Eye on Lebanon: Did the crisis end?

After 18 months of political drama and so-called civil disobedience - a politically correct term for saying that an armed group bullied the people while sending a message to the feudal and warlord leaders: 'mess with us and you're finished' - Lebanese leaders kiss and move on. If the former is custom, I have serious doubts about the latter.

Who won?Who knows? But let me just say who did not. The average Lebanese, who correctly believes that, "Our leaders are all liars and traitors working for their own ends." "They have been playing with us for more than 30 years and we all know that this is all a political game." (Naharnet, 'Disgusted' Lebanese, 21 May, 2008)

After 5 days of talks in Doha [Of all places! You do know that Doha plays it both ways, right? Friend of Iran (in the attempt to anticipate which country is likely to dominate the region) and Syria, while hosting US army bases] the Hizbullah & Amal-led opposition and March 14 reached an agreement.

The general terms are the following:

• Electing Michel Suleiman as President
• Formation of a government based on a 16-11-3 formula (16 for the majority, 11 for the opposition and 3 to be chosen by the president)
• End of the sit in in downtown Beirut
• Adoption of the Qada-based 1960 electoral law such as Beirut is divided into three constituencies for one time only

Changing the electoral law from the Syrian imposed one to that of 1960 is a step in the right direction for the Christians. Maronite Christians were privileged among the Christian minorities of the region. They would get the first picks of positions, such as the Presidency, command of the army, and so on and they have to make sure that they are able to maintain a meaningful representativity even when the Shias or the Sunnis or both will outgrow them numerically.

Hizbullah's weapons did not make it into the deal, although Ex-MP Ghattas Khoury, a member of the March 14 delegation said in an interview from Doha, that "only the Lebanese Army should have weapons",  and  "we don't want to be dominated by an armed militia and we don't want a civil war."

Of course only the army should have weapons! That would be normal. What if the only way to get rid of Hizbullah's domination is a civil war? Remember the line, 'it will get worse, before it gets better'? It would be terrible for the citizens and it will ruin Lebanon, however thinking strategically and on the long term, isn't it the way, maybe the only way, to assure Lebanon's sovereignty and independence as a state?

The humanist in me rejects the idea of a civil war where everyone suffers, but will cautiousness save Lebanon from being taken as hostage by Iran through Hizbullah? A revolution of sorts might work. Even better, why not a referendum to ask the population if Hizbullah/Palestinians/Amal/Druze/Sunnis should give up their weapons or not? That will keep the conflict away from streets and Regnat populus [Let the people rule]

Or maybe I am wrong, and at some point in time, Hizbullah's leadership (now here it becomes slightly confusing, which has the upper hand, the locals or Ayatollah Khameini?) will agree to give up the weapons, or to integrate the militants into the regular army. Soon after that, we will hear of pig flying stories all over the world.

Almost nothing of substance got solved in this deal. This is just a truce. Period.

For further reading, check out this article The Making of Hizbullah