And, then as kids growing up, there was Danny Thomas.

Danny Thomas reached fame as an American comedian. Who knew there were problems between Jews and Lebanese? I didn't. I knew Danny's music arranger. A Jewish kid, from Brooklyn. His mom and my mom were friends.

We're in a different world, now.

And, I do notice,that Olmert has a good working relationship with Mubarak, but it doesn't seem that there is a similar one from Lebanon. I don't know why.

When Bashir Gamalyel (the prime minister blown up by Arafat back in the early 80's), Arik Sharon went to the parent's home during the mourning period. Yes. In his book, Warrior, he said that because this son was close to the West, and his brother, who was next into the Presidency was not, that it would be bad for Lebanon. That an opportunity would pass and would not emerge again for 50 years. Well, I thought that was hyperbole. But there's been twistings and turnings due to alignments. Some of which were made in Lebanon with the ruskies. Of course, the Ruskies lost a diplomat in a car bombing; also during the 1980's. How Spaznez solved it got to show the Lebanese that the West is "different."

Not sure if painting signs that say "hit Syria," when Nasrallah let fire a sniper's bullet over the border, is exactly what the Israelis wanted to hear. Or how good relations between the two countries now stand.

On the other hand, Nasrallah just did suffer quite a set back. It should keep the border quiet. And, this is a good thing.

Always thought Denial was just a river in Eygpt. But part of the problems come from the fantasies that get taught; and then shared with each other as rumor.

As an American, I'm watching Iraq flounder. Flounders that swim in rivers called Denial. Sympathy wanes. Who knew?

Carol, please stop posting the same thing over and over again in a different format. Those of us who want to read Ariel Sharon's book know where to find it.

Michael,

It's possible you think you can open Lebanon's border with the stuff you write. But I don't think so. I think the reason America pulled out of vietnam is that a lot of citizens, here, threw in the towel. And, the politicians that didn't listen, suffered. I think the reason Israel pulled out of Lebanon also has to do with how the Israelis, over a broad spectrum, felt about the IDF fighting in Lebanon.

I also think the reason Arik Sharon "Disengaged" came about because he read the public's will, well. Even though the settlers were strongly opposed.

If you don't think Sharon's published opinions count, so be it. But I don't think Israel's just gonna open the border with Lebanon because it would be a benefit to drive back and forth between the two countries. There are impediments out there. That some Israelis would love to see this border open? You bet. I agree. Both sides of the fence have people who'd like it to come down. On the other hand, the border on the Israeli side is well secured. And, in a recent skirmish you saw the way the response went.

Until then the problems remain. And, they remain in Iraq, now, as well. All the good meaning people, notwithstanding.

Thank you Micheal for differentiating Lebanese from others in our surroundings.

Doesn't anyone remember how many residents of South Lebanon were throwing rice on the advancing Israeli soldiers for ridding them of the PLO presence? However, a people don't want to be occupied for very long, and the tactics Israel used in southern towns and villages inevitably made the population dislike them considerably.

Those who genuinely want to make Lebanon strong enough to be able to resist any Israeli aggression must realize that in the long term the best way to do this is to make Lebanon enter the 21st century knowledge based economic system. While the Israelis have an industrialized economy and have a high standard of living and move forward with their lives, we are stuck here in paranoia hiding behind bushes. Some people want to keep us like this for the next 50 years, while the average Lebanese suffers and has no hope to better their economic situation except by leaving the country.

Hezbollah's weapons can't defend against Israel, because if they want to they can reach Beirut within a week, and there isn't a thing Hezbollah can do about it. The only solution is to build a modern, strong, united society that does not fear the world of the 21st century.

I'm all for reconcilation between Israel and all its Arab neighbors, but I must say that I found perpetualrefugees posting disingenous and somewhat disturbing. He describes going rigid with reflexive hatred in the presence of "his occupier", and so it would have been natural for him to then describe the horrible experiences he had with the Israelis. Instead, he describes an atrocity commited by a rival militia (which bloodletting the Israeli invasion helped put an end to). He also confesses in the comments that he was not really a sniper, but was speaking "symbolically". I do not call this symbolic. I call it dishonest. When he asks rhetorically whether his interlocuter has "Lebanese blood" on his hands, this is also a misleading statement. Does he mean Palestinian blood? That's a laugh. The Lebanese never gave the Palestinians citizenship. As MJT himself commented in an earlier blog, the Israelis never engaged the Lebanese army militarily. They never fought Druze or Christians. They fought the PLO and they fought Hizbollah, both terrorist organizations.

Regarding the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, I do not believe that you can dismiss it entirely as a "disaster for everyone concerned". Booting the PLO out of Lebanon was a significant positive for the Lebanese. They were a highly destabilizing element, and their presence strongly contributed to the disastrous civil war in 1975. Getting rid of them allowed for the recovery of the city of Beirut, which MJT visited recently and described so eloquently. Arguably, the Lebanese were the ones who gained the most from the Israeli invasion, and at least for those Lebanese living outside the zone of occupation in southern Lebanon, I'm not sure the price tag was so high.

PR's Israeli interlocuter was right, Israel didn't have to hold onto the security zone in southern Lebanon for fifteen years. It led to the rise of Hizbollah, and accounted for high casualties, and brought the evils of occupation to southern Lebanon. But let's at least acknowledge there were benefits for the rest of the country.

Doesn't anyone remember how many residents of South Lebanon were throwing rice on the advancing Israeli soldiers

I do. But after the Israeli withdrawal, there was a flurry of show trials aimed at collaborators. Was not their only defense the cry, "The Israelis made me do it!" Thus, few Lebanese cared to remember publicly how much Israel's presence was actively desired in their country, and it made sense for the Israelis - having guiltily abandoned their allies of the past twenty years - not to make a fuss about it, lest their friends suffer unduly.

With the posts of MJT and Omega80 I consider that this taboo is now broken. Time has started to heal many wounds, and more open discussion of these matters is desired.

Just as Perpetual Refugee referred to a "ghost" calling him "brother" so too do I accept - after his explanation - his describing a meeting as that of "an occupier with his sniper". This is poetic license, and we should accomodate ourselves to it.

" the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, with which it should not be confused. "

I'm grateful that you set out that differentiation, as I've known Christian Lebanese who had no quarrel with Israel, but were in vehement conflict with the Arabs of the region, and were/are resentful of their intrusion on Lebanon.

Again, where's the paypal link???? I feel like I'm standing at the check-out counter at the market reading magazines without paying! sheesh!

When PR referred to himself as a sniper, I took him at face value, that he was a sniper, or at least a combattant, and I think everyone else did too. This is not the same as referring to someone as a "ghost", which is clearly metaphoric. In real world publishing, this kind of "poetic license" gets you into big trouble.

What the Perpetual Refugee is telling us is a journey of his soul, yet his physical travelogue is only a part of that. When he was in Israel he certainly believed that once discovered to be a Lebanese people would consider him as an enemy in their midst, and perhaps at one time he believed himself capable of or imagined himself being a sniper, aiming his rifle carefully at an Israeli helmet.

In a journey of the soul, such poetic allusions are indispensable. Have you ever read the Song of Songs?

Solomon2: With the posts of MJT and Omega80 I consider that this taboo is now broken.

I sure wish I had the power to break a taboo. I may be able to help break it for some individuals (?) but I certainly can't for entire countries.

MarcC: When PR referred to himself as a sniper, I took him at face value, that he was a sniper, or at least a combattant, and I think everyone else did too.

I didn't. But I can see why somebody else would.

Solomon2:

I don't want to belabor the point. I certainly understand poetic allusion, but PR's posting was more journalistic than a "journey of the soul". I didn't assume I was reading Khalil Gibran. If he wanted to make a poetical point, he should have made some disclaimer that he was doing so.

Beyond that, his sniper allusion raises troubling issues. If he was not truly a hizbollah sniper, but an ordinary citizen, does that mean that to be Lebanese means to be, in spirit, a Hizbollah sniper, or that that's how Israelis view all Lebanese? I'm not sure that either claim is correct.

I am content to wait until PR chooses to tell us more.

MarkC,

I think I get was PR meant, but I can't speak for him and it's hard to explain anyway.

I'll say this, though. When I stood on the Israeli side of the border and an IDF officer warned me that it was possible I was being watched through a sniper rifle, all of Lebanon felt like one vast sniper's nest. And I lived in Lebanon for six months, I love the place, and I know very well that Lebanon is no such thing.

Very well. Perhaps I'm being too literal. I guess my problem with the piece was that it fell too easily into the usual, propogandist posturing which PR claims he wants to escape from (blaming Israel for his speeding was a nice touch). It seemed that he was going more for the gut-wrenching, crowd-pleasing, made-for-Hollywood kind of story, and that the thinking behind it was shoddy.

