Monday, August 28, 2006

Nasrallah: From the new leader Maximo to Aoun’s new PR manager













Sayyed Nasrallah’s speech, last night, shifted the crux of the problem from the external dimension to the domestic one. After freezing Hezbollah’s military activities against Israel, Nasrallah turned to the domestic situation and ‘declared’ war on the government and parliamentary majority.
Regarding the causes of the war, Nasrallah’s contradicting statements point to the fact that he is trying to exonerate himself from this war. On one hand, he did not expect the Israeli’s retaliation and attempted to justify himself by portraying Hezbollah’s abduction of the two Israelis soldiers as ‘business as usual’. On the other hand, he had information that the Israelis were planning a major attack in September. So, he had information of a major attack in September, yet he did not anticipate such a retaliation in July.
Regarding the results of the war, Nasrallah distributed good and bad points to everyone in Lebanon, the Arab world and the world in general. The result boils down to the ‘8th of March’ alliance, Syria and Iran as the winner with the rest being not only traitors but also losers. Being a Lebanese citizen does not qualify one automatically to the status of winner: Nasrallah keeps to himself the right to decide and has a set of criteria according to which he can discriminate between winners and traitors. As expected, it fits perfectly his previous allies and none of its previous opponents.
But the most important point is the domestic implication of Nasrallah’s new speech. Since the end of the war, we have been bombarded last week by the ‘new apologists’ of the Hezbollah that this historical victory will have tremendous political implications. For days, propagandists allied to the Hezbollah have been warning that the political translation of this victory is going to be far-reaching. Today, Nasrallah just unveiled what these implications are going to be: a ministerial post to General Aoun. The political translation of our historical victory, our 1000 martyrs and our destroyed country boils down to a change in a couple of ministerial posts.
Nasrallah played tonight a very dangerous game. In his speech, he attempted to instigate a Christian sectarian tension by claiming that 75% of the Christian are not represented politically due to the dictatorial majority, i.e. the Sunnis. His attempt to instigate this sectarian tension is twofold. First, if it succeeds, it will take some of the pressure of his back, and weapons, by creating a source of tension between the Christians and the Sunnis and by altering the political priority from the disarmament of the Hezbollah to the representation of the Christians. Second, if Nasrallah succeeds in changing the government, he will have with his allies more than a third of the government, thus allowing him to block completely its functioning. This will allow him to block any Lebanese cooperation with the U.N. be it on the front of the UNSCR 1701 or 1559, thus returning us to pre-14 of February 2005.

4 Comments:

Blogger francois said...

" he attempted to instigate a Christian sectarian tension by claiming that 75% of the Christian are not represented politically due to the dictatorial majority, i.e. the Sunnis."
at least he s pointing a crual reality, we need to have a parlement representative of the population
it s true for the shia as the current system do not allow an alternative to the hezbollah or to amal and it s also true for the sunnits as the future+joumblatt+LF with 21% of the votes last year do not constitute a majority.
we are not inside a democratic game but a sort of parlementary dictature where major political groups prevent the political reforms to reach a real and representative power

we badly need to reform a political system that failed as we still no not have any state, the conflict showed that our executive by making so many compromises etc... failed to build up a state

August 28, 2006 11:17 am  
Blogger Samer said...

Dear Francois,

if your understanding of the statistics is your basis for a reform of the system, we still have a long way to go. I dont know from where you got your 21% number in the same way that I dont know from where Nasrallah got his 75%. And I truly don't understand how an electoral system managed to mis-represent more than 80% of the population. Stop your propaganda and look at facts.
As for the parliamentary dictatorship, I think you missed your democracy 101 course. the majority is a majority and not a dictatorship. if it was one, Aoun would still be in Paris, as the real dictator of the Syrian era illustrates.
As for the eternal blackmail of the reforms, the current opposition has no credibility whatsoever to talk about reform. Nasrallah cannot speak of the reform of the state when his monopoly of violence is the main defect of the state. Aoun and his allies cannot speak of reforms since these latter were in power for the last 15 years while the former used the lowest level of sectarian talk to win an election.
As for the usual conflation of two issues: reforms and confessional representation. You seem to be making the point that the representation of the christian will automatically lead to reforms. This "Aounist" talk is just B***S***. The confessional problem is one thing and the reform problem is another.

August 28, 2006 11:49 am  
Blogger francois said...

i see that samer enjoys more the insults then a usual DIALOGUE, maybe if i missed the democracy course, you missed your good manners and dialogue courses as well as it seems u were absent during the debate 009 classes

the 21% fugure comes from an american NGO that made a study based on the way that the people voted last elections
the future+ FL + joumblatt got 21% of the total votes in lebanon
Aoun lists got 14.8%, the hezbollah 15. something % as i remember
the study aimed to demonstrate how undemocratic was the electoral law.

it also shows that the current electoral law is not respecting the the current political equations of the population.

instead of blindly and i hope not blondly supporting the majority or the opposition, you should start critize yourself.

about the marjority, who acted on a secterian part by buying fatwa to get votes in the north of lebanon ?
the future, is it better then the hezbollah in south lebanon? no they are on the same mediocrable level

who aimed to get allied with the hezbollah in baabda aley? joumblatt

you should ask yourself why and go back to political courses 009 classes that you missed as well.

our dear political system based on sectarism and communautarism died, at least clinically dead since 1975 to take the medical words about it, only those lebanese politians and their blind sheeps want the continuation of this system for personal reasons ie keeping this power and/or maintaning their power on their respective communities.

August 28, 2006 3:13 pm  
Blogger Samer said...

My dear Francois,

As you discovered, I dont believe in dialogue, especially the USUAL one.
If the 21% number is used to discredit the majority, then it is a wrong argument. If it is used to discredit the whole system, then it is fine with me. But this did not seem to be your initial point, since you claimed that the majority had 21% leaving the fact that the rest had even lower percentages. So if your argument pertains to the electoral law in Lebanon in general, I am more than happy with it. But then it is not a question of the 2000 law or the 1996 law or anything like that. the only true reforms of the electoral law would be a non-sectarian proportional representation. But then again, is anyone presenting this proposal?
As for the sectarianism of all the Lebanese parties, this is not something new, and of course we all want to change it. But do you truly think that at the end of the current war and under blockade it is the right moment to ask for such reforms?
Moreover, if all politicians are sectarian, what's the alternative? Instead of looking for sheep and blind followers, spare me your populist rhetoric of discovering that the country is ruled by sectarian thiefs.
As for the 1975 date, why stop at it. the system was dead in 1943, no even better it was never meant to be, not even in 1920, and let's not go to 1860 or 1840.
My dear Francois, don't misunderstand me. I am for reforms. But not the reforms that are currently being presented by a fundamentalist leader, a populist wanna-be latin american dictator and their feudal followers.
What i just can't tolerate is the populism involved in such reforms when someone suddendly discover that lebanon is a sectarian and un-democratic country and find the solution in the replacement of a couple of politicians by other.

August 28, 2006 3:39 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home