Confusion in the wording

After a daily reading of the Lebanese press (but also American) it seems that the way we categorize the different local players is just misleading: The anti-Syrian majority, the pro-Syrian opposition group. Is it by their stance towards Syria that you recognize these groups? So these groups do not have anything else in substance but how they relate to a foreign actor. This is highly reductionist for all the Lebanese parties regardless of their affiliations. Why can’t we differentiate these groups in terms of popularity, political programs, principles, hell even sect while we’re at it.

First it is reductionist for the 14th of March whose agenda shrinks immediately to this petty task of constantly barking: “The Syrians are still interfering in the Lebanese political process. Otherwise we have nothing to say or do while we are supposed to be accountable to the people”. This is how these dudes stayed in power all this time: Not one single economic/social/political decision was taken during their regime. Not one. Actually, they made several ministries go backwards.

Second it is reductionist for Hizbullah who fought against a vicious aggression, has a huge popularity, has a substantial insitutional social structure in Lebanon, and the only way you denominate the party is by putting the “pro-Syrian” prefix behind it. Why can’t we look at reality in the way where actually Syria is dependent on the institutional/military/symbolic strength of Hizbullah? It is Syria who is pro-Hizbullah! By the way, the only minister who actually did something for his ministry until now is Mohammad Fneish who’s a Hizbullah member and has concluded several gas and oil deals with neighboring countries.

I can’t believe that the whole debate of the dialogue sessions was around the insistence of the Hariri “international” tribunal. You really would think that there were no wars in Lebanon and it’s the same disc we’re playing again for 2 consecutive years. Hundreds of innocent were killed and here we are hanging the fate of the country to the killing of one guy who could have been everything but innocent.

How words like Justice, Truth, etc. are easily manipulated to fit into the dominant ideology. Why can’t we use these words and investigate on who collaborated with the Israelis? Who was accomplice to the murdering Israeli machine? Why can’t we use these words in order to sharpen our understanding of how Lebanese constantly hate each other? Why can’t we use them to understand how Lebanese easily destroy possibilities to finally stay united without using chancelleries? Why can’t we reflect on truth and justice to see that Lebanese don’t need chancelleries but chancelleries need them and their divisions?

Let me summarize the political reality:
1- Syria and Iran need Hizbullah
2- Washington and Israel need the 14th of March
3- Hizbullah has proven to be unbeatable, has a strong social base, is an example of strength for the world at large, has always shown to be very straight in their actions, etc.
4- The 14th of March is a collection of feudal/sectarian lords and their employers one hiding in the mountains, the other crying whenever things get out of hand or reality does not match what the chancellor has promised, another being happy to see that the country could be divided, etc.
5- I won’t even go into who is corrupted and who isn’t.

With all this in mind do you still think Syria and Iran’s influence on Hizbullah is more harmful then Washington’s on 14th of March? Come on, it’s basic political “mathematics”.


6 Replies to “Confusion in the wording”

  1. m. Simon it’s really weird to see that not only you like to show us that the average American is ignorant and has no care of where his money is going, but also to show me that you really symbolize this ignorance, because it seems you’re not learning even 2 percent of what there is to learn! Judging from your very very stupid comments on our blog.

    Worse than that, you quote on your blog that we are having “on-going discussions”. In which dellusional world do you live? There are no discussions between us. There is a dellusional 60 year old (if you’re not lying on your profile) who thinks he’s discussing things with “Remarkz”, when in facts, you have “Remarkz” who’s maybe too indulgent not to block m. Simon in the hope that he will “grow up” – if the expression has any meaning – and start understanding reality.

    So this is the last “remarkz”! Try to say meaningful things because not only you’re wasting our time, but you’re also humiliating the average American.

  2. bech,

    i won’t argue with the post, but i do want to point out that your assumption of analysis being “basic political mathematics” is flawed in that the “mathematics” you use is a function of the information you have – and since none of us have complete information, this “mathematics” will never be basic.

  3. I wonder if those who never cease in talking about Hezbollah’s Iranian/Syrian links actually have any hard data on the actual strength of such links, instead just implying that Hezbollah is an automaton controlled by others without a voice of its own

  4. In reality, I imagine that HA scares Syria and frustrates Iran more often than not … Since when and on what planet do political allies obey the laws of friendship …?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s