By Noah Pollak
Michael Young has a characteristically terrific column in the Beirut Daily Star about Hezbollah’s latest power play.
Since last January, when Hizbullah and Amal [a Hezbollah-aligned Shia group–NP] used the pretense of social dissatisfaction to obstruct roads in and around
Aoun will doubtless find an excuse to explain why the calls for a strike were ignored in predominantly Christian areas. But Hizbullah has to be careful. Now the party’s every move is one of the Shiites against the rest. The sharp decline in Aoun’s popularity, not to mention the pressure being felt by other Hizbullah allies like Elie Skaff in Zahleh, all emanate from a single source: Most Christians, not to mention vast majorities of Sunnis and Druze, see no possible coexistence between the idea of the Lebanese state and a Hizbullah that insists on veto power over any decision that might limit its political and military margin of maneuver.
Exactly right. Hezbollah has been attempting to increase its power — and hence Iranian-Syrian power — in
There are now three messy options: capitulate to Hezbollah; fight Hezbollah by force of arms; or seek the separation of Shia
If [Hezbollah] wants its semi-independent entity, it is now obliged to state this plainly. The masks have fallen. And if Hizbullah does decide to reject
The problem with this thinking is that it is hard to imagine a divorce between the Shia and the rest of
War would be required because the last thing Hezbollah and its sponsors want is a divorce. The dysfunctional marriage protects Hezbollah, insofar as to go to war against Hezbollah requires going to war against
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.