I see you ask for donations in your post-script. So the CIA and Mossad remittances just don't cover it, eh?

ROFL, Michael, the traditional attack from the conspiracy-dominated arab mind has already appeared.

"I try my best to be accurate. But these reports are not “objective.” My writing is personal and unapologetically biased..."

Maybe so, but it's utterly superior to anything else available in the states.

Thanks

Greg

58 minutes from post to first accusations of "zionist" collusion.

sigh

Yeah, but it's an Arab so we don't have to pay it any attention.

Ali, NahnCee, the scary thing about Hezbollah supporters is that their comments are so stupid that it's impossible to tell if they're parodies.

Great article of course. And you have me swearing at the cliff hanger. And then... and then....

Yeah, but it's an Arab so we don't have to pay it any attention.

I doubt it. Probably an anti-Semitic Leftist. The Arabs are smarter than that.

"A twelve year old kid with a Hezbollah flag saw me and sneered."
ha ha ha ha ha ha... Dude you're a clown...

ha ha ha ha ha ha... Dude you're a clown...</

How did we get three moronic and illiterate Hezbollah supporters at the top of one thread?

How did we get three moronic and illiterate Hezbollah supporters at the top of one thread?

It's Winter break. College kids are home on break.

What a great post, as always. Glad you're back.

Reading the first post, I'm reminded of how much Israel's security is improved by the outrageous paranoia Arabs have of Jewish power.

Reading the first post, I'm reminded of how much Israel's security is improved by the outrageous paranoia Arabs have of Jewish power.

Naw, it's just the bitterness of extreme hatred, and all it does is mean that the fuckhead who wrote it is seething with hatred and would no doubt support violence any way he can.

That doesn't help the innocent people of Israel at all.

You're as bad as "Dead Man's Chest" with ending on a total cliffhanger. For shame. ;)

Back, with a bang.

I hope you find time to write about the Herzliya conference. Your perspective would be quite interesting.

Calm down people. Ali was joking (if he wasn't he is the joke, a canadian joke,eh)

Michael ack ack you are just leaving us hanging here?! How can you just leave us hanging? Pull up a chair and...MORE, MORE!!!! Good night, I'm going to be checking back every five minutes for the next edition.

Thank you for writing so beautifully, for providing the much-needed background and context that is so woefully missing from all the MSM reports... not to mention risking your life to bring us these reports.

GREAT post ! Nothing to add. Bravo

Thank you Michael. Excellent as usual. I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment.

A good alternative to Robert Fisk

Great post! PLEASE keep writing! I suggest that you wear any hat to fit in to report to us! One more suggestion, try to limit the comments on the blogs to the informative ones not mud swinging!
Will open a paypal account very soon!

From a Jew living in Beirut: I am disgusted by what you write. Utterly disgusted. Nothing more to say.

I am disgusted by what you write.

Go read Helena Cobban then. She adores Hezbollah.

How dare you call yourself a reporter you are a biased person with a keyboard. You know very well your ideas are skewed and your coverage is horrible. Maybe you can go somewhere where only Christians live so you can fell the comfort you so obviously yearn for. You sir are the epitome of racist scum.

Joseph is banned for trolling.

Jew In Beirut
Not only are you a self-hating Jews, I Guess you are a coward too, considering you're hiding behind a pseudonym.

I suppose it's necessary given your neighborhood - if you indeed do live in Beirut (which I doubt - since cowards rarely speak truthfully).

Has Hezbollah advocated an unconstitutional overthrow of the government? If not, then "Putsch" is probably inaccurate.

Scott,

I had a Jewish room mate in Beirut and he never had any problems. It is not a particularly anti-Semitic place. (South Lebanon is a different story.)

If this person is, indeed, a Jew, he or she is almost certainly a buffoonish Westerner. There are many in Lebanon, and they tend to bring all sorts of personal and political baggage with them.

DPU,

Hezbollah is a well-armed terrorist army that takes orders from Syria and Iran against Lebanon's elected government. I'd say putsch is only a slight exagerration at most, and only because they are not actually using violence against Lebanese at this particular moment.

They did use deadly violence against Lebanese very recently, however, and I'll get to that in future articles.

How Israel can help you?

I'd say putsch is only a slight exagerration at most, and only because they are not actually using violence against Lebanese at this particular moment.

