One million are gathering now in Lebanon in an open-ended sit-in protest asking Sanyura, who resisted demands by the opposition to make his cabinet more representative of the Lebanese population, to quit. The Lebanese opposition is called Pro-Syrian by its detractors. I am not sure this is correct, this christian-shiite opposition is definitely anti-USrael. It is mainly united against USrael meddling in Lebanese Politics. The last Israeli agression on Lebanon was meant to reequilibrate political forces in Lebanon by weakening or eliminating the shiite Hezbollah, it did not succeed.
The government of Sanyura emerged from elections made in 2005, just after the Syrian army left Lebanon, on the basis of a Syrian crafted electoral law meant to give advantage to its allies, which were composed mainly of actual members of the Sanyura government at the time. There is a caste of Politicians in Lebanon (and they are a majority) who will do whatever they are told to do by the West (US and France). These politicians were pro-syrians when they were told to be pro-syrians and they are now calling themselves anti-syrians because they are told to be anti-syrians. But what they are right now, really, is pro-USrael
Lebanon is tired from foreign interference. There is a huge popular and cultural resistance in Lebanon to those who want to align it along a USrael political line. We now know what a USrael political line have produced so far in the ME. So instead of calling the forces in presence pro-Syrians and ant-Syrians, because Syria, while it was something important in the Lebanese political game a while ago with the blessings of the US, is really nothing right now in the Lebanese and regional political game, I propose calling them pro-USrael for Sanyura and its government and anti-USrael for the shiite-Christian opposition.
In the current context, what really matters is not being pro or anti something external to Lebanon but being for Lebanon. And in the current circumstances, after having witnessed what USrael wanted to achieve in its July war on lebanon in destruction and mayhem, it is fair to say that anti-USrael forces in Lebanon are those who are working for Lebanon proper.
I think the actual government should listen to the people.
Since March 29th 2006
6 comments:
Interesting...will these protests be successful, do you think?
Sophia,
Thank you for your post today at The Osterley Times. I am delighted that I have now finally found your own blog!
I have much to learn it seems about Lebanese politics. I understand the Israeli/Palestine dispute well, and understood the Isreali/Lebanon war, but your post on OT and your blog are teaching me that there is more going on in Lebanon than I realised.
I come to this from a UK perspective, and will find your perspective invaluable in aiding me to understand the complexity of Lebanese politics better.
Elizabeth,
I really cannot tell what will happen next. The opposition is determined. The outcome depends on many things external notably who is going to win the political battle in Washington, Baker with a soft talk to Iran/Suria line or Cheney. But in my opinion it depends on the Lebanese and their ability to make compromise. Ordinary people in lebanon are tired of fighting. I am sure there will not be civil war like in the past but unrest yes...
Kel,
Thank you for paying a visit. I appreciate your blog.
The problem with Lebanon is the historical perspective which is always absent in the news. Also, biases. I reviewed the actuality today and it is obvious that the Western press is biased toward the Sanyura government. The only thing they don't understand is that Sanyura has no popular legitimacy. What is also particular to Lebanon is the fact that there was always some political openess in the country despite the 15 years long civil war. Iran is another case, people are very politicised. So despite the Mollah regime, political and cultural opposition in Iran is strong and in Lebanon, people will never accept the USrael dictat. This is something Sanyura has to understand. This matter became more pressing as Lebanon breathed some freedom from the heavy Syrian presence in 2005.
One more thing. Hezbollah is presented as a backward movement obeying Iran and Syria. it is true that Syria and Iran have provided hezbollah with military aid and probably money. However, there is no master/lackey relationship between Hezbollah and these countries. They need Hezbollah more than Hezb need them because this is a popular resistance boosting their own popularity among their citizen (otherwise they have none and this is partuicularly true of Syria).
Moreover, before the Israeli agression, the Christian party of Michel Aoun who was snubbed by the neo-cons and who was the only one to fight a syrian presence in Lebanon, not because it wa syrian but because it was a foreign interference) have engaged Hezbollah in what I consider a democratic process of dialogue and acceptance of mutual differences. I think if two different communities achieve such a thing despite sectarian tensions, one can consider this as a success. However the agreement was snubbed by Washington, Sanyura and the rest (see my article on 'Hassan Nasrallah, the new face of moderation in Lebanon and the ME.' It is in my links under the rubrique, my selection of articles on this blog).
These people have a real peaceful and progressive political agenda for Lebanon and they are not being listened to, they are treated a pro-syrian, this is a dangerous short-cut and one that is conveying another message to the west about them.
Sophia,
You are right about the way this is portrayed in the western media. Hizbullah are very much viewed as as a tool of Syria and Iran, although I've always doubted the truth of that.
It's a bit like the myth that Arafat started the first intifada. The western media like to simplify the politics of the Middle East into easily understood "camps", which often obscures rather than illuminates what is actually going on.
RB,
Yes Aoun Has more support than any other leader in the Chritsian camp.
Post a Comment