|
The "right" to be in Lebanon? According to whose definition?
Last I checked, there wasn't a universal set of rights/responsibilities that applied to all nations. Otherwise we might all be getting along a lot better. (Yes, I know there is a declaration of universal human rights by the UN, but the US never signed it, so it's not universal. And that's not what we're talking about anyway.)
Some people might say that no one has the "right" to be in power unless they are fairly elected in a democracy... but oops, oh wait, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Never mind about their "right" to be in power... Americans don't think Hamas has the right, so that's that. Forget all that stuff about being elected in a democracy as granting "right" to a person or party. If we don't like 'em, they don't have rights.
I'm not saying Hezbollah does or doesn't have the "right" to be in Lebanon. I don't see myself as a moral arbiter in this situation... there's plenty I don't know and don't understand, enough that I would rather reserve my own judgement until I learn more.
The important question is what the people of Lebanon think about Hezbollah... and there's certainly not unanimous agreement there. But I can tell you that every day this conflict goes on, people who never would have supported Hezbollah before, even in their wildest dreams, are starting to see Hezbollah's right for existence. Which probably seems totally counter-intuitive to us armchair observers, but who can say what those people are going through, and how it is shaping their opinions? We cannot.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran
|