Michael J. Totten: Hizbullah leading Lebanon to civil war

December 03, 2006

Hizbullah leading Lebanon to civil war

Hizbullah, Aoun and Syria's parties are overstaying their welcome. The patience of Beirut citizens and Lebanese from the opposing camp is wearing thin.

LBC is reporting riots involving Sunnis and Shias in the neighborhood of Qasqas as I type this. The Lebanese army has intervened. (Update: The clashes were reportedly between a Hizbullah convoy passing through the area and Sunni residents)

Yesterday, around 300 Hizbullah members reportedly chased a man who hurled insults at Hassan Nasrallah and then fled towards nearby Ashrafieh. The Lebanese army stopped the advance of the militia on the Christian neighborhood and arrested the individual, who turned out to be a Syrian citizen by the name of Hamzah Mohamad Sadeq Ismail. Al-Mustaqbal described this as a Syrian intelligence attempt to create clashes, although one wonders what Hizbullah was thinking by sending 300 members to a Christian neighborhood boiling with rage.

Following a meeting yesterday with representatives from the Internal Security Forces and the Lebanese army, the Iran-funded militia has refused yet again to remove its tents and clear the main road leading to the Grand Serail. An-Nahar reported that Hizbullah's information warfare division has been filming the area around the Serail. It is not clear what this means. A Hizbullah-Syrian attempt to storm the building was foiled on the first day of the protest, after an intervention by the Saudi King via Nabih Berri, who has promised to resolve the situation in a couple of days.

Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak sent two letters to Berri requesting an end to the blockade of the government building and to street protests. Speaking to reporters yesterday, Mubarak sent a veiled threat that "many Arab countries" will intervene if Iran continues to meddle in Lebanese politics.

Meanwhile, downtown businesses will reportedly file lawsuits against the organizers of the protest over revenue losses (LBC). Tents and portable toilets have transformed the Beirut center, a meeting place for people from all sects, into an open dump for paid militia types and their relatives, Syrian workers, and people high on Aounist psychedelics.

Speaking of abnormal mental states, angry Aounists today hurled insults at an LBC crew filming a mass Aoun called for in the downtown Maronite church where Pierre Gemayel's funeral was held. The Lebanese army intervened to prevent the angry crowds from attacking the reporters. (LBC)

The Aounist mass was, to quote fellow blogger Mustapha, Aoun's way to "flex his Christian muscles". Ironically, Aoun spoke against categorizing people as Christians or Muslims two days ago, during a pathetic attempt to justify the general Christian disinterest in hobnobbing with murderers and law-breaking types as the means for one failed former general to reach a high office.

The Siniora cabinet responded to Aoun's Christian showing by holding a memorial mass for slain minister Pierre Gemayel in the government building that's under siege by Hizbullah.

Siniora meanwhile told reporters today that he is staying in office as long as his cabinet enjoys the confidence of parliament. He called on Nabih Berri to act like a parliament speaker and not as the head of the Amal movement.

Hizbullah MP Hussei Hajj Hassan warned that Hizbullah's objective will "evolve" if the "occupiers of the Serail don't resign." Aoun lashed out at all world countries (minus Syria and Iran) for supporting the Siniora government. He called on the Syrian-appointed president and parliament (speaker) to look into ways to fire the cabinet.

But time is running out for Hizbullah and Aoun. The resentment towards them and their supporters is reaching dangerous levels. There have been many spontaneous protests in several Lebanese cities, and it is clear that there are people who will not sit and watch the militia and its Christian cover besieging their government and paralyzing the country.

Unless they plan on a military coup, I don't see how they will succeed in toppling the government, which is enjoying the support of parliament, not to mention most of the world.

If they don't end their occupation of downtown Beirut soon, civil war will come knocking.

Posted by Abu Kais at December 3, 2006 08:28 AM

Comments

I think the stakes are higher than most realize here, and the MSM is siimply dropping the ball. Were it not for this blog and others like it I'd be completely in the dark about what's going on.

Perhaps my fears are overblown, but imagine if Hezbollah manages in overthrowing the government and in effect taking over the country (since they seem to have the most well-armed, well-trained and largest militia).

Will Iran then use Lebanon in much the same way the Soviets aimed to use Cuba, as a forward base to threaten a wider swath of territory with their soon-to-be nuclear weapons? Iranian missiles can reach Israel from Iran, but once stationed in Lebanon much of Europe becomes easily within range.

But meanwhile I have yet to hear any serious protests against Hezbollah and Syria and Iran's meddling against the Lebanese government...

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 09:40 AM

Poll Shows Divide Between Shiites and Other Communities

(http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&9F3F425A417B3C98C2257238001E62E6)

A wide gap exists between Lebanon's Shiite and other communities in their opinion on a number of issues including the outcome of the recent war with Israel and the situation in Iraq and Iran, according to a survey released in Washington Friday.

The survey, conducted November 11-16 by Zogby International polling firm on behalf of the University of Maryland's Sadat Chair for Peace and Development, shows that more than 70 percent of the country's Shiites believe that Israel was the biggest loser in the war with Hizbullah this summer. That's in contrast to Sunnis, Christians and Druze in the country who overwhelmingly believe that the Lebanese people were the biggest losers.

Nearly 50 percent of Shiites questioned also believe Arabs should continue to fight Israel even if the Jewish state returns all territories occupied in the 1967 war as opposed to Sunnis, Christians and Druze who believe otherwise, according to the poll.

On Iraq, more than 50 percent of Sunnis, Christians and Druze believe civil war in that country will expand rapidly if the U.S. quickly withdraws its forces as opposed to nearly 50 percent of Shiite who believe that Iraqis will find a way to bridge their differences if U.S. forces pull out.

More than 90 percent of Shiites also believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program as opposed to a majority who feel otherwise in the three other communities.

The four religious communities agree on a number of issues when it comes to the United States, including their belief that their view of America would improve if it brokered a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement that would lead to a Palestinian state.

All four communities also believe that the Democratic Party's recent victory in the U.S. elections will not make a difference as far as U.S. policy in the Middle East.

As to confidence in the U.S., more than 50 percent of Shiites and Sunnis said they have none as opposed to more than 40 percent of Christians and Druze who say they have some confidence.

More than 60 percent of all those surveyed believe that democracy is not a real U.S. objective in the Middle East.

When asked which countries they preferred as a superpower, France came in first among Sunnis, Christians and Druze while Russia topped the list among Shiites.

French President Jacques Chirac was the most admired world leader among Sunnis, Druze and Christians while Shiites favored Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

When asked to name two countries that pose the biggest threat, the majority of Shiites and Sunnis identified the United States and Israel as opposed to Christians and Druze who said Israel and Syria.

"There were a number of things striking in this survey, on issues related to Syria, the role of Hizbullah and Iran," Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland who coordinated the survey, told AFP. "The line-up on these issues appears to be Shiite and non-Shiite, more than Muslim and Christian."

The survey involved 600 respondents and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

It was released on the same day that Hizbullah led a mass demonstration in Beirut in a bid to force the resignation of Premier Fouad Saniora's government.(AFP)

-----------
Adundum

As an American I will wholeheartedly support the efforts for France and Russian to held rebuild Lebanon and lessen its debt relief. I will strongly oppose one penny of my tax dollars to go to that country. Sorry, but the views of most Lebanese of any sect are quite delusional when it comes to America. Let them get help from their beloved French and Russians.

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 09:45 AM

Can someone explain why I have not seen any poll results?

What proportion of Lebanese support Hezbollah's calls for Seniora to resign, and how does that break down on sectarian lines?

I suspect that polling organizations have a pro-Western bias, have taken polls and are embarrassed by the results. I would guess Hezbollah's calls to remove Seniora have the support of 60-70% of Lebanese.

