Won't happen anytime soon Michael.

Won't happen anytime soon Michael.

Probably not! But it's amazing that he's talking about. Seriously, two months ago you might as well blow up your own car before saying "peace with Israel" if you're a Lebanese politician. The only thing they could agree on at the "national unity" meetings was that "Israel is the enemy." That's it. That's all. That was the lowest common denominator.

Not everyone actually believed this, of course. But you had to say it if you wanted to live, and if you wanted not to be denounced as a "Zionist agent" by the Party of God and the other assholes of Lebanon and Syria.

Hesbollah won't allow it. Period. Which is odd considering Hesbollah are just peace-loving lambs defending against warmongering Israel.

Nice to see a tiny crack in the edifice though.

Small steps, people, Baby steps. We'll get there. Lebanon is best suited to follow the "Jordanian path" to peace with Israel. We have no fundemental dispute with Israel (no Golan or similar issues). Lebanon's status of being at war with Israel is, at this point, exclusively the war of others: Iran and Syria. There is no reason Lebanon cannot be at peace with Israel once it is rid of the tentacles of Iran and Syria and that is something we have been moving towards, over the past 2 years, first with the Syrians, and now, hopefully, with the Iranians (Hezbollah).

I'll re-post the comment i made in the previous thread, since it's more relevant here:

I've been saying all along that this past round of violence wasn't the fiasco that it's been made out to be for Israel.

It might have not gone as planned, but I still believe the main objective of Israel never was to completly wipe out Hezbollah (that was an unrealistic goal). I think the main goal was to "wake up" the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese people, and drive home the necessity to internally deal with Hezbollah. This also explains the insistence of the IDF to attack civilian infrastructure in nono-Hezbollah areas, this putting pressure on the Lebanese people directly.

In my mind, this objective has been accomplished. The political situation in Lebanon is VERY different now than it was pre July 12th. The mere mention of peace treaties with Israel as but an example of the changed political scene, as Michael points out on Andrew Sullivan's blog. We're certainly not there yet, but i think the shift in MENTALITY, inside Lebanon, is a much bigger factor, long term, than the immediate military gains on the ground.

One has to keep in mind that in the end, war or peace are very much a matter of mentality, deep in a population's psyche.

>>>One has to keep in mind that in the end, war or peace are very much a matter of mentality, deep in a population's psyche.

In many cases, yes. I was thinking the same. Which is a shame because it seems to me Lebanon and Israel would make excellent trading partners if there was peace. They could be a middle eastern Riviera and there could be much prosperity.

Carlos,

I think it is still possible that will happen. Probably not today or tomorrow, but eventually.

In my mind, Lebanon and Israel, as Michael puts it, are natural allies.
The possibilities are endless when you start thinking about the potential these 2 countries could have together. Both countries have scores of western educated, forward thinking entrepreneurs.
I envision a high-tech and financial hub in the region.

Ah, one can dream, huh?

Well said Carlos,
I am Lebanese myself, and dream of the day Lebanon takes a stand for its own interest as a free country.

Regardless of the history between those two nations, only a peace deal_even if it only stood as a UN resolution_ would bring economical prosperity to both counties, and Lebanon will be the bigger benefactor since its got its back against the wall.

It has long been known that the road to prosperity for Lebanon is through peace with Israel, it is true that not much people would dare mention peace with our neighbors a couple of month ago, but we all(well....almost all..heheh) recognised the inevitable truth.
In fact a peace treaty was almost signed by Mr Bashir Jmayel in 1982 before he was assassinated, just to point out to our western readers that this is not just us coming to our senses, but rather an internal struggle under the Syrian tutelage that kept us from perusing such hopes.

to the day i can work under a prosperous great Lebanese economy.
Cheers.

It does seem that Seniora is trying to distance himself from HB. Like not wanting to sit next to the 'smelly kid' on the school bus. Lets hope his actions are congruent.
-L

A cynic would view this as a ploy to decrease external pressure (and increase pressure on Israel) in the short term. Thereby increasing the chance that Iran/Syria would be able to rearm Hizb without interruption.

I can hear the CNN talking head already.
begin sarcasm

The Lebanese president is talking of a peace treaty yet Israel continues to attack "humanitarian" convoys coming from Syria.

How can we expect this man's heroic hopes for peace to have a chance when the Israelis continue to wage war on this peaceful and broken nation.

