The airwaves in the Arab world are filled with debates about right and wrong, as many verbose “experts” (me included) debate the finer points of law and fairness. In reality, there are 3 sides to every debate: Your side, their side, and the truth.
A legally elected government (Siniora) is constitutional and cannot be removed by the force of arms or street demonstrations (Hezb & Co.).
A legally elected government (Hanieh) is constitutional and cannot be removed by the force of arms or street demonstrations (Fatah & Co.).
It’s all about power. In
1- Most of the Shiite middle class that emerged after the 1990’s was able to do so because of their increased weight in government control. Any reform along the lines of the Taef agreement (no, it has not really been implemented) would mean increased decentralization, administrative reform, which would result in the loss of many plum government jobs.
2- The Christians feel that had been sidelined for far too long, both by Hezb and Amal government grab and by the late Hariri’s conciliatory attitude towards the Syrians. They are essentially confused; Aoun is going against their interests, but Geagea is far too repulsive to many. Enter Johnny Abdo?
3- The Druze are more mindful of history, and their best interest is a clear application of Taef. This would mean a clear decentralization and a government system that can adapt to a changing environment.
4- The Sunnis play in a different field. At present, Alawite control of
5- The Alawites are in charge of
Hezb is an Iranian army. Period.
Because of the source of its funding and logistical support, ALL its “supporters” are essentially Iranian troops. They have little other choice; since the 1960’s, NO ONE supported them. The downside is that Hezb has hijacked the Shiite community, to serve
How much more blood to quench