I read someone's estimate that if elections are held now, Hezbollah and its allies will win a majority in Parliament but I don't have a source.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 09:49 AM

Okay, that adundum was written in a fit of frustration. I want the best for a free Lebanon.

But many Americans are getting sick and tired of this childish, paranoid hatred of Ameirca that seems to exist in almost every strata of Middle Esatern society. The conspiracy theories, the rank anti-Semitism... it gets tough to stomach sometimes.

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 09:50 AM

Zogby is an Arab pollster...

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 09:51 AM

If HA with Aoun as a front take over Lebanon they will send UNIFIL packing and Israel will be forced into another war. But that will be the smaller of Lebanon's problems. The economic sanctions and lack of loans will be the foremost issue Lebanon would have to deal with.

People just don't learn from the experience of others. Look what happened to the Palestinians after Hamas came into power.

Posted by: e at December 3, 2006 09:57 AM

About the poll mentioned previously, most Shiites name the US and Israel as the biggest threats, many Christians name Iran and Syria.

But the overall totals are striking.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/2006Lebanon.pdf

82% of Lebanese overall name Israel
60% of Lebanese overall name the US
27% name Syria
22% name Iran

Also, according to the poll, EVERY sect, including Christians and Druze, considers Israel a bigger threat than Iran.

But no results about how many Lebanese support Hezbollah, how many want Seniora to resign, how many want new elections.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 10:01 AM

Zak,

You're not the only one who's tired of it. I'm still waiting for the light bulb to go on and for people like Siniora and Jumblatt to realize that they have an identity of interests with Israel, and that there is no real dispute between them. Bashir Gemayel paid with his life for that realization. Maybe after all these years of being dominated by the Syrians and Hezbullah, the Lebanese people would be willing to try something different.

I'm also confused about the support Hezbullah has. I've read poll numbers that indicate that if elections were held today, Hezbullah would have 70% support. Were/Are those numbers correct? Or are they squandering that support through their current actions? Abu Kais? Michael?

Posted by: CarlinJerusalem at December 3, 2006 10:04 AM

Looking more closely, every sect considers Israel more of a threat than either Syria or Iran.

That is not good news for the government Israel is openly working to prop up.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795418.html

"The mounting crisis threatening the Siniora government in Lebanon, and the specter of a Hezbollah takeover, have spurred senior Israeli government officials in Jerusalem to raise several proposals in recent days aimed at strengthening Siniora, who faces street protests that Hezbollah has launched against his government."

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 10:04 AM

"Will Iran then use Lebanon in much the same way the Soviets aimed to use Cuba, as a forward base to threaten a wider swath of territory with their soon-to-be nuclear weapons? "

The world should stop thinking 'what would happen to Israel if Hezbollah overthrow the government' and start thinking 'what would happen to Lebanon and its democratic majority if Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies took power'. I have nothing but friendly feelings for the Israelis , but people must not analyze every regional development through an Israeli perspective.

Posted by: Vox P. at December 3, 2006 10:12 AM

Vox P:

Do you really think Hezbollah is unpopular in Lebanon, that the majority of Lebanese reject them so that Hezbollah can only take power by overcoming the "democratic majority"?

The only poll that asked directly since the war started said Hez has like 70% support.

The question that people should be asking is what will happen now that the vast majority of Lebanese support Hezbollah and prefer Syria and Iran to the United States and Israel and that vast majority wants to see its wishes reflected in government.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 10:24 AM

Over at one Lira the blog owner, who has written in support of Hizbullah before, posts an article that sounds sane until it mentions, in passing, that both Israel and Siniora are controlled by America, and that this a proxy war between Syria and the US.

See, Hizbullah may be controlled by Syria, but you're all controlled by infidels and therefor traitors to Islam! Completely insane.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 3, 2006 10:27 AM

Arnold Evans,

Yes. Hezbollah is unpopular with the majority of non-shia Lebanese. You can continue to live in your dellusional world where 90% of Lebanese are shia, and they all hate the US and Israel. But that's simply all it is: Dellusion.

Either you've never actually been to Lebanon and spoken to the people there, or you're just making stuff up for the sake of making a point.

Trust me, I am Lebanese, and every Lebanese person I know, inside or outside of Lebanon does not support Hezbollah. Nor do they hate the US or Israel. And this includes a lot of Shia too.

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 11:29 AM

Let me add to my previous comment.

For those of you familiar with Occam's razor. Or those who simply know that 9 times out of 10, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck! I say this:

It is pretty simple to separate common sense comments and analysis from those wild conspiracy theories that some people seem to have such a fondness to.

I look at the comments on this blog, and elsewhere. And I read the statements of these politicians and leaders, and it seems to me that the Hizbullah crowd always seems to have the wild conspiracy theories, and these statements and allegations with no basis in fact. There are a few salient arguments here and there (and believe me, I know that there actually ARE some reasonable people out there, even in Hizbullahland) but for the most part, when given wild statements like "The jews and Americans control everything", i tend to laugh. Specially when the counter arguments coming from the pro-democracy camp tend to be so much more rational and based in fact.

If you guys want to be taken seriously, try to arguing things based on facts. I'm guessing you can't, because there are no facts that support your wild assertions.

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 11:33 AM

I'm just going by the polls. I've never seen a poll that says what you are saying. Have you?

In the real world between 40 and 50% of Lebanese are Shia and somewhere around 60% of Lebanese are Muslim.

In the real world every community in Lebanon considers Israel a bigger threat to Lebanon than either Iran or Syria.

In the real world Hezbollah is far more popular in Lebanon than March 14 and Nasrallah is far more popular than Seniora today.

Hezbollah wants to negotiate folding its forces into the Lebanese army, but it wants to have as much leverage as Seniora, which means a veto. Then it wants the electoral law amended so that Shia are fully represented.

These are reasonable goals that Seniora opposes against the wishes of a majority of Lebanese at the insistence of the US and Israel.

If I was wrong, March 14 would call early elections and win them.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 11:36 AM

Again, no facts. Where'd you get that 50% of Lebanese are Shia? By your math, if 60% of Lebanese are muslims, and 50% are shia, then that means Sunnis are 10%...HAHAHAHA! Seriously, have you ever been to Lebanon? There are a good number of people in Tripoli, Akkar, and Beirut who might take a bit of offense at your math.

"In the real world" ???? Seriously. Have you actually been to Lebanon? Or is this "real world" something you just make up as you go?

I can't argue with you, obviously. Because you've already made up your mind in your fantasy world. And nothing i can do will convince you otherwise.

Here are some facts though:
- The sky is blue. (I am not sure what color it is in your "real world").
- On March 14 2004, the anti-syrian protests numbered close to 1 million people. Hezbollah did not participate in those protests. So I guess there's one million people, in Lebanon, who are not pro-syria or pro-Hezbollah. That doesn't really jive with your math back there. Does it?

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 11:44 AM

On March 14 2004, the anti-syrian protests numbered close to 1 million people.

This reminded me of something I saw the other day on As’ad AbuKhalil's blog the other day:

Did you know that the people who want to bring down the Siniora govenrment are extremely obese? This has been proven by none other than CNN. They calculated last year that about 1 million Hariri supporters filled Sahat al-Shuhada on March 14, whereas this year the people who filled the same Sahat in addition to Riyadh al-Solh Square and Bishara al-Khoury place and the Jisr al-Ring are "maybe 200,000" according to Brent Sadler. In other words, each demonstrateor today equals in body size about 7-10 March 14th demonstrators.

That's some serious weight discrepancy. Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 12:27 PM

Mubarek isn't exactly a friend of liberty and democracy, is he? Nor are the Saudis, whom one would expect to be one of the more prominent of the "many Arab countries" mentioned.

How are the meddling of these two dictatorships any better than the meddling of Syria?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 12:39 PM

1 - Hezbollah is more popular, again according to polls, than it was on March 14, 2004.