Seniora may well follow in the footsteps of other middle east peace lovers, such as Arafat, and win a nobel peace prize for his actions.

end sarcasm

To publicly suggest a peace treaty with Israel is a good first step.

To get one pushed through the legislature would be an excellent second step.

But, for change to really happen, and to loosen the grip Iran has on Southern Lebanon (Hezbollah are just Iran's proxy in all this, I don't believe in continuing to spread the fiction that they are independent of their paymasters), the legitimate Lebanese government should sign a mutual defense treaty with Israel.

Peace isn't just not attacking a country, real peace comes from a willingness to defend each other. It's a political impossibility now, but it doesn't have to be. Hezbollah is an illegal organization that operates in an illegal manner and oppresses the folks stuck in Hezbollahland as badly as any other group of despots. If Lebanon chose to recognize and state openly that their enemy is Iran backed Hezbollah and not Israel, that change would reverberate across the region.

Things that seemed more impossible than this have come to pass.

The Lebanese government should understand that Israel would be happy to leave a free and democratic Lebanon alone once Hezbollah is destroyed, but Iran through Hezbollah won't end its mischief in the region until it has control of all of Lebanon.

Sir,

that was my first inclination, but I settled for a variation of the "smelly kid on the bus" theory. They are like a POW blinking his eyes trying to send messages in code to the world that Hesbollah scares the crap out of them too.

SirGlubb,

Trust me, Siniora has no interest in decreasing external pressure and giving Syria a chance to rearm Hezbollah.

This is a man who's been working diligently towards a sovereign Lebanon, ever since his mentor (the former PM Rafik Hariri) was assassinated. He's no friend of Hezbollah and has no reason whatsoever to help them restock their weapons.

Your bit about the CNN talking head was funny though :)

I truly hope you gentlemen are correct.

I would love nothing more than to see a stable and sovereign and stable Lebanon in my lifetime.

I think Lebanon and Israel have as good a chance to live in peace with each other as any countries in the Middle East. If Lebanon realizes this and tries to rein in Hezbollah, Israel will probably assist Lebanon any way it can.

Taken a step further, the next fighting will probably not focus on Lebanon, but on Syria (and maybe even Iran?) for resupplying and supporting Hezbollah. Israel may have made some blunders this time, but they learn quickly. I believe they also recognize their real enemies and probably are not interested in just stiking a proxy next time. They should go for the head of the snake next time.

I wish it were as simple as Israel hitting Syria or Iran.

Don't you think Israel KNEW who the head of the snake was all along? Of course Israel did.

There is a reason Israel didn't hit Syria. It is in Israel's interest to perserve the Assad regime in Syria (a lesser of 2 evils, if you will). The last thing Israel wants is an unstable Syria (think Iraq). Syria has no viable alternative to the Assad regime at the moment, except perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood (which is not someone Israel wants to see in power).

So I think it was a very careful decision on Israel's part NOT to hit Syria for that reason.

Treachery announces open audition for fools!

I think you're making far too much of this implicit suggestion by Siniora -- which is all that it is.

Even if he came out and explicitly said, "you know, hey, I'd like a peace treaty with Israel" it would not be huge. It is not huge. It's tiny. I'll take your word that he'd not have lived if he'd said any such thing before the Hezbollah war, but, really, so what? What's needed in Lebanon isn't a PM who will make a suggestion that he might make further hints at the possibility of discussing negotiations that could lead to further talks, but something far more significant than that.

Grading Arab leaders on the curve does give a valid comparison with other Arab leaders, sure.

But the best of them are still on the short bus, after all.

Joel,

It's all a matter of perspective. It might not be a big deal for you, to hear an arab leader saying what is, in the end, just words. But I think for the Arab world. it is the breaking of what's been a longtime and regrettable taboo.

Let's not forget that most of these countries still refer to Israel as "The zionist entity" and refuse to even acknowledge its existence. I think these sorts of baby steps are worth noting, even if they don't constitute anything palpable.

Like i said before, war and peace and often a result of a people's mentality. And mentalities don't change overnight. But it is hard time the Arab world start at the very least accepting the existence of Israel and talking about it.

Sorry Totten,

But you are pulling this out of very thin air. Seniora is just generically stating "negotiation is better than war".

Seniora is on the record, as recently as 3 weeks ago, as saying Lebanon will be the last to make peace. (Probably because of HA, and because Lebanon is so sensitive to accusations of "treason" which in itself is ironic, being the last front in the war).

