Thread on Lebanon's first elections in nine years in which it looks like the Hezbollah-Amal alliance has gained the most:
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It won't matter since Saudi puppet Hariri will remain as prime minister. Christians and Shias get the raw end of the deal in Lebanon as the PM position goes to a sunni whilst the president must be a Christian and the speaker a Shia.
Of course it matters, the PM in Lebanon doesn’t hold any kind of all-encompassing power, nobody does. The entire system is designed to maintain some kind of balance between the sectarian factions despite the demographic changes that have occurred over the years. In terms of numbers, yes, it might be argued that the position of speaker is not prestigious enough to reflect the reality that the Shi’a are now the biggest faction, but on the other hand leaving the Presidency with the ever-shrinking (proportionally) Christian population is also a distortion (not to mention that half the seats in Parliament are reserved for Christians who almost certainly comprise quite a bit less than half the population).
What really matters is force of arms, and in that realm Hezbollah dominates. This election would seem to show that a large majority of the Shi’a and a hugely significant number of non-Shi’a* are to some degree supportive of that dominance. And that is massively important in terms of Hezbollah’s calculations as the next war with Israel approaches.
*(Edit): I mean Shi’a and non-Shi’a voters. The turnout was under 50%.
Last edited:
I just looked up the different parties in Lebanon and there seem to be a billion. Can anyone give a short overview of the different relevant factions and their goals/positions? (just 1-2 sentences are enough).
This is a decent analysis @PedroMendez :
Hezbollah Should Be Pleased With Lebanon Election Results – and So Should Israel
Israel has a major interest in Lebanon’s stability – even with Hezbollah in the government. The more Lebanon flourishes, the more the Israeli threat serves as a deterrent
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/middle-...eterrence-1.6070219?__twitter_impression=true
I'm sure one of the Lebanese posters here can explain the different factions in a bit of detail, @Ballache maybe?
The major ideological question in Lebanese history has been the division between those determined to maintain Lebanon's supposedly distinct identity - represented primarily by the Maronites but also to some degree by some Sunnis more recently - and those determined to see it reflect its supposed Arab and/or Islamic identity - represented generally by the Sunnis until the Civil War, and increasingly by the Shi'a since then.* It has always been the Israeli-Palestinian question that had brought this division to a head - to what extent is Lebanon willing to act as a confrontation state with Israel, with all the costs that status involves? That is the basic framework the various factions operate in.
*(Edit): should add, today it could be argued that the major conflict is between advocates of the supposed Arab identity on the one hand, and the Islamic on the other. And given the regional states who line up behind each side in this division, it can also be said to reflect the Sunni-Shi'i sectarian divide currently playing out across the region. In this conflict, the Marinites are increasingly peripheral onlookers trying to maintain space to simply survive.
Hezbollah Should Be Pleased With Lebanon Election Results – and So Should Israel
Israel has a major interest in Lebanon’s stability – even with Hezbollah in the government. The more Lebanon flourishes, the more the Israeli threat serves as a deterrent
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/middle-...eterrence-1.6070219?__twitter_impression=true
I'm sure one of the Lebanese posters here can explain the different factions in a bit of detail, @Ballache maybe?
The major ideological question in Lebanese history has been the division between those determined to maintain Lebanon's supposedly distinct identity - represented primarily by the Maronites but also to some degree by some Sunnis more recently - and those determined to see it reflect its supposed Arab and/or Islamic identity - represented generally by the Sunnis until the Civil War, and increasingly by the Shi'a since then.* It has always been the Israeli-Palestinian question that had brought this division to a head - to what extent is Lebanon willing to act as a confrontation state with Israel, with all the costs that status involves? That is the basic framework the various factions operate in.
*(Edit): should add, today it could be argued that the major conflict is between advocates of the supposed Arab identity on the one hand, and the Islamic on the other. And given the regional states who line up behind each side in this division, it can also be said to reflect the Sunni-Shi'i sectarian divide currently playing out across the region. In this conflict, the Marinites are increasingly peripheral onlookers trying to maintain space to simply survive.
Last edited:
The main sunni leader is Hariri and his future movement. Hezbollah and Amal represent about 99% of shias and the Christians are split between mainly the Free patriotic movement (the presidents party) and the Lebanese Forces (who did really well in the elections).
What people in the west don't understand is that Hezbollah is very active politically and they represent a faction of the Lebanese society, they're not armed goons running around terrorizing people. They have to be a part of the political life in Lebanon because they have actual representation (them and Amal their shia allies).
Lebanon is stable right now, but the economy is very bad. The president is an Ally of Hezbollah but recently he's been working very closely with Hariri too. The main topic is the economy right now and fighting corruption (something that all three sides named, remains to be seen if they act on it).