I know you and your friends don't like Hezbollah. And I know you think you and your friends are representative of Lebanon, but like Chalabi's friends wrongly predicted that Iraqis would welcome the US, your friends are probably not as representative as the samples drawn by professional polling organizations.

2 - 1 million anti-Hezbollah protesters in 2004 in a country of nearly 4 million does not make a majority and therefore does not contradict my point.

3 - I've seen estimates of 40% and 45% for the Shiite population. My range of 40-50% matches that. I said including Sunnis Muslims are around 60% of the population, making Sunnis and non-Shia around 10% to around 20%. There may be more. Around means approximate.

4 - OK now where are your numbers? You say Shia are not 40-50% of the population, what are they?

My point is that Hezbollah is a popular organization in Lebanon that wants and is entitled to commensurate political power and will probably end up getting it.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 12:44 PM

it is clear that there are people who will not sit and watch the militia and its Christian cover besieging their government and paralyzing the country.

Is there any other way, short of armed conflict, to fight back? If the country is paralyzed, won't the Shia blame Hezbollah for making everything fall apart? What could Hezbollah do, force March 14 to go to work Monday morning?

Posted by: Solomon2 at December 3, 2006 12:50 PM

How are the meddling of these two dictatorships any better than the meddling of Syria?

Because Mubarak and the Saudis arn't twarting Lebanese democracy through assasination of politicians. And they don't have have oppressive militia thugs goose-stepping around Lebanon, making the south a no-go area for the democratic government, starting wars, supporting terrorism and teaching a generation of Lebanese children to hate and want wars?

Oh, and they're not trying to topple the government in order to protect the principle that remote-control political assasination should always be free for Syria?

Stop me when I say something that's occured to you before.

You sure have a talent for missing the whole fucking story, DP.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 3, 2006 12:51 PM

I have nothing but friendly feelings for the Israelis , but people must not analyze every regional development through an Israeli perspective.

:) That's nice to hear, Vox P. I didn't mean to ignore the issue of the Lebanese at the expense of Israel. As far as Israel and Iran goes, the Shahab 3 can hit Israel, and so Iran doesn't need Lebanon to destroy Israel.

My point was that by gaining a toe-hold in Lebanon, Iran could then threaten Europe. That would mean the Lebanese would suffer the consequences, assuming the Europeans actually decide to defend themselves, which is far from certain.

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 12:53 PM

I'm done discussing this matter with Arnold Evans. Like I said, there's nothing I can say that will convince you that the sky isn't blue. shrug

You still haven't answered my question: Have you ever actually lived in Lebanon?

If you really believe that sunnis number 10-20% of the population, then I really don't know what to say.

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 12:58 PM

How are the meddling of these two dictatorships any better than the meddling of Syria?

Syria is closely allied to Shia Iran. Both Syria and Iran fund and support Shia Hezbollah, which is trying to overthrow the Lebanese government.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are Sunni countries. They are both wary of Shia radicalism, therefore it makes obvious sense that the Seniora government appreciates their diplomatic support.

Add that to Josh's comments, and I send Josh's sentiment that DP has one hell of a talent for ignoring the whole story and wasting everybody's time by turning the very serious issues we discuss here into little experiments in sophistry.

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 01:03 PM

I'm done discussing this matter with Arnold Evans. Like I said, there's nothing I can say that will convince you that the sky isn't blue.

DPU on BV's assertion that the sky is blue:

Isn't it true that on an overcast day the sky is grey? Further, why a bias towards blue at the expense of other colors the sky often turns during sunset or sunrise? Such as various hues of orange, red, yellow, etc.

If we call the sky blue it is dangerous, dangerous because we fail to appreciate the other colors that the sky can turn. We dehumanize other colors, which I believe is dangerous because blue is hardly a better or worse color than any other color, right?

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 01:07 PM

Very serious, indeed, very very serious. I'm terrible sorry for disturbing the weighty thoughts expressed by the deep thinkers like "Josh Scholar" and yourself. I'm only grateful that you have taken the time to visit here and share your very serious gems of wisdom with us, pearls before swine that they are.

One would have thought that simple argument would have sufficed here on a blog comment section,i it being for such things, but I'll take your stern rebuke to heart. How dare I actually pose a question to serious thinkers such as yourselves.

Shameful. I don't know what I was thinking.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 01:11 PM

DPU on BV's assertion that the sky is blue:

I hesitate to tremblingly point out, despite fear of another tongue-lashing from the weighty serious thinkers here, that you may have mistaken me for someone that said anything about blue sky, or addressing BV.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 01:15 PM

Arnold, I honestly have no idea where you are getting this information, but you need to research your facts before making such statements. Lebanon is a pluraity system dominated by 3 religious sects (shia, christian and sunni). The Christians are believed to represent 35-40% of the population, 35-40% are Shia, 20% are sunni and the rest are druze, armenian, etc. (Source: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html). I don't know if you're just clueless or have a hidden agenda, but Lebanon is certainly not 70-90% Shia. For your information, I am Shia and I love the US and thank President Bush for his support. I hate Syria and the Butcher of Damascus and I hate Hizbullah even more. I want a united and free Lebanon where all Lebanese have equal rights. These thugs in downtown Beirut do not represent me or my family. For your information, I do not know a single Lebanese, shia or otherwise, who harbor nothing but ill feelings towards the Syrian gvt (which makes me wonder if you are Syrian yourself). So please do some research before making such outrageous false claims.

Thank you

Posted by: Maya at December 3, 2006 01:16 PM

I don't know what I was thinking.

Well I certainly can't imagine why you wanted to draw a moral equivalency for assasination and trying to create a fascist state inside of a democratic one, and say, calling a democratic leader on the phone to express your support.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 3, 2006 01:17 PM

Josh, please, I beg you, waste no more brain cells on me. I am an seriousness thinker, unused to the rarefied heights that your and Zak's serious discussions take wing to. I will just remain here lurking, reading your serious thoughts, and hoping to understand them and avoid missing the whole fucking story.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 01:21 PM

Maya,

Arnold Evans clearly won't let actual facts from people who actually live there (like yourself) change his preconceived notions.

All,
About my "The sky is blue" comment. I realize it can be grey or overcast or whatever ;)
My point was that sometimes, something is plain as day for all to see, and is pretty much scientifically indisputable, yet some people will still maintain it to be not so. Nothing we can do to convince people like that.

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 01:23 PM

I am an seriousness thinker, unused to the rarefied heights that your and Zak's serious discussions take wing to.

Wile E. Coyote, thuuper genius!

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 3, 2006 01:25 PM

I'm done discussing this matter with Arnold Evans. Like I said, there's nothing I can say that will convince you that the sky isn't blue.

BV, I wasn't taking you literally. I was making fun of the way DPU has tried to pick apart other's arguments before, like he did with me when he asked me to find examples of Angry Arab's blog "dripping" with hatred.

I was making fun of DPU, not you.

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 01:48 PM

Zak,

It's cool. I wasn't addressing that to you specifically :)

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 02:07 PM

I don't know if you're just clueless or have a hidden agenda, but Lebanon is certainly not 70-90% Shia.

Umm, are you reading the same comments section that I am writing in? For the fourth or fifth time in this comments section (scroll up and check), I'll say my understanding is that Lebanon is between 40 and 50% Shia.

All of the estimates that purport to be current that I've seen over the last year are in that range.

You say Lebanon is between 35 and 40% Shia. Those numbers may well be outdated. But that is actually not that big a difference.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 02:08 PM

BV:

Professional administered weighted polls trump "I've been there".

The polls said near the end of the war that Hezbollah had popularity ratings over 70% among all Lebanese taken together.

The polls say that 45% of Lebanese are more supportive of Hez than before the war vs. 28% who are less.

