Hezbollah moves toward Lebanon government control

[JEDIYoda]

Hariri's coalition issued a statement last week saying Hezbollah is trying to turn Lebanon into an "Iranian base" and was using intimidation to get its way. Hezbollah has emphasized that the group brought down Lebanon's government democratically and without resorting to violence.

There is probably more truth to this one statement than anyone dares realize!!
I think we should all pull up a chair and pop open a cold Kosher Beer and wait and see.....




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_lebanon_politics

BEIRUT – Iranian ally Hezbollah moved to the brink of controlling Lebanon's next government on Monday, setting off angry protests and drawing warnings from the U.S. that its support could be in jeopardy.

Nearly two weeks after bringing down Lebanon's Western-backed government, the Shiite militant group — considered a terrorist organization by Washington — secured support in parliament to name its own candidate for the next prime minister. The feat caps Hezbollah's steady rise over decades from resistance force against Israel to Lebanon's most powerful military and political power.

Protests erupted quickly in areas populated by Hezbollah's Sunni rivals, who declared a "day of rage" Tuesday to express their rejection of what they called "Persian tutelage" over Lebanon — a reference to Hezbollah's Iranian patrons.

Hezbollah's candidate, billionaire businessman Najib Mikati, was set to clinch the nomination after Hezbollah and its allies lined up the needed backing of at least 65 of the 128 parliament members as voting began Monday.

Hezbollah's Western-backed opponents maintain having an Iranian proxy in control of Lebanon's government would be disastrous and lead to international isolation. The United States, which has poured in $720 million in military aid since 2006, has tried to move Lebanon firmly into a Western sphere and end the influence of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley warned Monday that continuing U.S. support for Lebanon would be "problematic" if Hezbollah takes a dominant role in government, though he declined to say what the U.S. would do if Hezbollah's candidate becomes prime minister.

A Hezbollah-led government would also raise tensions with Israel, which fought a devastating 34-day war against the Shiite militants in 2006 that left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead. Hezbollah briefly took control of Beirut's streets two years later in sectarian clashes that killed 81 people, angering many who accused the militants of breaking a promise to never use its arsenal against the Lebanese.

Then in 2009, the Shiite militant group joined the government with virtual veto power over all its decisions.

Hezbollah brought down that government on Jan. 12 after Prime Minister Saad Hariri refused the group's demand to cease cooperation with a U.N.-backed tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of his father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Hezbollah can either form its own government now, leaving Hariri and his allies to become the opposition, or it can try to persuade Hariri to join a national unity government. In a speech Sunday night, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said he favored a unity government.

Hariri said Monday he will not join a government headed by a Hezbollah-backed candidate.

Hariri's coalition issued a statement last week saying Hezbollah is trying to turn Lebanon into an "Iranian base" and was using intimidation to get its way. Hezbollah has emphasized that the group brought down Lebanon's government democratically and without resorting to violence.

Hezbollah keeps a massive arsenal that outweighs that of Lebanon's national army, saying it needs the weapons to ward off any threats from Israel. But the movement's reputation has taken a hit in recent years among those who see it as dragging the country into violent conflicts.

Several hundred Hariri supporters in the northern city of Tripoli, a predominantly Sunni area and a hotbed of fundamentalists, staged protests Monday chanting anti-Mikati slogans.

The protesters carried pictures of Hariri, shouting, "Mikati you are not one of us, leave and go away." Some carried banners that read: "The blood of Sunnis is boiling."

In the eastern Bekaa Valley, witnesses said the army fired tear gas to dispel protesters.

Despite the strident opposition from the Hariri camp, Mikati is seen as a relatively neutral figure who enjoys good relations with both Syrian President Bashar Assad and with Hariri — putting the latter in the awkward position of having to openly reject a candidate who has been an ally in the past.

Mikati emphasized Monday that he would represent all of Lebanon, even as he insisted he would safeguard "the achievements of the national resistance," a reference to Hezbollah.

