Okay, 1701 has been adopted. Fragile as it is, it is still generally holding, even with Hizballah and Israel exchanging fire again this morning (Hizballah has been reported to have fired up to 10 Katyusha rockets at Israeli positions within Southern Lebanon) and as people in their thousands have started the re-migration back to what is left of their villages and towns, some happy enough to sleep in the open on foam mattresses until they could probably rebuild their homes anew, they need our support more than ever.
However that is not important at the moment. What is important is the overwhelming feeling of euphoria that the hitherto undefeated and much regarded Israeli army has been cowed, been made to suffer, had numerous armaments destroyed, and a few of its soldiers killed, injured or maimed. This euphoria is undiminished when one considers that Lebanon for the most part has been turned into a parking lot, hundreds killed, thousands injured, and more than a million made destitute.
Many towns and villages in Bahrain celebrated far into the night, the majority in cars going up and down avenues waving the now ubiquitous Hizballah flag from moving vehicles and on foot. Accompanied by low flying security helicopters keeping a keen watch on the goings on. None of these activities have been approved by the government of course, and if it would take the letter of the “associations” law recently passed by our esteemed parliament – probably the only such elected organ in the world which can be counted upon to restrict human rights and freedoms – all of those revelers would be in prison, and some, if the government chooses to apply the again recently anointed “Terrorism Law” would be hung and quartered.
I would hazard a guess that the celebrations would continue for some time to come, eclipsing all other news and happenings in the world, Darfur with its millions of displaced and tens of thousands killed, and Iraq which is averaging about one hundred killed a day in sectarian violence which is bordering on a declared civil war.
But, all celebrations end at some point, and people start asking questions. The hope is that those questions would lead to lasting resolutions within the communities themselves. The fall-out of this conflict I think will be huge and will affect the whole Middle East specifically and the world in general.
First and foremost is the shattered perception that the IDF cannot be defeated. That will have major repercussions in the coming years.
The other is the extraction of vengeance from those Arabs opposing this “Divine Victory” (which is what the name Nasrallah actually means!) so I expect some trouble in Saudi, Jordan and Egypt because of their stances. I wouldn’t be too surprised to end this decade with the removal of the Jordanian Abdulla and the Egyptian Hosni. As to Saudi, well, the guy is knocking on 80 so people will concentrate on whoever is supposed to be taking over the helm on his passing.
The unquestionable outcome of this war however, is the hugely enhanced standing of the Shi’a, and the unity of the Arabs and the Muslim world behind Nasrallah. I would bet my house at the moment that should Nasrallah stand for elections to choose the president of the whole Arab world today, he would win with a landslide.
What does the future hold for us in view of this conflict?
I don’t know, but I can tell you that the winds of change are blowing very hard across the whole area at the moment, and it will be very interesting times ahead.
Comments
You’re right Mahmood: the result of this war has shattered the idea that the IDF is the strongest military in the Middle East. Although it is the best equipped, its recent war with Lebanon has proved it is not the strongest – the day before the ceasefire, Hizballah fired 250 rockets into Israel – the largest barrage so far.
The result: despair among the Israeli public; a lot of infighting within the Israeli Knesset; and a likely toppling of the current Kadima government in the near future.
As the dust settles, I don’t think we can talk about clear victories. I believe everyone lost a little.
Interesting. So, you think this is a ‘victory’? Last I knew, it’s a ‘cease-fire’, which means the war isn’t over.
Here’s the reality: Israel is simply giving the ‘international community’ a chance to prove that it can secure Israel’s safety from the Hezbollah terrorists. Note well: Israel has said very clearly that it will give the UN a chance to deploy a force capable of disarming Hezbollah and clearing it out of southern Lebanon. If the UN cannot do so, Israel can–and will–resume combat operations, but this time with the benefit of having publicly shown that the UN cannot actually accomplish anything.
It’s a very sensible strategy: give the UN what the world’s been demanding–the chance to show that it can disarm Hezbollah and thus achieve Israel’s goal for it. If the UN cannot, Israel can say ‘you’ve had your chance, now we’ll finish this conflict’–and the world will have no reason to complain.
Unless you seriously think the IDF has been defeated–which would be an assertion that proved the writer was completely insane–then there’s only one reason that Israel has agreed to a cease-fire while holding the upper hand: and it is, namely, that they want to give the UN a chance to ‘put up or shut up’.
I guarantee that if the UN cannot/will not muzzle Hezbollah–which as I’ve said, is what Israel wants–Israel will then come back and do whatever they must to destroy Hezbollah and its evil scumbags. Don’t doubt it for a minute.
Hope this helps; the ludicrous notion that ‘the result of this war has shattered the idea that the IDF is the strongest military in the Middle East’ illustrates the serious disconnect from objective reality some writers here enjoy. The IDF is entirely unimpaired; it has merely restrained itself, and nonetheless managed to clear out most of Hezbollah. If anyone seriously thinks they haven’t used notable restraint, and only a small fraction of their combat power, they are sadly deluded.
So, we wait to see if Hezbollah either 1) evacuates Southern Lebanon under UN auspices, which is what Israel wants, or 2) forfeits all support (as they are busily doing) and show that they have no intention of becoming civilized, in which case the IDF will come back and probably use no restraint whatsoever.
Me, I feel the IDF should simply do a ‘Sherman’s March’ from the south to the north, destroying everything in its path, levelling every village, shooting anyone who resists, and informing the locals that this is what they get for supporting terrorists.
Someday, perhaps, the Arab Mideast will join the civilized world: it’ll stop dancing in the streets when airliners are flown into office towers, or trains blown up, or resorts bombed. It’ll get over the whole ‘chop his hand/head/foot off!’ nonsense; it’ll actually decide that ‘the Jooz’ aren’t the problem. Until then, if force is all they understand, then thus shall it be.
Meantime, Iran is busily developing nukes with the clear intent of starting a conflict which will see the entire region blown sky-high–and yet you stupidly rejoice over the supposed victory of their regional proxy.
It’s no wonder the rest of the world wonders what the hell is wrong with the Mideast.
Now, let’s see how long Hezbollah honors the ceasefire, or whether they even perceive the trap that’s been laid for them. Doubtless y’all here will continue crowing about a supposed victory (some victory–you now gots to either leave Lebanon altogether, or get ready for a real onslaught).
Yep, a great victory, alright….
Idiots.
PS:
My final ‘idiots’ comment referred to the Hezbollah yahoos, not to my estimable fellow writers here. Just thought I should clarify!