The polls say 82% of Lebanese consider Israel one of the two most threatening countries while less than 30% of Lebanese say that about Syria (60% of Lebanese consider the US one of the two most threatening)

I said Sunnis are 10-20% of the population, maybe more. (Scroll up and check) You say you don't know what to say. CIA factbook, according to Maya, says Sunnis are 20% of the population. I don't know what to say either.

Trying to debate me would just be embarrassing for you. I applaud your being insightful enough to bow out.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 02:17 PM

I was making fun of the way DPU has tried to pick apart other's arguments before, like he did with me when he asked me to find examples of Angry Arab's blog "dripping" with hatred.

Wow, you're really hanging on to that, Zak. Would you like to start discussing it again? If it meets your qualifications as "very serious", of course.

As I said, if Angry Arab's blog is "dripping with hatred" toward America, it should be child's play for you to find a single instance of that to cite. Just one. It is, after all, dripping with it.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 3, 2006 02:22 PM

Yeah, Arnold, That's it. I'm too scared of your debating skills, so i'm bowing out. Whatever you think :)

Weren't you the one who said polls can be biased in an earlier comment? (Yes, I do read your comments!)

PS: I've seen polls that indicate numbers different than yours.

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 02:33 PM

Walid Fares has an interesting piece over at Counterterrorism Blog:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/12/hizballahs_offensive_in_lebano.php

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 03:04 PM

Right when I was admiring your smartly ducking out of this discussion ...

No, I said I suspect we are not seeing polling data about the current levels of support for Hezbollah, Nasrallah, March 14 and Seniora because the pollsters are Western organizations that are avoiding the unpleasant reality.

I did not say earlier that polls themselves can be biased. (Reread the comment)

Polls can be biased but I have no evidence that they are in this case and we both should take them as far more reliable than "you and your friends inside and outside of Lebanon" as indicators of the public mood in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is a popular organization that is attempting to get a political position that matches its popularity with the Lebanese people.

What polls have you seen? What numbers have they produced?

I doubt you've seen a professionally administered poll taken after summer 2006 that shows more support among Lebanese as a whole for March 14 than for Hezbollah.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 03:17 PM

This may help:

an-Nahar, published on February 10, 2005, a demographic statistical study which put the relative percentages of approximately 3 million members of the voting public as 26.5 percent Sunni Muslim, 26.2 percent Shi'a Muslim, 40.8 percent Christian (Maronites representing 21.1 percent) and 5.6 percent Druze.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51604.htm

Posted by: Mertel at December 3, 2006 03:28 PM

Arnold Evans,

Walid Phares states that the bias is going the opposite direction: the Western media outlets are biased in favor of Hezbollah. They've been skewing their coverage towards presenting Hezbollah's protest as merely some sort of ordinary protest. Certainly al-Jazeera and others have an interest in presenting Hezbollah favorably and could conduct arrange for polling to be conducted. They haven't however. Why is that?

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 03:40 PM

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85405/vali-nasr/when-the-shiites-rise.html

Vali Nasr, writing for Foreign Affairs magazine, estimates that Shiites are 45% of the population

The mantra "one man, one vote," which galvanized Shiites in Iraq, is resonating elsewhere. The Shiites of Lebanon (who amount to about 45 percent of the country's population) have touted the formula, as have the Shiites in Bahrain (who represent about 75 percent of the population there), who will cast their ballots in parliamentary elections in the fall.

The reason Hezbollah is trying to force new elections is because Hezbollah is sure, based on its take on the mood in Lebanon and on poll results, that new elections will sweep them into power.

The reason Seniora (with US, European, Israeli and Saudi support) is avoiding new elections is because he is sure, based on his take on the mood in Lebanon and on poll results, that new elections will sweep him out of power.

Like Palestine and Iraq, the United States can only tolerate democracy in the Middle East if the United States gets to pick the side that wins.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 03:48 PM

Tommy:

Every poll I've seen looks good for Hezbollah. What poll have you seen?

One side is calling for new elections and the other side is against that. One side is calling for one-person one-vote and the other side is against that.

What do you make of that?

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 03:50 PM

Arnold Evans,

45% does not constitute a majority, even if you presume that every Shiite is behind Hezbollah (which, as Phares' article makes clear, isn't the case either). Aside from Hezbollah, what other major force is there? Aoun. Aoun is so unpopular with the larger Christian population in Lebanon that being an open Aounist is a good way to get yourself beat up.

By the standards of massive Lebanese rallies, 250,000 is not an overwhelming number. It is one-sixth the number rallied by March 14. (If I recall correctly, Hezbollah was previously able to draw 500,000+ to its events. The fact that they can only get 250,000 this time around is rather surprising.) Even assuming that support for March 14 dropped in half, they would be able to mass three times as many supporters as Hezbollah has managed.

Your idea that the mass media doesn't want to embarrass the west is plainly absurd. The left is always anxious to seek out any news that looks bad for the Bush administration. Last I checked, the mainstream media was an overwhelmingly left-leaning force. Put perhaps you thought the mainstream media was composed of mostly a bunch of right-wing neoconservatives intent on protecting Bush at all costs. Maybe the New York Times doesn't want Bush's credibility to suffer, right?

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 03:58 PM

Could you please explain how Israel exerts any pressure or support that somehow props-up or emboldens the Seniora government?

If you cannot, than please shut with your freakin' consiracy theories!

Posted by: Zak at December 3, 2006 03:59 PM

What do you make of that?

Gee, I don't know Arnold. Maybe an attempt at intimidation? Maybe a pretext for open violence? You know, some people have been assassinated lately, or have you not been paying attention?

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 04:00 PM

Arnold Evans whole game here is to presume that Hezbollah's entire take on who supports and props up the Lebanese government is entirely correct and adhered to by the majority of Lebanese. So, according to Evans, dislike of Israel and the United States translates into dislike of Saniora and support for Hezbolalh, since he is "clearly" a Zionist lackey.

Never mind, the fact that Saniora himself has never expressed much support for Israel. Never mind that many Hezbollah supporters probably don't really buy it themselves. And finally, never mind that you would have likely obtained overwhelming dislike of Israel and the Bush administration even when the March 14 coalition was at the height of its popularity.

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 04:05 PM

Arnold,

First, forgive my earlier tone. It is a day when emotions are running high, so I may have taken it out on you, when I felt you were lumping all Lebanese under the Hizbollah banner.
I'm not really sure what is your point exactly? Are you saying that Hezbollah is representative of the majority of Lebanese opinion and that the US is viewed as a far worse ennemy than Syria? I think it is important to remember that polls conducted in Lebanon can be unreliable. No one living in the Bekaa Valley for example will dare utter anything negative about Syria, while it is easy to blame the US, knowing that President Bush does not send his goons to kill you like Assad does. Second, while there are no reliable polls about the perc of Shias in Lebanon, I think we can agree that they may be the largest single group, but they are not a majority on their own. The Sunnis and Christians represent at least 60perc. Furthermore, Lebanon has a sectarian political system, i.e. each political group is representative of a religious sect. Gven that the Hezbollah rely on bribes and intimidations as needed, they will always get the Shia vote. Those who tried to run for gvt when the Hezb ministers resigned received death fatwas. I can assure you that not all Shias support Hezbollah whom we believe has highjacked Lebanon. Nevertheless, they are an extention of the Iranian army and have the support of the large Syrian intelligence apparatus terrorizing Lebanon. Please keep that in mind before you draw your conclusion. Moderate Shias and all Lebanese need all the help we can get from the leaders of the free world. We are not all Hezbollah, but rather hostages of Hezbollah, and I can only say this while hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

Posted by: Maya at December 3, 2006 04:16 PM

It is not the case that everyone in Lebanon who is not Shiite opposes Hezbollah. According to the poll taken during the summer, Hezbollah had majority support from Sunnis and substantial support from everyone else.

