For example this article in the Daily Star that argues the following:
Hizbullah realizes that Lebanon’s sectarian nature will not allow it to dominate the country’s consensus-based politics. This sets the party apart from other Islamist organizations in the region, some of which can realistically hope to come to power if free elections were held. Hizbullah has recalibrated its ambitions accordingly. It lifted its initial opposition to the 1989 Taif Accord (which ended Lebanon’s Civil War and redistributed power among sects) and gradually integrated into Lebanese political and social life.
Hizbullah’s pragmatism, however, should not be mistaken for genuine acceptance of Lebanon’s confessional system and the constraints that come with it. Since Hizbullah cannot tear down the formal sectarian power-sharing structure and impose its preferred system of governance, the party has worked around this obstacle by formally accepting the Taif state while developing ways to remain, in effect, above the system.
1- Taking as a static concept extirpated from its historical/social context the idea that Hizbullah wanted to dominate “the system”. This makes Hizbullah a party with a couple of atemporal (not temporal) ideas in mind. These ideas become a reference point for all decisions taken by this party regardless of the changing reality lived by the party as a changing social organism.
2- Hizbullah has tactically chosen to remain outside the State. Wrong. In fact, it is the political circumstances of the past two decades that made Hizbullah stay outside the State, for various reasons we won’t discuss here. Hizbullah does not “choose” to stay outside the State, or does not choose to play on two ropes one being the state the other being their ‘quasi-state’, but follows a historically dependent path. decision are constrained by available possibilities. Meaning that Hizbullah can integrate the State wants it is possible to do so according to the actions of other players.
3- The last paragraph I quoted does not have a point.
In Lebanon’s consensus-based politics, monopolizing Shiite representation guarantees that no combination of political forces can compel Hizbullah to abide by rules or principles it deems contrary to its interests, unless its opponents are willing to risk civil war.
4- The author assumes yet another static point with is Hibullah’s “Interests”. So what are Hizbullah’s interest? I would defy anyone who can answer this question.
and to finish this is the gem, the conclusion:
The failure of the dialogue initiative launched recently by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri shows Lebanese politicians’ lack of commitment to addressing the fundamental issues plaguing the country.
5- What are the fundamental issues? environmental or economic policies? or security issues? American involvements, Israeli violations of airspace? the Palestinian refugee issue? Defining relations with Syria? Building state institutions, abolishing confessionalism? The only issue in these discussions is a party who wants to monopolize decision making and alienate the country from its regional surroundings.