I think when it comes to Israel, stability in Lebanon is key because nobody is interested in starting anything against them. They need to accept that Hezbollah will be a part of the government and them being a part is key in achieving stability.
Edit: Christians in Lebanon make up about 35-40% of the population however, they make up about 55%-60% of Lebanese citizens. We have about 10m people that live abroad. Also the reason as to why the Christian role is still important is because of the shia sunni conflict in the region. The Christians are seen as the middle ground in a sense.
What people in the west don't understand is that Hezbollah is very active politically and they represent a faction of the Lebanese society, they're not armed goons running around terrorizing people. They have to be a part of the political life in Lebanon because they have actual representation (them and Amal their shia allies).
Lebanon is stable right now, but the economy is very bad. The president is an Ally of Hezbollah but recently he's been working very closely with Hariri too. The main topic is the economy right now and fighting corruption (something that all three sides named, remains to be seen if they act on it).
I think when it comes to Israel, stability in Lebanon is key because nobody is interested in starting anything against them. They need to accept that Hezbollah will be a part of the government and them being a part is key in achieving stability.
Edit: Christians in Lebanon make up about 35-40% of the population however, they make up about 55%-60% of Lebanese citizens. We have about 10m people that live abroad. Also the reason as to why the Christian role is still important is because of the shia sunni conflict in the region. The Christians are seen as the middle ground in a sense.
Just a couple of questions to solve some issues that confuse me:
What's the difference between Amal and Hezbollah?
What are the political/ideological differences between the FPM and LF?
What are the most important and defining political cleavages that separate the two blocks (March 8 and March 14 Alliance?)? or is this not a useful way to looking at the situation?
What's the difference between Amal and Hezbollah?
What are the political/ideological differences between the FPM and LF?
What are the most important and defining political cleavages that separate the two blocks (March 8 and March 14 Alliance?)? or is this not a useful way to looking at the situation?
From reddit, re: Lebanon:
Very few political parties in Lebanon have clear ideologies.
Hezbollah is the more religious conservative party whilst Amal is more secular. That's the face of it anyway but I couldn't tell you the difference in ideology.
I think it's still the most useful way of viewing the ideological schisms affecting Lebanese politics. The rest of it is basically tribal, mafia-style warlordism with a modern face. March 8 is committed to the 'Resistance', March 14 to a 'moderate' Arab politics. Because the Iranians support the former, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and the Saudis the latter, which is dominated by the largest Sunni party, it can in ways be perceived to reflect the Middle East's current sectarian conflict. Christians are divided between the two, the Maronites' politics of a distinctly Lebanese identity having being eclipsed by the civil war, wider regional changes, and demography.
PedroMendez said:
Until the 70s the Shi'a were considered a largely backward, poor and rural population with little stake in the big questions driving Lebanese politics. Those figures who got involved in politics tended to be drawn to multi-confessional leftist movements. By the 70s, however, demographic growth combined with migration to urban areas to raise the possibility of an explicitly Shi'i political identity. Amal was the first expression of this, my understanding is that it promotes a basically secular vision of Shi'i identity politics. Hezbollah came later, in the context of the civil war, Israeli occupation, and Iranian Revolution. It is much more tied to the pan-Shi'i/Khomeinist politics of the region, although it is wrong to try to present it as a purely Iranian proxy - it has prospered because it has successfully argued that it protects the interests of all Lebanese.
thanks for the explanations. 
thanks for the explanations.
Just to add, one of the very best books in Middle Eastern Studies is about Lebanon - A House of Many Mansions by Kamal Salibi. I can't recommend it highly enough, if you can get your hands on it it's a must-read, not especially long either.
does the edition matter? quite a few years in between publishing and the newest edition.
No I don't think so. Don't think he ever updated it post-Civil War, and he died a few years ago.
Salibi's book on The Modern History of Jordan is also great. The chapters on the Hashemite dynasty are particular good.
Ah haven’t read it, good to know. If anyone could make the history of Jordan an interesting read it’s him. It’s a shame he kind of spoiled his reputation with his whacky theory on the location of the Bible stories.
Reaction to Trump's withdrawal from Iran deal.
May will eventually succumb and follow suit, the UK always blindly follows its US overlords.
And Putin is anything but unhappy. The Iranians will probably take a leaf out of the Syrian’s book and embolden relations with Russia for self preservation, especially now it’s clear as daylight the Yanks can’t be trusted.
Heck if the Iraqis were smart they’d do the same, considering the damage the US has historically done to them. They’ll always play second fiddle to the Saudis and Israelis in regards of their relationship with the US.
Wonder what they talked about...
It was Bibi kissing the post inauguration ring and telling Vlad - "We are going to hit the Quds Force hard and want to set up a deconfliction line to coordinate".
