Daily Archives: August 12, 2010

by

Speculations On Hezbollah Internal Power Grab

Meir Javedanfar is reading tea leaves:

The question that must be asked then in this: If Hezbollah is interested in attacking Israel, why is it warning that the Doha agreement is about to collapse? [..] the Shiite organization could be about to launch a domestic power grab. This could be bloody, involving massive armed confrontation, or it could be bloodless; perhaps, for instance, involving some sort of agreement made with opposing factions. Hezbollah has the military capability to do this, as it’s the only militia in Lebanon.

In other words, he is speculating that Hezbollah could pull a Hamas on Lebanon. In my opinion that’s not a likely scenario, because it was proven again and again in Lebanon’s history that the country cannot be controlled by a single faction. The party is also very unpopular in places like the north and mount Lebanon. Hezbollah has long sought the strategic role of kingmaker and laid low because it it also wants to have things both ways.

by

❊ When Can Beggars Be Choosers? When They Have Other Options

Many Americans are surprised by Lebanon’s defiant attitude towards the withdrawal of American military aid. They shouldn’t be.

Yesterday, the Lebanese Minister of Defense said that we don’t want American Military Aid if it came with strings attached. Of course it is possible that he is saying something entirely different in private, but the truth remains that this is the overwhelming gut reaction of many Lebanese, who felt justified in using those weapons against the perceived Israeli encroachment on our land.

This dismissive attitude of “we don’t want your filthy money” is striking some Americans as galling:

The problem is that instead of Lebanon refusing the largesse, it is demanding that such aid comes without conditions. If the Lebanese think that in taking aid from the United States based on conditions is tantamount to selling its soul, then simply refuse it. Where else can beggars be choosers?

I understand why they should think that, but this shows just how little they understand the country. Lebanon is at the center of a large power struggle between regional and international powers. It is being constantly showered by ‘largesse’ from different countries in return for influence. So a paltry $100 million lost from America (equivalent to 5% of the net worth of the Prime Minister alone) is a $100 million gained from Iran, Saudi Arabia or even Turkey.

Beggars can be choosers when they have options.

Now the inevitable concession: Many Lebanese would rather receive aid from America than Iran, because they’d like as little influence as possible from a country that still executes women by public stoning. Moreover, America doesn’t only provide money, it also provides military technology that no other country can provide.

That said, American Senators shouldn’t run around telling people that they’ll punish Lebanon by withdrawing aid. Countries have pride too, and in our case, we also have options.

–
Note: Posts with titles starting with an ❊ (asterisk) are my opinion posts. I used this system to separate long posts from quick links and comments.

by

Michael Young: "gullibility descends into stupidity"

He’s very very angry with the Lebanese reaction to Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech:

we Lebanese never deserved the tribunal, and I suspect even less the sovereignty and rule of law it was supposed to bolster. Lost in our conspiracy theories and factionalism, we are willing to believe everything ridiculous and reject anything backed up by hard facts. There are those, and they are not few nor are they all Hizbullah followers, who honestly believe Nasrallah made a compelling case this week. When gullibility descends into stupidity, it’s time to admit that Lebanon merits no better than to be run by an armed militia or an autocratic foreign power. 

Cue in the theory on Arabs being best governed by benevolent dictators.