Of course, please feel free to call me an ‘idiot’ if you wish. I’ve been called worse, believe me 🙂
I wouldn’t call the Israeli public’s reaction “despair”. If anything, it is more along the lines of anger. Also, don’t make the mistake so often made when looking at the demonstrations and saying “The Israeli public is divided”. It really isn’t, in this case. There are some fringes that are opposed, and unlike in the Arab world, they actually get heared. This does not mean, however, that the Israeli public is divided for any practical purpose.
And this misconception is dangerous. It is this misconception that causes people to say “The IDF was defeated”. This is not about ego (at least, not mine). The problem is that the logic goes something like this:
– The IDF was defeated
– We have the capacity to hurt Israel
– We should attack again!
How do I know? Because the exact same voices were heared after the 2000 Israeli retreat from Lebanon, and numerous other times before that. Similar logic was applied from the Palestinians.
What you need to understand is that every time Israel makes a concession, and as a result is being regarded as weak by the Arab side and get more violence applied toward it, the voices within Israel saying “use whatever you can and don’t conceed anything” get stronger. After all, if making concessions is being punished, deciding not to make concessions (say, releasing prisoners, allowing autonomy etc.) only make sense.
So, no, I do not think that this is a huge win for anyone. Hizbollah, despite all its claims of victory, will not fire katyushas again in the near future. Lebanon has not gained the sovernty it didn’t have before (already they are talking about Hizbollah hiding its weapons, rather than giving them to the Lebanon army). Israel had some diplomatic successes, but it’s definitely not a “war won”. There really is nothing to be euphoric about here, and anyone who does not see it is dangerously dellusional.
Treating this as “we won” is only likely to make the next time around you manage to hurt Israel (and, unfortunately, we all know you will try, under one silly pretext or another) even more painful for you, whether bystanders like Mahmood then see us as agressors or not.
Shachar
I fear that there might be a civil war in Lebannon when everything comes to fruition. While all Lebaneese were united behind Hezballah during the war, without the encouragement of Israeli weapons, all the groups may not get along as well. As time passes the Sunni, Christians, and Druze in Lebannon might get to thinking that alot of their country was destroyed because of the actions of Hezballah, actions which they had no say over.
Most of the destruction in Lebannon occured in Shia neighborhoods too. If the Shia demand that the rest of the country help them resettle it might anger the other groups. If the Shia feel entitled to this aid because of the great victory of their group Hezballah, and the other groups feel that they shouldn’t be forced to help out the Shia since the country’s destruction was their fault then war is a possibility. The only missing variable in that equation is weapons for both sides, I do not think that this would long remain an obstacle.
Eric, I am one of the more “western” people in the Middle East, meaning that I studied in the US, have been raised the US way, and think in a “western” mentality. However, I am not alone. Many of the people that you are saying should be shot, levelled, and exterminated used to think the same…. Until someone decided they should die in the Israeli attacks. How does the US expect to “instill democracy and freedom” while eradicating “tyranny and terrorism” (all Bush words as you can guess) if they are killing the people that would have supported them otherwise???
Although Hezbollah hasn’t “won” the war, they have emerged more powerful than ever before. They are rebuilding every house, building and structure that was destroyed by the IDF. They are the only entity that defended the country in the face of invaders. They killed more soldiers than they lost. They are looked upon as saviours by most people in the muslim religion. If that isn’t a victory, I don’t know what is….
Don’t get me wrong, I am neither for Hezbollah nor Iran, but it is people like myself (people the US sees as the basis for their plans in the region) who are being alienated and turned against their policies. Add to that narrow-minded people like you and you have a conflict that is violent and useless with nobody benefiting but the US audiences and their La-Z-Boys who think this is good TV.
PS: I do not have much confidence in a UN peacekeeping force. If there actually was a civil war they would probably bug out.
Mahmood,
I am glad you posted this; I have been wondering for a while now what Lebanon will be like in 20 years from now, and if it might not be a case of be careful what you wish for.
While it’s normal for both sides to think they won something, it seems to me that the only guy in the fight who won something was Iran. As Eric says, Israel is still intact including it’s military, can flatten Lebanon anytime it chooses and knows it’s just another round in a long fight. It has appeased the world community and will benefit if Lebanon truly ends up being governed by the Lebanese. Parts of Lebanon are in a mess, but Iran will rebuild those for the Lebanese, and I would suspect because of the cheers of glee from the “whole Arab worldâ€Â, Hezbollah will make gains in the government of Lebanon. It would appear to me that Hezbollah has accomplished exactly what it wanted in starting the conflict; it has acquired some of the power it lost in the Cedar Revolution. If I were a member of the current government in Lebanon, I would immediately ask Syria to send it’s forces back into Beruit as soon as possible to counter what will be a growing power in Lebanon. Is it possible down the road no one will be going to Beruit to get drunk and get laid? I don’t know; you tell me. It would seem as Iran has much to celebrate today and is the true winner out of this deal; hopefully people in the Arab world won’t let pride get in the way of what they wish for.
Dear Eric and Shachar,
I join you both in your claims that a) The IDF is still the strongest army in the middle east and b) Israel is not divided. If anything, we are more united than ever!
However, may I suggest the following, as naive as it might sound?
Let Hizbollah carry on with the notion that they have indeed “won this war.” Would it be possible for them, as a result of such a notion, or for anyone else in the middle east to finally be ready to sit with Israel around the negotiating table as equals?
I remember visiting Egypt in 1994. My tour guide, Ashraf, kept taking my husband and myself to monuments commemorating the “Great Victorious War.” When I asked him which war he was referring to, he indicated that he was referring to the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
I remebered that war too well. Many of my fellow soldiers died in that war. I did not want to shatter Ashraf ‘s pride and remind him that Israel had recaptured the Sinai from Egypt during the last stages of that war.
But then it dawned on me…
Egypt needed that sense of “victory.” It was only once they felt that they were victorious (as short as that victory was) that they might have perceived themselves better than or equal to Israel and as such capable of sitting with us around the same table.
Am I too naive, or that disconnected from reality?
Also, just came across the following article and wanted to share it with other readers.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/894.html
Batzi
Batzi,
I don’t need pride. If declaring this war as “lost by Israel” will bring piece, I’ll gladly do it. Unfortunately, there are two problems I can see:
It will not. Victory drunk people tend to want more of the same. Unfortunately, it happened to us (collectively, I was not born at the time) after 67, and it took the 73 war to remind us how war is not a good thing, even if you happen to win the military aspect of it.
Lebanon has really suffered enough over the past 40 years, and Israel is far from being the only party messing with its internal affairs. A self-soverign, free and prosperous Lebanon is good for Israel, as the two countries really have no land related disputes, and a prosperous country does not go on unneeded wars. Lebanon has lately made some extremely positive steps, in that regard, and the war interrupted them. Obviously, that was Hizbollah’s intentions, but they worked. If Lebanese define it as a victory, Lebanon is another step further away from being a self-soverigned state.