I only wish that we could use the "open Israel" card if only to shut for good Syria's blackmail on the border.
Unfortunately, we can't and won't use that card.

Actuall, Josey, I disagree.

Siniora is a pupil of Hariri. And it is well known that Hariri's long term plan for Lebanon was always a peace treaty with Israel, unilaterally (meaning without waiting for Syria or the Palestinians).

The fact that Siniora can't come out and say all this in the open is a result of the climate in Lebanon, and the taboo still surrounding the talk of peace with israel. The timing is also a bit awkward right now, considering Lebanon remains a country under siege, with Israeli troops still within our borders.

But make no mistake, the Hariri legacy is that of a vision where Lebanon and Israel are at peace, and serving as a financial and technological hub for the Middle East. Extricating Lebanon from the Syrian-Iranian axis was one of the first steps towards that, ergo 1559, and the current hezbollah issue is probably step 2, in that march towards the ultimate goal.

Having said that, the road is not easy...

Bad Vilbel is absolutely right. It's treason in Lebanon just to shake an Israeli's hand in a third country. It's treason to wave hello at the border. Saying "let's talk peace" is breaking a huge taboo. This cannot be overstated.

Journalists in Lebanon come up with code so we can discuss Israel in public. You just can't talk about it there unless you are very very careful. You have no idea how suffocating it is.

Those Lebanese who want peace with Israel would only tell me so when no one else was around. It happened a lot, actually, so the taboo is stupid. And after a while, some of us Westerners said f*ck it and went ahead and talked about it in public anyway. Just don't forget how long that country was ruled by the Baath, and that thousands of intelligence agents are still all over the place.

By the way, I was addressing Joel, not Josey, above. Josey is Lebanese and knows already about the treason laws, etc.

Thus the comment above that equates peace with "treachery".

Sick.

I guess it's a wee bit harder to equate peace with treachery now. After being bombed for a month, peace looks pretty good. Also, I think, Israel is a bigger threat to Lebanon than Syria, and that fact has now sunk in. Better to incur the wrath of the Baath than the IAF. Car bombs are nothing compared to air strikes.

It's also possible to normalize relations with Israel, and impossible to normalize relations with Syria. Israel wants normal relations, and Syria doesn't. Syria doesn't even recognize Lebanon's right to exist.

Just for grins, I went back and read this story, written by Michael last year...

One paragraph that struck me hard:
Lebanon is not and should not become an American project the way Iraq and Afghanistan are. That doesn't mean the U.S. should shrug off the importance of its security and stability. Nor should Washington see Lebanon's troubles merely as a means to the end of pressuring or overthrowing Bashar Assad's Baath regime in Syria. Syria matters because it exports violence to three of its neighbors, to Israel and Iraq as well as to Lebanon. But Lebanon matters for reasons beyond the continuing conflict with its former master.

This is huge, I mean HUGE, if Seniora really means what he says. Unfortunately, I don't expect MSM to hype this development as they did Friedman's 'Saudi peace plan' fable, and it's a pitty. Unilateral agreements between Israel and Arab states are long overdue. Egypt and Jordan certainly lost nothing because of their treaties with Israel, they even got away with permanently hunging on Israel parts of their problematic populations, i.e. Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

To say something nice about the Bush Admin for once, at least they aren't letting the Syrians come back in.

It's neither huge, nor tiny. It is welcome evidence that some fragile trend of moderation is less than completely snuffed out.

I'll tell you what, it never would have happened while Syria was in Lebanon, but it wouldn't have happened if the Israel-Hizbollah war was still hot, either, or if Israeli troops were taking up permanent residence.

I agree with MJT. This HAS to be big. Think about it....two weeks ago Seniora was in HA's hip pocket. Today, the fact that he would even say something like that in public is big. If he's Hairiri's student, then he knows he can be assassinated for even THINKING something like that, let alone saying it in public.

I'd call this progress, and it leads me to believe that maybe HA lost way more in the war with Israel than they let on, of course, and maybe HA's weaker than we, on the outside, know.

Michael Bad Vil,

This is the Seniora quote you guys are talking about?

"I think that Israel learned from the war that violence isn't the way to ensure its wellbeing," he said. "The only way to achieve peace is through negotiations.

There's no mention of Lebanon there, and no mention of timing. Could have been said by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for all I know.

