“Peace in our time,” exclaimed Neville Chamberlain in 1938 following the signing of the Munich Agreement, which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia in an attempt to avoid another devastating war. I would surely hope that the lessons of appeasement are not forgotten in modern politics, but recent events would suggest otherwise.
Earlier this month, Hezbollah militants in Lebanon took to the streets clashing with pro-government militias and creating road blocks and havoc in the already troubled nation. This was because the pro-Western government fired a Hezbollah-sympathetic security chief at the airport and shut down Hezbollah’s private communication network. Hezbollah, in a show of dominance, was able to take control of much of the country, with the national army standing idly by. For the past 18 months, Hezbollah and other opposition groups have held a sit-in in downtown Beirut, paralyzing business in a protest against the pro-Western government. They have been seeking veto power in the cabinet. Pro-government and opposition leaders met in Doha and granted the opposition the veto power they sought, as well as reinstating the sympathetic security officer at the airport and allowing Hezbollah’s private communication line to continue. These concessions came after the threat of all-out civil war by Hezbollah.
It is hard to look down on these concessions and this policy of appeasement. The Lebanese people are tired of war and this agreement provides them with peace, but for how long? Hezbollah has claimed they need to retain their weapons to fight Israel, yet in a moment’s notice they turn their guns onto the Lebanese people in a clash resulting in 81 deaths. This is strange for a self-claimed “nationalist organization.” The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah muscled their newly granted veto power with the threat of war against a nation that has seen too much, a tactic Hitler employed. They have gained the power within the government they sought, but still have the freedom to operate as a non-state actor. Hezbollah is seen by the United States and Israel as a terrorist organization, and I would agree. They are quite possibly the strongest, most organized and best-funded one at that. They are supported financially and ideologically in large part by Iran. Collaboration with Hezbollah across religious or political lines is misguided, seeing as how one of their founding goals was to create an Islamic state in Lebanon as well as their unilateral actions of dragging the entire nation into a war with Israel in 2006.
The Doha agreement was hailed internationally as a step forward in creating peace in Lebanon, but I would beg to differ. This event only further emboldened Hezbollah and granted them the ability to operate even more freely as the world’s strongest terrorist organization. The events in this tiny country in the Middle East could have resounding effects on U.S. policy and our allies. If Hezbollah is allowed to continue on this road of unchallenged authority, Lebanon will see darker days. The only positive thing I can see from the Doha agreements is that they grant Lebanon the peace necessary to prepare for war. In 1938 appeasement gave England more time to prepare for war ““ a war they eventually won. Hopefully the newly elected president, Michel Sleiman, will take this time to unite the nation and build the army to a position where it could actually disarm Hezbollah and end the terrorist threat it poses. Until then, these agreements remain a loss to the free world.
Haber is a fourth-year global studies student.