So, I would love to be wrong on this point, but I don’t think euphoria is good.
Shachar
Shachar,
When I said Israel was divided I didn’t mean they were divided in support for the war. We know that the majority of Israelis till date support Israel’s war on Lebanon.
In my opinion, in looking back, they are divided on what was the best strategy to adopt following the kidnap of its 2 soldiers. I believe that this is a period marked also by political uncertainty and second guessing of their military prowess – the call my Labour MKS to form an inquiry commission, heckling during Olmert’s speech, calls for Olmert to step down etc…
There’s no victory for anyone here, what are you talking about?
Hey Mahmood, can I ask whether you would vote for Nasrallah in the hypothetical all-Arab election you posited? Or other Bahrainis?
Yes, Mahmood, is Nasrallah your guy?
Or if someone like him espousing Israel’s demise came to prominence in your country, would you support him?
And if so, would you suggest changing your flag to mimic Hezbollah’s — with a Kalishnakov automatic rifle atop a globe of the world? Very subtile symbolism there, don’t you think?
Dumb question guys. Take some time and look thru Mahmoods posts over the years.
\billT
Thanks Bill. Let me humour them; however: the answer is no. I will never vote for an Islamist. I will always vote for liberals.
However, believing in the democratic process, should an Islamist win due to fair polls, I will gladly accept his lead, but will continue to fight for my rights and will oppose him or her if our values conflicted. Therefore, if my fellow Arabs vote for Nasrallah in this hypothetical question, and he wins – and I have not the slightest doubt that he would not – I will gladly accept his rule.
Is that clear enough for the both of you?
Now don’t waste your and my time with trying to pin me into a corner, if you want to have an intellectual debate, rather than an asinine childish one that you have instigated with this, you are more than welcome to pose thoughtful comments, statements or even questions.
Now let me attend to an intellectual discourse if you don’t mind:
Eric I wast thinking about your post last night. Let me put it to you this way:
Something held Israel back from unleashing its full theoretical war capability; be that for humanitarian reasons, Israeli public pressure, international pressure, or even that it didn’t have that perceived capability in the first place. So in essence, what Israel displayed in this battle is what it is most capable of, practically.
Therefore, the threat that it can, if it wished, to just get back into Lebanon at its pleasure and wreak even more havoc than it has already is just bluster.
Israel should be happy, in view of the above, to have the peaceful means by the UN and international community to ensure the ultimate disarming of Hizballah, which I do not think is going to be done immediately. And certainly not as long as Israel continues to threaten the re-leveling of Lebanon.
The question; however, in the minds of the Lebanese should be: even with the “practical” Israeli capability at waging war and destroying infrastructure, can our resistance be sustained? The answer is clearly “No”. The Israeli army is most definitely bigger, better and faster than any regular army in the Middle East, and most definitely it overshadows Hizballah’s meagre capabilities.
A much better approach is that which is suggested by Shachar and I support him fully in this: if Lebanon is left alone to be prosperous and allowed by all forces to become sovereign over its own land, then it is a much better solution to Israel and the whole world in the long run.
What this war has done is remove the fledgeling prosperity from that country, and despair (after the initial euphoria), and the seeking of revenge for killing unarmed civilians will be their companion for a long time, and it is those feelings that is even more dangerous than the just-ended war.
Peace is much more difficult to achieve than war. It is only with peaceful means that Israel can become part and an accepted parcel of the Middle East. But with this ruthless conflict, I would say if there was an inkling of reaching peaceful coexistence has now slipped so far into the future, that I doubt that our children will even see it.
Was this adventure on the Israeli side worth it? What has Israel achieved?
Mahmood, just how much is your house worth, might I ask?
A lot more than I can afford!
You raise an interest point in one of your posts above, Mahmood – the matter of what happens if a democracy elects a party that is itself opposed to democracy and likely to dismantle the very system that brought it to power. This is what happened in Germany in 1930, when the Nazi Party won the first of two elections that eventually brought it absolute power. Such results are rare but they certainly happen occasionally and a country can shift in the space of just a few months or years from democracy to dictatorship. Generally the electorate will come to regret its earlier mistake but by then it’s too late and democracy can only be restored through violence, if at all.
But it probably is more dangerous stopping democratically elected governments due to a party “guarding against such an eventuality” by disenfranchising the electorate. We might as well live in a dictatorship for the rest of our lives for fear of approving and approaching democracy, or our idea of what democracy is.
to mahmood and ash:
democracy is to a small part a politic system
to a great part it is a philisophy and value system or culture.
thats why the democracy in germany 1933 faild – no democracy was in culture. thats why no democracy can be “set in place” by USA in Iraq – you cno’t force down a culture.
thats why i’m pasemistic about democracy in arab states. you can’t have a democracy based on ignornce , fears, lies ,mistrust and hate.
only tolerance can bring you true democracy.
What this war has done is remove the fledgeling prosperity from that country, and despair (after the initial euphoria), and the seeking of revenge for killing unarmed civilians will be their companion for a long time, and it is those feelings that is even more dangerous than the just-ended war.
What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Will the future never be more important than the past?
dror you must be blind to the changes, positive changes, happening all over the Arab world.
And let me tell you something, if Israel can claim to be a democracy, with its clear and distinct racial laws, then you do not have the right to denigrate Arabs as “ignorant, fear-mongers, liars, untrustworthy and hateful.”
As I see that we Arabs are marching to a much more tolerant and truer “democracy” than Israel has ever known or will know in the shadow of its Zionist ideology.
Mahmood,
As I see that we Arabs are marching to a much more tolerant and truer “democracy†than Israel has ever known or will know in the shadow of its Zionist ideology.
I second that Mahmood. Very true. Israel inherited its political culture from Europe at the time, mainly being:
1) Colonial/Invading
2) Socialist
3) Democratic Elections
The basis for why everyone seems to think they are “just another free country” is mainly because of number 3. They do not realise that number 1 is in direct conflict with number 3, as per my earlier point on whatever are the endangered Israeli Jews going to do when their “free and democratic” country has more Arabs in it than Jews? Point 3 tells you: “So what?” Point 1 tells you: “Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger Mr Robinson! More Arabs than Jews! Impossible! Warning! Eject! Eject!”
This is the contradiction that is Israel.
Now, granted, Israel started at a higher point on the freedom-graph (number 3) than have the Arab countries. Arab countries are trying to institute number 3, with slow yet steady success. (Political freedom). Arab countries are also removing number 2, with slow yet steady success. (Economic freedom). And inherent in this, there is no underlying yoke of a racial conflict in the future Arab states – us Arabs are a mosiac of people – we’ve got everything ethnically/racially – so I can say that there is no corruption by the yoke of any such colonial-invader ideology such as Zionism, as in Israel’s case.
