Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan  The issue of Hezbullah arms is a matter of principle.
Some believe that the arms are no longer necessary from a pure Lebanese perspective. They believe that in fact today in 2008 the arms are a negative influence on the stability of the borders and Lebanon's ability to create and benefit from a neutral environment to protect itself as the middle east crisis continues to evolve. Some believe that the Shebaa farms are simply an excuse, that the prisoners issue can be resolved over time with other means and with calmer rhetoric much like everyone is dealing with the Syrian prisoners issue. Some have suspicions that Hezbullah's insistence on maintaining its arms doesn't only emanate from its desire to protect itself, in fact it is primarily driven by its desire to use these weapons for a broader regional goal that keeps the prospects of an open front in the south of Lebanon a reality for the benefit of regional players such as Iran, Syria and Hamas. Some believe that Hezbollah's weapons, may very well be used at some point in time for internal reasons, and they believe that political parties should not control militias and have arms that it can leverage politically, and internally, even if it doesn't ever use them. Some believe that Hezbollah is very interested in an Islamic Shiite state that transcends the borders of Lebanon and fear that one day It may use its arms to forward that goal. Some believe that peace and war in their country is an important matter that they should have a say in and are never willing to farm it out to one group, one sect, or one militia. These same people believe that appeasing HA is not the answer. They also believe that going to war with Hezbollah is not the answer either. They believe that isolating HA politically, and dealing with the matter of arms on the basis of strong principles and not on the basis of weak capitulation is the right way forward.
Back in the day GMA used to be one of these people.
Most people arent suggesting disarming by force, they simply do not agree with FPM's self-serving defacto capitulation in the form of a marketing tool - the MOU. |
Some (many) see Hezbollah's weapons as the "biggest" lebanese issue, while this is only one aspect of the lebanese's problematics.
I think that before elaborating about this issue, we must ask ourselves :
- why do those weapons exist ?
- how the HA's military's branch could be reinforced ?
- how were those weapons used ?
- what is currently HA's doctrine regarding those weapons and the way to use them ?
We know that initially, the syrians wanted to use HA as a major card in their negociations with Israel. They used the international law about resistance to authorize HA :
1°/ to act as the lebanese resistance ;
2°/ to strengthen itself in order to become, over the years, a very efficient resistance against the israelis.
Meanwhile, HA evolved from an islamist political party to some kind of a nationalist political party, as they gave up their will to found an islamic state in Lebanon.
On the other hand, they benefited from a large support coming from the southerners - and not only from the shiite population - because they were seen as the sole who were trying to take in charge their security and the sole who were trying to defend them against israeli attacks and retaliations.
And finally, they managed to make the shiite population feel proud thanks to the prestige they earned by succeeding in their struggle against the israeli occupation. The shiite population could at least feel that it's no more a second class citizen and that it brought its contribution to the construction of our country.
HA managed to become far more than a major card in the syrian's game and this, thanks to the huge support coming from the population.
Now regarding this situation, the fear to see HA using its weapons internally is unjustified :
1°/ their huge prestige would be blemished ;
2°/ they wouldn't be a "resistance" anymore but would turn into a militia ;
3°/ they will lose the big support they currently benefiting from the lebanese population, even in the shiite population ;
4°/ last but not least, 15 years of civil war taught us that you can not win a civil war in Lebanon if you can't rely on a massive population's support (including all the sects).
Regarding the present, the issues we have to deal with are the following ones :
- israeli occupation of chebaa ;
- the presence of armed palestinian militias inside and outside the camps ;
- our relationships with Syria (prisoners, borders, diplomatic relations etc.) ;
- last but not least, the necessity to build a political system in Lebanon which respects everyone's rights, make everyone respects its duty vis à vis the state and which is efficient i.e. a system which could make us "governable" and stops the "fawda".
HA weapon's issue is to be linked with the first and fourth points. But it is clear that is only one aspect of the problematics.
As many here, I want to see my country as soon as possible, with the Leb Army as the sole armed body. To reach this goal, the only solution is the dialogue.
We have first to work on the fourth point which integrates the HA's weapons issue.
I know and understand that many consider the MOU as a BS paper or even as a marketing tool for both FPM and HA.
Though, if we carefully read its provisions, we can find a strong and very interesting framework to launch a real dialogue between all the lebanese political parties.
To be honest, as long as the other political parties reject it or refuse the dialogue, it is certain that the MOU would only stay as a memorandum of understanding between FPM and HA...even if it has proven its effectiveness last winter.
The problem in Lebanon is that depending on the "weather forecast", we focus on a single aspect of our problematics : yesterday HA's weapons, today the presidential elections, tomorrow general elections, day after tomorrow the israeli or the palestinians etc. It's time to move on, sit on the dialogue table and to tackle the whole problematics. Or else, we will stay where we currently are and we'll watch our country sinking more and more.
I don't see any other alternative. Focusing on HA's weapons and "cornering" HA (which means the majority of the shiite population) would not improve our situation, even if HA hands in its weapons.
Regards
21st April 2008
