Some would call it good politics.

It’s amazing how much opinions vary, even on things that would ordinarily be considered positive. If the government of any western country, for instance, or any recognised middle-eastern government started pumping funds into a reconstruction effort, say after something like hurricane Katrina, for instance, it would be seen as the right response, and some would even go so far to say the response isn’t good enough (everyone’s a critic, you know). But, if an entity that the US recognises as a terrorist organization does it, like what’s going on in Lebanon, it stops being a good thing and starts being said organization buying loyalty. Lebanon however calls it the right response. Recognise a familiar patern of opinion? To the people who’re effected by it, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it, or why. It matters that someone’s doing it, and all the US is doing by taking *that* stance on it is alienating Lebanon’s citizenry, particularly the ones directly effected, further than it has already. It supported turning their lives upside down, and now it’s against a rebuilding effort by the people it blames for the damage. One has to wonder, though, how many of the people effected blame Israel, and the US, for said damage. It’s amazing how much your opinion changes depending on whether you’re on the outside of a situation, or right in the middle of it. That’s life, and so far as Lebanon goes at the moment, that’s politics. Good politics. Whether loyalty is being bought or not, they certainly aren’t making any enemies–I certainly wouldn’t break the hand that’s giving me money to buy furniture and things for the house they’re building for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *