Monday, October 09, 2006

Logic Lost?



Just after the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was brokered last August, some of the ‘celebrators’ of the ‘divine victory’ (never mind if they are staunch secular or hardcore leftists) presented a new thesis. “Lebanon of ‘post July 2006’ has become a way different from Lebanon of ‘pre July 2006’; and politics has to change in accordance with the new victory”, they claimed.

Their argument stresses that the discourse and narrative have to change to reflect this victory (never mind its ‘divine’ and ‘holy’ nature). But most importantly, a change in power has to occur. The pre 'July 2006' power-sharing mechanism where 14th of March coalition controls the majority in cabinet was rendered out-of-date with the new geopolitical developments – (never mind if the first to mention this was Bashar Assad of Syria). And a new cabinet has to be formed to include the victors (Hezbollah) and its allies (Michel Aoun, Suleiman Franjieh, Wiam Wahab etc.. to name a few).

But it seems that these ‘celebrators’ have either lost their ‘calendars’, lost their ‘binoculars’, lost their ‘logic’ …or lost them all.

They lost their ‘calendars’ forgetting that Lebanon of ‘post 14 February 2005’ is different from Lebanon of ‘pre 14 February 2005’. They forgot that what followed after killing Rafik Hariri including the UN resolutions, the Syrian withdrawal, the mass uprising, and the mobilisation of the Sunni community were not incidents to undermine or ridicule but events that have changed Lebanon’s politics.

They lost their ‘binoculars’ for not seeing beyond Lebanon’s coasts. Since the ceasefire last August, navies from European states have been monitoring the Lebanese seashore. Not only they cannot see the size of warships that are sailing few kilometres from the Lebanese shoreline but they fail to notice the international decision behind these ships; and that destabilisation of Lebanon would not be accepted.

Indeed, these ‘celebrators’ have lost some ‘logic’ or got a unique one. Their ‘logic’ does not see that developments in Lebanon are related to those in the region; their ‘logic’ believes that ‘Syrian’ interference was over the moment Syrian soldiers left Lebanon; their ‘logic’ still believes that ‘shouting’ and ‘ridiculing’ others brings popularity; their 'logic' thinks that it is easy to go back to pre 14 February 2005 situation...

A clash of logics is not necessarily bad; but it becomes risky when logics are asserted by force. And this is the logic of violence in civil wars.

4 Comments:

Blogger jij said...

I don't understand your logic. March 14 clearly can't govern alone. The country is stuck. This doesn’t mean that Hezbollah and Aoun can govern alone either. The fact of the matter is the country is split and the only way ahead is a change in the government. Let's say the government stays as is and Lahoud's term expires. No elections are held, and the government assumes the presidential seat also. Would you like to be around when that happens? Can you imagine what that might entail? You think Aoun and Hezbollah and all their supporters are going to sit and watch while Hariri assumes control of the whole country?
I am secular and I support Hezbollah at this juncture. How am I exactly detached from reality? I don’t think you’re showing enough respect or understanding of your enemy. Not good strategically. March 14 are completely subordinated to a larger, international sinister Middle East plan. If anyone can't see beyond his nose, it is not us I am afraid. Fouad Senioura, Hamid Karzai, Abou Mazen (sorry I mean Mahmoud Abbas), etc... All the same. Part of the same plan.
Let me ask you a question. Compare the relation of Aoun to Syria, and of Geagea to the States. Where does subordination lie? Be honest with me here.
Come on my friend wake up. March 14 think they can achieve their petty provincial goals by aligning themselves to Bush, Blair and Olmert. They don't know that the 'international community' doesn’t care what happens to us. We can burn to the ground as long as Israel's security is guaranteed.
Yes the facts have changed after the war. A Lebanese political party has gone out stronger. Its public is demanding a more balanced power structure. Listen to them before it gets out of hand.

October 09, 2006 4:06 pm  
Blogger M. said...

Nice post Nasser. The problem is the Majority seems week and unable to govern. It has to take the initiative more often and assert its rule. This is not a simple majority, this is an absolute majority!! They have to take responsibility and rule and stop seeking everybody’s blessing.
There’s no doubt that HA received a blow after the July war. All the beautiful talk about “divine victory” or “they would’ve attacked us anyway in October” is only meant to maintain its Shiite base and the few supporters who might be reconsidering their position. HA might have resisted on the ground but politically speaking it lost some significant cards, mainly the resistance card and it is now trying to make up for it by seeking political gains elsewhere. If you have some time you can check out my post on that subject: http://echolebanon.blogspot.com/2006/09/so-who-won.html
The majority should not be intimidated and it should not give free gifts to HA allowing it to recycle its political defeat into a political gain.

October 10, 2006 1:48 pm  
Blogger M. said...

JIJ,
I fail to see how "the facts have changed after the war". If anything HA and co. should adopt a low profile after the charming “summer adventure”.

Regarding the presidential elections I believe there’s a chance that March 14 may agree on a candidate not coming from its ranks but who has similar positions. I don’t think we will get to a point where the government will assume the presidential seat.

But let’s say the main Lebanese factions failed to agree on a common candidate. Technically speaking, March 14 can still elect a president even if the other MPs don’t show up. So there’s no need to delegate the presidential powers to the government. Let me remind you that, according to art. 49 of the Constitution, a candidate must get 2/3 of the votes to be elected in the 1st round; an absolute majority is enough in subsequent rounds. The article does not mention a quorum of 2/3.

But anyway, I don’t think we will get there. I believe that they will most probably agree on a common candidate before the elections.

October 10, 2006 2:18 pm  
Blogger annie said...

Am awaiting your comment on yesterday's gathering. You can always have a look at donaay.wordpress.com

October 16, 2006 12:07 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home