclusion.

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.

.

Amal still exists, don't it?

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.



By all accounts, most of the anti-Syrian demonstrators are Maronite. Yes, there are Sunnis and Druze, but it's mostly Maronite.[/q]

All the reports ive seen emphasize the mix, and i hear ALOT of quotes from Jumblatt. It wouldnt surprise me that the Maronites are most enthusiastic, though.

And, interestingly enough, Tripoli (a Sunni city) had a pro-Syrian demonstration. Karimi is also a Sunni.

And Karimi is from Tripoli IIUC - thats one data point, not two.

And again, note the Zogby poll: more Sunnis believe that Israel/US had somethign to do with the Hariri assassination than Syria.

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.

Lahoud is pretty irrelevent. There's Franjieh (interestingly enough, he supports also Syria as a power-broker in fear of Muslim violence), and that's about it. Wasn't I arguing your point earlier?

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.


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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, this puppet crap again- Hezbollah is NOT a Syrian puppet org..it amazes me Oerdion, you think that everyone and everything must be a puppet...how obnoxious.

Unlike you I follow the money because in the real world the people who control the money control the power. Syria & Iran control the money so Hezbollah is their *****. Same goes for China and North Korea.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Unlike you I follow the money because in the real world the people who control the money control the power. Syria & Iran control the money so Hezbollah is their *****. Same goes for China and North Korea.

Too bad that real life does not particulalry play by your "real world" rules. Stick with this mindset all you want- all it will do for you is make you wrong more often than not. Your loss.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Incidentally, lotm, Amal also supports the Syrian occupation. Why do you suppose that's so, if sectarian concerns are irrelevent?

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.

Syria has justified an occupation that benefits them economically, that fulfills geopolitical aspirations of long standing, and that enables them to shelter Hezbollah, which (not to speak of the past, Buenos Aires, et al) NOW provides Syria leverage against Israel by shelling across the border, and, if either the Israeli govt OR the Palestinian Authority are to be believed, by supporting terrorist violence against the Israeli-Pal peace process, by the assertion that its necessary to prevent civil war. Syria NEEDS intercommunal tension in Lebanon, just as imperialists in the past needed intercommunal tension as a justification - diviso et imperio. Thats why the most revolutionary thing we saw was NOT the numbers demonstrating against Syria, but the unity among Maronites, Sunni Muslims, and Druze. Surely not all three of those communities are trying to preserve the political status quo. So it was a question (which i raised here quite early) of what Hezbollah wants to be - if they want to be a Lebanese political party they can join with the Druze, and make themselves part of the broader post-Syrian political scene. But that assuredly means giving up arms, losing the flow of money from Iran, and ceasing to be a player in the Israeli-Pal crisis. Which choice, a Lebanese party, or an Iranian backed terrorist group - Sein Fein, or the Regular IRA, if I may put it that way. 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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So its OK for a political party to keep a huge armed militia as long as its demands are for large autonomy, but only if that is what they want? Why is that? Casue its all in the name of democracy and legitimacy for the people seeking autonomy to have the option of getting what they want through violence, as lond as all they want is to split the state?

Clearly the Kurds expect the Peshmerga to be the core of the autonomous regions security forces, as they were pre-93. It would be foolish to disband them when that isnt settled. Hezb on the other hand claims to be just one more Lebanese political party. Yet it claims a privilege no other party has. Besides the Peshmerga have dwarfed the party militias since 03 - in fact none of the party militias were in Iraq pre-03. In Lebanon on the other hand, every group had a militia, and Hezb was not the largest or most powerful - it is now because the Syrians have chosen to implement the disarmament provisions of the Taif accords against EVERY militia EXCEPT Hezbollah. But no, theyre not a Syrian puppet, no. Oh, of course theyre ALSO powerful because of the funding they get from Teheran.

[lord of the mark]

when has Hezbollah done anything AGAINST the interests of Syria and Iran?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Clearly the Kurds expect the Peshmerga to be the core of the autonomous regions security forces, as they were pre-93. It would be foolish to disband them when that isnt settled. Hezb on the other hand claims to be just one more Lebanese political party. Yet it claims a privilege no other party has. Besides the Peshmerga have dwarfed the party militias since 03 - in fact none of the party militias were in Iraq pre-03. In Lebanon on the other hand, every group had a militia, and Hezb was not the largest or most powerful - it is now because the Syrians have chosen to implement the disarmament provisions of the Taif accords against EVERY militia EXCEPT Hezbollah. But no, theyre not a Syrian puppet, no. Oh, of course theyre ALSO powerful because of the funding they get from Teheran.

1. So its OK for the kudrs to undermine the power of a central Iraqi state by keeping a vast military force because the dmeocratic will of Iraqis might be against giving the Kurds autonomy? HOw democraticly minded of you.

2. I assume that Hezbollah was the only militia actively working to remove Israel from Lebanon....gee, whizz, why would Syria not move against them? Its a mystery to solve, Lets call Scooby Doo!

Oh, and Hezbollah does claim itslef to be different from all other political parties- you know, being the ones who drove the IDF out, and their insistance in calling themselves the resistance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
when has Hezbollah done anything AGAINST the interests of Syria and Iran?

