March 14 Faction Wins in Lebanon
President Obama's hopes for progress on the Arab-Israeli peace process would have been sunk if Hezbollah had won the Lebanese elections. As it is, the March 14 Movement has won the Lebanese parliamentary elections, garnering 69 or 70 seats out of 128.
Russia Today has video of the victory:
Since the districting made it likely that the Shiite parties of Amal and Hezbollah would sweep the south for 28 seats, and many other outcomes were more or less predetermined, the main contest was among the Christian parties, which in turn are allied either with March 14 or with the Hezbollah-led opposition. Gen. Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Party is allied with Hezbollah, and lost badly in some districts to March 14 ally Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces.
Although the March 14 Movement tends to be called pro-Western by our press, such labels do not mean much in Lebanese domestic politics. March 14 consists of a section of the Sunni Arabs, led by Saad Hariri, who is supported by Saudi Arabia and who has unsuccessfully attempted to develop his own militia with Saudi funds. Another component is Walid Jumblatt's constituency among the Druze minority (an esoteric, folk offshoot of Shiite Islam). Jumblatt is notoriously mercurial and had been anti-American before 2005, and cannot be relied on to remain in the March 14 Movement. Then there is the Lebanese Forces, which is a revival of a rightwing Christian group that played a very sinister role in the Lebanese civil war and after, led by Samir Geagea,who was convicted of terrorism. (BTW, Geagea's Wikipedia entry is pro-Geagea propaganda and an example of why wikipedia is worthless when it comes to controversial subjects).
Gen. Aoun would be preferable to Geagea politically on virtually any dimension a normal person could choose.
But anyway, March 14 is the majority and will form the government,though it may be a national unity government that includes Hezbollah and its allies. I saw Jumblatt on LBC by satellite saying that no major party should be marginalized, and that there was nothing in the Lebanese constitution that would justify sidelining an important group that way. So I take it he wants another national unity government.
Having won, March 14 is likely to avoid any further confrontations with Israel and to try to rein in Hezbollah or at least to impress on it the necessity of avoiding adventurism.
So at least Obama won't have to worry about the Levant as a distraction in his peace plans.
Senior members of the Obama administration more or less campaigned in Beirut for the March 14 coalition to win, and hinted around that aid would dry up for Lebanon if Hezbollah got in. Aljazeera English has video on this blatant interference in another country's election:
There are five pieces to progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They are Israeli politics, the politics of the Palestine Authority, of Lebanon, and of Iran and Syria.
Obama had until recently caught the worst possible breaks on the Mideast conflict.
The far-right Likud Party and even creepier and farther-right coalition partners like Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu came to power in Israel last winter.
The Palestinian Authority, in the meantime, postponed elections, and the president, from a minority party (Fateh), just appointed himself to stay in power one more year, as well as appointing a prime minister. Both steps were contrary to the constitution, which, if followed, would have given the presidency to the Hamas speaker of the house (who was deposed in a Fateh coup in summer, 2007). The Palestinian Authority is divided between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fateh-controlled West Bank.
Now if only Ahmadinejad would lose the Iranian presidential elections, Obama's luck might turn up and Israel's rightwing government will be deprived of the Ahmadinejad pretext for avoiding compromises with the Palestinians.
Maybe Obama will be able to make some headway after all.
End/ (Not Continued)

|
17 Comments:
It sounds like the results in Lebanon were generally positive, but what I think is very negative is the fact that it at least appears as though US threats may have determined the outcome. That's a very bad sign for democracy.
Re. Obama: you seem to assume that Obama actually wants peace. I don't think there's any sign that he does. Funny how everyone seems to forget that Bush had nice things to say too, when the occasion seemed to call for it. What he DID was block peace and unleash war. That's exactly what Obama has done. By refusing to confront Israel over the settlements, he blocks peace. Meanwhile, he has unleashed war on a massive scale in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he continues to threaten Iran and now North Korea.
It took him about two days to vitiate his Cairo speech. That speech could have been a breakthrough, but it just can't be that way in American politics. Apparently we just can't stand the thought of a peacemaking president.
But let's at least wait until Obama actually makes some peace before we give him credit for being a peacemaker. So far what I'm seeing is more war.
How dare the U.S. ask Lebanese voters for something in return for its aid.
Why would Aoun be preferable if he allies his party with Hezbollah? It seems unlikely that a Hezbollah-FPP coalition would be stable. Does Aoun really expect this coalition to be permanent, or is this alliance just a tactic to create more disorder, which he could then exploit?
"There are five pieces to progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They are Israeli politics, the politics of the Palestine Authority, of Lebanon, and of Iran and Syria."
Did you forget someone? The USofA perhaps?
And with respect the 'Ahmadinejad pretext' is just that. And I think for the most part irrelevant in the full swing of things. Israel will oppose anyone who criticises its right to colonise Palestine.
So, the choices are between Hezbollah with the Iranians and the right-wing Christian terrorists with the Saudis?
Are all the rational people hiding in bunkers, or did they leave the country?
I know there are good Lebanese people who want to live peacefully in a multi-ethnic, secular society at peace with their neighbors. For whom did they vote and how can their goals be realized? Do their fates depend on the peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? i.e. are they depending on the good will and wisdom of the Likud party (shudder)?