And the future looks bright. I want to be a healthy skeptic, but I am glad to see the ruckus in Egypt over the jailing of some prominent liberal candidates, and the outspokenness of others. I am glad to see the myriad gulf states talk at least – Mahmood’s den – is an example of this – I am glad to see free capitalistic trade open up recently in Dubai’s free-trade zone, glad to see the mockery that Saudis make of their own government ala blogs – glad to see Kuwaitis take to the streets in peacefull protests over their own governments, glad to see heated and two-sided debates on Al-Jazeera which has been given a free hand in speech – criticism of all is allowed.
The future looks bright. The sparks are there. You can smell it in the air. Thing’s are a changin’. And I predict, with moderate confidance, that free Arab institutions are going to spectacularly rival those of Israel’s – by virtue of not being corrupted by a colonial-racist ideology like Zionism.
-Ibn
mahmood: “However, believing in the democratic process, should an Islamist win due to fair polls, I will gladly accept his lead, but will continue to fight for my rights and will oppose him or her if our values conflicted”.
It is not a theoritcal scenario. It did happen in Algiria, with terrible consenquences.
Also, what exactly are you reffeting to when you speak about “clear and distinct racial laws” in Israel?
Ibn, your three points theory suggests that Australia will never be a good, pure democracy like the future regimes of Arab countries, nor would the U.S, New-Zealans, Costa-Rica and so forth.
What did Israel achieve?
Well, doesn’t seem like much. (then again, the price in human lives was far below any of the previous wars, even Israel’s greates victories).
But it should be noted that Hizballah attacked Israel about 20 times since the withdrawl in May 2000. Those were small-scale incidents, comparing to the events of the last month, but still people were wounded, killed and on two occasions kidnapped, and civilians were forced to go into shelters when HA fired rockets on border towns. Hopefully, this will stop now.
David,
Ibn, your three points theory suggests that Australia will never be a good, pure democracy like the future regimes of Arab countries, nor would the U.S, New-Zealans, Costa-Rica and so forth.
Was Australia founded on, and currently define itself, as being a land “only for the whites”? If it did, does it do so now? Does it worry itself about its growing non-white population? Are the demographics of non-white Australians a threat to the concept of the Australian state?
There is a world of difference between Australia and Israel.
-Ibn
David said:
Yes it did happen in Algeria, but your example supports the opposite of what you’re trying to prove. It looked like the FIS would win the elections, but the army stepped in and cancelled the elections. This caused FIS to go underground and prompted the emergence of the GIA and other nastier splinter militant and terrorist groups.
Point to note: It was the cancellation of the elections that started the Civil War, not the election of Islamists in to office.
Obviously, this shows that preventing democratically elected Islamists from from running government is not necessarily the best strategy to adopt.
Mahmood wrote:
Yes, isn’t it sad!
Isn’t it sad that the actions of a fanatic like him can create so much joy.
I see many people here voicing bright hopes for the future of the Arab world but, as long as so many people can support groups like Hizbollah, Fatah, Hamas, etc, I am not so optimistic. Their ideologies are to a great extent based on hatred or rigid non-acceptence of people of other beliefs or opinions. Look at this statement from Sheik Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, one of the spiritual founders of Hizbollah:
Would you base your hopes for a free and peaceful future on an ideology of that character?
Now, I know most people in this forum would not but, as Mahmood wrote, a lot of Arabs do. The sad point is that so many people have grown up(and still are growing up) in a culture that accepts, and sometimes even encourages, an ideology like that.
What if supporters of Nasrallah and his ideas of progress in the Arab world get the majority of votes at the coming elections in Bahrain? Would Israel and the West be blamed?
Or would the blame fall on the rulers and the scholars and the intellectuals of the Arab world for not rejecting them wholeheartedly?
Professor Hilal Khashan’s thoughts in this article seem to me to make a lot more sense for the future.
Sorry, some of the links above went missing:
Sheik Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah
Professor Hilal Khashan.
… and the last one:
Sheik Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah.
Thanks Chan’ad, that was what I was alluding to.
I think it is incorrect to say that the IDF was defeated. By all accounts, the offensive could’ve continued indefinitely — and Hizb’Allah was losing ground and fighters every single day.
Israel may have been defeated politically by the weight of international opinion, but it’s absurd to claim that the IDF was defeated in any way whatsoever. I think it would do well for any future attacker of Israel to remember that in no way was Israel losing the war on the ground in Lebanon.
It simply lost the media war which, these days, is sometimes more important.
That won’t stop Hizb’Allah from claiming victory, of course. Nor, sadly, will it stop people from believing such claims. The truth, of course, is that the IDF could have sustained its offensive for another month, at the very least.
Unfortunately, I think that Israel’s political defeat this time around will give heart to its enemies and that will lead to characterizations of this “cease fire” as nothing more than a pause between the fighting to be proven to be all too true.
Milter, that is a fascinating document, thank you very much for sharing it.
Milter said:
Yes, the blame squarely falls on the intellectuals of the Arab world for not doing enough. But Israel should also realize that its actions are likely to make the problem much worse. This isn’t about blame, but about realizing that things could have been done in a different way to avoid this outcome.
Analogy: If I load my car up with gold bars and park in the middle of town with the doors unlocked, obviously they will most likely get stolen. The person stealing the gold would be to blame, but I am stupid for leaving the car unlocked in the first place.
Anyhows. In this case the Lebanese state has lost, and Hizballah has won as a result of Israel’s actions. Hizballah gets its strength from the weakness of the Lebanese state. The Lebanese state has in the past not provided various social services to vast sections of its population, particularly in the south. Hizballah stepped in to fill this gap and provide these services (education, health, law and order, military protection). And this is why Hizballah has so much power and influence.
Now, when Israel decides to bomb State infrastructure (power, water, telecom, media, transport, ministry buildings, etc), it obviously weakens the ability of the State to impose itself on its citizens, and gives Hizballah an opportunity to become that much stronger. And this is what we have seen. Now that the conflict has halted, it is Hizballah (and not the state) that has announced plans to rebuild the devastated areas. Expect Hizballah to become more influential after this.
@ Mahmood – well, there are alternatives to “disenfranchising” the electorate as a means of excluding anti-democractic parties from democratic election. Government is not only about parliaments but also the judiciary, the civil service and other bodies. In Britain, for example, the judiciary can, and frequently does, overturn government legislation that it regards as unworkable, or contrary to existing domestic or international law. Another option is the creation of a constitution enshrining democracy and which gives the judiciary and other relevant institutions the right to override the efforts of any single government to overturn it. While these sorts of safeguard are not invincible, they would certainly make it a lot more difficult for any one party, upon achieving a parliamentary majority, to attempt to dismantle democracy.