PR's blog is very interesting and he is a brave person. He is not a professional author - and it shows.

Having said that, I should say that I don't buy into open borders. We Israelis have an open border with Egypt, but the relationship gets nowhere.

And we were very intimate with the Palestinians, and that didn't get us anywhere either.

There is something in the meeting between Israelis and Arabs that simply doesn't work.

I think that, like in life, a little distance and a clear boundary between societies makes for a better relationship.

Disk on Key: We Israelis have an open border with Egypt, but the relationship gets nowhere.

That's because it's Egypt. (If you've been there I think you know what I mean.) Egypt and Lebanon are v-e-r-y different places. Anyway, a closed border certainly won't help you with Egypt.

Do you think Israelis and Lebanese should be banned from visiting each other's countries even after a peace agreement is signed, whichever century that takes place in? Should foreigners also continue to be banned from crossing the border?

And we were very intimate with the Palestinians

A little too intimate, one might say. I'm not calling for an Israeli occupation and settlement of Lebanon here.

What's all the fuss about him being a sniper or not? And what if he was, is it a crime to be a soldier fighting for a cause you believe in? In this case all Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah militiamen are criminals; if not then treat each case by itself.

In reading my earlier comments, I realize that I was way over the top attacking PR. I went into Colonel Bogey mode, fighting for arguments I don't even believe. I do think the article contained some flaws, but surely these pale before the larger issue of his coming to Israel and trying to build bridges between the two people. Kol ha Koved, as we say, and please excuse me for being an ass.

As much as many Lebanese do want peace with Israel, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

I strongly believe that (unfortunately) Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel.

The problem is that the Lebanese are divided into sects. There's one sect that is always accused of treason, and was always clearly too eager to build bridges with the Israelis.

This will make other sects concerned that these "traitors" will conspire with Israel against them to gain economic and political advantages. Any peace treaty will only be see advantageous to that group alone.

If the Lebanese society were a homogeneous one, it would've been a lot easier.

I'm going to check out PR's blog. It seems pretty interesting.

Michael says:

"Understand how raw and traumatized Lebanese people still are, ...from their rough encounters with Israeli soldiers."

Yeah, I'm sure they are.

You could also say this:

"Understand how raw and traumatized Israeli people still are,...from their rough encounters with Hizb'allah and PLO terrorists based in Lebanon."

This is a two-way street. I am sure that PR feels very strongly about his "occupier". It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Jew might feel just as strongly about his "sniper".

I like your blog, Michael, but the Lebanese need to face something: the fact that their territory played, and still plays, host to terrorist organizations which exist for no other reason than to murder Jews. I know Lebanon is weak and that while the Lebanese might want Hizb'allah out they cannot do it (yet).

But if Lebanon doesn't want them there, there are two solutions to this: Lebanon can take care of the problem itself, or Israel can do it for them.

Israel has withdrawn to the international border. Even the UN, that nest of anti-Semitism, has recognized this. Hizb'allah is not there to "defend" Lebanon from Israeli "aggression". It is there to continue the Muslim jihad against the Jews on orders from Tehran.

If and when Israel is forced by Hizb'allah aggression to defend itself once again, I hope that they do themselves and Lebanon a favor and destroy Hizb'allah completely and not make the same mistake they did with Arafat when they let him get away.

Ephrain,
IF you think Hezbollah came into existence just to "murder Jews", then i'm sorry to say that you either don't know much about what went out, or are apologetic about the actions of Israeli soldiers in Southern Lebanon after the 1982 invasion.

In my opinion, when an organization (the Israeli Army) deliberatly shells a UN compound that is known to house refugees and kills 100 of them, that is a terrorist act. Just because someone has a beard doesn't mean they are necessarily terrorist. Lebanon was occupied by Israel, and whether they went in to chase the PLO or to pick flowers from the mountainsides, they started to treat Southern Lebanon like it was the West Bank. When you do that, except the people to rise up against your oppressive hand.

It is a great shame that Lebanon was first forced to play host to the PLO and now to Hizb'allah, which is entirely a creation, and tool, of Iran, whose attitudes towards Israel are well known. Hizb'allah's purpose is to serve as Iran's (and Syria's) agent in Lebanon acting both as Syria's enforcer as well as Iran's front line against "the Zionist entity".

Israel was forced to invade Lebanon because of PLO depradations. I can serve up quite a bit of atrocity propaganda too, if you wish.

Israel is out of Lebanon. This is good for both Lebanon and Israel. If Lebanon does not want to see Israel back there (and I fervently hope that it will never again be necessary) then Lebanon must figure out how to disarm Hizb'allah so that Israel is not forced to do it.

'Lebanon was occupied by Israel, and whether they went in to chase the PLO or to pick flowers from the mountainsides, they started to treat Southern Lebanon like it was the West Bank. When you do that, except the people to rise up against your oppressive hand'.

I opposed the 1982 when it happened and I would oppose it again if it was to start now.

Having said that, I should say also that your post above, as well as some of the things that Perpetual occasionally writes, are precisely the reasons why I have little faith in you people. In spite of surfacial similarities, we live in mutually incomprehnsible worlds.

Southern Lebanon was NOT ANYTHING like the west bank. There was no settlement movement, no appropriation of land, no logistical bases, and, if you care to look at the map, there was very little military presence after 1985. (Count the number of Israeli bases from Nakura in the west to Shebaa, as you call it, in the east: you'll laugh at the result, espcially if you'd know that most of them never contained more than 20 troops at any given time). The only rationale ever stated for the existence of the security zone was to prevent armed infiltration into Israel proper (a common occurence in the 1970s). In this, the zone was highly successful. There were no such inflitrations when the zone existed; and a lethal one took place a year or so from the army's pullout. So we had a proven defensive stake in occupying a part of a state whose inhabitants never take full responsibility for their own border.

You might blame the SLA for whatever you didn't like about the pre-2000 situation, but that would be to blame yourself. The SLA was a Lebanese creation, whose forerunner, Major Haddad's militia, founded itself with very little Israeli help. Their original rationale was very much like what you and Perpetual occasionally write - the defence of decent Lebanese from armed gangs who were responsbile apart from foreign wirepullers.

'Do you think Israelis and Lebanese should be banned from visiting each other's countries even after a peace agreement is signed, whichever century that takes place in?'

No, but I'd be very careful with the agreement itself.

The 1982-3 disaster came out of an originally benevolent cooperation between Israel and that genteel, westernized, hedonistic and largely Maronite middle class that you seem to have such a high regard for.

I wish those people well. But knowing the depths of misunderstanding on both sides and the extents of misery that our past relationship eventually brought about, I am not sure that we should share a lot more than a (peaceful) border.

"In my opinion, when an organization (the Israeli Army) deliberatly shells a UN compound that is known to house refugees and kills 100 of them, that is a terrorist act. Just because someone has a beard doesn't mean they are necessarily terrorist. Lebanon was occupied by Israel, and whether they went in to chase the PLO or to pick flowers from the mountainsides, they started to treat Southern Lebanon like it was the West Bank. When you do that, except the people to rise up against your oppressive hand.

Posted by Omega80"

Israel did many bad things in Lebanon. Its involvement in the civil war was a mistake. But, Israel did not deliberatly shell the UN compound, nor did it treat South Lebanon as the west bank. The truth is that Israel would have left Lebanon much earlier if the Lebanese government would have agreed to take over the border. The rationale for the presence after the defeat of the PLO was to protect from the Hizballa. What changed in 2000 is that Israelis came to believe that even if the Hizballa remained in control it would still be better to leave. It is a shame that Lebanon was unable to simply cut a deal with Israel prior to that, because of all the places Israel occupied it was the only one it really wanted to leave.

It is a shame that the Israelis do not realize that the fact that they are greatly responsible for the creation of a Palestinian problem in Lebanon: They need to stop blaming a weak Lebanese government and start working on settling the Palestinian refugees of Lebanon back in Occupied Palestine/Israel or in other host conuntries where Israel and the US would use their lobbying to achieve such a purpose.

The Lebanese have been suffering for years because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and we have still Israelis coming here and blaming the Lebanese for receiving those refugees... what did you expect us to do? shoot them in the head while they were fleeing from Palestine?

I really used to think that the Lebanese were the ones that always blamed others for their miseries, however it seems that our Israeli neighbors have perfected this art.

The PA is in control of the "West Bank" now. I suppose those refugees could go "home" any time they wish.

