In Today's Papers this morning, I wrote:
While the protest movement has largely transcended religious and sectarian lines, the Post flags one element largely missing: Shiites. Hezbollah has stuck by Syria. "As long as Israel is on the other side of the border, Lebanon and Syria will be in the same bunker," said a spokesman. "We share a bilateral destiny."
That's an accurate summary of the Post's point. But an old buddy of mine , Pierre Habshi, gently explained to me that it's also simplistic. Habshi is Lebanese and has long worked in the region. I'll take his quickie assessment over the Post's, thanks:
Shiites are not out of the picture completely. Hizbollah is wisely playing the middle, but they understand that times have changed. They have stated their need for a Syrian alliance and that has impacted the opposition's statements ("we do not want to be enemies with Syria, but a good neighbor..."), but they are also talking to the opposition, as they have been for years;Also, the Shiites have a secular party as well, Amal, whose leader heads parliament (Nabih Berry). Amal was willing to support Karami government but at the same time has not openly criticized the opposition's agenda.Both major Shiite parties are cautiously balancing their political interests (close alliance with Syria) with the feelings of most of their constituents (resentment of the Syrians). The crucial point is that unlike in the past, Shiites leaders are keeping mum about the opposition agenda today, even though just a year ago they would have been harshly critical of opposition statements calling for a re-appraisal of lebanese-syrian relations, which is far less of what the opposition is demanding today.
