If you can’t beat them, join them?
(Photo credit: New York Times)
Elias Harfoush makes the argument in Alhayat that Hezbollah has reached an amount of pre-eminence no one else has ever achieved in Lebanese politics, and that it would be foolish for us to think that it will willingly shrink itself to go back to equal footing with the rest of the Lebanese:
…urging the party to engage in public politics on an equal footing with other Lebanese parties and to give up the position that it now occupies domestically, regionally and sometimes internationally is not a realistic demand
So what’s a party of God to do? Mr. Harfoush explains Hezbollah’s ambitious plans:
Hence, rather than responding to the demand by the state and other Lebanese that the party returns to a “normal size” on an equal footing with others, Hezbollah is encouraging others to join its project such that its program becomes that of all Lebanese, hence the program of the state with all its institutions. Consequently, Hezbollah will logically become the “ruling party” in terms of goals and strategy rather than one of the ruling parties within the framework of a national unity government as the case is now
Mr. Harfoush thinks that the Lebanese have no other option –short of a bloody confrontation with disastrous ends– but to “coexist” with Hezbollah’s demand.
Of course some would argue that such appeasement will only embolden Hezbollah, but I personally think that something will have to give at some point. You can’t have all this power (being the effective ruling party) without any sort of accountability (only one minister in the government). So it is very likely that the well-tested Lebanese checks-and-balances system will eventually outsmart Hezbollah.
Thoughts?
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I've been blogging about Lebanese society and politics since February 2005. 
Mr. Harfoush–whoever he is–can go fly a kite. I’m not even going to bother reading his drivel; i’m already retching from the couple of graphs you quoted. The guy is out of his mind. I thought the whole idea behind Lebanon was that we’re supposedly a diverse polyglot multicultural society. Now Harfoush wants us to walk in ideological lockstep with an intolerant totalitarian triumphalist Islamist cult? Precisely because they happen to have monopoly over the instruments of power and repression? wtf? Why not merge with Syria in that case? Syria has even greater, more efficient instruments of brutality!
So I guess Louis that’s your way of saying “no relation” :)
yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying, Steve!!! I only wish I had your curtness and compusure though. Oh well! I’ll go for a drink instead ;)
The problem isn’t “Coexisting With Hezballah” – but they “Coexisting” with everyone else, not imposing wars, persian doutrines, syrian “democracy”, ignoring the law and state, etc….
So…. Louis, save a chair for me – I’m going for a drink also!
You’re too optimistic Mustapha. Hezbollah will unfortunately not be outsmarted politically. It’s a cancer: either it will metastasize or it will need surgical removal followed by chemotherapy.
Hezbollah is expansionist and Nasrallah thinks he is Hitler and will take over Lebanon, unless stopped. The lebanese will not be able to beat hezbollah on any grounds, neither politically nor militarily.
In my mind, there are only two ways to break down hezbollah: Israel attacking it big time, or the collapse of Iran following a US or allied strike.
Otherwise, I’d hate to say it: we’ve lost Lebanon and partition will be the only way to salvage individual communities.
TOS and Anon, I think you hit it right on the head. The Hitler analogy is an apt one indeed, and, short of a devastating civil war, partition is indeed looming in Lebanon’s horizon.
Lebanon in its current geographic configuration is no longer sustainable. We’re back to the mid-seventies; only, as noted over at Across the Bay, those suing for divorce today are no longer the (traditional, “right-wing”, isolationist Maronites. It’s their former civil-war adversaries.)
I agree with anonymous, however I don’t see partition as the last option. In fact partition is a good option but hezbollah doesn’t want it, or let’s say, he wanted it, he got it, he built his own state and now attacking to cease control of the neighboring state.
Let’s hope for Mc Cain…
Reading from the comments, the only thing to do is fight Hezbollah… this involves a civil war. If Nasrallah really wants to take over Lebanon as claimed here, then all the diplomacy in the world won’t make a difference. Anyone willing to go to war against Hezbollah? The alternative is to shrug our shoulders and let Hezbollah slowly (or quickly) take over and live with it. What is better? War or living under the will of Hezbollah?
Right, or we go to war, which is likely, and which is what historical precedents tell us.
If you can’t beat them, join them?
Well, Lebanon’s diverse society will balance Hezbollah. Aoun has actually reduced Hezbollah’s ambitions to liberate Palestine, to a more National stance.
“Lebnanet Hezbollah”?
yah, “labnanet”, right! Heard that one a long time ago! Wasn’t that the whole idea behind the 1920-Lebanon project? We saw where that went. Let’s be honest folks. Lebanon in its current configuration (political and territorial, i.e, a unitary state with its 10,452Km2) is no longer realistically sustainable. I’m hoping for an amicable divorce, but I don’t think that’s even possible anymore.
Why not to consider an open alliance with Israel? Yes, it’s an anaphema in today’s Lebanon as far as I understand but it’s certainly not a new concept for any of the groups and it is likely to lead to a geopolitical balance that will leave Hizballahstan unable to rule the rest of Lebanon.
Also, since for Israel that would be a godsend politically, one can be assured if not of good Israeli intentions then of a desire to not screw up a chance to have a friendly country nearby.
It also means that Israeli support would be a card to trade: you’d be able to tell HA “give up your Iranian support if you want us to give up the Israeli one” – a card you currently don’t have (Saudis don’t like direct confrontations).
Finally, it means that no matter what HA does to Israel, the war would be between these two, with the rest of Lebanon not having to be a pawn in Israeli-Iranian games.
Is there some aspect (other than the emotional one) that prevents this scenario (assuming that partition is the way to go of which I’m not sure)?
In the 80s hizzis kidnapped a “soviet” diplomat in the same line as they did with any other foreigner… The soviets responded by kidnapping and killing several hizzis in return. Their bodies were sent chopped and mutilated. The diplomat was released shortly after. Hizzis understand one thing: force. They used it against Israel and it worked, and the same should be applied to them. They left no room for compromise or understanding of any kind.
What is better? War or living under the will of Hezbollah?
Unless you develop some spine, you’ll probably get both.
The consequences of a Hezbullah effort to take over Lebanon will spread quickly. Israel, for one, won’t sit and do nothing. That means Syria and Iran will be brought in for support. Then there are the U.S., France and England who will come to the aid of the anti Hezbullah forces. The Saudi’s wiil find a spot to occupy also. Basically, it will truly be a case of the shit hitting the fan. Iran, which calls all of the shots on the Hezbullah side, is unlikely to willingly allow the whole process to get off the ground. The real unknown – my idea – is a President Obama.
Israel, for one, won’t sit and do nothing
True, Israel might do what it did for Hamas: sign a cease-fire allowing Hezbollah to consolidate its grip upon the population. America engages in liberation games, but Israel currently won’t.
Sol 2 -
I agree that Israel wouldn’t look at an armed exercise in liberation terms. It would be more of a case of of not wanting to let the neighborhood deteriorate further. As for signing any kind of a ceasefire allowing Lebanon to slip further under the grip of the bad guys, Syria would be a better signing prospect than Hezbullah. They would have more to barter with that would be of interest to the Israelis.
It’s precisely because Israel is sadly capable of deals with a dictatorship like Syria that an offer of an alliance from the Sunni-Christian majority would make such a deal impossible – there would be a viable and far more attractive alternative of real peace with the Lebanese majority.
None of you armchair quarterbacks, nor your mafia bosses in the government, who are masterfully adept at stealing the country’s resources, have outsmarted Hizbullah yet, on any level and in any arena. You have lost all you bets that you placed on the Saudis, the U.S. and Israel. I hope you keep pushing and straining in the same direction, with no gain.