It seems to me that quite a few Lebanese political groups have used violence against other Lebanese at various times. However, for this to be a Putsch they would need to be advocating an unconstitutional change of government. So far, they seem to be not doing that, regardless of who they take orders from.

I'm harping on this because I think that many readers may not be familiar with forms of government that can be forced to resign through external political pressure, and on reading "putsch" may end up thinking that the demonstrations themselves are a coup attempt.

Michael
You're right of course, about the Jews and "buffoonish Westerners." I just got back from Tanzania and met a few there that simply should never have left the suburbs of Chicago - or at least stopped from doing so by the TSA.

I simply don't pay much heed to anyone who doesn't have the balls to put their name to what they write. Although I do take a kind of perverse pleasure into emasculating them when the opportunity arises.

DPU: I'm harping on this because I think that many readers may not be familiar with forms of government that can be forced to resign through external political pressure

Yes, fine, but this is foreign political pressure applied through the use of a terrorist army.

If Hezbollah were a non-violent political party I would scrap the use of the word putsch.

And when I say Hezbollah used deadly force against fellow Lebanese, I'm talking about August 2006, not the 1980s.

I just hope shit that happens in the near future doesn't turn Beirut into Baghdad. I think that what most people in Beirut wanted Santa to give'em for Christmas.

And when I say Hezbollah used deadly force against fellow Lebanese, I'm talking about August 2006, not the 1980s.

I guess the specifics of this are to be revealed later?

As for my opinions:

Pros: As usual, emotionally interesting ground-level detail. Good for writing novels.

Cons:

I try my best to be accurate. But these reports are not “objective.”

You're confused, Michael. It's one think to acknowledge that one has an opinion and point of view, and apologize for inaccuracy that may result. It's a different thing to make a write-off of inaccuracy as an enjoyable privilege of being out of the bias closet.

Not that I'm necessarily saying you've done this. Just a statement of principle. Now, having said that:

Aside from Hezbollah, the Baath Party, and a few irrelevant crackpots on the radical left, no one in the world thinks of liberal-democratic protests and sit-ins in Lebanon as a “crisis.” But nearly everyone – including the Arab League and every Arab government in the world except for Syria’s – recognizes, for one set of reasons or another, that it’s a problem when a guerilla and terrorist army loyal to another state tries to topple an elected government.

This is not just a pro-March 14 statement. It's also a warping statement, misleading and ultimately not factually accurate.

When you hear the phrase "terrorist army trying to topple an elected government", what comes to mind are paramilitary forces shooting their way into headquarters, exterminating the old leadership, and seizing control of the capital with a monopoly of force. Whatever this was, whatever its pluses and minuses, whatever it represents, this was not that. What it was, was tactically and methodologically indistinguishable from the Cedar Revolution. The same methods, the same dynamics, popular protest and civil disobedience. Different results.

If you come to terms, or even attempt to come to terms, with the serious paradoxes, complications, and challenges to your pre-fab worldview represented by this reality, you'll have a great piece of writing.

Otherwise, you'll have some superficially entertaining travelogue.

Other than the paragraph I picked out, mostly the bias was flavor, not substance. Which is good. Cheers.

What it was, waas tactically and methodologically indistinguishable from the Cedar Revolution.

Wrong. Last I checked Hezbollah is a self-defined armed militia. Show me the arms that the Cedar Revolutionaries had.

You seem to have lost the ability to differentiate between peaceful protest and armed resistance.

Before you go criticizing the "pre-fab worldview represented by this reality" - whatever the f**k that means - you might want to reflect upon your own.

To Guy: How can Israel help Lebanon?
Just tell Israel to do the following:
1. Stop the violation of Lebanese water, land and air space!
2. Get out of Shebaa Farms
3. Give us maps of mines and cluster bombs planted by Israel in Lebanese areas
4. Release Lebanese prisoners
5. Don't interfere in our internal affairs!

Now how Syria can help Lebanon?
1. Mark the border between Lebanon and Syria including Shebas Farms.
2. Control your border, no smuggling of anything!
3. Release Lebanese prisoners.
4. Don't interfere in our internal affairs!

You seem to have lost the ability to differentiate between peaceful protest and armed resistance.

I think that the point glasnost was making was that, so far, this particular crises has not involved armed struggle, and that Hezbollah has been copying the tactics employed by the March 14 movement last year.

I think that is probably a positive thing.

glasnot

Karami govt was defeated in a parliamentary vote no?

to rm,
"Karami govt was defeated in a parliamentary vote no? "
he actually was wise enough, so he dissmiss.

Your man Chibli works at a bar named Godot? As in, "waiting for," perhaps?

/sillyjoke

what has been happening downtown is NOT the same as march 14th. march 14th never blocked off key roads or halted economic activity in the city center. march 14th never attempted to siege the serail (ok, it didn't last long with hezbollah either, but only because of saudi intervention). march 14th didn't pan spotlights along the serail in the middle of the night to make sure no one could sleep (i can see this from my balcony btw), or blast music at 4am for the same purpose. march 14 didn't pay people to camp out -- this isn't an uprising, it's an operation. i could continue with the discrepancies, but presumably michael will do that in upcoming posts.

make no mistake -- this IS a (slow-motion) coup attempt.

Also, March 14 ousted a foreign military dictatorship. That same foreign military dictatorship is now trying to topple the democratically elected government that replaced it and reassert control over the country.

Sheesh, the differences could hardly be greater.

Does the word 'seethe' apply to anyone outside the mid east?

You are discussing goals and motives. I was discussing tactics.

Can we agree that this form of political pressure is better than armed conflict?

Thanks for the article :)
by the way, the same guy that called you a clown: if you hold your cursor over his name, you'll see his email address is "tehmile".
That, my friend, means enema in arabic.
Who, again, Monsieur Tehmile is the clown ?

Double Plus: Go watch Leni Riefenstahl's film Reichsparteitag des Friedens filmed at the 1939 Nuremberg party rally. Uh-oh, she didn't film that one. The Rally for Peace had to be cancelled. Germany invaded Poland the next day.

Use you head as well as your eyes when you watch these things go by.

GK:

Some of your points about what Israel could do are fair enough - but how about what Lebannon could do?

1) Stop allowing a private militia/army/terrorist group/party/whatever to fire rockets from its (nominal) territory into the territory of another state.

2) Stop allowing same group to stage cross-border raids into another state.

3) Control its side of the border with Syria to strangle Hezb'Allah's resupply route.

4) If they think that they really own Sheeba Farms, take it to the UN, since the hardly pro-Israel UN drew the line to which the Israelis withdrew - and they said that the Farms were part of the occupied Golan.

5) Control its own frickin' territory - if it needs help to do that, then get it - whether from the UN, the US, the Arab League or whomever. As long as Hezb'Allah chooses to be a statelet making war on Israel, Lebanon will never be at peace. That may not be fair, but it's reality.

Can we agree that this form of political pressure is better than armed conflict?

Why on earth would people under siege feel the need to agree that one form of siege is 'better' than another?

The encampment downtown is destroying Beirut's economy. In a conflict, one side wins by destroing the enemy's infrastructure through economic means or military means. Hezbollah is choosing the method that will work best for them, the method that will let them win, and the method that their enemy will find hardest to fight.

In your opinion, this method is "better"? Why?

Why on earth would people under siege feel the need to agree that one form of siege is 'better' than another?

Well, aside from the fact that I was asking this of Michael, and that Michael isn't currently under siege to my knowledge, are you suggesting that one might think civil war is preferable to civil disobedience?

In your opinion, this method is "better"? Why?

Oh, you are suggesting that. Well, for a start, if it came to armed conflict, I think that Hezbollah has a slight edge militarily over most of the opposition, so they'd probably come out on top. I don't think that would be a good thing. Do you? Secondly, if you think a protest is tearing up the economy, I'd have to wonder if you think that a civil war would be good for the economy. And lastly, if Hezbollah is not resorting to armed force when it is in a militarily superior position over the opposition, it may be a sign that they recognize that political pluralism is a better road forward than armed struggle. That, to me, seems "better." What would you consider that?

"are you suggesting that one might think civil war is preferable to civil disobedience?"

-Well, this is more civil disobedience for now backed by the threat of civil war later if the Hezb'Allah does not get their way. Not exactly Ghandi or MLK - some might even call it intimidation or thuggee. When one "party" is armed to the teeth and the others not so much, it isn't exactly my idea of "political pluralism" - it it yours?

DPU - the logical conclusion to your posts is that a non-violent (except for maybe a few assasinations of cabinet ministers) campaign followed by a Hezb'Allah takeover of Lebannon is preferable to a renewal of fighting wherein the Lebanese might have a chance to free themselves of Syrain influence. I suppose that it is a defensible position, except for the minor detail that any sort of Hezb'Allah takeover is almost certain to lead to a renewed and even bloodier conflict with Israel - and the more Hezb'Allah is a part of "official" Lebannon, the more Beruit is going to get pounded.

the more Hezb'Allah is a part of "official" Lebannon, the more Beruit is going to get pounded.

This is precisely the problem.

A Hezbollah victory, peaceful or otherwise, means war and destruction and mayhem and ruin for Lebanon.

the logical conclusion to your posts is that a non-violent (except for maybe a few assasinations of cabinet ministers) campaign followed by a Hezb'Allah takeover of Lebannon is preferable to a renewal of fighting wherein the Lebanese might have a chance to free themselves of Syrain influence.

Everything that I've read indicates that Hezbollah would be the most likely victor of a violent struggle. I would eagerly look at evidence to the contrary.

In your opinion, this method is "better"? Why?
Oh, you are suggesting that.

No, I'm saying that Hezbollah is trying to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure using the method that will best benefit Hezbollah. Why should anyone who is not Hezbollah feel the need to call this 'better'?

And lastly, if Hezbollah is not resorting to armed force when it is in a militarily superior position over the opposition, it may be a sign that they recognize that political pluralism is a better road forward than armed struggle.

It may also be a sign of the second coming. That 'may' can express a wide range of wishful thinking.

If Hezbollah is not resorting to armed force when it is in a militarily superior position over the opposition, their history indicates that they're using the standard terrorist extortion routine, 'Nice country you've got, wouldn't want anything to happen to it.' So which is worse, living under the constant threat of having your legs broken by knuckle draggers or actually having a broken leg? The best choice is neither - the best choice is to weaken and/or disarm the knuckle-draggers.

A Hezbollah victory, peaceful or otherwise, means war and destruction and mayhem and ruin for Lebanon.

If it isn't spoiling any upcoming posts, do you see any way that Hezbollah will lose this? Cause I sure don't.

No, I'm saying that Hezbollah is trying to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure using the method that will best benefit Hezbollah.

Uh, no one was arguing that it wasn't. The question was whether Hezbollah using civil disobedience is preferable to Hezbollah using bullets and rockets. Read the original comment you were objecting to again.

The question was whether Hezbollah using civil disobedience is preferable to Hezbollah using bullets and rockets.

And if you reread the rest of my comment, you'll note that Hezbollah's actions are closer to extortion than 'civil disobedience'.

you'll note that Hezbollah's actions are closer to extortion than 'civil disobedience'.

That can be said of all civil disobedience. And I still don't understand whether you think Hezbollah's current actions are preferable to open warfare or not.

DPU: do you see any way that Hezbollah will lose this?

I don't know. Anything could happen.

"That can be said of all civil disobedience" - yeah, 'cause if MLK didn't get what he wanted he was going to flatten Birmingham, AL with 10,000 Katusha rockets.

Hezb'Allah is strong in the south, but if the Lebanese Army, maybe with support from the US and/or the Arab League, were to close the border with Syria and start to squeeze them without directly attacking their strongholds, the Lebanese government might be able to force a substantial disarmament. Such a move could even be accompanied by security guarantees from the US and Israel, contingent on the Lebanese government controlling its nominal territory.

Sure the above may be a long shot - but I will guaran-frickin-tee you that if the Hezt gets control of the levers of power the result will be a renewed conflict with Israel that will make this year's contretemps look like a kidergarten scrap.

I will guaran-frickin-tee you that if the Hezt gets control of the levers of power the result will be a renewed conflict with Israel that will make this year's contretemps look like a kidergarten scrap.

Yep. And no one who is supporting Hezbollah today will take any responsibility for this whatsoever.

double-plus-ungood: The question was whether Hezbollah using civil disobedience is preferable to Hezbollah using bullets and rockets.

One in the same. Somebody at Hezbollah apparently finally read at least one of the classic "terrorist" books (Mao, Collins, etc) and took notes. It's taken them bloody long enough (such things have been required reading for US SF for a long time).