The proper thing would have been for the Arabs to have accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 and not declared war on Israel. If I am not mistaken, Lebanon was part of that effort. As such, as party to the aggression against Israel in 1947-48, Lebanon has a responsibility to solve a problem which it actively helped to create. Israel has no obligation to settle the refigees anywhere, especially not in Israel. If you think that is the sloution, dream on.

As for the post-Black Sptember "refugees" from Jordan, who helped plunge Lebanon into war, it would have been better for Lebanon to have closed its borders and allowed King Hussein to finish off the PLO once and for all as justly deserved punishment for their attempts to overthrow his government (with Syrian collusion, of course). Then Lebanon would have been spared a great deal of trouble. Of course, I imagine that Lebanon was probably too weak to do that too.

Of course, asking the Arab states to extend citizenship to the refugees would be asking too much, I suppose.

Again Ephraim, you represent typical Israeli thought: "It's the fault of everyone but us".

I hope that you're not seriously considering a couple of skirmiches at Malkiya as "being part of the "agression of 47-48""? I just read some of your fellow citizens claiming that Israel never fought with the Lebanese Government itself?

Selective memory at best.

Lira, how many generations would have to be born in Lebanon before they are no longer considered "refugees"? If I had to move for any reason, I would assume that my grandchildren born thirty, forty or fifty years later would not still be considered refugees. It's insane.

Dish on Key, what is wrong with the Maronite middle class again?

Micha, a UN internal investigation concluded that the Israelis knew that refugees were in the UN compound. It also concluded that the professional nature of the Israeli military meant that it was unlikely the UN compound was hit by a "stray" shell, so what do you think that means? The UN Security Council agreed and wanted to have a resolution made to codemn the Qana Massacre, but of course the U.S. put its veto to use. I recomend you read the last part of Robert Fisk's "Pity the Nation" as well.

Ephraim,
Let's not get into touchy subjects, but if I were to go by your way of thinking, then my question to you would be that why should Palestinians have suffered in the first place for what the Nazis did during WWII? With this, then Israel should have never existed in the first place. Maybe Jews in Palestine should have become part of a country called Palestine instead. So where is your logic of going back in time going to take us? Also, it is indeed true that Hezbollah's budget comes from Iran and its arms flow through Syria, however, Hezbollah is a creation of the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah didn't exist until a few years after that invasion and basically as a result of the consolidation of many smaller resistance movements in Southern Lebanon.

So you can blame the architects of the Israeli invasion because they created Hezbollah. Come on buddy, let's call a spade a spade. In fact, we can also probably thank Hezbollah for playing a major role in the Israeli decision to withdraw from Lebanon.

Hmm..it seemed to be going in a good direction by just opening up and recognize each-other as human-beings, but reading the comments of Omega80 and Lira - is such a downer. The old blaming game again. Angels. That's probably what they think their country is and not to blame for anything.... How does it feel to live in constant denial? To play the eternal victim? To keep on pointing to others? Angels.... 5 countries attacked Israel the day after it announced its independence: 5 countries!!! But, of course: it is forbidden to call Israel a victim. Just imagine....

No way is there ever gonna be peace - as long as all blame is put on Israel ALL THE TIME FOR EVERYTHING, without looking at what "your" part was in it all other than lingering on to the fantasy of eternal victim that you was brainwashed into, and how things got screwed up the way it is right now.

Israel has committed grave mistakes, and have caused even worse accidents - but it for SURE was not the only one. It takes two to tango...

Tse.

PS- I was for the invasion into Lebanon (having a katusyha land near your shoulder while on holiday in Northern Israel has that effect) but against progressing further than just that zone. Till this very day I believe Sharon cheated Begin and placed him before a fait accomplis.

Tsedek,
What I wrote was in response to posts by Ephraim, there is no need to over dramatize things. The war is over, time to move on. However, I always supported my countrymen during wartime, just like others in other countries do.

Hezbollah should now disarm because it holding weapons overall is more of a problem now for Lebanon than anything positive, however, in the past this was not the case.

Still, since now it is 2006, it is time that we all move on.

...why should Palestinians have suffered in the first place for what the Nazis did during WWII?

Arabs were in WWII up to their necks, mostly on the German side. That includes the Arab population of Palestine. There is still-extant film of the Mufti of Jerusalem conferring with Nazi ministers, complimenting them on the efficiency of the Final Solution. It really was a WORLD war, and the Middle East wasn't left out.

But your history teacher probably didn't tell you that.

Up until the most-recent intifada there were still lots of Westerners who could and did support the "Palestinians" -- scare quotes because a distinct population with that appelation didn't exist before 1948. Hizb'Allah and Hamas have squandered most of the remaining sympathy. Shooting back at people who are murdering your children is not "oppression", nor is defending against mass attack by neighboring countries, and trying to make it so doesn't make the Israelis villains; it makes you dishonest.

I was born the same year Israel was. My neighbors and relatives, some of them, were in the oil business, and there was considerable exchange. I'd met Muslims and heard about the Koran long before I ever met an actual Jew. Up until 1967 you could have heard, in my home town, anti-Semitic remarks every bit as strong as anything preached in a mosque in Gaza, including the blood libel. After that -- well, the general conclusion is that people who bomb school buses to make a political point deserve to be oppressed.

It's claimed that Israel oppresses Arabs. It may be so. But every rocket that lands in Israel, every bomb in a cafe or on a bus full of kids, makes it less likely that anybody will listen or give a damn. Stop it, and make your case. Or don't -- but Israel will still be there.

Regards,
Ric

Omega80 shame on you. You started this food fight. Using Fisk and the UN as authorities on Qana is a farce - they are NOT objective, which is why the US used its veto. You have to get out of your blame-Israel-for-your-own-problems mentality.

A million Jews were expelled from Arab countries. Most went to Israel. Where are the cries for their return? Nowhere. Of course, they were accepted by their host counties, mostly Israel, and now have new and better lives. The Arab refugee problem is solely a creation of Arabs who won't let their "brothers" get on with their lives. Shame on you.

Solomon2 and MJT are correct in their interpretation of my 'sniper' comment.

I can tell you in all honesty that I did witness Israeli soldiers in my village. I was young. And I did imagine myself pointing a rifle at their heads.

Forgive my amateurish writing Disk on Key.

Perp: Your writing was sublime! The sniper comment too. My take: It is where you are coming from, a station on your personal path to liberation.

I am very happy to host an argument between Lebanese and Israelis that is mostly intelligent and mostly civil. So please please please let's keep it that way. It could be so much worse than it is, and thank God it's not.

The creation of Israel was not fully just -- but the forbidding of Jews to immigrate into Palestine before WW II was also not just.
Jews were buying the land, had bought some 8% -- I'm not sure who they were buying it from.
The pre-Palestinians, Arabs who lived there and had mostly lived under Ottoman or British occupation, were generally not the owners.
The failure of the Arabs to accept Israel in '48, and their willingness to fight, was unjust.
This Arab injustice and recourse to war pretty much cancels out the earlier Israeli not-fully just declaration of independence.

The UN wants to create some "just" solution -- but there is no justice now. Only a balance of prior injustices, by both sides.

On Israel's side, there are what, some million Arab/Palestinian - Israelis, citizens of Israel. Proof that the "refugees" did NOT have to leave. Yet in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan (?), thousands of Jews DID have to leave.

Israel should be calling for a "right of return" for Jews kicked out of Arab lands, one that is transferrable, and transfer such rights to the Palestinians kept (like animals) in refugee camps.

The horrible refugee camps are a perfect example of ARABS oppressing the Palestinians, not Israel. As was noted by Michael a month or so ago -- Lebanon treats its Palestinian refugees like dirt. People whose parents were born in Lebanon, and who were born and lived their whole lives in Lebanon, but are not citizens and are not free and do not have Human Rights. Oppressed by Arabs.

Why? Because to the Arab gov'ts, the Palestinian people don't matter. They are just publicity weapons to be used against Israel.

I wish Israel would be talking more about how the UN and the EU support this "keep'em in a cage" policy, and how inhumane it is -- Arabs, enabled by the UN, being inhumane to the Palestinians.

Where are the news media pictures?

To PRef, great explanation about the sniper comment; and your writing is fine.
(I'd give it an 8; too emotional for my MJT=10 ideal; neo-neocon & Marc Cooper are also 8/9s)

[I quantify lots of stuff in my own mind that most people don't. For me it clarifies decision possibilities. Many think me a bit wierd in this, I know.]

'Dish on Key, what is wrong with the Maronite middle class again?'

Nothing. I don't think that there can be anything essentially wrong with any group as large as this.

It's only that Israel's cooperation with them in the 1980s came to huge grief. It would be easy and gratifying to put it down to corrupt, bloodthirsty and in one case, mentally declining, leadership. For all I remember, the misunderstanding and the feeling that things weren't working was a lot broader than the leadership level.