@ dror – I disagree with your pessimistic and rather racist comments. It’s true that “culture” and socio-economic facts to some extent affect if, how and when democracy becomes viable in a particular country but “democracy” is a system of governance – and there are different versions of such systems too (eg first-past-the-post, various forms of proportional representation, etc). Within that system, wide political and culturally-inflected variations are possible without undermining democracy itself. Tolerance is important, but it’s a consequence of democratisation at least as much as a pre-condition; as societies gradually become more democratic, so they also gradually become more tolerant.
“Lebanon for the most part has been turned into a parking lot,”
That is not even remotely true. The bombing in Beirut, in particular, was strictly confined to the Hezb’allah military districts and their HQ building – about 1% of the area of Beirut at most. And before the bombing, warning leaflets were dropped so that people could get out of the way.
Roads and bridges were bombed to prevent troop movements, and the bridges will be expensive to rebuild, but that still doesn’t amount to turning the country into a parking lot.
Even in the villages in the south which have been fought over, most people’s houses are intact. What has been destroyed are the bunkers and tunnels.
It was a war. It should never have been started, but I fear the Iranian regime will not understand that. As wars go, it involved surprisingly few deaths.
I think the blame for those deaths lies entirely with Iran and Hezb’allah for starting the war.
Anyhows. In this case the Lebanese state has lost, and Hizballah has won as a result of Israel’s actions. Hizballah gets its strength from the weakness of the Lebanese state. The Lebanese state has in the past not provided various social services to vast sections of its population, particularly in the south. Hizballah stepped in to fill this gap and provide these services (education, health, law and order, military protection). And this is why Hizballah has so much power and influence.
Now, when Israel decides to bomb State infrastructure (power, water, telecom, media, transport, ministry buildings, etc), it obviously weakens the ability of the State to impose itself on its citizens, and gives Hizballah an opportunity to become that much stronger. And this is what we have seen. Now that the conflict has halted, it is Hizballah (and not the state) that has announced plans to rebuild the devastated areas. Expect Hizballah to become more influential after this.
Exactly chan’ad The same as Hamas has provided for the Palestenian people better than their elected goverment has done. I wonder what would happen to Hamas and Hizballah if Israel suddenly gave in and returned land to Lebanon and Syria, freeded prisioners and moved their settlments out of the west bank? After the initial euphoria wore of do you think they could continue to justify their exsistence.
billT
I’m a moderate Bahraini and, to be frank, I am ashamed to be a Bahraini after seeing all those flags and people chanting that the war has been won.
a Ceasefire is simply that, no one wins, no one loses, and it was sooo predictable that each group wanted to say that ‘we won!’ cause they want to back up what they have heavily lost in those 33 days..
From Hizballah side, how can any Arab muslim see them as winning when they had direct responsiblity to the 1000+ killed in Lebanon??? how will those lives be replaced now?? Hizballah says they will rebuild again and bring back Lebanon the way it was and better, but if I was a Lebanese (especially living in the south) I would say to HELL with your money Hizballah and you better pray from today to the day you die for Allah to spare not going to HELL! Hizballah plays the ‘desparation’ card just like how Israel did and with politics you should never back down from your stance.. and that’s what it ALL was! Who cares some piece of land was still captured by Israel, or some Israeli soldiers were captured by Hizballah.. I mean more than 1000 people died and the countries infrastructure demolished!!! That’s like taking Lebanon back some 10 or 20 years back!
I am angry as a Bahraini and angrier still if I was Lebanese. Hizballah prooved (time and again) their sheer childness and shalowness when it comes to politics and power and such dangerous minds like these should be stopped at whatever costs.
Any possibility of Fatwa declaring anyone a heretic and a danger to Islam if enrolled or being in the Hizballah group any time soon?
Now lets be Frank here everyone: Do you think Hizballah is a danger to this region? Do you think they righfully express the true message of Allah and of Islam? I think NOT! (and I mean this in the most passionate way!)
“But it probably is more dangerous stopping democratically elected governments due to a party “guarding against such an eventuality†by disenfranchising the electorate.”
I would like to object to this, Mahmood. You should make yourself familiar with Fareed Zakaria’s ideas of illiberal democracy. Liberalism and constitutionalism are as important as democracy itself. If Germans democratically elected a government hell-bent on, say, eradicating the Turkish minority (or the indigenous Wendish minority for that matter), if the French democratically elected a government hell-bent on putting all the Muslims in the country into gas chambers, or if the Egyptians elected by popular vote a government that would promise to free Egypt of Coptic Christians, I think it would be a moral obligation to oppose such a government, and if the government were ousted by a military junta with the explicit purpose to thwart the promised holocaust, then I would gladly prefer the junta.
The point is, that the people can choose either Christ or Barrabas, the people can actually be frankly in favour of a party of fanatic, genocidal maniacs. If there is no entrenched constitutionalism and liberalism that will actually make it impossible for a genocidist party to win the elections or even to enter the elections, democracy can actually be a worse alternative than an enlightened kind of dictatorship.
to Ibn:
Of course there is a world of difference between Australia and Israel. (Israel was never some Empire’s colony. Unlike the Jews, the Britons had absoultly no justifcation to go there in the first place). Still it is now a mainly white, Christian, English-speaking country.
The point I was making is general, and is reffering to your theory that a sate which is historically a colony, founded by invaders, can never be fully democratic – unlike what you forsee for Arab countries.
(Your optimistic view might still be true – it is reasonable, that nations that are new to democracy will at some phase achieve a better level of democracy than that of old democracies, in which the glow of nobel ideas, such as liberty and equality have faded).
As for Israel, I again ask you, simply, what is undemocratic about its laws and its regime.
To chan’ad: I wasn’t trying to prove anything, as “proving” things in the world of history and political science is impossible.
Since the Islamists in Algeria were deprived of their democratic victory, we do not know what would have happen if they reached power.
But we can speculate.
Their public declarations prior to the elections, regarding democracy, were not encouraging at all. In some cases in history when an undemocratic party took control in a democratic way, the first thing they did was to abolish democracy.
In fact another case of an Islamist party taking control happened not far from where I write now – in the PA.
bill said:
If Israel did all the things you said, then in my opinion, that would weaken Hezbollah (or Hamas), but on its own I don’t think it would do too much. Parallel steps would also need to be taken (by the itnernational community presumably) to strengthen the Lebanese state institutions and infrastructure. All of the state infrastructure that was recently bombed by Israel would have to be rebuilt — and then some — so that the Lebanese state could perform all the functions of a sovereign state (essentially, that is to have the “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force” a la Weber).