Earlier in this comment thread you will find a quote that senior Israeli government officials are discussing ways to help Seniora along with a link from Haaretz. (Scroll up and check.)

It is reasonable that a population that considers Israel the biggest external threat will have less support for the party Israel openly favors.

According to the only poll I've seen, more Lebanese support Hezbollah than did before the war.

I've seen crowd estimates of 250,000, I've seen estimates of over 1,000,000. I've seen statements that the crowd filled a bigger area than the March 14, 2004 demonstrations. You can be as impressed as you want to be about crowd estimates.

More important are the polls. I have not seen any that say March 14 is as popular in Lebanon after the war as Hezbollah. I have not seen any that say Seniora is as popular as Nasrallah. I have not seen any that oppose electing a new government.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 04:20 PM

Arnold,

Democracy is about more than just elections. And it certainly has nothing to do with assasinating elected officials, and having armed militias deciding to oust governments and hold new elections just cause they feel like it...

Posted by: Mertel at December 3, 2006 04:20 PM

The Shiites of Lebanon (who amount to about 45 percent of the country's population) have touted the formula, as have the Shiites in Bahrain (who represent about 75 percent of the population there), who will cast their ballots in parliamentary elections in the fall.

----------

I think that vali nasr for some reason (maybe to make his point stronger) skewed the figures .. articles i was reading recently in new york times and economist all cited the shiites' share in the bahraini population at 60%

Posted by: nobody at December 3, 2006 04:26 PM

Maya:

I'll spell my points out again:

1- Today Hezbollah is more popular than March 14
2- Hezbollah is less powerful politically than it would be if Lebanon had a one-person one-vote system.
3- Hezbollah advocating new elections, even through civil disobedience, with the understanding that it will do well in these elections is more admirable than sinister.
4- After winning the elections, Hezbollah plans on reforming the electoral system in a way that brings it closer to one-person one-vote.
5- There are people who do not like Hezbollah. There are people who do like Hezbollah. If elections are held where all Lebanese can vote as they please, Hezbollah expects its supporters to outnumber its detracters. I think Hezbollah is right.
6- The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia have aligned themselves against the idea of one-person one-vote because they do not like the group that will win. They are wrong for this.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 04:27 PM

Tommy

Great article by Walid Phares. Thank you for sharing.

Posted by: Maya at December 3, 2006 04:28 PM

Tommy:

Nope.

In Lebanon Parliament can call new elections by voting no confidence in the cabinet, at any time.

Non-violent measures to get parliament to take a constitutional action are the essence of democracy, including civil disobedience.

It is democracy, you just don't like who will win.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 04:31 PM

Obviously, Mr. Arnold here is right. After all, the fact that we all disagree with his perception of reality must mean we are all on drugs, or delusional. :)

Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 3, 2006 04:33 PM

Arnold Evans,

You haven't presented any polls of the form of "if the elections were held today, who would you vote for." Nasrallah isn't running for political office personally and all the polls you keep referring to talk about subjects like "who is to blame for the war" and "who do you fear is more of a threat to Lebanon."

Besides, the fact that somebody may be more popular than someone else is almost irrelevant in a country with so many factions. If candidate X has the support of 25% of the voting population while candidate Y has the support of 15% of the voting population, that doesn't mean that the person with 25% is going to carry an election. Here you are going even further and comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing Saniora to Nasrallah. One a politician, the other a party bureaucrat and cleric.

You have to ask the question: not "who do you personally like better" but "who would you support: Nasrallah's candidate or the March 14 candidate?" Short of answers to those questions, the polling results you have are not very telling of anything.

You are making assertions that lie way beyond the evidence you have in front of you. Extrapolating from your polling data would be questionable in a country with only two major divisions. It is totally ridiculous in a country as divided as Lebanon.

The bottom line is that Hezbollah has no right to force out a democratically-elected government prematurely through violence, murder, and intimidation.

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 04:38 PM

Obviously, Mr. Arnold here is right. After all, the fact that we all disagree with his perception of reality must mean we are all on drugs, or delusional. :)

---------

the ethnic composition of lebanon is a problematic ubject .. and i bet nobody knows it for sure ..

still it is amazing to read a westerner who is so obstinately trying to prove that the fundamentalist hezbollah is good and admirable and darling of any honest person in lebanon while all the rest are shit...

reminds me of those western leftists who were coming to the soviet union as tourists to teach us how good is to live under communism

Posted by: nobody at December 3, 2006 04:38 PM

i bet arnold is the second generation of these leftist lunatuics

Posted by: nobody at December 3, 2006 04:40 PM

Arnold,

It is obvious that you have made up your mind and refuses to hear from us Lebanese who live in the country that you have decided you know better. You are of course entitled to your opinion and I can respectfully diagree. This is not a civilian protest in downtown Beirut, but a siege. Hezbollah is not a political party, it is a well armed, well trained, well funded militia. If it chooses to disarm and let the Lebanese electorate decide, without any intimidation by Syria or the Hizb, then you can truly have a fair one-vote-one-man system. Nevertheless, when a well armed militia takes over the Centre-ville of Beirut, you cannot view it as a civilian protest. Why do you think the March 14 supporters are staying at home and hoping that this will blow over? Because they know they risk getting into a military conflict with Hezb. In a true democracy like the United States, you can bicker and have shouting matches, but you are free to vote for the candidate of your choice, without fearing for your life. I hope that can help you see the difference. If not, I give up and hope that the rest of the world does not view Hezb with the same rosy colored glasses you do. For the sake of a free Lebanon and my fellow Lebanese, I sure hope not many share your views. We are watching our country destroyed and you find the thugs who are destroying it "admirable"!!!

Posted by: Maya at December 3, 2006 04:45 PM

In Lebanon Parliament can call new elections by voting no confidence in the cabinet, at any time.

You are really grasping for straws. I'm well aware of how it works. That is why Hezbollah and pals wanted to take out those two cabinet people. They want to use undemocratic methods to force another election prematurely. If various factions are allowed to call elections using force every time they think it is advantageous to them it would be utter chaos. Even if Saniora's government isn't very popular currently, you don't force him out by killing his people. You have to wait until the next election cycle. Short of an honest, straightforward, cabinet vote, Saniora has every right to use the time available to him build up his popularity and campaign the way Hezbollah has been doing. Hezbollah and Syria have no right to use coercion and murder to get their way.

Posted by: tommy at December 3, 2006 04:46 PM

Tommy:

Since you pressed, there is no evidence that Syria or Hezbollah are behind killing Gemayal. The killing set back the civil disobedience campaign that was already planned by two weeks. The organizers of the killing knew it would be at least a temporary setback for Hezbollah as did every knowledgable observer.

Hezbollah's plan has been to make the country ungovernable and force parliament to bring new elections. A group that has enough support to do this but because of the electoral system does not have the votes to do this directly has every right to do it.

What we actually see Hezbollah doing is legitimate democratic tactics. Hezbollah does not have to wait for elections, it can get parliament to bring elections. Hezbollah refusing to wait for the next election cycle is not undemocratic in Lebanon.

What you accuse Hezbollah of doing, without evidence, is not legitimate, but maybe Hezbollah is not responsible for that.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 04:54 PM

Arnold,

It is obvious that you have made up your mind and refuses to hear from us Lebanese who live in the country that you have decided you know better.

