I think the political vision of Michael Young is far ahead of its time and would need a "rising up from the ashes" kind of scenario. Truth is no reform will be on the horizon as long as Hizbullah's reign answers to Iran's orders and Hizbullah, of course, will not willingly relinquish power. Unfortunately, I don't see a break to the deadlock without the use of force, even if syria at some point, under international pressure and for political gains, will allow a president to be elected. The Hizbullah card will not change and that is surely the limiting factor.
How and when will Hizbullah domination end will be the spark to the catalyst of reform. I hate to say it, but the only world force willing to take on Hizbullah will be our neighbors in the South, which would bring on the drums of war one more time.

There is something in this that I do not like; any agreement or structure of Lebanon should not be built upon a dialogue among religions, but on a secular ideal. There was earlier talk about the "Lebanon of Europe", and this could serve as a model.

Unfortunately, the current struggle has taken far too strong a sectarian dimension, and this is why "there can be no discussion of such issues while" Hezb'o, "and therefore the Shiites"; too many people are now married to the more than just the mix-up of mosque/church and state. As long as those Hez'born-again are hijacking one community, there can be no talk, only conflict. That is, until the return of the Mahdi, who some even claim Nasrallah represents.

The basic premise of the sectarian system in Lebanon is that religion influences politics. Hence the idea that a Christian president will defend the Christians, Sunni PM will defend the Sunni interests and so on.

Just out of curiosity, are there examples in Lebanon's history (prior to the current mess) where you could truly see a president, MP, speaker, other high-placed official, stand up for their fellow believers and made decisions at the expense of the other Lebanese? If not, than what is all the fuzz about?

Could it be that the reign of influence is somewhat overestimated and that it has a symbolic rather than practical value. Hanging on to it as such, might be the more realistic approach, but it might easily turn out to be a battle of nostalgia.

In any case, a simple solution would be to force the Lebanese to vote for your enemies: you can only vote for politicians other than your own religion. Instead of picking your friends, how about choosing your enemies?

Since we cannot really comment on your editorials in the daily star I would like to ask you a question here: why are so many of your articles preoccupied with the Christians of this country and their political power? Does this problem affect you personally? We are hoping that one day in this country, a person's religion will not have any bearing on their political ideas. Until that miracle actually happens, we ask the supposidly enlightened, unbiased journalists to report on the awful situation in this country for everyone, and not continously rally for the one religious group, and add water to the mud.

If I can come to the rescue here, I interpret Michael Young's concern for the Christian community as a warning to its anihilation rather than a bias. There is no doubt that should the situation persist, the Christian community would be History and our country will soon join the model that the mullahs have laid in Afghanistan.

Anon --

I apologize for being slightly rushed at the moment, but let me try to answer your question/complaint as quickly as time allows: If you read my original response to Young's piece, you'll notice that I criticized it for its Christian-centric approach. Essentially, I said that his argument could have only limited impact on a non-Christian audience. So, that's where I stand. I obviously can't speak for Michael regarding why he wrote on what he did.

I do think Lebanon's Christian community gets a great deal of attention, for some fairly obvious reasons. It is the only major sect whose long-term existence in Lebanon is in question, it is a community which is politically divided, and it is the community from which Lebanon's next President must come. For all these reasons, it has been a subject of interest for Lebanon-watchers.

Anon,

I think you miss the point, and the other commentators here answered you. But let me clarify anyway. My preoccupation with the Christians may be many things--personal and otherwise--but when you suggest I not allow religion to affect my political analysis, what you are really suggesting is that I ignore how Lebanon really is and write, instead, only about how it should be. I've certainly done that many times, but there are limits to such an approach. The more one writes normatively, the less the value of an article to address, with specific proposals, what is really going on.

On the Christians: I am as eager to see the Lebanese think nationally as you are; I can't remember when sectarianism was so strong (and so petty) in Lebanon, particularly among Christians, and I'm comparing that to the war years. This deeply disturbs me, particularly as I grew up in a mostly Muslim neighborhood.

However, the fate of the Christians in many respects has the potential to affect the Lebanese national compact far more than anything else today, because the Christians are so convinced that they are in terminal decline. The biggest problem we have in Lebanon is that the Christians are often alienated from the country they helped to set up; and this alienation may be disastrous not only for Christians, but for the equilibrium of the other communities in their own relations.

It is in the interest of no community to feel left out of the Lebanese social contract, and, for example, my most pointed criticism of Hizbullah (because I also often write about the Shiites as well) is that their strategy actively depends on feeding off (indeed encouraging) a sense of Shiite alienation. For if a majority of Shiites were not alienated, they would more readily encourage exchanging Hizbullah's weapons for a greater share of the political pie, rather than doubting the legitimacy of Taif--as they so often have done alongside the Aounists.