"I don't distinguish between anyone," said Mikati, a Harvard graduate and businessman whose wealth is estimated at $2.5 billion. "I extend my hand to everyone without exception ... I say to Prime Minister Saad Hariri, let us all work together for the sake of Lebanon."

It is significant that Hezbollah chose a relatively centrist candidate for prime minister — as opposed to a staunchly pro-Syrian one, such as Omar Karami — even though the group has secured enough power to govern on its own.

The move indicates that Hezbollah is at least paying lip service to the idea that a unity government could be formed. It also corners Hariri, who will have to reject an ally.

Since Hezbollah and its allies forced the government's collapse by resigning from the Cabinet, both sides have been scrambling for the support of at least 65 lawmakers, the required number to form a government in Lebanon's 128-seat Parliament. Hezbollah crossed the finish line first Monday, and voting was to continue on Tuesday.

Lengthy negotiations and an extended political deadlock could lie ahead as Mikati seeks to win over Hariri's bloc into a unity government.

Oqab Saqr, a lawmaker allied with Hariri, all but conceded defeat Monday.

"We may have lost the prime ministry but we will win the country and we will win justice," he told reporters after he voted for Hariri for the post Monday.

Mikati, who served briefly as premier in 2005, overseeing the first parliament elections following the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, says he is seeking the post as a candidate of "moderation and accord."

But he dodged a question about whether he would end Lebanon's cooperation with the international court — a key Hezbollah demand — saying only that "any dispute can be solved only through dialogue."

 

[Narmer]

So if Hezbullah is doing all this legally and within the democratic system WTF is the problem here? Is this why the United States harps on about democracy in the Middle East but does little to push it amongst its own allies for fear of those allies electing Islamists?

 

[Narmer]

Also, isn't this what the US wants, a Harvard-educated billionaire PM? Or do they prefer a vassal state and a PM that kow-tows towards Washington?

 

[EagleKeeper]

A concern is that if Hezbollah has complete control of the country, will they again pull the same stunt that they did in '06; this time they also will have the resources of the Lebanon military to cause greater destruction.

We have seen that when Hamas gained control of Gaza, they did not try to reduce the tensions, but escalated it and pointed fingers.

Israel has already one hostile state on their borders, but that one knows its limits (at this point). A second hostile state that does not want limits (as already demonstrated) could ignite a powder keg.

 

[Lemon law]

Hezbollah, without or without the Lebanese a military is no military threat to Israel. So why is Common Courtesy playing the part of chicken little screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling in Israel when the sky is only fallen in Lebanon?

But lets maybe get to the root cause which is the UN investigation into Harri's assassination. On face value, its simply has to be troubling to any of us, that any group
such as Hezbollah could grow so big and powerful that it can bring down a entire country's government to prevent being investigated. But this is exactly what Hezbollah has done in a non-violent manner.

On the other hand, we must also consider that any group has the duty and right to protect themselves against being railroaded into a sham convictions. And because it looks like the existing UN investigation is only looking at selected cherry picked evidence while ignoring other evidence, rigged by various political entities who want a end conclusion no matter what the evidence, some means should be found to find out if the UN investigation is fair. Or looking at all the evidence. Or rigged. Or with a very weak and circumstantial case.

Or Lebanon may be playing musical chair governments for a long time. And just like the Battleship Maine, we may never really know who done it.

 

[Narmer]

It's done. Now let's watch American hypocrisy in action (again)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12273178

 

[Narmer]

A concern is that if Hezbollah has complete control of the country, will they again pull the same stunt that they did in '06; this time they also will have the resources of the Lebanon military to cause greater destruction.

We have seen that when Hamas gained control of Gaza, they did not try to reduce the tensions, but escalated it and pointed fingers.

Israel has already one hostile state on their borders, but that one knows its limits (at this point). A second hostile state that does not want limits (as already demonstrated) could ignite a powder keg.

That's revisionist history if I ever saw one. After Hamas one elections fair and square Israel went with option B and arrested enough of their members in the West Bank so they could not legally open Parliament. This allowed the PLO to claim they were still in power and fought street battles with Hamas until they were completely kicked out of Gaza. They fled to the West Bank where they remain today. Israel then tried option C which was to squeeze Gaza economically but that hasn't worked either. Option D was the battles in 2008-9 that saw over 1000 Palestinians killed. That did not work either.

