On May 20, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Robert Naiman wrote:
Hizbollah has significant influence, as it has had for years, but it
does not "run the country."
Hizbollah (with its ally Amal) is dominant among the Shiites, who are
a clear majority among Lebanese Muslims. The majority of Christians
follow General Michael Aoun who is also allied to Hizbollah. So if
Lebanon were a democracy (instead of a gerrymandered imperial
dependency) Hizbollah would lead its government. That is why the
issue of "electoral reform" (ie., democracy) is the main point of
contention between Hizbollah and the Siniora "government." Osama bin
Laden, Ubu(sh), the Arab feudal lords of the gulf statelets, and the
Zionists have formed a firm united front against Hizbollah--that is,
against Lebanese democracy.
I was using the words of a friend of mine (an engineer originally from
Iran who sometimes overstates his points). Maybe his viewpoint makes
more sense if I'm more concrete: he says that these days Hizbollah has
more military strength than the official Lebanese army and is a more
unified force. Further, he says that its communication network is more
successful and its provision of public services is more influential
than those of the Lebanese state.
What is playing out now is the failure of
the U.S. strategy to try to marginalize Hizbollah.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to
be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
