What a useless article can sound like

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.

Fallacies:
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.

Advertisements

5 Replies to “What a useless article can sound like”

  1. Guys wake up the coup d’etat starts this week. Hope it fails, it must fail, or else we will all be in the trucks of the Syrian army on our way to the Tadmour Concentration camp

  2. I am against Hizballah for one simple reason: its actions are weakening the Hariri International Court, full stop. (this also includes the investigation of the assasinations and attempted assasinations of all the others..)

  3. Shafik, this was very convincing, really, I mean you’re right why didn’t I think about it before!

    Debate, I don’t know how to calm you down but this “coup” may be the best thing that will happen to your life. Unfortunately it will not be a coup, because in Lebanon, no party really prevails.

    Ramzi, good to know you have narrowed down your grudge. Now think about it, why is Hizbullah against the “international” tribunal?

    Taken into consideration that this court is only for Hariri and not for the other mind you. Especially that some know that there were several actors involved in the successive killings.

    But let’s stick to the whole question of “international” tribunal. Why is the “majority” insisting on it, and why is Hizbullah against it? What are the other solutions that Hizbullah ask for?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s