'Hmm..it seemed to be going in a good direction by just opening up and recognize each-other as human-beings, but reading the comments of Omega80 and Lira - is such a downer'.

Actually, it's a good sign. We had too many 'peace processes' in which we went from lethal hostility to lovey-dovey declarations overnight. That got us back to blows in no time. Things should open up more gradually.

So how do we get out of this mess?

Can Jews trust Arabs?
Can Arabs trust Jews?

Wait a minute. Can Arabs trust Arabs?

"Because to the Arab gov'ts, the Palestinian people don't matter. They are just publicity weapons to be used against Israel."

In the case of Lebanon, that is not the case. Palestinians in Lebanon can't become Lebanese because of the nature of Lebanon's confessional system. Most Palestinians in Lebanon are Sunni Muslim, so naturalizing hundreds of thousands of them would unnaturally tip the delicate balance in Lebanon's system. So, it is about the survival of the Lebanese state as it has been since 1923.

Yafawi, no i didn't start this "food fight". It seems it is ok for an Israeli to blame the "terrorist" Hezbollah and other "terrorist" Arabs, but for a Lebanese to defend his homeland means that he is just another "Jew hating terrorist Arab" blaming Israel for everything wrong under the sun. Well in fact this is not the case so view it as you like.

Omega80 :)

True, got carried away. Your & Lira's comments were just that "same old stuff" all of a sudden....

Me too, stand behind my country in wartime, I couldn't feel any other way - those boys (IDF'ers) are risking their lives to save mine. But, when wartime is over I'd like to think I stand behind "the good people everywhere" and not propagandists who so often kidnap the discussion by just repeating the same doctrine over and over again. Mostly y'day I was fed-up because of yet another discussion ELSEWHERE in that same old line of repeating memorized lines. So I guess I shouldn't have taken it out on you (& Lira) - sorry for that.

I'm thinking about the past yet again in a very different way than is being "promoted" by whoever has the ultimate interest in keeping this conflict (Pal/Isr) alive. I believe England was surely the instigator of all things to come. One of those things that keeps buggling my mind is the fact that England FORCED the nazi-mufti of Jerusalem down the throat of the muslim population living here in those days, who opposed to him being appointed for that function. There are many other examples in which England proves to have played dirty tricks to fire up events to follow - setting people up against each-other for their own interest (and failed to protect that in the end anyway, but that's another story).

Tse.

Barry Meislin,

can people trust people?

Tse.

I really don't get it.... How could Israel not hold responsibility on Palestinian refugees? Did they leave their homes becaue of free will? Of course someone is going to say that "the Arabs told them leave your houses and you will be back in a couple of weeks after we would have wiped the jooos to the sea, unfortunately for the arabs and the palestinians, the jooos were not that piece of a cake and they were not wiped to the sea, thus the Arabs hold entire responsibility, in addition to the Palestinian themselves that shouldn't have left their homes in the first place"

(btw, someone should show us texts or documents stating that the Government of Lebanon asked the Palestinian people to "leave" their homes)

and Israel was attacked by 5 countries however the Palestinian population felt compelled to leave :)

let me go with the flow and assume, just assume the previous overtly simplistic scenario. Where in the middle of all this did the Palestinians lose the right of return to their homes and lands?

"In the case of Lebanon, that is not the case. Palestinians in Lebanon can't become Lebanese because of the nature of Lebanon's confessional system. Most Palestinians in Lebanon are Sunni Muslim, so naturalizing hundreds of thousands of them would unnaturally tip the delicate balance in Lebanon's system. So, it is about the survival of the Lebanese state as it has been since 1923."

Israel has a similar problem.

The Hizballa did not help remove Israel from Southern Lebanon, it helped keep it there for ten years at least.

"It also concluded that the professional nature of the Israeli military meant that it was unlikely the UN compound was hit by a "stray" shell, so what do you think that means? "

You give too much credit to the Israeli Army. Do you know how many soldiers die in accidents? Hoiw inacurate these weapons are?

It seems Arabs like to believe that Israel kills civilians for fun. There is no doubt that Israelis (like the Americans) were negligent about civilian life (les than the Americans in Iraq), but had Israel wanted to simply kill civilians for fun, it could have done much worse.

The Hizballa is not a terrorist organization, although it did shell civilians deliberatly. It is a guerilla organization. But It has something in common with the Israeli army in Lebanon -- they fought an unnecessary war in brutal ways.

Here's an idea:

Let's threaten to wipe out the Zionist Entity.

Then let's blame Israel for being a militarized state!

Not helpful? Oh well, back to the drawing board...

Micha: "Israel has a similar problem"

It IS Israel's problem, Lebanon did not send 500,000 Lebanese refugees to Israel/Palestine, how would you like it we did so?

Barry, I did not get your joke however please tell us who on this page threatened to wipe out Israel

Tsedek,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree the same old arguments are getting old. It is only normal for a person to be behind those fighting in the name of his country.

However, I do agree that the war is over. I find it weird how Egypt (at the time the strongest Arab country) and Jordan can make peace with Israel, but tiny Lebanon, along with Syria, is supposed to hold the fort until the end of time. I guess the large numbers of refugees in Lebanon and the fact that they CAN'T stay in Lebanon makes us more deeply invovled and effected by what happens between Israel and the Palestinians. Our problem won't be completely solved until theirs is.

After much head scratching and soul searching, we've come up with something better.

Let's demand absolutely and unconditionally that Israel return to the pre-June 1967 borders, that Jerusalem be re-divided, and that the Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes within pre-1967 Israel.

By gum, that's it! We've got it!

It IS Israel's problem, Lebanon did not send 500,000 Lebanese refugees to Israel/Palestine, how would you like it we did so?

Yeah, I see you care nothing for the 1,000,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Whose problem is that? That must be the Arabs' problem!

Hey, I got an idea! How bout the Jews solve the Arabs' problems, and take responsibility for the Jews, and the Arabs solve the Jews' problem and take responsibility for the Arabs!

Yawafi,

What do you know about me? :)

"I see you care nothing for the 1,000,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries."

I care for them and I have spoken to a number of Jews that used to live in Arab countries.

"Whose problem is that? That must be the Arabs' problem!"

It is and it's the right of Lebanese Jews to return living in Lebanon as far as I am concerned :)

Barry,

"Let's demand absolutely and unconditionally that Israel return to the pre-June 1967 borders, that Jerusalem be re-divided, and that the Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes within pre-1967 Israel."

This is what's a fair solution is all about, thanks for your clarity of mind and your appreciated honesty.

Peace

Poor Palestinians, nobody wants them :(

Israel couldn't possibly take them in, because of the same reason Lebanon can't keep them: destabilization of demography (something that is best done gradually, by natural means)

But, why wouldn't they be able to settle down in what would be their own independent country: Palestine - next to Israel? Israel is not that bad with Palestinians (if you take out the defence precautions) I think. Before the Intifada life wasn't rosey in the PA but it certainly was for sure a LOT better than in any other given country they've been put in refugee-camps. And - this time they wouldn't have to be put in refugee-camps anyway, would they? They could build all over their own country....

Which brings me Lira to you: if one is attacked (which you seem to doubt for some reason?) and war is forced upon them, and the attacked party wins the war, it is very natural - everywhere else in the world - that the attacker doesn't address the attacked party saying: "let's forget about this war in which I wanted to wipe you out, I lost, but now you have to take me back" -

Pitty for the Palestinians that they let the arabic countries speak for them - because I have distinct memories of Israel allowing a great deal of Palestinian refugees back in straight after the 1948 war, but their offer being refused by the arabic countries.

Tse.

I am glad that you came to me Tse :)

"Which brings me Lira to you: if one is attacked (which you seem to doubt for some reason?) and war is forced upon them, and the attacked party wins the war, it is very natural - everywhere else in the world - that the attacker doesn't address the attacked party saying: "let's forget about this war in which I wanted to wipe you out, I lost, but now you have to take me back""

I will repeat that a couple of skirmiches at Malkiya do not constitute an "attack" as you want to describe, Lebanon's participation was symbolic and it further refrained from any participation in the subsequent wars for a very good reason which is not to get involved in a war that wasn't its.

I hope that you get the point now since unlike you I do not claim that Arabs speak on behalf of me or on behalf of those Palestinian refugees, everybody speaks for himself.

"Pitty for the Palestinians that they let the arabic countries speak for them - because I have distinct memories of Israel allowing a great deal of Palestinian refugees back in straight after the 1948 war, but their offer being refused by the arabic countries."