You're right that peace was Hariri's view, and now Siniora, but the impossible just got "impossibler" (just what HA wanted).

Josey,

Yes. The statement you quote is very generic. I'm not gonna get hung up on Siniroa's exact words.

I stated before that it's a matter of vision and mentality.

10 years ago, Lebanon was solidly under the grip of Syria and the slogans we heard day and night were those of "resistance" and "the cause (palestinian)" and "The zionist enemy". From pretty much ALL our politicians.

Now, guys like Jumblatt, Siniora, and many others are using words like "negotiations" and "peace" and "Israel" (that word itself is a big deal, if you ask me). That tells me momentum is shifting. Like any real heavy object, it takes a long time for momentum like this to shift enough that motion and change are visible. So to me, this is significant. We're not there yet, not even close. But the mere fact that this behemoth of an issue is starting to shift is an encouraging sign.

Compare the words coming out of Beirut these days (and even out of places like Riadh for that matter) to the intransigent rethoric you hear coming out of Damascus and Tehran. That should give you a good idea as to how far Lebanon's come along.

B.V.:

We have no fundemental dispute with Israel (no Golan or similar issues).

Personally, I would say that in a perfect world, you would be right about that.

But what percentage of Lebanon disagrees with that?

How many people can be brought to into a tizzy by mentioning the words "Sheba Farms" or "National Lebanese Resistance" or "Free Samir Kuntar!" or "the Prisoners!!!!!"?

Clearly they are ridiculous (as opposed to fundamental) issues, but they work as political tools and have kept what should be the most spectacularly modern country in the Arab world partially buried in the pathology of pan-Arabism/Islamism/"honor"/"shame" etc.....

Thankfully, Nasrallah was there to restore everyone's "honor" (sarcasm).

EXCELLENT ARTICLE AND COMMENTS HERE! I'm learning so much reading at this blog.

It might have not gone as planned, but I still believe the main objective of Israel never was to completly wipe out Hezbollah (that was an unrealistic goal). I think the main goal was to "wake up" the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese people, and drive home the necessity to internally deal with Hezbollah. This also explains the insistence of the IDF to attack civilian infrastructure in nono-Hezbollah areas, this putting pressure on the Lebanese people directly.
Bad Vilbel

Wow, I didn't think about this. I was so disgusted with this war. No one wants war, but heck, if you're going to do it, then do it for a reason, and let it be for the better in the long run. After seeing innocent folks killed, homes destroyed, jobs lost, HA still around, etc, I was struggling to find anything to hope in over there, anything of value that may have come out of this war. Thanks B.V.

Journalists in Lebanon come up with code so we can discuss Israel in public. You just can't talk about it there unless you are very very careful. You have no idea how suffocating it is.
MJT

Dang, I must be the only one around who has a hard time grasping this. I'm one of those boring easy-going Americans, and I have no predjudices. I like most folks. I've never been to the Middle East. Therefore, Michael, you are correct, I have NO IDEA how suffocating it is there in Lebanon. But hopefully, as I continue to read at this blog I'll continue to learn.

Can Fouad survive talking peace with Israel?

Renee C.

It's not that hard to wrap your mind around it if you use an analogy to political correctness here in the US. Speaking about being "friends" with Israel is simply not politically correct in the Arab world (i'm not discussing whether that in itself is right or wrong, mind you). Just like you wouldn't wanna talk about being friends with Osama Bin Laden, or forming an alliance with Saddam, if you were a politician in the US, for example. It would be political suicide. It's that simple.

I realize the analogy is not perfect (so please, no oohing and ahhing, folks).

SoCalJustice,

It's not as bad as you think, to be honest. Most Lebanese with a head on their shoulders realize that there is no fundemental dispute. Before 2000, no one knew what Shebaa Farms was.

It's just too damn easy to whip people into a frenzy though, these days. Just like here in the US, the whole 9-11 and terrorism song and dance has been used and abused by the politicians to whip people into mass hysteria, the same can be said of the way Nasrallah and his ilk manipulate people in Lebanon.

Again, I am not implying any moral equivalency between 9-11 and Shebaa Farms, mind you. I'm simply saying that popular psyche is quite easily manipulated if you scare them enough.
People in Lebanon, specially in the South, have heard, for generations, how evil Israel is. All Nasrallah has to do is show the death and destruction that's been inflicted on the South and say "See? Israel has no regards for you. It's evil and it wants to kill you and bomb you." and a lot of people are gonna fall for that.

b.v.