In addition, the influence of Syria would have to be dealt with. It is clear that it is in the interests of Syria to maintain a weak Lebanese state, which is why it has gone to such extents to support Hezbollah. Any attempts to strengthen the Lebanese state will most likely be met with strong opposition from Syria. (I have no idea how this would be solved).
If these things are done, it would then be safe to encourage Hezbollah to enter mainstream politics. The forces of nationalism and the nation state would surely be able to pacify Hezbollah and turn it into just another political party (as suggested by Olivier Roy in “The Failure of Political Islam”)
Well that’s enough punditry from me for one day
Ashamed Bahraini said:
Don’t be ashamed!
You’re not responsible for the actions or attitudes of those people. And in a way they aren’t even fully responsible themselves. What they see as right or wrong is a product of all the factors they have been influenced by, such as their parents, mullahs, priests, politicians, writers, newspapers, philosophers, teachers, etc. If all of those have the same definition of right and wrong you’ll probably end up thinking like them.
You also wrote:
Why do you need a scholar to explain to others that you disagree with a certain group of people? There are plenty of clerics that are busy declaring other muslims heretics, and the only outcome of this is adding to the overall sum of hatred and fighting.
Why couldn’t you just stand up and say: “I disagree”!
Do you think their reply might be: “Are you a heretic”?
chan’ad wrote:
The concept of nationalism and a nation state are very new to the Arab world. What isn’t new, though, is the Muslim Ummah and the clans and the acceptence of the importance of maintaining strict loyalty to both of them.
Groups like Hizbollah (and others) are not based on a wish for the creation of a free, democratic country. They will not accept the idea of participating as a small party in a government for ever. Their goal is to turn Lebanon into a country based on islamic values. And, I think history has shoved us plenty of times that a country, based on religious values, inevitably turns into one of fear and oppression.
So, the hope of Hizbollah becoming “just another political party” is, I’m afraid, very naive or just the result of wishful thinking.
What isn’t new, though, is the Muslim Ummah and the clans and the acceptence of the importance of maintaining strict loyalty to both of them.
Whats the difference between the above and the acceptance of the importance of maintaining strict loyality to Israel and Judiasm? When you focus so much on your own views you can’t see others views kids die. Wouldnt it be nice to see Jewish and Arab kids playing soccer in a park without worry? Not gonna happen because those who care dont have the means to take on the Bush’s, Israels, Hizballa’s and Hamas’s of the world without resorting to more dead kids.
billT
billT,
What “acceptance of the importance of maintaining strict loyality to Israel and Judiasm” would that be? Care to give specific examples?
Shachar
Don Cox:
But it takes two to tango, so some of the blame must lie at Israel’s doorsteps. In fact, as it is the stronger nation, more of the blame should be claimed by Israel as it has much overused that strength for the unmitigated destruction that Lebanon has witnessed.
Ashamed Bahraini:
I’m not sure how to take your comment as it rings of diametric opposites. In fact, it does sound as your objections simply are due to Hizballah being Shia? If that were the case then that needs another discussion.
Why do you “think NOT!”? Are you placed on this earth as a judge and jury in place of Allah to be able to categorically excommunicate Hizballah or any other religious group for that matter? Why think this way? Why not give the benefit of the doubt as your and I know that there is no one on this Earth who can decide who is to go to Heaven or otherwise? Leave that part to the Creator and think of better ways of solving problems.
David:
David, I recognise that in order for a society to be completely democratic, a whole basket of prerequisites must be present first. However, I truly believe that democratic elections are the bedrock of democracy, and if a nation through fair elections voted for a party or person, that should stand. If they are proved to be mistaken in time, then that’s another problem and could be solved internally – which is a preferred option – or it they impinge somehow on external factors, then there is the UN to try to get them to see reason.
As Chan’ad commented, the Algerian situation was mitigated due to the cancellation of the elections, rather than an Islamist party taking control. We will never know how their rule in Algeria be in retrospect because they were not given a chance to do so.
Learner of Arabic:
Thanks for directing me to Fareed Zakaria. I am unfamiliar with his work but shall look for it and peruse it now.
Again, yes, I do recognise that to achieve inculcated democracy within a community that community must be ready for it. However, that is akin to a situation with the chicken and the egg, which comes first? In our societies today, we have no entrenched traditional democratic values in our societies today, barring ordained religious values in the form of Shura. So how are we to go about transforming our societies to respect individual freedoms and democratic principles now? Should we just forget about this whole democracy thing because we are “not prepared” for it? No. I contend that parliamentary elections is the root of democracy and the seed of democratic thinking and as such, allowing fairly elected chambers – regardless of personal distaste for their make-up – is the right thing to do, and the world should respect that choice by the people.
Do I personally like Hamas being in control of the Palestinian Authority? Who am I to declare my position in this issue one way or another? Their people elected them, and they should live with the consequences of their choice. End of story. The world should deal with it.
If they fail because they cannot now provide for the needs of their people, it is their people who should decide whether to keep or remove them from power.
In short. I do not agree with your position that the Arabs and/or Muslims should wait until their communities are “ready” for democracy to initiate parliamentary elections because your understanding of the prerequisites are still not present. Democracy in our countries MUST start. We have no choice but be democratic in order to live with the rest of the world at peace.
Milter:
It is also prejudicial to assume that that Hizballah’s goal is to control the whole of Lebanon and turn it into a theocratic state. Apart from the impossibility of that goal owing to the constitution and its ethnic and political make-up of Lebanon, I think you will be hard pushed to find a clear statement attributed to Hizballah’s leadership, or to its spiritual guide Mohammed Fadhlallah for that matter than would ascertain your view.
There are clear advantages to groups like Hizballah, in that they have filled a a gaping void created by the inability or unwillingness of the state to provide for its people.
We have the same thing in Bahrain on a probably similar scale: Al-Wefaq and Al-Asalah and other village charities do the very same thing, and it is due to their efforts they will be elected and put into positions of power.
Governments, if they want to really govern a civil society, should not pander to egos nor should it withhold services from a sector of its community because of differences in ideology, faith, colour or even sexual orientation, because once that happens, others will come and fill that void, and when that happens, governments lose control of their whole country and become weak.
Now consider if Hizballah just removes itself from Southern Lebanon, would the central government come in to fill in that void? Would they want to? Are they capable of doing so? Will they be trusted enough to get the people to respond? Of course not. But should they give up? Again, of course not, for if they did and not take control of those affected areas and ensure an honest partnership is struck between all the forces there, then they might was well declare the South as independent as they have no sovereign right over it whatsoever.