Tell that to Hamas.
Hamas hasn't attacked Israel in a serious way in years. Israel isn't interested in peace, just scream Hamas whilst they continue their decent into facism
1. More like Hamas have not been able to attack Israel in a serious way. The barrier has put a stop to the most serious attacks (i.e. suicide bombings and hijackings). Still, no country would tolerate missiles either. The British didn't tolerate it during WWII, and the Saudi don't tolerate it from rebels in the Yemen. Neither should Israel.
2. History shows Israel is interested in peace, and not just with the Palestinians. I don't think the PA are interested in a two-state solution. Taking their aspirations for statehood to international forums is not because Israel isn't interested in peace. It is because international recognition means the PA doesn't have to sacrifice the notion of a right of return by recognising Israel as a Jewish State.
There's barely been any missile fire from the Gaza Strip over the past few years, again it's just an excuse to continue ignoring Palestinians rights and avoid a peace deal
Israel is not interested in peace. The best they offered Palestinians was apartheid. Israel cannot be a state for Jews and a state for everyone, there is no equality. The very fact that the right of return only applies to Jews but not Palestinians proves this.
The Palestinians have refused opportunity after opportunity for statehood. The Palestinian leadership is responsible for that failure, not the Israelis.
There already is equality in Israel despite it being a Jewish state. Gentile citizens have the same rights as their Jewish counterparts. If the Palestinians want rights, build for statehood and stop blaming others for past failures and misfortunes.
Israel never offered statehood, only varieties of aparthied
Palestinians don't have the same right of return as Jewish people. Therefore there is no equality.
And Jewish people have an amazing opportunity to return to the Arab countries which they had to flee?
Even MbS knows that the Palestinians should take what they get. If Hamas lobs rockets into Southern Israel, there will be a response. The same way Saudi responds to groups in Yemen firing missiles into Saudi.
You are comparing people who would return to a foreign country vs people whose human rights are being denied in their own home country.
And using MBS or the saudi as authorities for anything
MBS is evil and so is the house of saud
You are comparing people who would return to a foreign country vs people whose human rights are being denied in their own home country.
And using MBS or the saudi as authorities for anything
MBS is a tyrant and an evil megalomaniac. But I was talking about response from states when they are attacked. Should they sit back? A democratic country like Israel is accountable to its citizens and has to protect them from groups that want to harm them.
And the Jewish people who were driven out of Arab countries, those countries weren't "foreign" for them then. They were from Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco wherever. Only bringing this up because you referred to Israel as an apartheid state. Reminded me of the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. Also, people who had to flee Bangladeshi when it was East Pakistan. The Pakistanis treated people terribly. Raping women, carried out pogroms against them. Many of them fled to India.
Nope, you were using him to defending Israel treatment of Palestine.
There is a difference between defending one's citizen and killing children.
And you are confusing me with mozza.
Israel isn't a democracy. Israel as the occupying power has to police these areas, not bomb them militarily.
What does India and Pakistan have to do with Israel? Or Moroccos behaviour towards its ethnic minorities? Unless you feel muslims in Palestine have to answer for the crimes of muslims worldwide. Does that make every Hindu answerable for Indias crimes in Kashmir? Or Jews worldwide for Israels crimes?
What does religion have to do with Kashmir and Bangladesh? It is more about groups in power that are also in the majority (in this case religion, political and regional), oppressing and persecuting communities with less power. Kashmir is as much a proxy war than something Kashmir valley people want genuinely in a religious sense. True, in the Indian subcontinent religion has played a tragic part in history. India being one of the countries in the world being divided because of religion. But Arabs are an ethnicity, comprising of Christians, Druze and Baha'i as well. Even though they are having an incredibly tough time in that part of the world.
They could have a two state solution. But for that, Fatah and Hamas will have to sign a peace deal with Israel, the same way Jordan and Egypt did. Egypt and Jordan have good relations with Israel after they signed a peace deal. Israel even gave the Sinai to Egypt. Hamas will have to lay down arms though and the Palestinian leadership will have to recognise Israel as a country. Also, Iran will have to stop using the Syrian War as a smokescreen to be belligerent to Israel. It's just the way it works. There's no way that will happen now though with neocons like Bolton and Pompeo in office.
Last edited:
Iraqi elections updates:
The Latest: Iraqi cleric al-Sadr leads in early vote results
https://apnews.com/amp/f5307f6b5d714ae0a30df267fcb3aa0c?__twitter_impression=true
The Latest: Iraqi cleric al-Sadr leads in early vote results
https://apnews.com/amp/f5307f6b5d714ae0a30df267fcb3aa0c?__twitter_impression=true
70 years ago:
Oh good god...
He's behind Abadi as of now.
He’s awful but I’d probably still prefer him to Abadi.