All of this was in cahoots with the West so that they could get their man in power. So much for democracy, it's like it's one big joke when it comes to Arabs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hezbollah, without or without the Lebanese a military is no military threat to Israel. So why is Common Courtesy playing the part of chicken little screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling in Israel when the sky is only fallen in Lebanon?

But lets maybe get to the root cause which is the UN investigation into Harri's assassination. On face value, its simply has to be troubling to any of us, that any group
such as Hezbollah could grow so big and powerful that it can bring down a entire country's government to prevent being investigated. But this is exactly what Hezbollah has done in a non-violent manner.

On the other hand, we must also consider that any group has the duty and right to protect themselves against being railroaded into a sham convictions. And because it looks like the existing UN investigation is only looking at selected cherry picked evidence while ignoring other evidence, rigged by various political entities who want a end conclusion no matter what the evidence, some means should be found to find out if the UN investigation is fair. Or looking at all the evidence. Or rigged. Or with a very weak and circumstantial case.

Or Lebanon may be playing musical chair governments for a long time. And just like the Battleship Maine, we may never really know who done it.

While they are not a military threat directly to Israel; they are a little kid poking a stick at a caged tiger.

They demonstrated this previously; yet had no concerns to what it did to the civilian population.

Will they retain the hostility toward Israel; egging into another conflict while using the power of the state.

Can a leopard change it's spots, especially when encouraged by those that sit safely behind the scenes.

Only because Hezbollah acknowledged that they miscalculated the first time gives hope that they will not try to poke Israel in any way/shape or form, and that they will not follow Hamas lead and allow such but point the finger at their proxies.

 

[werepossum]

I thought it was understood that Hezbollah ran Lebanon anyway. I think the UN investigation merely forced their hand to remove what little power the opposition retained. One good thing for Israel - there should no longer be complaints about Israel retaliating against the "innocent people of Lebanon" for Hezbollah attacks, since the organization launching the terror attacks will be the country's legitimate government as well as its effective government. A people electing terrorists to lead them should have no qualms about accepting the counterattacks such a group engenders.

 

[Narmer]

I thought it was understood that Hezbollah ran Lebanon anyway. I think the UN investigation merely forced their hand to remove what little power the opposition retained. One good thing for Israel - there should no longer be complaints about Israel retaliating against the "innocent people of Lebanon" for Hezbollah attacks, since the organization launching the terror attacks will be the country's legitimate government as well as its effective government. A people electing terrorists to lead them should have no qualms about accepting the counterattacks such a group engenders.

Not defending acts of terror but most governments are branded as terrorists before they reach legitimacy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Terror against their people or others?

Most are against their people in an attempt to overthrow their own government. Not an overthrow against another country's government.

 

[Narmer]

Terror against their people or others?

Most are against their people in an attempt to overthrow their own government. Not an overthrow against another country's government.

What do you think happened during the American revolution? It was basically a civil war and, yes, the rebels did some pretty horrible things to the loyalists. And these were their neighbors and countrymen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Terror against their people or others?

Most are against their people in an attempt to overthrow their own government. Not an overthrow against another country's government.

What do you think happened during the American revolution? It was basically a civil war and, yes, the rebels did some pretty horrible things to the loyalists. And these were their neighbors and countrymen.

I fully agree. The Colonialists were not running into Canada to attack the civilian population there to try and get Canada free of the British and French.

 

[Narmer]

I fully agree. The Colonialists were not running into Canada to attack the civilian population there to try and get Canada free of the British and French.

Actually, we did try to "free" the Canadians of the British. We failed. I don't know the details though.

But getting back to Hezbullah and Israel they attacked Israel in 2006 in solidarity with Hamas, which was being attacked by Israel.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Actually, we did try to "free" the Canadians of the British. We failed. I don't know the details though.

But getting back to Hezbullah and Israel they attacked Israel in 2006 in solidarity with Hamas, which was being attacked by Israel.

