"But what is your REAL POINT HERE?? Do you really think Hizbullah should be permitted to remain as an armed terrorist organization that defies the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government and accepts arms from foreign countries?"
It doesn't look like you grasp the complexity of the situation at all. Hezbollah represents a significant part of the Shiite community in Lebanon which is the largest single block in Lebanon (40 to 50% of the population depending on who you listen to and growing) but it only gets 21% of the seats in parliament. The original intent was to insure a Christian dominated parliament despite an ever growing clear Muslim majority in the country.
Here some excerpts:
pbs.org
"... after Lebanon's independence in 1943, Muslims were given a smaller share of political power than their numbers might suggest. This disparity partly explains the country's long civil war.
The constitution of the country was amended in 1991, under a plan for national reconciliation called the Ta'if Accord. The accord established a new political order in which Muslims and Christians share legislative power through a unicameral National Assembly.
The National Assembly has 128 seats, 64 of them held by Muslims (27 Sunni, 27 Shiite, eight Druze and two Alawite), 64 by Christians (34 Maronite)."
And here from the Washington Post:
washingtonpost.com
"... But Bush and other well-meaning Americans are ignoring a fundamental problem: With Syria gone, Lebanon's elections will be free, but they won't be fair. In Lebanon, Muslim votes, especially Shiite votes, count less than those of Christians. Literally.
This inequality dates back to 1943, when the French handed Lebanon over to the country's French-speaking Maronite Christian elite and founded what is called the confessional system, with parliamentary and executive offices parceled out among the major religious sects. In theory, it provides a balance of religious power; in practice, it's an entrenched imbalance -- and a writhing rat's nest of corruption, with outside influences like Syria easily playing one sect off another. ..."
Once you accept the above, it becomes clear that the Lebanese army does not represent the Lebanese people in general (the president is the commander-in-chief) but in much bigger part the Christian minority. This obviously leads to problems.
The South of Lebanon and the Bekaa are the Shiite heartlands and it was the South that Israel occupied in their 1982 invasion of Lebanon. This likely proved to be the catalyst for the creation of Hezbollah as a resistance force and determined opponent of Israel.
During the invasion the Lebanese army largely stayed out of the fighting and the Christian (Phalangist) South Lebanese Army (SLA) even supported Israel.
en.wikipedia.org
It should therefore have come as no surprise that the Shiites felt a great need for a strong militia. Their land was being occupied and overrun by the Israeli army and their country’s army did not even put up a fight. This is clearly a huge breech of trust. This breech of trust also complicates matters today, as the Lebanese army again stayed out of the fight showing that even in the face of a foreign invasion it now twice did not intervene on behalf of its citizens.
As a result, the Shiites will not accept the authority of the Lebanese army as it might, in the views of many, even act as an occupation army!
To view Hezbollah as “an armed terrorist organization that defies the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government” is in this context quite ridiculous. Everything requires context and oversimplifications like this completely obfuscate the realities on the ground and therefore cause disasters like what happened in Lebanon in 1982 and in Iraq recently. Hezbollah is the only elected and legitimate force representing the Shiites in this area. They have stood up for their people and defended and freed their part of the country from a foreign oppressor. This is how the indigenous population views it.
To find a resolution to the conflict, these realities have to be taken into account. To call them terrorists is disingenuous and only angers people with legitimate grievances further. Unless these simple facts are understood and given proper weight, no resolution to the conflict can be found. |