So the only hope going into the future for both sides is to get Hizballah to become a political party in a coalition government – and it has no choice but to become so – working hand in hand at alleviating and elevating the status of Lebanon as a whole.
Ash:
You are correct of course. But to us in our particular world, as we do not have these basics, should we then forget about democracy altogether and provide our acquiescence to dictatorships because the prerequisites you mentioned are not present?
Of course not. To us, the very act of electing someone to be our representative in government is a huge step which should be valued for what it is, a start toward the long democratic journey. How else are we going to ensure the proper accountable presence of the other democratic institutions if we do not start that journey?
Democratic elections to parliament is the seed of democracy, so please, don’t discount it.
Mahmood,
I’m not sure how to take your comment as it rings of diametric opposites. In fact, it does sound as your objections simply are due to Hizballah being Shia? If that were the case then that needs another discussion.
I would like to draw your attention to a strange point. Every time an Arab flat out accuses Hizbollah of, well, anything at all, you retort with “you are against Shia”. Since you do show some goodwill, I’ll use mild terms and call it “over sensitive”. Whatever your reasons, however, you are preventing factual discussion by doing so. This is your blog, so I don’t have the right to ask you for anything, but I think it will be more constructive to relate to the actual criticism than to accuse the criticizer.
However, I truly believe that democratic elections are the bedrock of democracy, and if a nation through fair elections voted for a party or person, that should stand.
No, not according to what I know. The bedrock of democracy is the acceptance of a differing voice. Once that is available, and only then, can elections truely represent the voice of the people. Otherwise you get what my teacher called “repression by the majority”.
Again, yes, I do recognise that to achieve inculcated democracy within a community that community must be ready for it. However, that is akin to a situation with the chicken and the egg, which comes first?
That’s an easy one to answer. Start with free press, and complete freedom of speech. Continue with freedom to protest, and seperating the authorities (at the very least, the judicial from the law making). Then you can have elections that will mean something.
Shachar
The above didn’t come out right. I’m resubmitting while reformatting.
Mahmood,
I would like to draw your attention to a strange point. Every time an Arab flat out accuses Hizbollah of, well, anything at all, you retort with “you are against Shiaâ€Â. Since you do show some goodwill, I’ll use mild terms and call it “over sensitiveâ€Â. Whatever your reasons, however, you are preventing factual discussion by doing so. This is your blog, so I don’t have the right to ask you for anything, but I think it will be more constructive to relate to the actual criticism than to accuse the criticizer.
No, not according to what I know. The bedrock of democracy is the acceptance of a differing voice. Once that is available, and only then, can elections truely represent the voice of the people. Otherwise you get what my teacher called “repression by the majorityâ€Â.
That’s an easy one to answer. Start with free press, and complete freedom of speech. Continue with freedom to protest, and seperating the authorities (at the very least, the judicial from the law making). Then you can have elections that will mean something.
Shachar
Shachar:
If I did do that then I am wrong and I apologize. However, in this particular case and in reading the nuances contained within the original poster’s comment, if you are more sensitive to vagaries of this area of the world, or better if you are of this area of the world, you would probably understand what I am getting at and how I reached that conclusion.
I’m not sensitive for the Shi’a cause Shachar, if you read back into the history of this blog you would have seen that I level a lot harsher criticism on us Shi’a than I do any other discipline.
I don’t particularly care for any “turbaned” person or group. I regard myself as a modernist rather than an Islamist, and also am very much against Islamists – regardless of hue – taking any position in a political establishment. So I would be the first to object to Nasrallah or Fadhlallah or any other *allah to take up such a position. To me, as far as politics is concerned, they are by definition myopic, and i would rather not have a myopic person codify laws.
Well in the real world yes I would agree wholeheartedly. In our world; however, that does not work for the simple reason that there is no mechanism, nor is there a single person of government or ruling family who would want to see his or her free reign compromised or even a little diminished; hence, they will never propose laws which could in fact affect their positions-for-life. The most important of those laws they do not want to see codified is that which deals and assures free press. Look at the situation in Bahrain for example, or Egypt for that matter and you will know what I am talking about.
To enable such laws, you have to have the machinery through which they are proposed and approved; hence, you would need parliament to do so. And it is through these institutions – at least theoretically – which can bring out and codify the other laws and instruments to ensure that democracy will stay.
Yes, it would be a lot easier if the community itself demands, knows and respects democracy, rather than be like following sheep accepting whatever is foisted on them. Unfortunately we do not have that to a large extent. To my way of thinking, democracy in our world will never come to pass unless there is the tool to help create and perpetuate it.
—
A suggestion if I may, if you are to quote someone, enclose that quote into blockquote markers:
This I assure you makes your conversations easier to follow.
Ah, we were typing at the same time… great minds think alike!
Please, do educate me, then. What was it, exactly, that “Ashamed Bahraini” said that lead you to decide it was a tribalist comment? I think we already established my inability to locate the nuances on my own.
See, on the face of it, he said exactly what you said. He said that what Hizbollah say is not really Allah’s true wish, and you say that NONE of the “Islamists” truely represent Allah’s wish. Personally, I fail to see the difference (or, more precisely, I fail to see why picking a particular case is tribalism, being as it is that it is the subject of discussion of this thread).
The problem is that doing this the other way around means that the “democratically elected ruler” is free to perform non-democratic actions, meaning no progress at all.
Just to set the record straight:
I am not opposed to Hammass being elected. I think it truely represents the Palestinian people’s wish, and had elections not being held, it would have come out in some other way.
This is a purely academic discussion
In particular, I think that the PA had truely democratic elections BECAUSE the people demanded it. The demonstrations in Lebanon after Hariri was assasinated were another, even better, example of democratic actions. What we have here, in both cases, is that true democracy comes from the people, not from the way the government is handed over.
Now, how to set that up in a country that doesn’t have that already, that’s a pickle.
Shachar
You know what shook me? Seeing the Nepalese go about demanding democracy and getting it. They have curtailed their king’s power by the power of their demonstrations and they knew how to go about things. They found that the king was oppressive, that he took far too much power, that he has become a law unto his own self, and the people got fed up and risen to demand democracy, and they got it.
These are people whom are sneered at in the Gulf specifically and the Arab world in general. They have demonstrated that they have more democratic spark in them then all the Arabs combined. It is the same story in Pakistan where they do have a somewhat democratic culture (yes I know, there are a lot of flaws, but you know what I mean, in principal they are still better than the Arabs) and of course the same goes for India. All of them we look down upon, but they are light years ahead of where we Arabs are.