They apparently learned that that was not the way to do it.

And Hamas did not learn either.

 

[Narmer]

They apparently learned that that was not the way to do it.

And Hamas did not learn either.

Meh, you live and learn. But I wouldn't be surprised if they found solidarity with Iran should Israel attack their ally.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Actually, we did try to "free" the Canadians of the British. We failed. I don't know the details though.

The Continental troops under Montgomery and Arnold went into Canada to attack the British troops garrisoned in Quebec City and Montreal and hoping encourage the French people to revolt against the English troops. Most at that point were only trappers/traders, not settlers.

Montgomery took Montreal; he and Arnold were unable to take Quebec; British forces arrived to drive the Continentals back into New York.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Meh, you live and learn. But I wouldn't be surprised if they found solidarity with Iran should Israel attack their ally.

Iran has sent weapons/supplies and funding. No troops.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Not defending acts of terror but most governments are branded as terrorists before they reach legitimacy.

that is a pretty interesting statement, although closely true, i cant agree with it completely.


the colonists in america never specifically targeted civilians as a political scare tactic.

also, the colonists were never, in say, canada, attacking people in the 13 colonies.

hezbolla attacks citizens of their own country and in israel, which labeled them as terrorists

 

[Narmer]

Iran has sent weapons/supplies and funding. No troops.

And?
Iran supporting Hezbullah == bad, very bad
United States supporting Israel == good, very good

Is that what you're implying here? If so it's a non-starter cause it's your opinion. Is there something inherently evil about a two long suffering Shia people supporting each other?

 

[Narmer]

that is a pretty interesting statement, although closely true, i cant agree with it completely.


the colonists in america never specifically targeted civilians as a political scare tactic.

also, the colonists were never, in say, canada, attacking people in the 13 colonies.

hezbolla attacks citizens of their own country and in israel, which labeled them as terrorists

Actually, the rebels did specifically target loyalist civilians. This is a review of a good, realist book on the revolutionary war.
http://www.economist.com/node/17848373?story_id=17848373

America's revolution

The king's shilling
A revolution that was also a civil war


Jan 6th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION

Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War. By Thomas Allen. Harper; 468 pages; $26.99. Buy from Amazon.com
AMERICANS remember their revolution as an event both epochal and clean. Richard Nixon famously argued that it was not a revolution at all. Some historians, such as Charles and Mary Beard and Howard Zinn, stress its conservative character; others, like Gordon Wood, have insisted on its radicalism. The revolution Thomas Allen presents, in an original and copiously sourced history of the war’s losers, the Loyalists, called Tories by their victorious opponents, is very different.
Mr Allen sees it as “a revolution that was also a civil war”. Men fought to the death, he says, “American against American, kin against kin”. At the decisive fight at King’s Mountain, there was only one British subject. “Everyone else was an American, and those who chose to fight for King George III had chosen the wrong side.”
History is written by the victors. Mr Allen points out that although Loyalists were a minority—in the end perhaps no more than one-fifth of the colonists—in many places they were a very substantial proportion of the population of the colonies. In the end, some 80,000 quit the new republic for Britain, the British colonies in the Caribbean and especially for Canada, where their influence has been lasting. One tragic group were the black freedmen, in danger of being re-enslaved on the orders of George Washington. (At least one of them had belonged to Thomas Jefferson.) They were eventually allowed to emigrate to Nova Scotia, but were so badly treated there that they moved on to West Africa, where they became Sierra Leone’s elite, founding the capital, Freetown.
The Loyalists were of many kinds and conditions. There was a religious dimension. Presbyterians were apt to be Patriots, Anglicans often Tories. Many slaves, tempted by freedom, joined Loyalist units, such as Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment; so did many, though not all, of the Native American tribes on the frontier. Quakers and Catholics sided with the king, and so did many settlers of German and Dutch origin, as well as most Scots Highlanders, who had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Hanoverian crown in defeat and were not about to go back on it. Some tenant farmers fought alongside their Tory landlords, while others were Loyalists out of hostility to Patriot landlords. Some were tempted by promises of land, others by the fact that the king’s armies paid in a gold-backed currency, not paper dollars.
Like other civil wars, the American revolution was marked by brutality on a sickening scale. Both sides shot and hanged prisoners without mercy, and on at least two occasions Patriots enforced the gruesome punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering. While the Native American braves recruited to fight for the crown by the Johnson and Butler chieftains of the Mohawk valley scalped, tortured and sometimes burned their prisoners alive, the Patriots tarred and feathered Loyalists, or forced them to ride on a sharpened rail, and many Loyalist houses were looted and burned. Patriotic legend remembers the violence of British officers, but rebel officers, including General Washington himself, could be ruthless when policy recommended it. The future father of his country once proposed shooting a few Tories to “strike terror into the others”. In real life, civil wars are not Tea Parties.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe its time to get back to Lebanon and ask what is happening there. The former PM is screaming foul but he has only minority support in Parliament. A neutral former PM is now named and Hezbollah working with other non Hezbollah political groups now look well on their way to forming a majority consensus government.