They've decided to use civil disobedience because it makes political sense to do so. Somebody added it up and figured it would look better to have a protest. Looks nice on the world stage. This does NOT mean they've given up violence. Just that it wasn't politically expedient to do it in this case. It's the best way, right now, for them to move closer to their goals.
When they decide it is smarter to start killing people again, they will.

It's not a sign that they are moving towards pluralism (although giving that sign is why they did it). This was not a moral decision by Hezbollah, but a tactical one.

Is it preferred to open warfare? Sure, in the sense that people aren't dying now. Of course, people will probably die later anyway.

What amazes me is that the photographs make me think Beirut is a beautiful city and a place I'd love to live in, if it weren't for the violence.

Most of what we outsiders read about the place makes it seem dismal but your photographs make us see its beauty.

I thank you for taking them and including them in the report.

D

(I'm unemployed and broke, or I'd be happy to contribute a few shekels).

The political situation consists of Iran/Syria backed Hezbollah parliament members dissatisfied by the fact that they do not have control over the goverment as a whole. As a result they are pressuring the democratic goverment for either veto power over all measures (something that their numbers do not currently allow them to do - it is a power disproportionate to their seats in gov't); or to topple the government and call for new elections (ones that they will make sure they win). Lebanon is sitting on the brink of a cliff - with its democratic future in jeopardy, and the future of becoming a proxy state to Iran and Syria, and a Hezbollah run terror-state into the bargain. This would create a new geo-strategic front for Iranian power (not the will of the Iranian people, but the ambitions of its destructive leaders) and for violent jihadism. The international community either does not realize the gravity of what is taking place, or realizes and does not care to become involved. My guess is that they are blind to the danger. It mystifies me, however, that the U.S. is not raising more of a hue and cry in the international arena. What should be taking place now is that the diplomats and leaders of the free international community should be sending their members to stand together and show solidarity with the democratic government of Lebanon and the brave Lebanese who want only freedom and independence.
(Tears for Pierre, Rafik, Gibran - the young generation of leaders killed so that they could never lead a democratic and free country)

And Fears for the rest of us who do not realize the larger significance of Lebanon in the greater international arena of the West and moderate Arabs/Islam

Whew - I'll get off my soapbox now..
But really.

Just curious, I'm in the US and don't know beans about Lebanon, but the Shia appear to be a significant and a growing faction of that country. Other than Hezbollah is there another group that credibly represents this population? Assuming they are not properly represented by the government, how are peaceful protests a pusche?

On an unrelated note, Michael Totten appears to me to be in the neo-conservative camp ("knee-cap Syria", spread peace and democracy through violence, etc.) Michael, did you promote our grand adventure in Iraq? Do you advocate a tactical strike on Iran? Do you think these Middle-East countries might be better off if we players left them alone and let their populations figure things out amongst themselves?

I understand the argument that if we left the other team would run amok but damn, either we come up with a new game plan or admit their welfare is secondary.

mike-too-many-nines, you have no idea what treasure of journalism lie waiting for you in the archives.

Go read the last few years worth of archives, then come back with better informed questions.

what i don't understand is why won't somebody drop a few cluster bombs at hizballah crowd. such a target rich occurrence...

and under "somebody" i mean anyone actually interested in peace in the middle east - israelis, cia, french, some lebanese militia...

ideally, lebanese army would just gun them down with their machine guns. but they probably don't have guts for that...

ideally, lebanese army would just gun them down with their machine guns. but they probably don't have guts for that...

"Guts" isn't the first word that comes to mind when describing the massacre of an apparently peaceful demonstration.

And, I hate to break it to you, but that demonstration doesn't include the majority of Hezbollah members. So the result would be a civil war with massacre after massacre following.

That probably isn't the outcome you were looking for.

Hoo Boy Mike9999.. One of the many things you'll learn while reading Michael's posts.(and I hope you read more of what he writes in the future as well as his archives.) Is that you cant pingeon hole him politically. You made some assumptions that are, well, wrong. But if you look at being proven wrong not as a negative, but as having learned something. And if you enjoy learning. You're going to have a great time reading Mr. Tottens stuff.
Cheers
M

Thanks for this information, and for God's sake be careful up there.

It mystifies me, however, that the U.S. is not raising more of a hue and cry in the international arena.