How did the average Palestinian Joe "let" the arabic countries speak for him? How did you want people with no political or governmental institutions to speak or make their voices heard? Did you ever hear what Palestinian refugees in their camps had to say or are you just listening to what characters like Arafat and Abbas have to say?

Are politics either white or black to you? Do people have rights beyond what their so-called leaders have to say? Show us where the Palestinians lost their right of return?

Show us where the Palestinians lost their right of return?

Show us where the Palestinians lost their right to be treated like human beings by the Lebanese.

Get down off your moral high horse and then we can talk.

"Show us where the Palestinians lost their right to be treated like human beings by the Lebanese."

How are the Palestinians not treated like human beings by the Lebanese? They're refugees and will remain as such until they get back to their land or haven't you heard of their right of return?

I will be really interested of hearing how the Lebanese are not treating the Palestinian refugees as human beings provided that it does not prevent you from answering on how they lost their right of return (at least according to you).

Haven't you heard of their right of return?

No. It is a sound-bite made up by politicians to get what they want from Israel.

How are the Palestinians not treated like human beings by the Lebanese?

See MTJ's previous posts, and the comments of your countrymen above.

Man, you do seem selective about your rights. Can you imagine the chaos unleashed if everyone exercised their "rights of return"? At least the Jews would still be in Israel!

"No. It is a sound-bite made up by politicians to get what they want from Israel."

No, the right of return is expressed by all Palestinian refugees who want to go back to their motherland, to their properties or those of their parents.

"See MTJ's previous posts, and the comments of your countrymen above."

My countrymen have not commented on this above, as for MJT:

"Lebanon treats its hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees worse than neglected zoo animals"

Totten using sensational phrasing does not mean that he's right or that the situation is as is.

Palestinian refugees have been granted free lands upon which they built their camps, they are acquiring free electricity and other utilities though not paying for it, still this is at a cost for the country, they have a special department in the Ministry of Interior that is responsible of their needs through UNRWA, they have built a number of solid constructions within the camps although this is illegal, they have been holding weapons in their camps and outside of them and this is illegal, they've been given access to some jobs and professions in Lebanon.

Those are refugees with temporary status, those are not permanent residents and neither citizenship candidates; if Israel, America and the West are so concerned about Palestinian rights, all they have to do is take them back (Israel) or host them in their own countries (America and the West).

The Lebanese have given more to the Palestinian refugees than America and the whole West ever did.

"Can you imagine the chaos unleashed if everyone exercised their "rights of return"? At least the Jews would still be in Israel!"

I am not asking for all Palestinian refugees to come back, however Israel and the US should find a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by sending part of them back to Israel/Palestine and the other part repatriated in countries such as the US, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and so on.

A small country like Lebanon with a population of 3 Million Lebanese cannot take on 500,000 Palestinian refugees, if it only was about numbers that would be the argument by itself...

The economy and little resources of the country also do not allow such a huge population influx.

Other than Lebanon had no business in the deportation of those people from their motherland in the first place!

The arab countries have no problem with giving the Jews the right to return to arab countriesw, since it does not cost them anything. The Jews were a small minority before and they'll be after. No threat to the nations.

How about reuniting Lebanon with Syria like before 1923?

Micha where did you learn history?

When was Lebanon "united" with Syria or is it another sensational phrase that is used for argument support?

And how is the cost of jewish return for arab countries relevant to that of palestinian return to their homeland? Both are rightful and both should be done, at least for those of Lebanon as the other arab countries have more or less integrated their palestinian populations.

Micha when was Lebanon "united" with Syria or is it another sensational phrase that is used for argument support?

And how is the cost of jewish return for arab countries relevant to that of palestinian return to their homeland? Both are rightful and both should be done, at least for those of Lebanon as the other arab countries have more or less integrated their palestinian populations.

No, the right of return is expressed by all Palestinian refugees who want to go back to their motherland, to their properties or those of their parents.

Who gives them the right to make the rules?

Actually, I make the rules! Here they are:

Everyone gets a right of return.

Jews get Israel. Okay, maybe they should return to Egypt, but since there are no Canaanites left, the country is empty, so let the Jews have it.

Arabs get Arabia. Shouldn't be much argument about that.

Copts get Egypt. Coptic is a direct-line descendent of ancient Egyptian.

Maronites get Lebanon. If you're Maronite, Lira, this should make you happy.

Turks get central Asia. Oh well, kinda cold. Life's a bummer.

Greeks get Turkey. Some people get lucky.

Etc. Etc.

My point is, Lira, if you want to talk about rights, there's a lot going around. You can't pick and choose just the ones you like.

PS: The Palestinians are already in Lebanon, so obviously Lebanon can handle it. You just don't want to give them any rights because it doesn't suit you.

Also, if the Arab League really wanted to solve the problem, they could with no pain to anyone. Just have each country take in a number of refugees proportional to their population. That would be about 1% per country. No one would notice, except the refugees themselves.

"Ottoman expansion began in the area under Selim I (1512-20). He defeated the Mamluks in 1516-17 and added Lebanon (as part of Mamluk Syria and Egypt) to his empire. Between the 16th and 18th centuries Ottoman Lebanon evolved a social and political system of its own. Ottoman Aleppo or Tripoli governed the north, Damascus the centre, and Sidon (after 1660) the south. Coastal Lebanon and al-Biqa' valley were usually ruled more directly by Istanbul, while Mt. Lebanon enjoyed semiautonomous status.
The powers jointly imposed the Organic Regulation of 1861 (modified in 1864), which gave Mt. Lebanon, the axial mountain region, autonomy under a Christian governor appointed by the Ottoman sultan, assisted by a council representing the various communities.
At the end of the war Lebanon was occupied by Allied forces and placed under a French military administration. In 1920 Beirut and other coastal towns, al-Biqa', and certain other districts were added to the autonomous territory Mt. Lebanon as defined in 1861, to form Greater Lebanon (Grand Liban; subsequently called the Lebanese Republic). In 1923 the League of Nations formally gave the mandate for Lebanon and Syria to France. The Maronites, strongly pro-French by tradition, welcomed this, and during the next 20 years, while France held the mandate, the Maronites were favoured. The expansion of prewar Lebanon into Greater Lebanon, however, changed the balance of the population. Although the Maronites were the largest single element, they no longer formed a majority. The population was more or less equally divided between Christians and Muslims, and a large section of it wanted neither to be ruled by France nor to be part of an independent Lebanon, but rather to form part of a larger Syrian or Arab state. To ease tensions between the communities, the constitution of 1926 provided that each should be equitably represented in public offices. Thus by convention the president of the republic was normally a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunnite Muslim, and the speaker of the chamber a Shi'ite Muslim."

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

It doesn't cost anything to the Lebanese to offer the right of return to Jews, but it costs them to assimilate sunni refugees, although other countries do assimilate refugees quite often, and it is considered as much if not more of a moral obligation as the right of return.

Seems odd to me, as Olmert is trying to divest Israel away from West Bank settlements, that arabs who carry Israeli citizenship get alarmed. I guess you can claim they welcome the change to Palestinian paper; but I don't get that impression at all.

As to people throwing rice and/or flowers at "occupiers," it WW2 brought lots of this stuff to the GI's who finally entered "The Continent" when they kicked into the boot of Italy. Heck, even in Paris the people were dancing in the streets.

But it didn't last.

That's why I'm pretty sure Iraq will stand as a stark example of how far you can go when you liberate a country from the tyrant, Saddam, but without great force, and the skills of General Douglas MacArthur, you just can't come to a home-grown peace. Of course, the Kurds are thriving in Iraq! And, probably 75% of the country is pacified. But the problems of factions remain high. And, the "mafia way" of keeping people terrified applies, here, too.

I'd guess part of the problem is that America is not interested in becoming a colonial power. So we're there, trying to strengthen politicians in doing the right thing for their people. Like removing cancerous tumors, it's not so easy. Some patients die, anyway. And, hope isn't really what springs forward. But how can you not try?

Israel EVER going back into Lebanon? Ya know what? Americans aren't gonna allow our soldiers to ever help the french, either.

The ironies following WW2 are also exposed. Poland, ostensibly the reason England and France went to war against Germany, remained, after WW2, a prize Stalin picked up. And, it was being under stalin's boot; not the salvation that the french and german's got; that have given the USA today, better friends in the Eastern Block countries, than in the western ones. While Wesley Clark's Serbian adventure got him kicked off the donk's presidential stage. Like Ford discovered; sometimes all the money and the best ad campaign in the world, just didn't sell Edsels. Worse, adding chrome didn't save the industry.

It sounds as if Lebanon is fighting Israel, today, the way the french desicrate the grave yards at Normandy. Roast beef, indeed.

Show us where the Palestinians lost their right of return?

Here.

"Who gives them the right to make the rules?"

Let me see, the fact that they used to live in those lands as their parents did?

Just stick to the basics instead of diluting the debate in derision.

Micha, thanks for the Britannica article however it doesn't show that Lebanon and Syria were united, quite the contrary

Lira: I am not asking for all Palestinian refugees to come back, however Israel and the US should find a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by sending part of them back to Israel/Palestine and the other part repatriated in countries such as the US, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and so on.

I have no problem with this as long as Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Yemen, and Oman can be added to your list. Why leave the Arab countries out of it?

If Lebanon keeps its alloted percentage of Palestinian refugees the effect will be minimal. And yes, Israel should take a percentage, too, if everyone else has to.

Israel shouldn't have to take them all for the exact same reason Lebanon shouldn't have to take them all.

Solomon, I would be interested to know how many of the 500,000 Palestinian refugees actually knew of this "law" or were made aware of it and when was it actually passed? 1948? What about post-48 refugees? Note that I am playing along.

This reminds me of the law that was passed by one politician in order to build 20 floors in one of his towers whereby the law allowed only for 8 in his area.

The law lasted 48 hours allowing "interested" people to register during that timeframe.

I also never knew that victorious nations have the right to pass "laws" that "allow" civilian populations the right to return or not, however Bravo for your initiative!

Totten: I have no problem with this as long as Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Yemen, and Oman can be added to your list. Why leave the Arab countries out of it?

Lira: Absolutely, there are palestinian refugees in 3 countries outside Palestine, which are: Syria, Lebanon and Jordan and many other Palestinian immigrants are already living and working in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, regulating percentages in these countries will help in decreasing the heavy burden that Lebanon carries.

Totten: If Lebanon keeps its alloted percentage of Palestinian refugees the effect will be minimal. And yes, Israel should take a percentage, too, if everyone else has to.

Lira: What's the alloted percentage? Lebanon's current percentage is 16.7%, this should be closer to 2.5%

Totten: Israel shouldn't have to take them all for the exact same reason Lebanon shouldn't have to take them all.

Lira: Never said that Israel should take them all, quite in the contrary a shared solution will be more acceptable.

I see "solutions" galore, here. My favorite one, so far, was the suggestion that the Lebanese draw arrows, so that the Joooos would know to attack Assad. Must have warmed Assad's heart, no less.

While a reality check is helpful.

There's an article out there that says Assad finally feels OFF THE HOOK WITH THE USA. He was put on the hook in 2003. Sweated for a while. But now the pressure's down the drain.

"Face to face with an Occupier," is on par with the french writing on the Normandy memorial "Roast Beef." I like roast beef. I'm sure there's no insult intended.

And, I agree with Mark Steyn. He says, when presented with two alternatives, one is reality and the other is fantasy, it's always better to pick ... [I'll let you choose.]

The Encyclopedia quote shows that prior to the Othomans Lebanon was part of the Mamlik Empire wgich encompased Syria and Egypt.

During Othoman times part of Lebanon was semi-autonomous while others belonged to provinces whose capitals were in what is now Syria.

In the 19th century the west forced the Othomans to accept an autonomous state in part of Lebanon -- when they were trying to unify everything under one rule,which would have meant that the Christians,Shia and Druze would have been minorities. After WWI it was again the west that formed the current Lebanon,taking provinces that used to be associated with areas in the future Syria. Again, had they kept the French Mandate unified, the Lebanese Christians, Shia, and Druze would have become minorities.

A little to the south the British mandate was creating new entities too. But the reaction of the Arab/Muslims was more violent.

Micha: The Encyclopedia quote shows that prior to the Othomans Lebanon was part of the Mamlik Empire wgich encompased Syria and Egypt.

Lira: Yes Micha, so were Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine as you rightly noted, empires came and went in this part of the world and that affected all the old territories of the present states.

Micha: During Othoman times part of Lebanon was semi-autonomous while others belonged to provinces whose capitals were in what is now Syria.

Lira: Thanks Micha, that goes on showing that Lebanon starting its autonomous drive way before Syria. Those territories you speak of (Bekaa and Akkar) were not under any autonomous Syrian jurisdiction and there was no Syrian identity per se at those times, that was more Ottoman than anything else. You are referring to an area historically called "Syria", that historic name includes Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine in what was known as Bilaad Al Shaam however it does not mean that those areas are/were part of the current entity/state known as Syria.

Micha: In the 19th century the west forced the Othomans to accept an autonomous state in part of Lebanon -- when they were trying to unify everything under one rule,which would have meant that the Christians,Shia and Druze would have been minorities. After WWI it was again the west that formed the current Lebanon,taking provinces that used to be associated with areas in the future Syria. Again, had they kept the French Mandate unified, the Lebanese Christians, Shia, and Druze would have become minorities.

Lira: Which French mandate are you referring to? It looks as if you're claiming that the French mandate unified Syria and Lebanon in one Syria, please look more into that period and realize that it was never the French's intention to do that.

I would be interested to know how many of the 500,000 Palestinian refugees actually knew of this "law"

During the decades of this law’s tenure, more than 150,000 Arab refugees have taken advantage of it to resume productive lives in Israel.

Long enough for everybody to find out, I guess.

"Post-48 refugees"? The only ones I know of are the Arabs of Quneitra, a town in the Golan that was ruined in 1967. Hafez Asad sent its residents to refugee camps. The Israelis gave it back to Syria in the post-'73 cease-fire and tried to insert a condition that Syria re-settle the townspeople, but I think Syria rejected it on the grounds that this was a political demand, not a military one. Syria keeps Quneitra empty as a symbol to stir up fear and hatred, while its former residents remain in the camps.

I also never knew that victorious nations have the right to pass "laws" that "allow" civilian populations the right to return

Rather than kill the enemy menfolk and ravish their women, perhaps? Yes, Israel is different. It is the tarring brush of political correctness that writes of every nation as equally good or bad.

Omega80:

I do not think all Lebanese are terrorists as you seem to imply. If you are not a member of Hizb'allah or any of the PLO-affiliated organizations, then I assume you are not a terrorist. Hizb'allah is a terrorist organization, however.

Lira:

The "refugees" will never be able to go back to Israel. The Arabs started a war in '48 for the express purpose of destroying Israel and killing or expelling all the Jews who lived there. This was a pan-Arab effort, aided and abetted by the British (the Jordanian Arab Legion, for example, was armed, trained, and officered by the British. It was, interestingly enough, pretty much the only effective Arab fighting force). There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" people at this time; so while it is true that many people became refugees as a result of the Arab aggression, no pre-existing state was destroyed and no distinct nation was dispossessed in the creation of Israel.

Population studies show clearly that up until the time that Arab aggression caused full-scale war to break out, the Arab population, along with the Jewish population, continued to rise. Contrary to the typical assumption that all of the Arabs in British Mandate Palestine were natives, a very large percentage of them were recent immigrants from all over the Arab world. (That is why the official PLO definition of a "Palestinian" is any Arab who had been resident in Madate Palestine for only two years prior to 1948. Some natives.) The creation of Israel in and of itself did not create any refugees. The Arab-instigated war did. Therefore, the "refugee problem" is the fault of the Arabs and needs to be solved by them. Israel owes the Arabs nothing for winning a war they forced it to fight.

When aggressors lose wars, they do not get to dictate terms to the victors. Did Germany get to tell the Americans what to do after 1945? No. By defying the UN in 1947 and attacking Israel in 1948, the Arabs lost the right to demand anything of Israel.

If all the Palestinians really wanted was a state next to Israel, this all would have been over years ago. However, the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" is obviously part of the PLO plan to destroy Israel, a plan which they have never relinquised, no matter how much they lie about it to gullible Westerners.

As others have mentioned upthread, the Arab states expelled their Jewish populations, almost a million people, after robbing them of everything they owned. These communities were thousands of years old, in every case predating the Arab conquest and forced Islamization of the Middle East by centuries. Most of these people went to Israel, where they now form more than 50% of the Jewish population of Israel. You don't honestly think that all of these people are going to say "Oh, I can go back to Yemen and get out of this Zionist hellhole now? Thank G-d, I thought I was stuck here forever! I can't wait to get back and live with all of my nice Muslim neighbors again!"

I mean, Jews may be pretty stupid (as Oslo showed) but we're not that stupid.

Solomon:

It is estimated that there were more than 7 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons at the beginning of 2003. This includes Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and registered for assistance with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (3.97 million); Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 but not registered for assistance (1.54 million); Palestinian refugees displaced for the first time in 1967 (753,000); 1948 internally displaced Palestinians (274,000); and, 1967 internally displaced Palestinians (150,000).

http://www.badil.org/Refugees/facts&figures.htm

You don't have the right to deny their return, we will be making you a favor by redistributing part of them on Israel/Palestine and the other on Arab/West countries.