-----------

maya

of course he decided in advance who are the bad guys and who are the good guys .. you are just a cannon fodder for the ideology of these people .. even if you would get killed by hezbollah he would accuse you of being violent ... there is only one thing that interests these people - to make their ideological point .. facts , human lives .. whatever is sacrificed for the sake of ideology

Posted by: nobody at December 3, 2006 04:57 PM

NASRALLAH’S PLAN
Is now fairly clear. He wants to continue these “peaceful protests” for the next few days, keeping his weapons ready, but hidden. He has already begun deliberately baiting the Sunni’s by marching through their areas, “peacefully”. He WANTS the Sunni’s to shoot at his men. Then he can claim that his men had to shoot back in self-defence (an old Nazi trick). Thus the civil war begins. (I think he’s hoping for this Wednesday). Iran and Syria will contribute weapons and fighters. He seems to bet that many Lebanese will emigrate, and the remainder will be outnumbered, and outgunned, and quit. He can then take over the government, and declare himself ruler for life. Uncooperative Lebanese will be quietly killed. Shortly thereafter, he will declare total war (Kriegs Total) against Israel. This will unite the country against an external enemy (another old Nazi trick). Nasrallah does not seem to care much about the lives of the Lebanese – he responds to his Iranian paymasters. But how else can an ambitious man get to run his own country? The problem is, Nasrallah does make mistakes, and his plan will probably not work so easily. Many Lebanese are already armed, and the Saudis, and others, will supply massive amounts of better weapons to the opposition groups. Massive bloodshed will ensue. The country could be mired in civil war for years (again). However, Iran and Syria will be satisfied, because Lebanese democracy will be dead, and no longer a threat to them. The stunning thing is how quickly this can happen. Hitler, who started with less popular support than Nasrallah, took control very quickly, and burned the parliament, to prevent the return of democracy. In three weeks, Lebanon could become a completely different country.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at December 3, 2006 04:57 PM

Tommy

I have seen polls that indicate that Hezbollah has strong support in Lebanon.

I have not seen polls that directly ask who would win an election, I wish I had because I would be eager to use them here.

The evidence that Hezbollah is not popular is not in the form of polls, it is in the form of "me and my friends don't like them". My polls beat that evidence.

A demonstration without violence is non-violent. Period. Hezbollah as so far been using non-violent civil disobedience. The fact that it has an army does not make a non-violent demonstration violent.

Maya:

I know you don't like Hezbollah. I do not think most Lebanese agree with you. I've never been there but polls beat being there.

You can prove me wrong by presenting a poll that says most Lebanese agree with you.

Seniora can prove me wrong by asking for a new election and winning it.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 05:06 PM

OK Arnold, you've made your point. I guess Hezbollah=good and Siniora=bad. Thank you for enlightening us all. Nevertheless, please don't insult the martyrs of Lebanon, from its favorite son Harriri, to Gibran Tweini, to Samir Kassir, to Pierre Gemayel, to Kamal Jumblatt, Rene Mouawad, Bashir Gemayel and the 241 marines who died here, my list goes on. The fact that you do not understand that whenever a Syrian opposition leader is murdered in Lebanon, the blood trail can be seen all the way to Damascus, truly shows that you have a very superficial understanding of Lebanese politics. I strongly advise you to go to Lebanon, stand on a soap box and insult Bashar. Let's see how long before you are silenced. Nice knowing you pal. They'll feed you a lot of "barrazek" in Damascus. Oh, wait, you won't understand that joke, right? You have to be a Lebanese who lived under the boots of Syria to get that.

Posted by: Maya at December 3, 2006 05:07 PM

DR:

That sure is a dastardly plan you've come up with and are pretending Nasrallah came up with.

Seniora could avoid that by calling for new elections or giving the Shia enough cabinet members that March 14 and Hezbollah both have vetos over government policy. Why do you think he doesn't? Because he is secretly working for Nasrallah?

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 05:12 PM

Maya:

My point is more like Hezbollah=popular March 14=unpopular.

So in a democracy, Hezbollah should have more political power than March 14.

My opinion on good and bad is not important, only the opinions of Lebanese.

You are one Lebanese who does not like Hezbollah. If most Lebanese agree with you, Hezbollah should not gain power. If most Lebanese disagree with you, Hezbollah should gain power.

Posted by: Arnold Evans at December 3, 2006 05:14 PM

Arnold knows shit:

In Lebanon Parliament can call new elections by voting no confidence in the cabinet, at any time.

FALSE.

Voting "no confidence" means the end of the government, NOT new elections. Lebanon does not have a PARLIAMENTARY system.

If the gvmnt falls in the above fashion, the SAME parliament and the same idiot Prez consult to name a new PM (who could be the same) who will form the new gvmnt.

I repeat, No election, parliament stays the same.

Posted by: JoseyWales at December 3, 2006 05:49 PM

And Arnold ,

Lebanon, and the US, and many others, are NOT democracies. They are constitutional republics. Look up the difference.

Posted by: JoseyWales at December 3, 2006 05:52 PM

Arnie baby:

It's great to see such admiration of democracy in the same vein as your heroes, (no doubt), Chomsky, Chavez and the rest of you pseudo -humanist PC left-wing freakos.

Since your so interested in democracy, I'm sure that a brief perusal of Churchill's version will undoubtedly enlighten you as to just how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

Left or right, a fascist is still a fascist, despite the platitudes and the deceptions.

BTW it's just so interesting to note that at this moment, the Chavez chump is using the army to re-open polling stations that had been closed so his thugs could use "democratic principles"to ensure his stooges will continue to stuff the ballet boxes. Perhaps he has another New Year's eve speech planned about the "Christ-killers" that will most assuredly cement all of our perceptions about his commitment to democratic principles in solidarity with his buddies, those great icons of democracy, the hizbo fatso and the chimp of Tehran, who incidentally presides over the daily democratically-imposed executions of political dissidents.

I just love you useful idiots.

Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at December 3, 2006 05:52 PM

Did Arnold just say March 14 = unpopular ?

He just keeps digging himself in a deeper hole.

Posted by: Jono at December 3, 2006 06:24 PM

Who is Arnold Evans? I mean really.

Posted by: Todd Grimson at December 3, 2006 09:22 PM

Here's my question to everyone.

I would assume that all of those Hezbollah supporters don't realize that they're being mobilized just to save Assad and make Lebanon safe for assasination.

So what DO they think they're doing out there?

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 3, 2006 10:35 PM

Arnold:

"there is no evidence that Syria or Hezbollah are behind killing Gemayal."

OK, so who do you think did it (along with the assassination of several others opposed to the Syrian occupationn in the past year)? Out with it.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at December 3, 2006 10:58 PM

I am one of many Americans working here in Iraq with the Iraqi people side by side everyday to help improve the living conditions which by best standards are deplorable.

I read so much of what has been said in this blog and it is sad.

The Iraqi people, whether they be Sunni, Shia or Christian, do not judge me as American.
They have told me enough in the last 3 years I am like their brother, why, because we do not work together as politicians or as armies but people working together to build something.

You talk about polls.

The poll numbers take the everage of 1000 voices and they say it speaks for 1,000,000 of others.

Do the math.

Whethere you are from the Middle East, the Far East, Europe, Asia or the USA, everyone wants the same thing, to be able to be properous, have a safe and secure home, social life and their children to be happy. And many many other things.

Do the math.

The leaders of many countries live in style of a lavish life while so many who they are responsible for are suffering from food shortage and housing.

Hisbullah, Hamas, talk for the people?
Is this while they are sitting in there lavish homes eating rack of lamb and drinking french wine, that are feeling badly for their people they supposely represent?

Get a clue and stop with the religious rethoric, there will never be world peace ust others who want to impose their unhappiness on others so they will feel good about themself.

Posted by: foreignaffair at December 4, 2006 12:01 AM

Arnold Evans, I am going to politely ask you to restrict your comments to two per thread.

