Monday, August 21, 2006

Calling for a state ... by non-state entities?

I've found it challenging to comment on the ongoings of the past week considering the skewed potential of round two eventually striking Lebanon. The notion that the war "ended" faded almost immediately after the ceasefire, partly due to the blockade, and since then, partly due to the raids over the past several days. Several acquaintances who have a relatively solid finger on the pulse of life within the Levant even labeled me as an optimist when I entertained a chance in which all would end well - that is, as well as it could end considering all that has happened.

That said however, I would like to point out the contradiction in statements shelved out by those parties concerned with respect to the non-state attributes of Hezbollah, especially when the strength of the said parties exists because they are also non-state entities. If those parties - rather, those figures - are truly seeking national positions within Lebanon, as opposed to just reaching out to their constituents, which is the most probable explanation of their behaviour, it would be apt for them to also criticize other blaring examples of non-state powers within Lebanon. It would also be apt for them not to hide the faults of Lebanon under the idea of the Lebanese state, especially in consideration that the Lebanese state simply "is not."

That's done with. Not fully explained, but as I said, it's been hard to get in the mood of blogging.

On another note, I finally took some advice offered on this blog with regards to Man'oushe. Got some dough, put zaatar on it, shoved it in the oven, and voila. Not perfect, but good enough.

Ciao.

3 Comments:

  • Sahtein :)

    By Blogger Eve, at 1:35 AM  

  • merci :)

    By Blogger Lazarus, at 12:02 PM  

  • This state within a state nonsense is useless analytically. What is Zionism if not a state within a state? What is the Pentagon if not a particularly large state within a state?

    There is no such thing as sovereignty as understood in the Westphalian sense and probably never was. More accurate is the idea of shared sovereignty ...

    I understand why politicians use expression like "state within a state" and "foreign intervention," but anyone with even a limited sense of the history of ANY country in the world would understand that this is the rule, not the exception, and that such talk is obviously politically-motivated ...

    And yes, sahtein ...

    By Blogger Unknown, at 12:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home