Fair enough - and true - publics in many countries can easily be swayed and manipulated.

But who needs fundamental issues when you have all of the imaginary ones?

And the problem with that is that even anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians have a vested interest in publicly hyping the imaginary ones. That vested interest being that they enjoy breathing.

Good point Michael, Syria doesn't want normal relations with Lebanon, at least not the Syria ruled by the Baath Party or at least by the Assad family and their henchmen.

If Egypt, that once upon a time bastion of Arab nationalism, can make peace with Israel, why can't Lebanon? Lebanon has given enough in blood and tears for the "cause", and got nothing in return for it, so I guess it is time we throw in the towel as well and make peace. Let the Lion in Damascus worry about the Golan Heights by himself.

SoCalJustice,

You're right. Politicians worldwide suffer from this affliction. In order to stay in power, or attain it, they often mislead, or at lease manipulate their constituents. In western democracies, the impact is usually benign. A bridge doesn't get built or a road doesn't get paved.
In the Middle East, it costs lives and causes destruction.

I think one of the biggest remedies to manipulation is education. That is why it is so important to have people like Michael, who report what they see, fairly, and explain things as best they can, to readers far away.

I hate to sound all "revolutionary" here. But the truth is, the more we, the people, are educated, and understand the issues, the more we can hold our politicians and governments accountable.
That applies equally in the US, Europe, and the Middle East.

I've been posting for the past 2 weeks that the ball is now in the court of the Lebanese people, in LARGE part. It is up to the Lebanese to stand up for their nation and it's sovereignty and stop fighting other people's wars. Time to take a long hard look at ourselves (the Lebanese people) and ensure we don't let anyone hold us hostage or dictate any wars on us.

Not having even a remotely informed opinion on this one, I have enjoyed the discussion here.

I do hope for the best but I'm not sure you can measure the time frame involved(for the best) without a sundial.

But a little 'progress' is way better than a lot of despair.

Thanks all for an educational analysis. It's so refreshing to visit a site where 'lunacy' is the aberration.

b.v.

I'm heartened somewhat by what I read from you and many other Lebanese.

But in the mainstream media, it seems you have Michael Young and then everyone else - everyone else being your Rami Khouri's and Amal Saad-Ghorayeb's of the world.

And they are loud. And the sad thing is that it seems that everyone believes that Arabs should think like Khouri and Ghorayeb.

And this is what she has to say (via Michael Young)"

“In military terms this is a victory that the Arabs haven’t tasted in decades by Israeli standards even. Hezbollah is fully aware that it has emerged victorious. The Lebanese government has called it a victory and it is a victory that is unprecedented and if anything it is going to change the balance of power here,” Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, assistant professor at the American University of Beirut and author of Hezbollah: Politics and Religion tells Arabian Business.

“Not only has Hezbollah proven that it has struck a balance of power even though you have factor of asymmetrical warfare, nevertheless it has proven that only the resistance can put in place a balance of power and if anything that this balance of power would tilt in Hezbollah’s favour at the end of this conflict. That is definitely going to be translated politically on the domestic scene.”

I'd like to think that's a minority position. I doubt it is in the larger Arab world, but many of them are willing to fight the Zionists down to the last Lebanese and/or Palestinian.

Socal,

Yup. It sucks when a few loud voices can make us look so bad. This goes for both sides, by the way. I've read my share of propangadist lameness both in the US MSM and in the Israeli MSM.

I simply know better though.

In the end, I have faith that most humans, if left alone, would choose to live in peace and go about their business.

b.v.

Yep - I agree.

I don't mean to pick on Lebanon - it's just the topic of this thread. The U.S. - and Israel - has more than its fair share of terminally incorrect blowhards.

As for Saniora - I don't see him making any moves towards peace with Israel.

Aside for the fact that he wants to stay alive, when he was Finance Minister, he was banned from entering the U.S. because he donated money to Sheikh Fadlallah's charity.

I know it wasn't a lot of money, and maybe it was a political move - but I imagine that there are lots of other charities in Lebanon and the "I'm commanded as a Muslim to give to charity" is a bad defense - give it to a non-HA linked group.

Josey Wales, see here.