Meanwhile back in Egypt, major demonstrations, partly triggered by the same Tunisia crisis that was largely caused by major government corruption, has spread to Egypt.

As Israel maybe belatedly finds out they they live in a mid-east greatly changed since 1967 and even 2009. New opportunities and change give all major players in the mid-east, new ways to make more bitter lemons or sweeter lemonade.

But my guess is, that soon there will be an entire new Generation of Arab leadership in the Mid-east, and Israel can perhaps have some say if that leadership is more Turkish inspired or pro-Western. But if Israel plays the violence card at this time, it will backfire big time.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Maybe its time to get back to Lebanon and ask what is happening there. The former PM is screaming foul but he has only minority support in Parliament. A neutral former PM is now named and Hezbollah working with other non Hezbollah political groups now look well on their way to forming a majority consensus government.

Meanwhile back in Egypt, major demonstrations, partly triggered by the same Tunisia crisis that was largely caused by major government corruption, has spread to Egypt.

As Israel maybe belatedly finds out they they live in a mid-east greatly changed since 1967 and even 2009. New opportunities and change give all major players in the mid-east, new ways to make more bitter lemons or sweeter lemonade.

But my guess is, that soon there will be an entire new Generation of Arab leadership in the Mid-east, and Israel can perhaps have some say if that leadership is more Turkish inspired or pro-Western. But if Israel plays the violence card at this time, it will backfire big time.

When has Israel played the violence card without being provoked?

 

[Lemon law]

When has Israel played the violence card without being provoked?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect a biased pro-Israeli fan clubber to ask that sort of question. But in truth, the nation state of Israel has been playing the violence card even before 1948, and continuously ever since.

The Israeli rapes of Lebanon and Gaza are classic cases of Israeli over reaction, and so was the boarding of the Rachel Corrie. Less than a week ago IDF soldiers broke into a house and murdered a innocent 64 year old man in his sleep.

The question becomes is Israel the provoker and deserving of rising mid-east contempt? Then there is the question of why Israel is still in the West Bank and East Jerusalem 43 long years later, when they never had that right in the first place?

More non-biased people realize its a question of bad behavior on all sides, But frankly you Common Courtesy, see everything from only the pro-Israeli side. And at the same time you ignore all the Israeli theft and oppression damages Israel has done to millions of people.

Sadly, I think your attitude stinks, because I would rather think EVERYONE deserves the same human rights as I have. And everyday, newly born Palestinian children are born blameless, and you Common Crudeness, seemingly stand four square for the Israeli right to deny those children full citizen ship rights in the land of their birth. Just to prevent a single Israeli, either total deserving of our contempt or by in large blameless from accepting any responsibility for past Israeli governmental thefts on a grand scale?

And now, to add insult to injury, you advocate the Israeli right to militarily intervene in other countries internal distensions, without any provocation, just because delusional Israeli leaders are worried that change is not going their way.

 

[Zebo]

Time for another civil war. I wonder if they'll wipe out Chirstains once and for all now the UN let them have so many munitions?