The fundamental lack of seriousness of any writer that speaks of Israel's war on Hezbollah should preclude him or her from being published in a foreign policy magazine. Israel waged war on the nation of Lebanon. Its military specifically targeted Lebenon's enemies during the war, its politicians and military leadership was were forthright about waging war with Lebanon and since the attack Israel has consistently threatened ruinous destruction of Lebanon on the vagueness of pretense.

It was not Syria who brought Hezbollah to its current state of power but Israel who by promising to destroy Hezbollah's enemies in response to the smallest attack by Hezbollah gave Hezbollah nuclear armed status.

A writer might focus such an article on Syria while acknowledging the central role of Israel in Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon but this article imagines a some alternate reality were every Lebanese citizen doesn't live in constant threat of destruction from Israel's armed forces.

Imagine if Mexico where a nuclear armed super power, and members of the Tea Party, a group named after an group of extremist would be tried under terrorism charges if they were to perpetrate their actions against our current government, could merely perform a symbolic act on the Mexican border and large portions of New York and Washington DC would be destroyed.

Could you write any article about the Tea Party movement without mentioning the awesome power that Mexico gives to that movement?

How can you possibly mention Hezbollah's relationship to Syria without its much much more important relationship with Israel?

I seem to remember a "pre Israeli summer war" Lebanon in which Hezbollah held little sway, in which the government considered the US a friend, and in which the government was not railing against Israel. I seem to remember that more than 25,000 American Citizens were there vacationing, doing business, and in absolutely no danger whatsoever. I remember their growing prosperity.

Then, I remember that after a rather unremarkable little border skirmish, Israel decided that it would be a good idea to collectively punish the entire population by bombing just about the entire nation into the stone age (again), for what appeared afterwards to be for no discernibly good reason at all, in that not a single positive objective was achieved by the attack.

Then, for some reason or other after that, Hezbollah gained great strength in the government, the country disavowed the US and Israel completely, and chaos ensued.

Now, is it just me, or does this seem to account for about 95 percent of the variance in the question of how Lebanon ended up in the place that it is in, and who we might then find a path to repairing our relationship with them and putting them back on a better path?

Furthermore, why an I not surprised that the author of an article that seems to skirt the truth so artfully would rely on Martin Indyke, of all people, as a source. The article was already so woefully off course (from the perspective of actually being "correct" about anything, that is) that quoting Indyk just seems like adding insult to injury.

Lets sum up shall we? Israel bombed Lebanon into the stone age for no good reason, causing massive loss and suffering, and did it with the US' blessings and Help, and now many people in Lebanon hate the US and Israel more than ever before, and are politically positioning themselves against us, and Hezbollah come off looking like heros or the protectors of the Nation.

Israels invasion and brutal and often illegal bombing damaged the US, both at home and abroad. we NEVER should have allowed it go forward, and we will pay the price for that ridiculous decision for decades to come, as we have with so many of the debacles that we have been dragged into via our totally dysfunctional relationship with Israel.

What do you suppose Martin Indyk would say about that?

after I saw you citing Fouad Ajami. That neocon has blood on his hands for his cheerleading of the war in Iraq.

It starts with the falsehood that Rafic Hariri was a beloved prime minister. No, he was not a beloved prime minister my the majority of Lebanese, but by opportunists and his employees, some of whom were members of parliament but with insignificant representation. Everything he achieved politically he achieved with money and not with the love of the people. He was, by far, the worst and most despised prime minister ever to govern in Lebanon. This man had no honor, and it is proven by the fact that, at the very least, he was subservient to the Syrians from the day he "was given" power to govern and until the day he was assassinated. Why no honor? Because this man had money, prestige, connections, charisma... you name it. He had it all. He didn't need insults from anybody, insults that ministers in his governments now say that the Syrians dictated to them what they had to do and not do. Shame on him and then on them. Beloved? Not at all. The Lebanese know it. The opportunists during his life have been replaced or appended by the opportunists from his death. But what about those who only know of him through media outlets such as this one? Well, the writer of this article only sounds more knowledgeable, but the substance is a work of fancy.

Considering the facts and the scenario in the on going conflict between Lebanon and Syria regarding the assassination of former Lebanese P.M., Rafik Hariri, it is very much worrying that these tow nations may face a war. But dialog must take place between these two nations in order to overcome this kind situation and bring peace for the shake of their own people and their respective development.
Web Hosting Reviews

no one can convince himself or delude others that it is now between Lebanon & Syria... they are not even called Syrian proxies anymore, in fact Syria now is an Iranian proxy while Hezbollah is Iran's military arms... some speaks as if the Iranian Nuclear empire is only effecting Lebanon, not the region, America's interest and world stability.
hard to convince someone that Lebanon is a weak state when Lebanon majority "anti Iranian camp" has won 2 consecutive democratic elections when other states can't untangle from the nuclear Iranian web and they are too weak to address the Iranian empire threat to their security... another thing you can't convince others with, is how Indyk can't see this simple reality....