Omega80: If Egypt, that once upon a time bastion of Arab nationalism, can make peace with Israel, why can't Lebanon? Lebanon has given enough in blood and tears for the "cause", and got nothing in return for it, so I guess it is time we throw in the towel as well and make peace. Let the Lion in Damascus worry about the Golan Heights by himself.

Thank you for agreeing. I'm tired of this stupid conflict, and I don't even have to live in either of these countries. Although I did live in one of them, and wouldn't mind doing so again if it can be normal and the bombs stop.

Thanks Michael, From your link to the DS:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that peace talks with Beirut were possible, echoing a similar statement made by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. "If the Lebanese government continues this way and if Prime Minister Siniora continues with his efforts to bring about a change in Lebanon, I have no doubt that negotiations" with Beirut will lead to formal relations between Israel and Lebanon, he said.

Upon second reading, I agree it is somewhat intriguing (not say baffling to me).

Caveats of course: it's the DS, and it's the Middle East.

Here is a very interesting read that ties into this discussion as well:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?%20id=110008847
Hezbollah Didn't Win
Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon.
By Amir Taheri, Friday, August 25, 2006

Let's be serious: an Israeli PM being willing to engage in serious peace talks with an Arab state counterpart can be a lot of things, but it's only news in the sense that water being often wet is; it's been true since Ben Gurion's first day in office.

And I do know about both the laws and customs around the "treason" of Lebanese talking about peace publicly -- it's an ongoing sign of how it's necessary to grade Lebanon on the curve (compare it, say, to Syria, the Palestinian death cult, or Egypt) in order to be able to look at it positively.

As to the Lebanese being more afraid of the IDF than of Hezbollah or civil war, I wish that was so; I think that might lead them to actually doing what is necessary, which isn't the PM giving hints.

Yes, the IDF has the potential to do more damage to Lebanon than Hezbollah has to, but unless the second round kicks off shortly (and it won't under the Olmert government, but that's not long going to be in power) it won't be very many weeks before the Lebanese will breathe a collective sigh of angry relief and think that the present threat of Hezbollah is greater than some distant possibility of Bibi turning to the new Chief of Staff and saying, "Over to you."

Maybe after next time; it's going to be far bloodier next time, but it may -- may -- be better in the long run for everybody except the Hezbollards.

See http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/JoelLebanon.html , on his website. I don't always agree with Jerry's analysis (and in fact we disagreed about a lot of this) but it's always (not just on this issue) worth paying attention to.

The article in the link provided by Renee would seem to confirm what your saying is true and that the reason for this shift in public speech-making--even if the shift is slight.

It is happening, I believe, because hizbo has been significantly weakened after the war. I also believe that what will happen is predictable: Hizbo still has the monopoly on gun ownership. There will be assassinations of key people at the appropriate time and the fat one will move to control the street.

The war is not over for hizbo, any war, including the civil war. It is the Iranian revolution in slow motion; it was created as a franchise of the Iranian revolution It will never be "converted" to a political movement and it sees itself as powerless without weapons. The mullahs in Iranian simply used all the opposition groups until they had the levers of power and then liquidated all of them. Even as late as the end of the Iraq war, in 1988, the remaining opposition, who were useful during the war or simply couldn't be dealt with before, were summarily executed --80,000 political prisoners according to the People's Mojehedin.

I do believe this is the hizbo gambit. Without everyone else having guns, or at least a very powerful national army, what will prevent hizbo from eventually taking over? It can wait and keep playing the game. Look at what the Iranians have been doing over the past two years over the nuclear thing, ever since the People's Mojehedin blew the cover off the nuclear activities.

How come the U.S. is ok with Lebanonese democracy which is not truly a one-man-one vote democracy and with Jordan which is a kingdom, but unhappy with Syria which is an oligarchy. I suppose if Syria minded its own business everything would be all right with it. Is the hypcritical U.S. support for democratic principles really fooling anyone in the mid-east?

If you had kept abreast of politics in Lebanon - difficult in the US or reporting from Israel and no Arabic at your command - you would have known that Siniora had raised this issue, a peace treaty, several months ago. Not surprising considering Siniora's pro-West and big business mentality, but an issue that few would support in Lebanon, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Israel has been an aggressor from the start and its treatment of the Palestinians - something every government should ponder long and hard about - is outrageous. Unless the Palestinians are given their freedom, then no state should cooperate with Israel. The country should be sanctioned just like South Africa was to end what is effectively an apartheid.
One day, if Israel is to survive, they will come to the realization that they have to make some real concessions, de Klerk style.

