An interesting article in yesterday's online New York Times Magazine: apparently the Lebanese population is much more divided about Hezbollah and the Israeli attacks than the news headlines would leave us to believe - the general impression the news gives is that Lebanese support Hezbollah against Israel, and aren't blaming Hezbollah for starting the conflict. But according to the Magazine article, which was written by a Lebanese-American journalist, the Lebanese are very divided on this - the mostly poor Shiites tend to support Hezbollah, while the more affluent Sunnis, Christians, and other groups don't support Hezbollah, and in fact are blaming it for starting the conflict with Israel and getting their country blown to bits.
The author of the article worries that the tension this is creating between communities (added on top of the destruction of the country and subsequent weakening of the current government by Israel) could lead to a new civil war in Lebanon - the non-Shiite communities are going to want Hezbollah disarmed, the Shiites will resist, and then the other communities will want to resurrect their old militias, which will, of course, immediately start fighting each other.
This is bad. And again, what is Israel thinking??? Does pushing the country on its northern border into another civil war really seem like a great idea?
How's this for an idea, Israel: how about playing nice for once? Instead of trying to kill all the Hezbollah fighters, which is never going to work, how about supporting the creation of a moderate, democratic government in Lebanon (like that one that was just starting to gain traction, until Israel started bombing the country)? How about helping that moderate government provide basic services to all its people, so that poor Shiites won't have to rely on Hezbollah for food or healthcare? Is this really such a novel, extraordinary idea?
Posts