I recognise that Shachar, there are probably many more examples that I can bring, but I know our limitations and there is not a single Arab that does not crave democracy. These “institutions” that we have in our countries (Shura Councils, impaired councils of representatives, etc) could just be regarded as abortions, looking at it in a good way, maybe one could regard them as necessary sacrifices to get to the idea that you are preaching and I know and crave so well.
So let us just agree to disagree. We both want the same thing, but our thoughts on how to get there differ.
Now as to the nuances. I cannot explain it completely, maybe I am just looking for things that are not there, but having looked at many many comments, the original comment could be interpreted in the way I have, yet I have qualified my categorization as could be in error. I feel that it isn’t, but I couldn’t be sure. Maybe we should wait for the Ashamed Bahraini to come and spell it out for us.
And this is the fault of the written word, if you have heard it or seen the person talk, you would have noticed a twinkle in the eye or a lift of a sneering lip, but in writing, you are left with your own feelings and maybe prejudices to decide how to “read” what is written. If I have misjudged the situation, I amply apologise. Let’s wait for the original commenter to explain what he meant by his words.
Until then, I stand by my original interpretation which I feel are correct.
In short. I do not agree with your position that the Arabs and/or Muslims should wait until their communities are “ready†for democracy to initiate parliamentary elections because your understanding of the prerequisites are still not present. Democracy in our countries MUST start.
Certainly. But it’s my honest opinion that it should start on a local level, so that people would, to start with, understand that democracy is not about creating utopias, but about deciding whether you should build a new road here and a new communal swimming pool there, or the other way round.
Nope, that’s municipal tasks and people all over the Arab world are already being involved in that. If you count that as part of democracy, well maybe, but it is not my idea of what we are really looking for in this stage of our lives.
Democracy is deciding existential matters with the acceptance of the majority, while taking care of minorities’ rights too.
Shachar,
I will second the fact that Ashamed Bahraini’s response is anti Shia. His antagonsim towards Hizbollah is not because it is a religious based organization, its because it is a sectarian based organization, a sect that he doesnt like.
As much as I admire what Hizbollah has been able to do in lLebanon, I would not vote for them myself, like I wouldnt vote for UBL and his ilk. For one reason alone, I dont like faith based groups. I dont like the zealotry of Bush and the evangelical Christians. I dont like UBL and the wahabbi moslems. I dont like Ben Gurio,. Sharon, Golda Mier and the rest of the Jewish Zionist zealots. And truth be told, I dont like the Pope.
However, Ashamed Bahraini made a comment about not being the true voice of Islam. And he made a comment about a fawa.
As far as I am concerned, Ashamed Bahraini is a bigot. He should change his name to read ‘A Shame to all Bahrainis’
Olivier Roy, who is in my opinion the foremost scholar on political Islam, had a great op-ed in the FT a few days ago:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b5e204be-2e17-11db-93ad-0000779e2340.html
Worth reading the whole thing. It’s right on target I think.
Hat tip: Issandr
Mahmood, you wrote:
Here are a few statements from Mohammed Fadhlallah. :
It’s bedtime now but, I’ll come back with more later. My views on the intentions of Hizbollah’s political leaders are based on more than just quotations and will take some time to put together.
Mahmood, here is the second part of my opinion about Hizbollah. I tried several times yesterday but could not open your site. It just timed out every time.
Let me first of all say that I have a lot of respect for Hizbollah’s achiements as regards the social aspects, like building schools and hospitals, organizing rubbish collection, taking care of the poor, etc. In that respect you can probably only compare them to The Muslim Brotherhood when you look at The Middle East.
But, like The Muslim Brothers, Hizbollah was (and still is) founded on a very strong and pious, religious belief. The following statements are taken from their “Open Letter to the Oppressed of Lebanon and the World”, published in 1985 in the Lebanese paper, As-Safir, where they explain who they are and what their objectives are:
Under the section “Our Ojectives”:
….and to the Christians it says:
That, to me, means that Hizbollah will only accept Shari’a as a lawful basis for the constitution, courts and social life of Lebanon.
Hizbollah’s “charter” was changed in 1998. Their “Statement of Purpose” is
here.
The rhetoric of this statement does not contain as many references to The Quran as the first one. Some will attribute this to a change of attitude in the leadership of Hizbollah towards a more pragmatic and secular one. It may be more pragmatic but, I don’t think their leaders have abandoned the idea of an Islamic state. If you look at the background and beliefs of Hassan Nasrallah I find it very hard to believe that he will suddenly accept the idea of being part of a government and society that is not based on Islamic values.
Here are a few excerpts from their “Statement of Purpose”:
Compare that to this one:
Notice the missing word “international” in the second quotation about human rights.
There are differing interpretations of what human rights are. There is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , also known as “The International Declaration of Human Rights”, adopted by The United Nations in 1948.
There are also these two Islamic versions The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights , from 1981, and The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam , adopted in 1990. Neither of those two will accept the secular UN version of human rights as legitimate.
I’ll be back with more tomorrow. And, I hope you’ll understand that this is not meant as an attack on Islam as a religion. It is only my opinion on the dangers of letting religious leaders and their values become the foundations of a country. I have had several and similar discussions with my wife’s Irish friends and family.
Milter you’re preaching to the choir! I’ve long held the very same belief, although I naively thought by what I have read about Nasrallah that he is limited to protecting Lebanon and evicting the Israelis.
I don’t expect Fadhlallah to condone secular life and secular governance, being the marji’ that he is, he would be a traitor to his cause had he held these views.
Having said that, it is said that Fadhlallah is one of the most progressive marji’s in the Muslim world today.
Mahmood,
Sorry, I’ll finish my sermon, then!
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but isn’t it sad to see pictures of Bahrainis celebrating a supposed “victory” of a terrorist orgainisation?
Just confirms how small minded, ignorant and backward thinking an alarming section of this population is.
Put away the flags, tear down the pictures and go do some good for the world instead of openly associating with these criminals who started the war in the first place.
Mahmood,
Check out the most reliable news source, CNN.
They are being very accurate in their reports:
on the same day, August 26, 2006, at 9:05 AM Lebanon time, 2 stories about the Middle East appeared on CNN’s front page.
the first, discussed the Israeli use of Cluster Bombs on Lebanese Civilians and Civilian areas. in this report, CNN noted some ‘850’ Lebanese deaths during the 34 day Israeli War on Lebanon.
Some 850 Lebanese died in the fighting, compared to 157 Israelis.
source http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/25/bombs.lebanon.ap/index.html
the second, discussed the Israelis’ views of their Prime Minister after the war. in this report, 1,110 Lebanese are reported to have been killed by Israel.
At least 1,110 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed in the conflict.
source http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/25/olmert.reut/index.html
Funny ha?
Anyone else find this really surprising?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm
smart PR ..