Why Arab countries also want Hezbollah to be disarmed?

Question

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300919.html

Answer 1

Hezbollah are Shiite Muslims as are most Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and some Yemenis, Pakistanis and Bahrainians. Diplomatic efforts are aimed at getting the Sunni Muslim countries to negotiate. This includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Sunni Muslims do not want Shiite Muslims to have power. The civil war in Iraq is between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

The article says, "Thousands of Egyptians and Jordanians have protested the Israeli assault, now in its second week, and hundreds of Saudis have signed petitions demanding a cease-fire... analysts say the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt want a weakened and disarmed Hezbollah,"

Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. Hezbollah bridges the deep division between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity.

Syria's interests and Iran's are never quite the same.
Nor are Hezbollah's interests quite the same as those of its patrons. Hezbollah has business interests in legal and illegal businesses around the world. It has interests within Lebanese politics and it has interests in Palestinian politics. As a Syrian client, it looks at the region as one entity. As an Iranian client, it looks to create a theocratic state in the region.

As an entity in its own right, Hezbollah must keep itself going. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won -- if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces.


It is important to begin with this point: Almost all Muslim Arabs opposed the creation of the state of Israel. Not all of them supported, or support today, the creation of an independent Palestinian state or recognize the Palestinian people as a distinct nation. This is a vital and usually overlooked distinction that is the starting point in our thinking.

When Israel was founded, three distinct views emerged among Arabs.

The first was that Israel was a part of the British mandate created after World War I and therefore should have been understood as part of an entity stretching from the Mediterranean to the other side of Jordan, from the border of the Sinai, north to Mount Hermon. Therefore, after 1948, the West Bank became part of the other part of the mandate, Jordan.

There was a second view that argued that there was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Syria and that all of this province -- what today is Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the country of Syria -- is legitimately part of it. This obviously was the view of Syria, whose policy was and in some ways continues to be that Syria province, divided by Britain and France after World War I, should be reunited under the rule of Damascus.

A third view emerged after the establishment of Israel, pioneered by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. This view was that there is a single Arab nation that should be gathered together in a United Arab Republic. This republic would be socialist, more secular than religious and, above all, modernizing, joining the rest of the world in industrialization and development.

All of these three views rejected the existence of Israel, but each
had very different ideas of what ought to succeed it. The many
different Palestinian groups that existed after the founding of
Israel and until 1980 were not simply random entities. They were, in various ways, groups that straddled these three opinions, with a fourth added after 1967 and pioneered by Yasser Arafat. This view was that there should be an independent Palestinian state, that it should be in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, extend to the original state of Israel and ultimately occupy Jordan as well. That is why, in September 1970, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan. For Arafat, Amman, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were all part of the Palestinian homeland.

After the Iranian revolution, a fifth strain emerged. This strain
made a general argument that the real issue in the Islamic world was to restore religious-based government. This view opposed the pan-Arab vision of Nasser with the pan-Islamic vision of Khomeini. It regarded the particular nation-states as less important than the type of regime they had. This primarily Shiite view was later complemented by what was its Sunni counterpart. Rooted partly in Wahhabi Sunni religiosity and partly in the revolutionary spirit of Iran, its view was that the Islamic nation-states were the problem and that the only way to solve it was a transnational Islamic regime -- the caliphate -- that would restore the power of the Islamic world.

the Sunni-Shiite fault line had become venomous. Tensions not
only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and Pakistan were creating a
transnational civil war between these two movements. Iran was
positioning itself to replace al Qaeda as the revolutionary force in
the Islamic world and was again challenging Saudi Arabia as the
center of gravity of Islamic religiosity

Answer 2

because the governments are release and of the corrupted ones, stupids. The Arab opinion is completely with the hezbollah as well as Palestinian.

Answer 3

arab countries do not want want hizbullah to be disarmed...only the leaders want that...the arab people are totally standing with hizbullah because they hate israel...but the leaders are bastards and stpid they are afraid of israel and usa...as i can see the article you attached can answer your question

Answer 4

It is destablizing the region.

Answer 5

They're Shia and they're too prone to violence and terrorism.

Answer 6

They want peace. That should be everyone's goal, shouldn't it?

Answer 7

IS this a question or an answer or both?.