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”.