Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OzOz
Oh? We've already established that they form part of the government of Lebanon. This fact alone stretches your claim a little bit thin. Also, the Lebanese government refuses to even ask Hezbollah to leave, but supports them as a "Lebanese strategic interest" - so they have the full support of those who do represent the populace of Lebanon.
|
I don't see the point of posting much in this thread anymore, but I'll post one more thing related to this point.
Yes, Hezbollah is part of the government of Lebanon. But note a few things: they are not a majority in the government (by far), and those who elected them are not a majority of the populace. The mostly Shia voters who support Hezbollah make up approx. 30% (at most) of the country's population; Hezbollah is very unpopular with the Sunni and Maronite Christian rest of the population.
However, the flipside of this is that while Hezbollah is supported by only a minority in Lebanon, that minority is still significant to the overall make-up of Lebanon. In other words, for the 70% to turn on the 30% and basically isolate their interests, would incite another civil war. The Shia would certainly fight (again) against the other groups to defend their interests (Hezbollah); and so in fact, if Lebanon is expected to "get rid" of Hezbollah (indeed, a self-amputation), they will only bring on themselves a civil war.
So yes, nations have a right to defend themselves, but do they have a responsibility to disarm a terrorist group IF that action would result in a civil war? (especially after they've already been through one for 15 years, just 15 years ago?) You might say yes... but try to understand the reluctance of the Lebanese to split themselves down the middle again.
Just wondering about your thoughts on this.