Hizbullah is a symptom. The roots of most of this idiocy run back to Tehran and the old Sunni/Shia feud.

"My writing is personal and unapologetically biased. If you want bloodless and neutral coverage of the ongoing crisis in Lebanon, find a writer or reporter who doesn’t care about Lebanon, who can shrug at its problems, who only cares about the place because it’s a “story,” who can yawn and sleep soundly while it convulses and explodes. There are plenty around. The rest of us will take sides."

Dear Michael,

I read your articles frequently -- sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don’t. But the extract above has prompted me to post a comment for the first time.

I think it’s perfectly legitimate for you to write in a “personal and unapologetically biased” way -- anyone visiting your website can see that you indeed do. As readers we gain an insight into your views and are free to look elsewhere for a different opinion. However, I believe you are wrong to suggest that a reporter who strives for “neutral coverage” is a reporter who “doesn’t care about Lebanon”

Trying to cover a story impartially and objectively is one of the cornerstones of good journalism. Reporters (on any story) may care very deeply, hold fierce views, and experience strong emotions, but many will try and put all these to one side in order to try and cover the story in a balanced way. Plenty of journalists, not least Lebanese journalists, care about Lebanon very much. And yet they are trying to provide neutral and bloodless coverage as they believe it better equips their readers or viewers to gain and understanding of the complex situation there.

“Taking sides” is not wrong -- but there is also a place for reporting that tries not to be personal or biased. Please don’t accuse those reporters of only caring about Lebanon because it is a “story”.

Great reporting, Michael. Superior stuff.

Hugh Hewitt wonders why some MSM outfit doesn't give you a camera and mic. I daresay any illumination of the situation in Lebanon would cause heads to explode here in America - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

So do they shiites out protesting actually have any legitimate complaints that deserve addressing or are they merely sheeps following syria/iran orders?

This is the silliest, most racist, and most annoying article I have read about Lebanon in a while.
Michael you are an ignorant biggot.

So do they shiites out protesting actually have any legitimate complaints that deserve addressing or are they merely sheeps following syria/iran orders?

Some of both, I think.

My impression is that shia tend to form the 'underclass' in predominantly-sunni countries, and tend to be less prosperous and somewhat discriminated against. I don't know if that's necessarily the case in Lebanon (tho I suspect that people who had something to lose would be less willing to pick fights with the Israelis), but it's quite possible that the shia who make up Hizbullah have some legitimate complaints about how things run in Lebanon. Unfortunately, the only one I've seen presented is "we're unhappy because we don't have as much influence with the Lebanese government as we think we should have". Welcome to the club, guys... every country on earth has a group of people that feels that way.

It's a damn shame they seem to think the best way to have their complaints addressed is to cozy up to Assad and pick fights with the Israelis. That kind of thinking just leads to people getting killed.

It is my understanding that the Shi'a are (or at least recently were) significantly under-represented in Lebannon's political system/compromise, which is based on somewhat outdated demographics. I believe that the two top spots generally go to a Christian and a Sunni - but it is the Shi'a who have been having the most kids. I don't think that it is as bad as Saudi Arabia, where the Shi'a form a truly disenfranchised underclass - treated worse than Sunni foreigners - and feared as potential Iranian fifth columnists.

Elie...

How is this article at all racist? Neither "Hezbollah supporters", Syria or whatever "political bodies" mentioned here are races. In fact, considering that the Lebenase and Syrians are from the same geographic region, it would not be too far off to posit that they are interrelated ethnicities (I could be wrong of course...).

So please, detail the racism that so offended you here. Considering that Michael has spent much time in Lebenon and obiviously cares about the people there--Christians, Druze, Shia/Sunni etc., all of which I hope you note are religions not races--I believe that the "ignorant bigot" label should go to you, even more so because you mispelled bigot.

Get a clue and save yourself from foot-in-mouth disease.

Great post! I'm a Lebanese filmmaker who lives in the States. I should be in Lebanon mid January and would love to meet up if possible. I can not offer help in form of money but I will be traveling extensively through out Lebanon and can offer rides, insights, tips and connections.

email me if you're interested.

The Lebanese people need to stand firm, as time is not on the islamofascists' side. Iran and Syria cannot afford to pay for this madness forever. If the Saudi gangsters cut off Assad's credit line, finally and completely, he'll be forced to make a positive move, because the mullahs can't afford to keep him afloat forever, while also paying for their own restive populations' wants and needs.