My Dear Paul, I am so sick of that PC lefto propaganda crap.

Take a look at what a thinking Palestinian's take on all of your bullshit--from a guy who grew up in the system and was a former PLO fighter and self-confessed terrorist.

shoebat.com/

People like you are the useful idiots that simply advance the agenda of all of our enemies

Paul,

I think you're dead wrong. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict cannot and should not be a cornerstone of a third country's policy towards Israel. In the case of Lebanon, such policy has only lead, and will continue to lead, to wars, economic downfall, and every possible kind of suffering for all concerned. Asking the Lebanese to suffer alongside the Palestinians will not make the fate of Palestinians any better, but it sure will make that of the Lebanese much worse. This is bad arithmetic: one wrong + another wrong does not equal right.

Besides, friends listen to friends more than they do to their enemies. Lebanon as a friend and partner may just find some ears ready to listen in Israel when it comes to the Palestinian "question". As an enemy state, however, they have no clout whatsoever.

Paul,

it goes without saying that it's in the palestinians interest that Lebanon and the entire muslim world shed blood on their behalf, but it's not in Lebanon's interest. Maybe that's why the paleos are so intransigent-- because they are encouraged by the Hesbollahs and Assads of the middle east, and vice versa. Regular Lebanese people come out the losers.

Now that Syria has cut off ELECTRICITY to Lebanon and threatened to close the borders thus "suffocating" Lebanon, maybe it is time to look at the ISRAELI Option: Using the Israeli Landbridge to reaching the Arab hinterland va Israel, West-Bank and Jordan. See? This may be the start of a new phase.... YEAH I KNOW I AM DREAMING.....

Chocura Check this link out

DEMOCRACY OR OCCUPATION: What's Really on the Rise Across the Middle East?

Hey Carlos! Who equated peace with treachery? Is a statement proposing peace peace itself? Is a peace treaty peace? Peace is a word. To Israelis it means an end of hostilities, as it does to you and I. To many in the Arab world it means the lion lying down with the lamb... in his stomack! If a treaty is broken, is that not treachery? I wasn't calling Siniora treasonous but treacherous: they are two words and, though related, they do have different meanings.

Treason/treachery related,

It's just a thing in the air in the region, cn't put my finger on it.

If you are Assad you can say "talks" with Israel anytime you want and no one will say peep,not even Hezbo.

If you are Lebanese and say such a thing or even "1949 armistice" then: you are a traitor, you care nothing for the Paleo-refugees, you are a non-Arab, an adulterer and a child molester.

And furthermore the Lebanese judiciary which can't find Rana Koleilate (hint: Brazil), nor its own ass with both hands will come after you the same way it went after Miss Lebanon. Poor Miss Lebanon slipped into a pic including Miss Israel at some international bimbo meet (no, not an Arab League meet).

Indeed, Josey, Indeed...

What a joke! All the rethoric and slogans and taboos. Enough already.

PS: I happen to be aquainted with the former Miss Lebanon you mentioned who got into legal trouble for competing next to Miss Israel. What a disaster that was.

Lebanon's refusal to make peace with Israel has always been a green light to Hezbollah's terrorist activity. Until it does make peace it's official policy, it IS has given it's approval to Hezbollah, and is completely responsible for Hezbollah's acts of war.

Sorry for the editing error... I should proof read.

That should have read:

Lebanon's refusal to make peace with Israel has always been a green light to Hezbollah's terrorist activity. Until it does make peace it's official policy, it has given it's approval to Hezbollah, and IS completely responsible for Hezbollah's acts of war.

Lebanon should get periodically ravaged by wars with Israel instead of seeking a peace treaty because

a) Samir Kuntar is a really nice guy
b) The sheeba farms are very important
c) Lebanon's unflinching hostility to Israel has liberated lots of Palestinian land. Lebanese love palestinians. So much so indeed that they are kept like the proverbial neglected zoo animals so they won't forget they should be angry at Israel.

Paul: an issue that few would support in Lebanon, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

So you think war with Israel is good for Lebanon then? What the hell is the matter with you?

