when this lebanon thing first started i predicted that the lebanese, even the majority who doesn't like hezbollah, would rally to their cause.
it's only been a few days, but results have been mixed. on the one hand, the political leadership of lebanon, even the factions who are normally quite hostile to hezbollah, have rallied in opposition to israel. on the other hand, the opinion of the lebanese public is a lot harder to gauge. i've seen a lot of sites that have found quotes from random lebanese people condemning hezbollah and not israel for their misery (though i wonder what they would say if asked specifically about israel). there's also plenty of quotes going the other way. there's no way to do a scientific opinion poll under these conditions, so we're left with a battle of anecdotes.
i still think that the longer this goes on, the more solidly the lebanese public will be more sympathetic to hezbollah. they are being bombed, after all. for reasons that are a complete mystery to me, israel has hit solidly christian towns in northern lebanon now, places that would normally be quite anti-hezbollah. and yet they see only hezbollah firing back. the long this situation goes on, hezbollah is going to gain gain more support not less. it's simply human nature.
on the third hand, and this is interesting in its own way, many countries in the larger arab community are not rallying to hezbollah at all. that's a huge change from how this probably would have played out before. for as long as i can remember countries like saudi arabia would never pass up a chance to blame almost anything that happens in the region on israel. the fact that they are placing at least some of the fault on hezbollah is a testament to their fear of the "shia crescent."
for the last few years, shia have been gaining political power in a number of countries in the region. many gulf nations see this as a direct threat to their rule as the shia are a majority in many parts of the gulf region (in saudi arabia, the shia are a minority, but they are a majority in some of the eastern oil-rich areas in the eastern part of the country)
conservatives are always trying to give bush the credit for anything they think is going right in the middle east. no matter what it is, they claim that it's somehow related to or inspired by the invasion of iraq and/or its aftermath. a lot of times the arguments they use to support these theories are pretty flimsy--they tend to ignore that the middle east had populist democratic movements before 2003 or the various internal factors that are obviously at play.
but the gulf countries decision to lay the blame for the crisis in lebanon on hezbollah rather than israel really is a direct result of the iraqi invasion. the toppling of saddam resulted in a shia-led government that has many ties to iran. iraq was previously seen as a barrier to iranian/shia influence in the region and instead it is becoming and extension of their reach.
it's not the spread of "freedom" that middle eastern despots fear, it's the prospect of their oppressed minorities (or, in some cases, majorities) getting an external ally in the arab world. apparently this fear is enough for them to even override their normal "blame israel" reflex.