For a more detailed analysis of Israel/Palestine/USA, please read Dr. Chomsky's latest exposition:
Turning Point?
http://www.commondreams.org/print/43096
yes, sure, it is Hizballa and Ahmadinejad which are obstacles to Obama's noble palns.
I wonder, who was to blame at the time when Lebanon was ruled by Jemael, and Iran - by shah (both USA's and Israel's darlings)
It doesn't really matter who wins or loses in elections, for Israel there would be a different justification.
If Hizbollah or Ahmadinejad win, then their argument is the need to use force against them. If they lose for their own domestic issues, then Israel will claim success and argue for continuation if not acceleration of the confrontation policy.
So long as Israel fails to recognize its responsibilities toward all the people within its border, there would not be any peace. It is not about the right to exist (as they do exist), it is about responsibilities of its existence.
Actually, Geagea's Lebanese Forces did not do better than Aoun's FPM at all. Aoun got 10 seats; the LF got 5. Aoun's Christian allies got a further few, so the FPM still is the biggest Christian bloc in parliament. That hasn't changed. The only reason this is seen as a defeat is because Aoun was so cocksure that he was going to win big and the pollsters agreed with him. This came down to a few battles where Hariri's Future Party did surprisingly well, not M14th's Christian allies. Aoun's candidate, his son-in-law Gebran Bassil, did lose in Batroun to the LF candidate. But in terms of numbers, Aoun still beats the other Christian parties.
I am sick of the poor Shia plurality of Lebanon being treated as:
a. Not a plurality
b. insane terrorists
c. Iranian puppets
Thus undeserving of a democratic voice in a country where every other group has failed to govern so badly.
This is how it is all over the world. The parties of the poor, whether Marxist, religious or tribal, are disregarded by mainstream American liberals. We still can't accept the poor Indians of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru as sovereign. We can't accept that the Zapatistas are right about the suffering caused by US-pushed neoliberal economics in Mexico. We don't even begin to look into India's economic miracle to see how much it required bleeding the poor.
The poor are the majority, they are reproducing faster than the rest of us, and our increasing economic failures will swell their ranks. The worse we make things for them, the more there will be.
If Hezbollah is the only group left on Earth that knows how to organize the poor to survive the ongoing global capitalist meltdown, then us so-called progressives better get to work figuring out how they did it, edit "Allah" out and claim it for ourselves.
Let's hope Israel can avoid having another relapse of "invasion anxiety" (where Israel invades to relieve the anxiety of some home-grown corruption scandal) long enough for M14 to form a government. In days of bush, this could not have been expected. Keeping the "creepy" army (Thanks Prof. for that nice description) home will be Obama's first test.
Living in Beirut, I would like to make a couple of comments:
*To many people here, these results are decently surprising, especially when it comes to polls. Granted polls dont mean much, but to be off by that much says something.
*The Sunnis being flown in with Saudi money (legal under law) were the turning point in Zahle where they came showed up 80%. Basically those were at least 6 (of the seven) seats Aoun thought he had in the bag
*There is talk by some majority members wanting to disarm Hezbollah which will not happen. What never comes up in this dialog is that Geagea still has a heavily armed militia (as do other groups) but there is never a call for them to disarm. Dont expect anything to come of this.
*The big question for the near future: what about the veto power? How this plays out will determine if there will be any violence in the future or not. It will be very interesting.
In general though the Lebanese deserve to be congratulated on the election. I dont mean this as an American living here trying to talk down about the country, but rather I think it shows a step in the right direction towards overall stability.
Among the new Hariri MPs is the Salafi radical Khalid Daher in Tripoli.
It sounds like people are forgetting that 100 of the 128 are predetermined and that half of the seats must be muslim while the other half must be christian. Is this really democracy? Also, the elections do not necessarily represent the popular vote (similar to Kerry-Bush in '04). If the March 14th faction decides to ask for disarmament, then they will have around 50% of the country opposing them. The only thing to do is wait and see what these elections actually mean for the "new" direction of Lebanon and whether the new policies will actually create further unrest...
Also, it is claimed in this article that aoun is the loser. He is not, though. This is what was so surprising about these elections. Everyone thought that whoever won in the Christian sect, would win the election. As it turns out, this was not the case. Aoun is still the majority of the christian bloc, but March 8th (hezbollah's party) still lost. The only explanation of this is the predetermined system that exists today in Lebanon. However, the rules are the rules and they were accepted by both sides before the elections started. This is why Lebanon has a situation similar to what happened in 2004 here in the United States (having popular majority, though loosing the "game" of the elections).
Wikipediea relies on having knowledgeable people writing and correcting articles. Checking the history of the Samir Geagea page it appears to be involved in a war between different factions, and you can then ask the page to be locked for random edits including unsourced and obviously biased contents as the first paragraphs where he is alternating between being described as a murderer and an innocent victim of a conspiracy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
I would suggest reading As'ad AbuKhalil for an inkling of what has been happening in Lebanon, which is in no way what is depicted in the New York Times or Washington Post or by the wildly hopeful Juan Cole.
Post a Comment
<< Home