Melani Cammett is a serious scholar and a diligent researcher. I knew her from her graduate school days at UC, Berkeley. Her work on Lebanon is refreshingly original. I do agree with her thesis here but disagree on two counts:
1) She says: "Mounting dissatisfaction with Hezbollah in Lebanon, including from in-group members, as a result of its ongoing and intensified participation in the Syrian conflict may be weakening its dominant position within the Shiite community." There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this. The only evidence is in fact claims in media (Hariri and Saudi, like Now Hariri website) that are not backed up by evidence. I have been looking at public opinion surveys of sects in Lebanon, and there isn't one iota of evidence for this. I mean, it is also logical: what are the Shi`ites' alternative: the sectarian blatantly anti-Shi`ite agenda of the Saudi camp in Lebanon leaves the Shi`ites with no alternative. Furthermore, the notion that the Shi`ites are upset over Hizbullah's intervention in Syria (no matter what I or others think of it) is not true at all. I would argue that the mass base of Hizbullah AND Amal is in favor of even heavier intervention in Syria and in Lebanon against Syrian rebel groups.
2) I disagree that the party pursued a policy of representation in government after 2005. The decision was rather grudging and remains half-hearted. In the sectarian appointments to posts in governments, the party still defers to Amal and allows it to grab most of the appointments. And in cabinets, the party has not fought for the big service ministries, unlike Amal.
1) She says: "Mounting dissatisfaction with Hezbollah in Lebanon, including from in-group members, as a result of its ongoing and intensified participation in the Syrian conflict may be weakening its dominant position within the Shiite community." There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this. The only evidence is in fact claims in media (Hariri and Saudi, like Now Hariri website) that are not backed up by evidence. I have been looking at public opinion surveys of sects in Lebanon, and there isn't one iota of evidence for this. I mean, it is also logical: what are the Shi`ites' alternative: the sectarian blatantly anti-Shi`ite agenda of the Saudi camp in Lebanon leaves the Shi`ites with no alternative. Furthermore, the notion that the Shi`ites are upset over Hizbullah's intervention in Syria (no matter what I or others think of it) is not true at all. I would argue that the mass base of Hizbullah AND Amal is in favor of even heavier intervention in Syria and in Lebanon against Syrian rebel groups.
2) I disagree that the party pursued a policy of representation in government after 2005. The decision was rather grudging and remains half-hearted. In the sectarian appointments to posts in governments, the party still defers to Amal and allows it to grab most of the appointments. And in cabinets, the party has not fought for the big service ministries, unlike Amal.