Ephraim: The "refugees" will never be able to go back to Israel. The Arabs started a war in '48 for the express purpose of destroying Israel and killing or expelling all the Jews who lived there. This was a pan-Arab effort.

Lira: I will repeat that a couple of skirmiches at Malkiya from the Lebanese Army do not constitute an "express purpose of destroying Israel and killing or expelling all the Jews who lived there" as you want to describe, Lebanon's participation was symbolic and it further refrained from any participation in the subsequent wars for a very good reason which is not to get involved in a war that wasn't its.
I hope that you get the point now since I do not claim that Arabs speak on behalf of me or on behalf of those Palestinian refugees, everybody speaks for himself.

Ephraim: There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" people at this time; so while it is true that many people became refugees as a result of the Arab aggression, no pre-existing state was destroyed and no distinct nation was dispossessed in the creation of Israel.

Lira: I am not speaking of “Palestinian people” as a government or an entity, this is debatable however I focus here on those Palestinians as humans who lived there, owned houses and lands and were forcebly removed, I don’t need to know the level of their political development to acknowledge that they lived there and have a right to return to their motherland.

Ephraim: The creation of Israel in and of itself did not create any refugees. The Arab-instigated war did. Therefore, the "refugee problem" is the fault of the Arabs and needs to be solved by them. Israel owes the Arabs nothing for winning a war they forced it to fight.

Lira: If this is what you believe, then you and the Arab countries that really attacked Israel share this responsibility, by the way two of them are your friends and allies, you might want to discuss this issue with them as they might very well have better relationships with you then they do with us Lebanese.

Ephraim: When aggressors lose wars, they do not get to dictate terms to the victors. Did Germany get to tell the Americans what to do after 1945? No. By defying the UN in 1947 and attacking Israel in 1948, the Arabs lost the right to demand anything of Israel.

Lira: Again, I am speaking to you as a Lebanese, still you want to keep on insisting on Arabs this and Arabs that, realize that Lebanon is not purely Arab but a mosaic of Arab and non-Arab cultures, how valid is your argument with us? Furthermore, the relationship of the Lebanese state with Israel has been different from the Arab-Israeli conflict and Lebanon’s symbolic participation in 1948 and non-participation in 1967 and 1973 just proves it.

Palestinian civilians returning to their home is their right, regardless what you think of the PLO however I am only focusing on those in Lebanon and we have to help each others to solve this problem because we want to have peace between each others.

Lira, we are going around in circles on the historical stuff. Prior to WWI all the middle eastern states did not exist. There were empires, last of which was the Ottoman. The Ottoman rule did involve degrees of regional and religious autonomy. In any case, it was the west that formed an autonomous state in part of what later became Lebanon, and it was the west that carved the middle east to the states that we have today, including modern Lebanon. It is also clear that the actions of the West in what later became Lebanon had to do with the Christianity of Maronites.

What is uique about Lebanon and now perhaps Iraq (and in a sense Israel), that there is less of a clear hegemony of Arab nationalism or Sunni Islam.

For all intents and purposes things could have been carved differently. The French could have handled the area under their control in a different way, or they could have not involved themselves in the affairs of the Ottomans at all.

The point is, Lebanon is not any more real than Israel.

I don't believe Israel has any argument with Lebanon at this point, only with the terrorists who use its territory to attack Israel. Personally, I hope that Lebanon can free itself of Syrian domination and be a free and independent nation once again.

The UNRWA is a totally corrupt organization and has a vested interest in inflating the numbers of "refugees". There is ample proof that all of the numbers bandied about by the PLO, its mouthpieces and UNRWA are fraudulent, and deliberately so, and that the actual numbers of real refugees is much lower than the numbers you quote.

You say "If this is what you believe, then you and the Arab countries that really attacked Israel share this responsibility". This is nonsense. How does Israel share this responsibility? Because it was attacked? The aggressors are the ones who have to solve the problem they caused, not their intended victim.

I completely agree that Egypt and Jordan (and Syria) should resettle the refugees and grant them citizenship. Jordan has already done this, but this is only reasonable, since Jordan was artificially created by Britain out of territory of the Palestine Mandate. Jordan is already an Arab state in Palestine. The problem with Jordan is that its government is primarily run by the Hussein dynasty, Bedouin from the Hejaz who were forced out by that Saud family, whereas most of its people are not Bedouin. More Palestinians in Jordan will tip the balance and probably lead to a coup. That is really why Hussein gave up claim to the "West Bank". More PLO supporters he doesn't need (remember Black September?).

The same goes for Egypt. The last thing they want is to be responsible for a bunch of heavily armed, angry sociopaths in Gaza.

But you're right. It is their responsibility and they should solve it. Of course, if they stay true to form, their "solution" would probably look a lot like Assad's solution to the Muslim Brotherhood problem in Hama or Hussein's Black September solution, but whatever.

Sorry to ruin all the "rights" argument, but you must realise it gets nowhere. Rights are irrelevant once unenforcable.
Lira- do you (Lebanese) want to get the refugee burden off your back? It won't get alone.
Your country looks at my country (Israel) as an enemy entity they don't recognise or wan't to deal with. How, and WHY, do you expect us to help you anyway?
In the meantime all we get is reminders of Katyushas from time to time. Oh- I forgot... it's not Lebanon, it's just a party in the Lebanese parliament shootin those missiles...
Lets face it: Maybe you, personally (or your sect- wich I can just guess), want peace, but your country as a total doesn't really wan't to deal with us- only to get rid of the Palestinians- and move them here so we have more problems. Gee- I'm sure you would do that if you were in our place, wouldn't you?
I fully understand your problems. It's just that you can't expect all your problems to be solved at once by other countries.
It's so nice of you willing to accept ex-Lebanese Jews, but to tell you the truth- I can't imagine any Jew wanting to move to a country were being Jew is almost committing a criminal offence. They do better here in Israel- just like my ex-Iraqi jewish family here. I can assure you we don't wanna go back to Iraq even though they forced my grandparents to leave all their property including houses and run away. we have better houses here. I think that's what someone above meant talking about cries.
It's not that I don't care about cries. They just don't solve the problems of the person (or nation) crying.

Good night

I'm sorry but is this article written in English grammer because it sounds like a bunch of gibberish to me. No point. Just nonsensical monologue...

You see, Michael, how hard it is to maintain a dialogue with the "Other side"? Fear of the Palestinian burden underscores both pro-Israel and pro-Lebanon positions in the responses above... We, Lebanese and Istraelis, are mirror images of each other. Does anybody else see that, or am I imagining things?

Even in the presence of goodwill, which I saw in the earlier reactions to P Refugee, at the first stumbling block in diaglogue, we resort to myths, legends, stereotypes, official narratives, slanted sources/articles, cherished/doctored political viewpoints... And it is as if the encounter with the Other, which initially held so much promise, was nothing but an exercise in futility... What is the antedote to fear and the bunker mentality??? Anybody???

"'Dish on Key, what is wrong with the Maronite middle class again?'"

How about this: they were a bunch of right-wing fascists whose main political party was directly inspired by the Spanish Falange.

It was a Falange unit that committed the Sabra/Shatila massacre, conveniently blamed on Sharon.

That love-fest between Perpetual Refugee and Lisa was puke-inducing. Does Lisa ever do anything but hang around in cafes and throw herself at Arab guys?

"Doesn't anyone remember how many residents of South Lebanon were throwing rice on the advancing Israeli soldiers"

Oy. Of course I remember. At the time I was young and stupid. But I've learned a thing since then. Arabs are like donkeys: if you told them Gaza sea-water was wine, they'd drink it. Even with Hamas in power.

Ms Despair: You see, Michael, how hard it is to maintain a dialogue with the "Other side"?

Actually, no.

Lebanese and Israelis live in enemy states. And yet the argument here between Lebanese and Israelis is far more civil than most blogosphere arguments between liberal and conservative Americans. It should be the other way around, and I'm frankly amazed that it isn't. Whether this speaks highly of Lebanese and Israelis or badly of Americans...I don't know. Maybe both.

There is no group hug here, but how could there be? The Lebanese who post here are literally breaking treason laws by talking to Israelis at all. This argument could be so much worse than it is. Be glad it isn't bigoted nutjob versus bigoted nutjob or I would just have to kick people out.

We, Lebanese and Istraelis, are mirror images of each other. Does anybody else see that, or am I imagining things?

Oh yes, I definitely see it. Lebanon and Israel have more in common with each other than either has with any other country in the region. Your two countries are natural allies. Someday this will be obvious to more people.

