Michael Young, opinion editor of Beirut’s Daily Star, has an excellent primer on Lebanese sectarian politics in today’s NY Times Magazine. While Young doesn’t address it directly, his piece underscores the absolute intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the far-left embrace of Hezbollah.
Detailing the Siniora government’s tense and fragile efforts to deal with Hezbollah and secure a hopeful future for Lebanon, Young writes:
It did not take very long before the rift between Hezbollah’s supporters and detractors was reflected in the [Siniora] cabinet. The most divisive episode came late last year, when the government majority sought to approve a mixed Lebanese-international court to try the suspects in the Hariri assassination. The Shiite ministers refused to go along, arguing that the move was premature. The majority saw this as a ploy to protect Syria at a time when Nasrallah was publicly reaffirming his alliance with the Assad regime. On Dec. 12, in the tense hours following the assassination of the prominent anti-Syrian journalist Gebran Tueni, the government broke the deadlock by voting to approve a mixed tribunal. This was constitutionally defensible, but the Shiite ministers claimed it broke the rule that all important decisions must be made by consensus. They walked out of the government but did not resign. Hezbollah was not about to lose the convenient cover of legitimacy provided by participation in the cabinet, but it had every intention of gumming up the system so that the cabinet majority would not act as a majority again.
For all its efforts, Siniora’s government became less and less able to govern. Early this year, Nabih Berri, the speaker of Parliament, proposed a ‘‘national dialogue’’ of leading politicians to address the most divisive issues — like the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons. But little came of this. In the dialogue, Nasrallah would make concessions and then invariably step back from implementing them. The final straw was the July 12 abduction of the Israelis. For most of the ministers in the government, the operation was nothing less than a coup, a brazen effort to show that the majority had no control over so basic a matter as a declaration of war. [my emphasis]
Rather than see its power wane, Young argues, Hezbollah started a war in order to undermine its domestic opponents. Also, one could add, to gain glory and further demonize Israel. The issue of Lebanese prisoners, the Shebaa Farms — all a mere pretext.
Leftists who support Hezbollah, openly or tacitly, do not support Lebanon or the Lebanese people. They support a self-interested renegade faction of the Lebanese government. And they have the nerve to call themselves antiwar activists.
[Update: Hazem Saghieh weighs in at openDemocracy.]
Comments are closed.