Obama And Hezbollah
The Democratic presidential candidate revisits his previous statement on the events in Lebanon.
When Hezbollah begun its punitive actions against the Seniora government, Sentaor Barack Obama released a statement that Left many Lebanese bloggers unimpressed. Abu Kais spoke for many when he wrote:
Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing national consensus with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.
Abu Kais wasn’t alone. American pundits were also surprised, and the New York Time’s David Brooks decided to investigate:
Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of? If Obama believes all this, he’s not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He’s off in Noam Chomskyland.
So Brooks called Mr. Obama and asked him to elaborate further on his comments, and Mr. Obama obliged (apparently impressing the conservative Brooks):
Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating
with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued:“Thereare rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
My question to myself and to other Lebanese like Abu Kais. Should we be convinced?
Do you like this post? Would you like to be always updated with new posts on this website? If so, please subscribe to this blog's RSS feed? (tell me more)Share This Post:
Print it: 
Email it: 
-->
Discussion
No comments for “Obama And Hezbollah”
Post a comment
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I blog in The Beirut Spring about Lebanese society and politics. I started in February 2005 after the killing of P.M. Rafik Hariri.
Rss
Latest Posts
More From the Beirutspring network
Lebanese Bloggers
Middle Eastern Bloggers
Today In Lebanon (NOW)
Naharnet RSS Feed
Yalibnan RSS Feed
Latest Lebanese News
RSS Subscribers
Blog Featured In
Categories
Most Emailed
- Kudos To You Mr. President - 2 emails
- Lebanese Bloggers Not Happy With Kuntar Celebrations - 1 emails
- Having It Both Ways.. Literally - 1 emails
- The PR Battle Over Samir Kuntar - 1 emails
- Lebanese Women Will Love Minister Ibrahim Najjar - 1 emails
Obama is a politician and an idealist. Who believes politicians and, while it’s easy to admire an idealist, I can’t shake the feeling that he shoves unwanted realities under the rug.
“Both (Hezbollah and Hamas) need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
That the bad guys need to be “compelled to understand” sends one message, but “if they decide to shift” is wishful thinking. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. That’s not a practical policy now.
“There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
I guess we are counting on the split between the pragmatists and the fundalmentalists in Iran. Fine, he should say so. Right now the fundamentalists seem to control the agenda.
Mr. Obama crosses from one side to the other. That’s the way politicians do it so they can refer to something they said previously to fit the current facts.
My take on all of this. Yeah. Talk to the bad guys but have the firepower in reserve. Make sure that you speak from a position of strength. Obama seems to be going for “hearts and minds” but, as some anonymous type put it, “their hearts and minds are yours when you’ve got ‘em by the balls”.
It’s just electioneering. But it all allows Hezb to feel they have an opening.
The real tragedy in all this is that Obama still misunderstands the real dynamics behind Hezb and Iran. Some parties, like the PSNS or Syria’s Baath, have essentially secular motivations that can be addressed and clarified. They can understand the limitations of their power, and they can understand the extent of your interest.
Others regional playes, like Hezb, the Fundamentalist mouvance around Hariri, some elements of the Gush Emunim, all have non-secular, out of worldly motivations. They can be very realistic in their tactics, but they answer to a higher authority on the longer term.
Talk will have a different effect on either one.
Obama sounds a lot like Carter back in the late 1970s. Disaster is right around the corner, just as it was back then. Read this for more Obama foreign policy.
http://www.mijkasamora.com/2008/05/obamateur-hour.html
Neither Mr Brooks nor Obama have a clue about how things work in Lebanon. “well informed”????
Both could do a little checking on all the NGO’s and the Sinior Government efforts to “reach” the Shiites. Everything goes through Hezbollah - even conversation, ask any journalist who has ever been to Lebanon.
If Obama is elected US President - look for worse than the Carter years. As far as Foreign Policy is concerned - Obama will only see Africa and the rest of the world can pretty much do as it pleases. I don’t say this because he is Black but because this is actually the “ideology” he (and his wife) follow. Politicians say/do what they need to get elected. After that - we are stuck with them and it does not matter what they “said”. They follow their own rules and make up new ones.
This guy looks where the wind blows.
It’s funny how one nothing, in a nation of four million nothings, has the gall to question our presidential candidate.
You are about as important as Rhode Island. Accept your insignificance and shut the hell up.
Obama is largely an empty suit. However, research shows he has a strong anti-israeli background. How all this will play out if he becomes elected (doubtful) remains to be seen.
Mustapha, Do you really want America to go into a conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon?
If The US wants to fight its war with Iran, let them do it amoung themselves.
Obama actually has impressed me with this. Speaking of “root causes”, he pinpoints the exact reason for the support Hezbollah gets. Let’s not fool ourselves Ace and act as if our government (which I support) has ever given the masses in the south and in the Dahieh much social services or support. Neither has it given anything in the north, in the mountains, in the Bekaa, on the beach…
The fact is Lebanon is based on a system of patronage, and the Druze depend on their leaders, the Christians on their own, and the Sunnis on their own to get what they need… and this has ALWAYS been the case.
Iran took advantage of the situation in Lebanon and provided social services and helped the Shiites in a way, also fooling them into accepting the weapons that come along with the deal (think about it this way, they get paid for every son that dies at war with Israel… maybe even every son that died in the Hezbollah occupation of Beirut too).
Truth is, Obama is right. Lebanon will always exist with its ever-increasing Shiite population. We won’t be able to and [I stress] don’t want get rid of them. What would we be if we weren’t as diverse? It definitely wouldn’t be Lebanon, where my best friends are Maronites, Shiites, Druze, Sunnis, Greek Orthodox… Who else can claim to have that many kinds of people living side by side? [besides the US and Canada and other countries built on immigration]
Since we can’t do that, we must engage them, but FIRST, the rest of the political leaders as well as the Lebanese people must grow the balls to tell the Shiites that they will feed the people but the weapons are NOT (no questions asked) welcome in Lebanon.
Truly, it is disappointing that even after this, people are still too cowardly to make definitive statements refusing Hezbollah the right to have weapons.
I still cling onto some hope that Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt handing in weapons is a step towards telling Hezbos “we gave ours, it’s time for you to do the same.” And let’s sit on this table and talk about what rights you feel you don’t have…
Obama’s comments there are eloquent and well put. Can’t argue with that. But as many have already said, it is, in the end, electioneering. What he will do if elected is an entirely different story.
The only reason Hariri and Jumblatt turned in there weapons was if they did not they would have gotten there ass kicked and would have had to leave Lebanon. So shut up and sit in the corner now you losers. You and your goons have taken this country down a road that is full of corruption and deceit. Let the real men take over now.
As usual, the the 5-year olds show up and start calling names instead of providing anything useful…