Shira is banned for trolling.

Just so everybody knows, I am an American. So it's not treason for any of the Lebanese posting here to talk to me.

Disagreeable for some of them, perhaps, but not treason.

Poor Palestinians - nobody wants them :(

Why don't Lebanon and Israel set up a joint project: expand their lands out into the mediterranean.... I've heard it's possible to build land on the sea.

Tse.

We, Lebanese and Istraelis, are mirror images of each other. Does anybody else see that, or am I imagining things?

Lebanese and Israelis are not mirror images of each other. Lebanese want something from Israelis. Israelis don't want anything from Lebanese, they just want to be left alone.

Oh yes, I definitely see it. Lebanon and Israel have more in common with each other than either has with any other country in the region. Your two countries are natural allies. Someday this will be obvious to more people.

As soon as this becomes obvious to Lebanese, it will immediately be obvious to Israelis. But not the other way around.

Sorry to be un-PC.

Notice how many Israelis are apologizing for invading Lebanon? How many Lebanese have apologized for being a staging ground for war against Israel? None.

Yawafi,

I sent this to the Daily Star as a reply to one of Hassan Nasrallah's speeches; it was published in the readers' comments section:

A Message to Mr. Hassan Nasrallah

Dear Mr. Nasrallah,I am a Lebanese citizen with no affiliation to any political party.

What have I done for Lebanon: I have served for 18 months on two World Bank & IMF development projects aimed at restructuring the Lebanese State Administration.

I have no relations with any embassies or ambassadors.I have no relations with Israel nor with any Western country.

I hope that my credentials fit the profile of whom you deem acceptable to criticize the Hezbollah.

Mr. Nasrallah, I would like to tell you that myself and thousands of other Lebanese do not believe that in 2005 with all that has happened in Lebanon from 1975, we do not believe that violence is the best solution with an entity like Israel.

We would like to ask you to refrain from trying to capture any individual, be it a civilian or a military, be it an Israeli, a Westerner or anyone for that matter.

We understand the plight that we have with Israel's detaining of several Lebanese prisoners, we are facing the same with Syria which is politically detaining many Lebanese in its jails. We however do not believe in kidnapping Syrian soldiers or civilians to force the Syrian government to release the Lebanese that it detains. We know that such a move will bring severe military and economic retaliation from the Syrians and prefer to act in peaceful and diplomatic venues.

We hope that you understand that doing the same with an entity like Israel will cause severe military and economic backlash to the whole of the Lebanese Republic. I must stress also that our demands should cover Lebanese citizens per se, since nationals of other Arab countries should be recovered by their own governments, would you not agree? Would you not agree that Lebanon, as a small country, should relatively follow up on his own citizens and that other Arab nations which are stronger and more resourceful, that they should seek to get back their own nationals? Where is their duty towards them?

It is good to know that your orders are coming from Beirut, but are they coming fromt the Lebanese Republic? Are they coming from Mr. Sanioura or from the Commander of the Lebanese Army? If so, the Lebanese Army is never issuing any statements on your operations, they never claim to coordinate with you on your attacks, who is issuing your orders in Beirut?

We do not believe that the Syrian Baathist regime "freed" us from occupation. In fact more than 1.5 Million people believe that the Syrian army was occupying us.

We would like to remind you that International Law is above everyone. That the United Nations, while far from being perfect, are still the one and only institution recognized by all countries of the world, including Iran and Syria that are both cooperating with the UN on a number of issues.

We understand your enmity with Israel but could not accept the fact that you call death to the United States of America. You can show your hostility and disagreement with the policies of the United States Government but for the sake of international accountability, do not call for death on any country on our behalf or in the streets of our beautiful country who has given you the freedom of speech.

While the world is not perfect Mr. Nasrallah, we Lebanese deserve to live in peace after all this time. Your weapons and your aggressive policies are preventing us from doing so.

We do not believe that you are able to defend the country against a major Israeli offensive.

We do not believe that you are able to prevent Israel from destroying Lebanese infrastructure.

We do not believe in your claim that the Shebaa Farms are Lebanese.

Please respect our diverging points of view and refrain from using any military means that should be limited to the Lebanese National Army. We would highly appreciate it if you could comply to Lebanese laws and hand your weapons to the Lebanese authorities.

Thank you

In reply to Mr. Nasrallah's speech on the 25th of November, link: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=20322

The FPM Forum, a party that admitantly holds the support of 80% of the Christians of Lebanon and that includes a number of Shiites as supporters, members:

http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14486

78% out of 188 voters support peace with israel when all conditions are met.

The Future Movement Forum, a party that represents most Sunnis:

http://www.futuremovement.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8996

84% out of 32 voters support peace with Israel either now or after some conditions.

This is by no way a scientific interpretation however just an indication that matters are not as blurky as you think.

We understand your enmity with Israel but could not accept the fact that you call death to the United States of America.

Well that should be reassuring to all Israelis.

Yafawi,

Strange since I have been criticized by some Lebanese on this particular sentence "as if I have no enmity with Israel" :-/

I hope that you take the overall messages as they are, since dialogue is based on compromise, either with Hezbollah or Israel, two parties that the Lebanese have to deal with.

In the end, we seek a middle position that will cater to all the involved and reach peace.

The depressing thing is that Lira and Omega represent the tiny extreme-moderate edge of Lebanon, and even they can't recognize the humanity of Israelis long enough to let them defend themselves from people who want to murder them.

I remember the feeling in the air when the peace treaty with Egypt was signed. Peace and brotherhood. Israelis and Egyptians would visit each other. Learn from each other. The Israelis were all for it. In fact, couldn't wait. Little did they know that "peace" meant no more than a pause in hostilities. A hudna. Meanwhile state-sponsored anti-Semitism continued. Maybe even got worse.

As far as I can tell, Lira and Omega just want to solve their problems, without admitting their own role in causing them in the first place, and without admitting the Israelis' right to self-defense against people who want to murder them. And you know what? If you somehow managed to convince Lebanon to go for it, Israel would agree.

Yafawi, of course omega80 and lira want to solve their problems. We do the same, no?

Lira:
'.... since dialogue is based on compromise, either with Hezbollah or Israel, two parties that the Lebanese have to deal with.'

You're so very right: ONLY Lebanon can decide. Has nothing to do with Israel.

Tse.

Yafawi, of course omega80 and lira want to solve their problems. We do the same, no?

Tse, that's what's so sad. You say that about them, but they don't say it about you. They may admit that that's the way it works, but they don't give you the RIGHT to be concerned, first and foremost, about yourself.

Lira and Omega, I challenge you to come here and say that the Israelis invaded Lebanon out of their perceived need (correctly or incorrectly) to self defense, and will not accept large numbers of Palestinian refugees for the same reason, and that that's their right, because all people have the right to self defense.

The Israelis invaded Lebanon out of their perceived need (correctly or incorrectly) to self defense, and will not accept large numbers of Palestinian refugees for the same reason, and that that's their right, because all people have the right to self defense.

This however does not make it right that those Palestinians will not all return to their homeland, but we as Lebanese are ready to accept around 50,000 to 75,000 refugees while the other 400,000 should be divided between Israel, the Arab states and Western countries (not in particular order).

However Israel and the US must cooperate and help us in providing such a solution, along with such arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (admitantly the 2 most powerful Arabs), all of the above share a responsibility in the Palestinian refugees issue and Lebanon has paid alot because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our view is that a 2-state solution of Palestine/Israel as a fair solution .

Obviously Israel invaded Lebanon because they thought it would bolster Israel's security by dealing with the PLO and putting a favorable President in power in Lebanon. It is not chance that the invasion occured during a Presidential election year in Lebanon.

"Even they can't recognize the humanity of Israelis long enough to let them defend themselves from people who want to murder them."

It seems that you have fallen into this trap that you speak of, otherwise, why do you only view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Why can't/won't you view it as a group that defended and fought for the liberation of Southern Lebanon? Just as you are entitled to fight for your security and freedom, so are we.

However, like I said, the war is over now and there is no reason for it to come back. Maybe one day we can even do business together.

Lira says:

an entity like Israel

Ah, yes, the dreaded "entity". G-d forbid we should just say "Israel". That would be just too easy, I guess. G-d forbid anyone should think that we Lebanese actually, you know, accept the fact that a country called Israel is actually there. Someone might doubt our anti-Zionist Arab credenatials, G-d forbid.

I have decided that I shall return the favor. From now on, I will refer to Lebanon as the "Lebanese entity illegally torn out of the body of Mother Syria by the perfidious French".

It has a certain je ne sais quoi, don't you think?