Hezbollah brought into Lebanese government

The flag of Hezbollah
This image is in the public domain.

Lebanese prime-minister–elect Saad al-Hariri has brought terrorist group Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, in the interest, he says, of forming a government of "national concord."

Was this perhaps a bad idea? Andrew E. Mathis

Hariri's party, the Movement of the Future, was the largest winner in the Lebanese election held on June 7. The coalition of parties he led, the March 14 Alliance (named for the date of the Cedar Revolution), which numbers nine parties including Hariri's own, took 71 seats in Lebanon's 128-seat parliament.

The opposing coalition, the March 8 Alliance (named for a protest against the Cedar Revolution by pro-Syrian parties), included Hezbollah and took 57 seats. (The Progressive Socialist Party won the remaining 10 seats). Of all the parties that ran in the election, Hezbollah took the fourth-highest number of seats at 13 — tied with its March 8 coalition partner Harakat Amal, also a Shia party and also very pro-Syrian.

So here's the key point of all these data: Hariri took a parliamentary majority with his March 14–named, anti-Syrian alliance. He didn't have to form a unity government, particularly with Hezbollah. So why did he?

The idea is that a unity government will bring stability. This was hammered out last month in meetings between agents of the Syrian and Saudi governments, which back the losing and winning alliances, respectively.

I'm all for stability, and it's possible that, by making Hezbollah a part of the political process, Hariri may be able to rein them in somewhat. They may even disarm and gain political legitimacy in that way.

The big question that remains, however, is why Hariri would leave the fate of his country, once again, in the hands of foreign powers. The calamitous civil war in Lebanon was, to a large extent — particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a proxy war between Israel and Syria. The Saudis and Syrians are not enemies on that level, but they do have their differences.

For one, the Saudis are the key sponsor in a comprehensive Arab League peace proposal with Israel. Syria, even though it voted to adopt the (unanimously approved) proposal, took issue with several parts of the proposal, not the least of which was Palestinian disarmament.

So if a peace with Israel comes anytime soon, it could compromise the Lebanese government as currently constituted. It could even, in theory, compromise the opposition coalition, since Hezbollah is very pro-Palestinian, while Harakat Amal is notoriously anti-Palestinian, going all the way back to the Civil War.

More importantly, the continuing influence of Syria in Lebanese politics is a bad thing, and as long as Hezbollah continues to be a recipient of Iranian largesse being funneled to Lebanon via Syria, this will be a thorn in the side of Hariri and his Saudi backers, who are Sunni and who dislike Iran's moves for influence in the region in a general sense.

I do wish Hariri luck in getting stability for a country that sorely needs it. But I wouldn't bank on it with Hezbollah in the mix — at least not yet.