"News that's not known, or not known enough."
Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hezbollah
So what are Hezbollah’s political goals? Are they something really radical? Do they want to change the whole system or the National Pact? There are some in the country who HAVE proposed scrapping the ratios and quotas of seats in the parliament that the National Pact creates and going for “majority rule” as in other countries (which would probably destroy Lebanon and benefit Hezbollah), but Hezbollah’s proposals have everything to do with standing behind the current system However, the system actually works through the use of alliances. Based on the June, 2005 elections, there were 3 and it is the pro-Western, anti-Syrian one that is in power (mainly Sunni & Druze) with a total of 72 seats while the one with Hezbollah in it (mainly Shiite) only has a total of 35 seats. Then, the third one, Gen. Aoun’s alliance, with 21 seats (mainly Christian) signed an agreement with the Hezbollah related alliance Based on “the opposition’s” percentage of seats in parliament, 43-44%, Hezbollah has said that the 21 seat group hasn’t been allotted enough ministerial posts. With a total of 8 posts, “the opposition” would have a “blocking third” (as the majority alliance does) since decisions by the Cabinet require a two-thirds vote (if there is no consensus) plus the resignation of one-third of the Cabinet brings down the government. By the way, the Hezbollah-Gen. Aoun agreement creates a new social reality There IS a more “radical” proposal, still WITHIN the present system, Hezbollah could opt for, but they haven’t. It is to use newer census data, which would indicate that Shiites are now over 40% of the population, and have the quotas adjusted. The leader of the Hezbollah party in his May 8, 2008 press conference said: “We are responsible people.” It seems to me that this party’s take on their participation in their government IS responsible. The question is So far, their response has been NO RESPONSE. Actually, that’s not accurate. Not only has Hezbollah been smeared and labeled a “terrorist” group, but the US has been behind the setting up of armed groups in Lebanon (along with the majority alliance) who are there to provoke/fight Hezbollah (as recent articles have indicated). In addition, there have been assassinations meant to damage/provoke Hezbollah. For example, it seems likely that the assassination of the former Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, on Feb. 14, 2005 that was blamed on Syria was meant to hurt Hezbollah. Syria denied any role in it, and they certainly gained no benefit from it. Since it happened only a few months before the election, it enabled the current majority alliance to gain more votes than they probably would have Of course, in the “real world,” actions taken by the US/Israel or by the Lebanese parties backed by the US/Israel that hurt a popular group such as Hezbollah have the “unintended consequence” of making them MORE POPULAR while creating tensions, divisions, and incidents that get people killed. Also, all of the outside interference/violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty make it harder for the internal political situation in Lebanon to get resolved.
P.S. To some extent, the presidential election postponements have been related to reaching agreement on a consensus candidate since it is parliament that elects the Maronite president. The consensus candidate agreed upon is Gen. Michel Suleiman, but a constitutional amendment bill that would lift the requirement related to public servants who want to be candidates had to be put forward SOURCES: various Wikipedia links were useful as was this article. It offered some details and the idea that the West only views Lebanon in regard to regional events and fails to consider its actual power sharing system.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication. When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever. We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong. You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>. But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want. If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread. If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
|