When have Hezbollah's interests not matched those of Syria and Iran? Why would Hezbollah's interests differ from those of Iran?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



The Daily Star has a transcript of Nasarallah's speech. The main point is against UN 1559. As for disarming, It would be great for Hezbollah to disarm, or have its militias become part of the government army.
...

But 1559 calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah, and THATS what they most object to.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


When have Hezbollah's interests not matched those of Syria and Iran? Why would Hezbollah's interests differ from those of Iran?

Well IF theyre a Lebanese political party, I would assume that some instances would occur where their interests dont match those of Syria or Iran. But no, theyve always found their interests to match those of Syria and Iran. And they are funded by Iran. And protected by Syria. If it walks like a duck .....

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

1. So its OK for the kudrs to undermine the power of a central Iraqi state by keeping a vast military force because the dmeocratic will of Iraqis might be against giving the Kurds autonomy? HOw democraticly minded of you.

democracy is not just the rule of the majority when national and state definitions are at issue. In any case democracy is hardly securely established in Iraq, as YOU have reiterated many times. In any case I dont know that the Kurds have called for the disarmament of other militias - unlike Hezbollah, which keeps a unique status. Clearly in Iraq given its history, the Kurds need a militia for now for their security. In Lebanon, I see as much rationale for a Maronite or Sunni or Druze militia as for Hezb - yet none of those communities have a militia anymore.

2. I assume that Hezbollah was the only militia actively working to remove Israel from Lebanon....gee, whizz, why would Syria not move against them? Its a mystery to solve, Lets call Scooby Doo!

Syria would move against them cause thats what the Taif accords called for, and those accords are the basis for them staying in Lebanon. Also cause they were theoretically rebuilding Lebanon after the civil war, and that wasnt compatible with an armed Hezbollah. Now tell me why anyone in Lebanon whos NOT a supporter of Hezbollah would allow Hezbollah to retain a militia. And given that disarmament of hezbollah is the probable result of Syrian withdrawl, its pretty clear that Hezbs opposition to said withdrawl is based on their desire to retain special status - and said status is NOT compatible with fitting into a normal Lebanese political system.

As I said, they had to make a choice, and they made it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well IF theyre a Lebanese political party, I would assume that some instances would occur where their interests dont match those of Syria or Iran.

And why is this? Care to explain the core of your arguement, instead of making such a huge statement without backing?

Oh, and given that this party has 12 members in Parliment and could get 200,000 plus Lebanse to come out, obviously it is a Lebanse party.

But the great weakness of the Oerdin line of thought is this- if its all about the money, why don;t the US and Israel simply go meet with Hezbollah and say...Hey, we will triple the amount of money that you get from Syrian and Iran, as long as you do what we say.

Please explain as well, after explaining the bit above, why, if its all about money, why aren't the Americans and Israelis looking to buy hezbollah- no way we could not easily match and triple whatever they get form anyone else. It seems the simplest, most rational thing to do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

democracy is not just the rule of the majority when national and state definitions are at issue. In any case democracy is hardly securely established in Iraq, as YOU have reiterated many times. In any case I dont know that the Kurds have called for the disarmament of other militias - unlike Hezbollah, which keeps a unique status

But the US is powerful enough to mintain order, NO?

Syria would move against them cause thats what the Tair accords called for, and those accords are the basis for them staying in Lebanon.

Last I read, the Taif accords demanded a Syrian pull-out. Was Israel and the militias it backed part of the Taif accord?

Now tell me why anyone in Lebanon whos NOT a supporter of Hezbollah would allow Hezbollah to retain a militia.

I don't know. Thought Hezbollah seems th single strongest party in Lebanon, period. It would be interesting to see if the other groups could get thier act together.

And given that disarmament of hezbollah is the probable result of Syrian withdrawl, its pretty clear that Hezbs opposition to said withdrawl is based on their desire to retain special status - and said status is NOT compatible with fitting into a normal Lebanese political system.

If Syria leaves, who exactly will disarm Hezbollah? The Lebanese army? Right....

as for "normal Lebanese political system.. what is that exactly?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

And why is this? Care to explain the core of your arguement, instead of making such a huge statement without backing?

Its the normal course of human events that no two actors agree about everything.

Oh, and given that this party has 12 members in Parliment and could get 200,000 plus Lebanse to come out, obviously it is a Lebanse party.

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.

But the great weakness of the Oerdin line of thought is this- if its all about the money, why don;t the US and Israel simply go meet with Hezbollah and say...Hey, we will triple the amount of money that you get from Syrian and Iran, as long as you do what we say.

Please explain as well, after explaining the bit above, why, if its all about money, why aren't the Americans and Israelis looking to buy hezbollah- no way we could not easily match and triple whatever they get form anyone else. It seems the simplest, most rational thing to do.

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.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

But the US is powerful enough to mintain order, NO?

No guarantee that we'll stay.

Last I read, the Taif accords demanded a Syrian pull-out. Was Israel and the militias it backed part of the Taif accord?

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

If Syria leaves, who exactly will disarm Hezbollah? The Lebanese army? Right....

Why not?

as for "normal Lebanese political system.. what is that exactly?

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