Michael Young of the Daily Star worries how a triumphalist Hizbullah could spark a new civil war in post-conflict Lebanon. Let’s hope he’s wrong.
0 thoughts on “Young: A looming civil war in Lebanon?”
I can certainly see HA killing Walid Junblatt for his comments, but other than that … I don’t see them doing anything unless the Lebanese Army actually thinks it is going to push them around down south. They’ve already demonstrated that they can dictate terms to Seniora. What more do they need?
I think Young’s argument, at the part that I agree with, is that Hizbullah comes out of this conflict (providing it ends on one of the currently envisageable scenarios fairly soon) both strengthened and weakened. Strengthened because it will have a won a PR / strategic victory (it survived and fought the Israelis better than expected) and weakened because it probably won’t want to confront Israel again (even on the Shebaa Farms) and risk breaking the ceasefire. The situation post-conflict would also seem to impose a greater HA role in Lebanese politics, where it has been arguably the least visible of the key brokers except on a few issues before the war. As for Siniora, he’s a figurehead — if some other factions doesn’t like it that he’s being told what to do by HA, he’ll be gone.
Michael Young has never been correct about anything in his life. He is a right wing-extremist. I find it pretty hard to believe that he is more worried about a “civil war” while Israel is bombing Lebanon flat to the ground.
I think his quote: “Hezbollah will use this “triumph” to defeat its adversaries inside Lebanon who want it to surrender its weapons.” is a joke.
Hizbullah consistently expresses that it respects the lebanese people and government and that it does not want to work against it. It accepted 15,000 troops in the South, it agreed to the 7 point plan, it was involved in the national dialog to solve the major issues, it has two ministers who work hard and build consensus,
The problem is Lebanon is not Hizbullah, but that there are forces like Young who are EXTREMELY bigotted and racist. They want to make Lebanon a client state of the USA and Israel. Hizbullah has its differences with other factions in Lebanon, but it has never shown the desire to start a civil war or to take absolute power in the counrty. The have become strong in the South because they are filling in the gaps that the government has let those people to be occupied by Israel and to their utter poverty. If there is civil war in Lebanon, it will not be because of Hizbullah, but because of other factions, who’s hatred is extreme, are unable to work constructively with Hizbullah. But why talk about “civil war” now, while there is an external attack going on?
I will just add, there are issues that Hizbullah will not budge on, but it is pretty ironic that Lebanese like Little Hariri talk about being a country independent from Syria and Iran, while they go groveling to the USA and France.
I agree with Joe on this one. Michael Young has never much liked HA and his opinions on the matter are a might overquoted — he’s everyone’s favorite commentator. I think Lebanon has been in a pretty fragile state for some time now and in the last six years there has been a lot of talk about the civil war reigniting, certainly a lot of the passions remain below the surface. And if Hezbollah aggressively tried to assert it’s political dominance something like that could well happen. BUT, (and it’s a real big one), why would Hezbollah do that? They seem sophisticated enough to recognize that they are a single player in a complex place. They could have thrown their weight around years ago, but chose not too. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt that once this whole mess is over, they won’t try to wreck it all again.
It’s true that Hizbullah, as far as I know, has not thrown its weight around much aside from the big pro-Syrian demos after the Hariri assassination and its refusal to disarm. But it’s only about how Hizbullah behaves, it’s also about how the other groups think it will behave…
I can certainly see HA killing Walid Junblatt for his comments, but other than that … I don’t see them doing anything unless the Lebanese Army actually thinks it is going to push them around down south. They’ve already demonstrated that they can dictate terms to Seniora. What more do they need?
I think Young’s argument, at the part that I agree with, is that Hizbullah comes out of this conflict (providing it ends on one of the currently envisageable scenarios fairly soon) both strengthened and weakened. Strengthened because it will have a won a PR / strategic victory (it survived and fought the Israelis better than expected) and weakened because it probably won’t want to confront Israel again (even on the Shebaa Farms) and risk breaking the ceasefire. The situation post-conflict would also seem to impose a greater HA role in Lebanese politics, where it has been arguably the least visible of the key brokers except on a few issues before the war. As for Siniora, he’s a figurehead — if some other factions doesn’t like it that he’s being told what to do by HA, he’ll be gone.
P.S. Killing Walid Jumblatt? I’m sure a lot of people want to do that. I would miss him, he has tremendous entertainment value.
Junblatt also said he wanted to shoot rockets at the Syrian foreign minister. Signing his death warrant, if you ask me.
Reason No 387439838438742198847873 to support Israel.
Michael Young has never been correct about anything in his life. He is a right wing-extremist. I find it pretty hard to believe that he is more worried about a “civil war” while Israel is bombing Lebanon flat to the ground.
I think his quote:
“Hezbollah will use this “triumph” to defeat its adversaries inside Lebanon who want it to surrender its weapons.”
is a joke.
Hizbullah consistently expresses that it respects the lebanese people and government and that it does not want to work against it. It accepted 15,000 troops in the South, it agreed to the 7 point plan, it was involved in the national dialog to solve the major issues, it has two ministers who work hard and build consensus,
The problem is Lebanon is not Hizbullah, but that there are forces like Young who are EXTREMELY bigotted and racist. They want to make Lebanon a client state of the USA and Israel. Hizbullah has its differences with other factions in Lebanon, but it has never shown the desire to start a civil war or to take absolute power in the counrty. The have become strong in the South because they are filling in the gaps that the government has let those people to be occupied by Israel and to their utter poverty. If there is civil war in Lebanon, it will not be because of Hizbullah, but because of other factions, who’s hatred is extreme, are unable to work constructively with Hizbullah. But why talk about “civil war” now, while there is an external attack going on?
I will just add, there are issues that Hizbullah will not budge on, but it is pretty ironic that Lebanese like Little Hariri talk about being a country independent from Syria and Iran, while they go groveling to the USA and France.
I agree with Joe on this one. Michael Young has never much liked HA and his opinions on the matter are a might overquoted — he’s everyone’s favorite commentator. I think Lebanon has been in a pretty fragile state for some time now and in the last six years there has been a lot of talk about the civil war reigniting, certainly a lot of the passions remain below the surface. And if Hezbollah aggressively tried to assert it’s political dominance something like that could well happen. BUT, (and it’s a real big one), why would Hezbollah do that? They seem sophisticated enough to recognize that they are a single player in a complex place. They could have thrown their weight around years ago, but chose not too. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt that once this whole mess is over, they won’t try to wreck it all again.
It’s true that Hizbullah, as far as I know, has not thrown its weight around much aside from the big pro-Syrian demos after the Hariri assassination and its refusal to disarm. But it’s only about how Hizbullah behaves, it’s also about how the other groups think it will behave…