Thank you in advance for complying.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 4, 2006 01:54 AM

By the way, Lebanon is a very tiny country, and I know the place from the southern border all the way up to the top, from the Israeli fence, to the Mediterranean, to the anti-Lebanon mountains on the border with Syria and right up near the coast by Lattakia. I know PRECISELY who lives where and at what density. The ideas that the Shia are 40-50 percent of the population, that most Lebanese rank Israel as a greater threat than Syria, or that most support Hezbollah, is completely fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 4, 2006 02:06 AM

Also, public opinion polls taken during the summer war don't count any more. Israel was attacking Lebanon then, and Hezbollah was fighting back. Now that this situation no longer holds, public opinion has reverted back to the baseline, which is that Syria is the main enemy. This is especially true now that the private army of an enemy state is trying to overthrow the democratically elected popular government.

Arnold Evans is, presumably, in the United States. I would love to see what Lebanese would say to him if he spouted his brand of nonsense in Beirut. The reaction he is receiving from Lebanese of all sects here in this comments section is a nice preview of what will happen to him if he ever decides to pay a visit.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 4, 2006 02:23 AM

I don't know, Michael. I think all of us owe Arnold a huge debt for so clearly and articulately describing the utter confusion that reigns in the minds of so many.

Polls indeed.

It would be funny if the ramifications weren't so awful.

Still, one must believe that the truth will eventually overcome.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 4, 2006 04:16 AM

My apologies for not being able to contribute to the comments section. The little time I have is spent between work and writing entries.

Regarding "polls", Lebanon isn't the US, and politicians do not hang their policies on polls. For that, you should not let them drive what you believe is happening on the Lebanese scene. That said, the few Beirut-based polling firms are very far from being independent. I would take the results of their surveys with a grain of salt. Lebanese political affiliations are very hard to gauge, and many refuse to divulge them because this is a country that suffered the terror of militias and Syrian intelligence for a long time. To this day, when a survey company calls my family, they hang up. They refuse to give out information that could be used against them (and was during the war. My father was kidnapped by the Christian Lebanese Forces for being a Shia).

As for Shia making up 45-50% of the Lebanese population, this is wrong. There hasn't been a census in the country since 1932. The closest thing we have is a recent survey based on ID cards that put the number at 30%. I will try to find you the link, though it shouldn't matter.

Lebanon is ruled through a National Pact, which distributes power equally between Muslims and Christians. No one sect can dominate the other, each have their pre-determined number of seats in parliament. Not even Hizbullah is asking for more seats or more representation. They want control over the government by picking the Sunni prime minister, and having a blocking vote in the cabinet. They also want new elections, not because they, the Shia, are underrepresented, but because their pro-Syrian allies are. The whole resignation from the cabinet is a charade. They tried to make it look like the Shia sect is lacking representation but that is not the case. Hizbullah was initially asking for pro-Syrian ministers to join the cabinet to ensure that decisions do not harm Syrian interests. One such decision involved the Hariri tribunal, which would bring the Hariri killers to justice.

So this is NOT about an underrepresented sect. This is about a perceived underrepresented direction in national policymaking. In simple terms, this is about pro-Syrian vs pro-Lebanon.

Posted by: Abu Kais at December 4, 2006 05:28 AM

Excellent summary, Abu Kais!

That's really the crux of the matter. This is why I've been harping repeatedly about the notions of Democracy. Ruling party vs. opposition. and such notions that seem so foreign to Lebanon.

The best equivalent I could describe it as, for the Western audience, would be a scenario where the Democracts in the US, are unhappy that the Republican administration (which was voted in fair and square) is making decisions without them. They then demand to be included in the cabinet, and to have veto power over President Bush's decisions.
When the pres says "Sorry, no can do." They decide to resort to street protests, and call the current administration illegitimate.
Oh, and the Dems happen to also have their own private army and 30,000 rockets to backup their "peaceful protests".

Now you tell me, American readers. What would you call that?

Posted by: BadVilbel at December 4, 2006 11:26 AM

Now you tell me, American readers. What would you call that?

Up to the private army with 30K rockets, I would say - business as usual. ;-\

Posted by: jdwill at December 4, 2006 01:21 PM

Haha! Good point, jdwill.
But seriously, even the Dems don't act that way over here. They try to go about things as constitutionally as politicians know how to :)
They wait their turn to the next elections, like in any good proper Democratic system, with respect for elections and the rule of law.

Posted by: BadVilbel at December 4, 2006 01:26 PM

Michael Totten, you seem to be, and I hadn't formed this opinion before coincidentally reading this survey today, regarding lebanese public opinion, quite possibly totally and unequivocally wrong. Certainly the evidence is strongly counter to your suggestion.

Link:

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/2006Lebanon.pdf

Personally, although I respect the sentiments and probably agree with many of the principles of people on this blog I find the level of wishful thinking, false equivalence, and bombastic rhetoric to have been dangerously high around recently.

And your tendency to boot people out of your blog because on populist, at best, principles continues to dissapoint me. You say you don't like to be a babysitter? Then stop babysitting the fragile sensibilities of your fan base!

glasnost

Posted by: glasnost at December 4, 2006 02:38 PM

If you're too lazy to look at the entire slide set, I suggest looking at Slide 34. This survey:

#1: was taken last month, not during the war.

#2: Shows Israel as ranked the #1 threat by a majority of all Lebanese ethnic groups, and the US as #2 by Sunnis and Shiites, as well as by 25% of Christians. Syria only reaches the #2 threat with Christians and Druze.

#3. The Brookings institution, which sponsored this survey, is an extremely well-respected, bipartisan, centrist think tank that, among other examples, provides consensus (and woefully underestimated, but sadly, still consensus) numbers in Iraqi casualties, for example.
Accusations of leftist bias are wishful thinking.

#4. Which is more likely, that the Brookings institution fabricated this poll, or that the opinions of Mike and his audience do not represent a scientific sample of Lebanese opinion? The "everybody I know here thinks" form of evidence is a historically unreliable one.

Posted by: glasnost at December 4, 2006 03:24 PM

Hi Glasnot,

I reviewed the link you had offered and there is no information on how that data was gathered,i.e. what sample size was used and if it was truly a random sample taken from each religious sect. I have to say that I am surprised at how people like you and Arnold tenaciously hold on to preconceived beliefs and unreliable polling numbers, rather than listen to the voices of people on the ground who live, breath what is happening in Lebanon. To you, it may be just another chapter in the endless quagmire that is called the middle east. To us, it represents our livelihood and our future. Lebanon is at a very dangerous crossroads and apart from the hard core Hizbullah supporters, the rest of the Lebanese population is united in their desire for a free and united Lebanon outside of Syria's control. I know you dismiss our statement "me and everyone I know hates Hizbullah", but I said it in response to a comment that lumped all of us Shia under the Hizbullah banner. Do you think I am just so unique, that there are no other Shias like me, that hate Hizballah, but are silenced by their military hegemony and their alliance with the Syrian intelligence? My distrust of these polls has nothing to do with the institution that conducted them, but because I have an inside view of how Lebanese respond to the poll questions. My family for example will not be caught dead saying anything negative about Hizballah or Syria. We've already paid a heavy price for that. If a pollster calls them, they will simply hang up and if he shows up at their door, they will give him the safest answer they can think off, i.e. US = biggest threat for Lebanese peace (last time I checked, the CIA does not kill you for bad mouthing America, Syria and the Hizb will kill you for criticizing them) and the winner of the last war was Hizballah. Actually that is not even a lie. I personally believe that the biggest winner of the last Israeli-Hizb conflict (in terms of Arab public opinion rather than militarily) was the Hizb and that the Israelis lost the most in its aftermath. No one fears them anymore and Israel cannot afford not to be feared by the extremist who are bent on destroying it. We truly hoped that they were going to help us defeat Hizballah this past summer, but alas they did only succeed in weakening the March 14th government. You know what most Lebanese think right now. If the Israelis could not take out Hizballah, who can? The repercussions of the aftermath of this summer war will be disastrous on both Lebanon and Israel because I have no doubt that Hizballah will attack them again and drag Lebanon into another proxy war for Iran and Syria. Given that people like you have already judged us as unworthy of help, I am grateful that people like Michael Tottem have the insight and integrity to bring our plight to the rest of the world. God bless you Mike and you. Abu Qais. Thank you.

