So right-wing writer Michael Young has an article on Lebanon here (and another version in the New York Times). There are several things that are inaccurate. One, Muqtada As-Sadr "performed poorly in the January elections" perhaps because he DID NOT field candidates in the elections. Secondly, it is not true that the party is "not particularly close" to Ayatollah Sistani. In fact, the party (and Nasrallah in my last interview with him in June of last year) defends Sistani, and even remained on close terms with Shi`ite groups that participated in the ruling puppet governing council. And many Arab nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists were furious when Nasrallah spoke glowingly of Muhammad Baqir Al-Hakim after his assassination because he worked closely with US occupation apparatus. I also disagree with the analysis: I think that Hizbullah served its interests, and also of the Syrian regime, by the demonstration yesterday especially given the size. I also believe that Syria uses Hizbullah, and Hizbullah uses Syria too. In fact, Young used to edit a good publication (The Lebanon Report) years ago. He may want to erase some of what he had written there. In the Summer 1996 issue, he wrote:"...Hizballah, and particularly its militants in the south, appeared to take military decisions independently. This suggested that Syrian control over Hizballah's operations was limited for a time."(p.8) In the same issue, Young also wrote: "it was virtually certain that Israel, for whatever reason, had intentionally targeted civilians in at the UN base."(p. 9) Would the neo-conservative, pro-Israeli publications were Young writes be upset if they were to read those words? I wonder. In the Spring 1996 issue, Young wrote that: "the Syrian presence...which imposes stability on the country."(p.11) If I only have more time, and a research staff, and lemonade, I would love to compare the words of people in the Lebanese opposition, then and now.