Josh Scholar is right. Sovereignty means you are responsible for everything that takes place within your borders, the right to make your own laws, treaties and also the right to hold a monopoly of arms. UNSCR 1701 is an unprecedented disaster because it absolves Lebanon of its responsibilities as a sovereign nation. I understand that taking arms against Hiz'b'allah is difficult, will open up the long civil war but how is that Israel's responsibility? 1701 undoes the very basis of negotiation between nation-states: it is the death knell of the UN and the harbinger of a nuclear holocaust. At best, Siniora's statement is too little too late, unless he plans to make a treaty with Israel and have them disarm Hiz'b'allah, which is pretty unlikely.

As for BV's comment, yes, there could conceivably quite easily be a prosperous region from Turkey to Egypt if the anti-Semitism just disappeared but as for a technological and financial hub in the eastern Mediterranean, it already exists: it's called Israel.

But, reading all this, I got, for a just second, the intoxicating scent of peace. I can see why everyone's grabbing at it. It would be nice if it were more than a word. Sometimes that's all it is, a word on a peace of paper that one side believes and trusts and which the other side has no intention of honoring: that's what I mean by treachery.

Abu, that wasn't actually my point. My point is that the Lebanese government has always signaled that it actually agrees with Hezbollah more or less, whether it meant it sincerely or not.

If the government doesn't even have the courage to even oppose Hezbollah's insane stance, obviously it can't be credited with having peaceful intentions.

Abu Nudnik,

could you possibly be any more ambiguous? I only just figured out what you mean (I think), and only because I visited your website.

Quite right, Josh. In a CTV interview, Lahoud said that Lebanon stands behind Hiz'b'allah and the army will fight with Hiz'b'allah. Also Siniora identified Israel (in a WashPost op-ed) as the threat to its sovereignty and not Hiz'b'allah. One nation, two armies, two commanders is the threat to Lebanon's sovereignty. Yes, it's really hard to accept peaceful intentions on the part of the government of Lebanon. Hiz'b'allah will not be disarmed by the Lebanese military; can't do it or won't do it: what material difference does it make?

Sure, Carlos, I could be more ambiguous if I wanted to be but I really don't want to. I'm a poet and I tend to see things symbolically. History resonates as the belly of the cello sounds the strings. Many decisions are taken completely unconsciously and, as Tolstoy said: "...a man who participates in an historic event never understands its import; the moment he tries to realize its significance, his actions become sterile." Westerners are so willing to condemn Israelis for the deaths of innocents precisely because it plays on the crucifixion, which, the more forgotten and forsaken in secular culture, becomes more powerful and unconsciously pervasive through its invisibility. Anti-Semitic propagandists are well aware of how to pluck these strings and at times have played them brilliantly. It only makes so much sense to examine the statements and behaviour of men; if their decisions, the source of their statements and behaviour, are taken unconsciously it makes more sense to study the cultures that made them through their cherished symbols. That's a window we will have to learn to look into.

There is an informative article by Zvi Barel in Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754704.html

According to him, Lebanon was very active in formulating resolution 1701, including provisions that are strikingly anti-Syrian, such as the placement of UN troops on the Lebanese/Syrian border. The threat by Syria to close the border was primarily saber-rattling against Lebanon.

I always thought that Lebanon would be the last country to make peace with Israel, simply because of its weakness, it would need the permission of Syria and Iran. But the times may be changing.

The recent war with Hezbollah, condemned and criticized by the whole world, including Israel, seems to have provided the opening, although it's not entirely clear how. A peace process with Israel would be riskier for Lebanon than it was for Egypt or Jordan. If it goes forward, Siniora will have shown himself to be a man of vision and courage.

Update: Today's Debka reports that, according to Kofi Annan, UNIFIL will not be deploying along the Syria/Lebanon border, nor will they disarm Hezbollah. The French defense minister is, however, very excited that they will be allowed to use rubber bullets against "anyone standing in their way" (Does that include people firing real bullets?).

MarkC,

The French defense minister is, however, very excited that they will be allowed to use rubber bullets against "anyone standing in their way"

Yeah and the minister forgot to add that rubber bullets only come out after the water pistols have beem emptied.

It's impossible to take any of this UN/1701 stuff seriously.

Yes, Josey, it is impossible to take 1701 seriously if, by taking it seriously, you mean it will achieve the (often contradictory) intentions of the signatories . But it must be taken seriously as an assault on sovereignty. Can anyone tell me how, without mutual respect of the rights and obligations of sovereign states, nations can make peace with each other?