Posted by: Maya at December 4, 2006 06:48 PM

Maya, you judge me as quickly and with as little knowledge as you think that I judge you.

I'm no friend of Hizb.
But before that, I'm no friend of irresponsible behavior, inaccuracy, and the emotional dynamics that lead to slow-motion sociopolitical disasters. I don't think this qualifies as a coup attempt based on a set of empirical criteria.

But more importantly, I think that a genuine understanding of how the Lebanese people view Syria, Hizb, March 14, etc, is essential to formulating intelligent policy. The most authoritarian regimes often have the greatest capacity for self-delusion.

People here like to paint Hizb as a freelancing band of buckaneers holding Lebanon hostage, and the situation is just more complex than that. Anyone who tries to make policy based on that picture of Lebanon is throwing the Lebanese people into a meat grinder.

A similar abysmal naievete about the opinions of Iraqis - a naivete held by Iraqi exiles themselves- drove American policy. We created the conditions for the Iraqis to turn their country into a wasteland.

I read Iraqi blogs and I read Lebanese blogs, and frankly, the Iraqi blogs echo with a fear and pain that the Lebanese blogs form hardly a pale echo of.

I criticize unrealistic fantasies here because I don't want to see similar results.

It's important for March 14 and Hizb to avoid walking off the plank. If they do, both sides will blame the other, but they'll have done it together. This blog is one little testimonial to that among many, but it's always the same, at least among fairly even force distributions.

Glasnost

Posted by: glasnost at December 4, 2006 08:52 PM

Time to haul out Walid Phares assessment of and warnings about Hezbullah/Syrian/Iranian intentions, from July 23th.

Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 4, 2006 11:51 PM

Michael's blog, Michael's rules. If the rules here are not to your liking, I suggest starting your own. It is quite easy.

As far as Lebanese polls are concerned:

It seems very probable that people in a country that recently endured a long and ugly civil war followed by a military occupation by a police state might possibly be reluctant to give completely frank answers to an anonymous voice on the other end of a phone line.

I don't mind such polls because I like to express my opinion, and because I am absolutely certain that whatever I say will have no consequence worse than being on the receiving end of more telephone polls in the future. This is one of the many perks associated with living in the United States (and several other western democracies), you should not assume that everywhere is like that.

As Abu Kais said earlier:

I would take the results of their surveys with a grain of salt. Lebanese political affiliations are very hard to gauge, and many refuse to divulge them because this is a country that suffered the terror of militias and Syrian intelligence for a long time. To this day, when a survey company calls my family, they hang up. They refuse to give out information that could be used against them (and was during the war. My father was kidnapped by the Christian Lebanese Forces for being a Shia).
-AK

Do you think I am just so unique, that there are no other Shias like me, that hate Hizballah, but are silenced by their military hegemony and their alliance with the Syrian intelligence? My distrust of these polls has nothing to do with the institution that conducted them, but because I have an inside view of how Lebanese respond to the poll questions. My family for example will not be caught dead saying anything negative about Hizballah or Syria. We've already paid a heavy price for that. If a pollster calls them, they will simply hang up and if he shows up at their door, they will give him the safest answer they can think off, i.e. US = biggest threat for Lebanese peace (last time I checked, the CIA does not kill you for bad mouthing America, Syria and the Hizb will kill you for criticizing them) and the winner of the last war was Hizballah.
-Maya

The person being polled probably doesn't know who is conducting the poll, but the polling company certainly knows what phone number was dialed. Correlating phone numbers to street addresses is trivial, acting on such information is only slightly less so. I expect everyone in Lebanon over the age of 20 or so is quite aware of this.

The polls that matter in Lebanon are called "elections". Everything else is questionable at best.

Another thing to consider:

[...]

-AK

So this is probably about the Hariri tribunal.

I am very confused about why Assad seems to think a UN inquiry is going to make a difference one way or another. The most that would happen is that the UNSC would pass a resolution imposing trade sanctions. It's not like anyone is going to send troops in to arrest anyone in Damascus and put them on trial in the Hauge, and the UNSC doesn't have the stones to pass a resolution saying "it would be OK to kill a head of state via airstrike".

It's a damn shame that Lebanon will go to hell because someone in Damascus is foolish enough to take the UN seriously.

Posted by: rosignol at December 5, 2006 12:56 AM

I've wondered about that, rosignol, but as usual, hearing someone else express the same question provides the contrary answer.

Think about Saddamn. There are many examples of UN inquiries not being immediately enforced, but they also have a way of forming permanent reference points in the global debate. Saddamn, first and foremost, was chosen as a target because he was the most UN-noncompliant guy in the ME. The UN is a tool for stripping states of their legitimacy in a way that enables other states to take action whenever convenient.

Posted by: glasnost at December 5, 2006 08:11 AM

Saddamn, first and foremost, was chosen as a target because he was the most UN-noncompliant guy in the ME.

Oh, come on.

If Assad thinks he can actively assist Iran- the US's primary adversary in the Middle East- and avoid the consequences by not being on the wrong end of a UNSC resolution, he is very, very mistaken. For better or worse, this is a unipolar world, and the country on top of the heap now and for the forseeable future is the USA.

The lesson governments in the middle east should have learned from what happened to Saddam is not "do everything you can to prevent UN resolutions targeting you from passing". It is "do everything you can to avoid being one of the top 3 entries in the US's shit list".

Posted by: rosignol at December 5, 2006 09:22 AM

Glasnost,

You said that "A similar abysmal naievete about the opinions of Iraqis - a naivete held by Iraqi exiles themselves- drove American policy. We created the conditions for the Iraqis to turn their country into a wasteland."

I think it is easy for people to compare Lebanon to Iraq, but the 2 countries are very different. I am not saying that Hizballah does not enjoy a significant level of support among Shias, but not all Shias support Hizb and they certainly do not enjoy the support of the majority of the country. I totally agree with you that it is simplistic to just label them as thugs, they are a very sophisticated and well funded militia that was created following the occupation of the South in 1983. They have a very effective propaganda machine and offer much needed social services to the poorest Shias in their community. Nevertheless, a group that represents 25-30perc of the population and is not entirely supported by that segment, should not highjack the will of the remaining 70 to 75 perc of the population and launch unilateral military action against another country (israel) dragging the entire country into war. As for Iraq, it is another story. I spoke to someone who just completed a 15 months tour there and had a very senior position with the American administration there. He blames our rules of engagement for the mess we are facing there. First, Al Sadr should have been killed. He is going to be the future Nasrallah of Iraq. Second, we have adopted a policy of catch and release whereby we capture insurgents, put them in jail for 3 to 4 weeks, no questions asked and then release them to kill our soldiers again. The problem is that we had convinced ourselves that there is one bad guy=Saddam, rather than one bad regime = baathists. It is as if we claim that Nasrallah is the only problem facing Lebanon. No one ever said that. We are saying 1. that Hizb does represent the majority of the Lebanese opinion. 2. That the real problem in Lebanon is not Hizb, but Syria and Iran's meddling in Lebanese affairs.

Posted by: Maya at December 5, 2006 10:51 AM

A correction to my previous comment.

"We are saying 1. that Hizb does NOT represent the majority of the Lebanese opinion. 2. That the real problem in Lebanon is not Hizb, but Syria and Iran's meddling in Lebanese affairs."

Thank you Barry for correcting me.

Posted by: Maya at December 6, 2006 10:02 AM

nice site

phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex