MEMRI’S Hanna Avraham reports on the internal debate in Lebanon:
Forces in Lebanon are divided over whether the organization should be disarmed. Some Christian opposition members as well as some Lebanese columnists support disarming Hizbullah, arguing that Lebanon is no longer occupied and that there is no need for weapons that are not the property of the state. On the other hand, top Lebanese officials and opposition members, such as Socialist Progressive Party Chairman Walid Jumblatt, argue that Hizbullah’s weapons protect Lebanon from Israeli aggression, and that any debate on disarmament must be strictly Lebanese, not the result of external pressure or intervention.
My guess is Jumblatt is lying and knows it. Israel is vastly less likely to invade Lebanon if Hizbullah was disarmed. So the games continues. And the neighborhood bully logs in, of course:
Syria, for its part, stressed that whether or not Hizbullah should be disarmed was an internal Lebanese matter, and that it had no intention of intervening. Nevertheless, Syrian government newspapers published attacks on those calling for disarmament.
From my research, albeit limited, it seems that the Jumblatts change ‘-isms’ with lightning speed, as soon as they determine which one works best for the interests of their crime/political clan. Jihadi, socialist, patriot, hezbollacrat: will the real Walid please stand up?
Who said that any political group that has a armed wing is a terror group?
That seems about right to me.
>>My guess is Jumblatt is lying and knows it.