If the Saudi gangsters cut off Assad's credit line, finally and completely, he'll be forced to make a positive move...

Wow. Now THAT was an entertaining display of a lack of even minimal research.

The Internet, where having an opinion makes you an instant expert.

For instance?

Assuming that political dialog doesn't result in a compromise solution, which seems unlikely, then it's a standoff that Hezbollah would likely win. If it comes down to an armed conflict, again, Hezbollah seems to be the strongest in that area, and would likely win.

Those are the only two scenarios that I can think of that don't involve additional interference from outside parties.

Israel seems unlikely to do much at this point, including confrontation with Syria. The bloc of Sunni nations that are opposed to Syrian influence in Lebanon seem more intent on regional stability than in preventing Hezbollah from obtaining a greater degree of political control. And as far as the US is considered, Lebanon is a relatively unimportant sideshow at the moment, so there won't be much involvement oher than angry sound bites.

What have I missed?

"Now THAT was an entertaining display of a lack of even minimal research."

You'll have to explain yourself a little better than that, son. Smarmy comments don't really pass for anything but, well, smarminess.

The internet, the smarmy weasel's prime habitat.

You'll have to explain yourself a little better than that, son. Smarmy comments don't really pass for anything but, well, smarminess.

Well, I suppose asking me for an answer beats having to crack open a web page on the subject.

Hariri, who the Syrians killed last year, was pro-Saudi, to put it mildly. Saudi Arabia was outraged over his assassination. Also, they haven't supplied any form of financial aid to Syria for well over a decade, and is currently providing support for the anti-Syrian political forces in Lebanon.

As this is pretty fundamental stuff, I'd assume that you have almost no knowledge about the current situation.

Mr. Totten, what you are doing in Lebanon is unclear, but it is certainly not journalism. From your own confessions of bias, you seem more like someone there to stir up agitation and paint a (admittedly) biased picture of events in Lebanon for an ignorant and uninformed Western audience, most of whom already have an inaccurate and misinformed opinion of Hizballah, and who come here to receive affirmation for their groundless assumptions.

A couple questions:

1) Do you read or speak Arabic?
2) Where are the source attributions for many of the assertions you make? (Since you admitted your total bias, you can understand that anything you say must be dismissed out of hand in light of conflicting reporting in other more reliable sources.)
3) You banned Joseph for "trolling". Did you also ban Poul for his comment?

I find your analysis (if it can be called that) quite vacuous and bland, similar to the unsubstantiated drivel that one would read in the right-wing Israeli press or on right-wing blogs. You make little (if any) apparent effort to actually talk to Hizballah supporters to hear their opinions, or if you did, none are incorporated in your article. Your assertions are not backed up by sources. This is clearly not journalism by any accepted definition.

People who visit your blog would be better served reading truly objective journalism by Juan Cole, or real analysis from someone who actually understands Lebanese politics, society and culture (and reads/writes/speaks Arabic natively) like As'ad Abukhalil.

"If this person is, indeed, a Jew, he or she is almost certainly a buffoonish Westerner. There are many in Lebanon, and they tend to bring all sorts of personal and political baggage with them."

Heh, you said it, Mr. Totten.

Comments and replies welcome at my blog.

Actually, if you had any knowledge of the situation, you'd know that the Saudis have been underwriting the Syrian debt for many years, with only a brief mention of interruption a couple years ago, when the Saudi gangsters were making a pretense of concern. You're probably too dumb to have noticed at the time, but Assad quickly scuttled off to Riyhadh begging forgiveness, which soon came, and the debt was happily rolled over by the Saudi gangsters.

But then, you obviously have no knowledge of the situation in the Mideast, so this has escaped you. Better stick to the smarminess, bub.

People who visit your blog would be better served reading truly objective journalism by Juan Cole, or real analysis from someone who actually understands Lebanese politics, society and culture (and reads/writes/speaks Arabic natively) like As'ad Abukhalil.

Personally, I read both those sites regularly for their insight into Middle Eastern politics, but I would hardly call them either journalists, objective, or anything close to unbiased.

...but Assad quickly scuttled off to Riyhadh begging forgiveness, which soon came..

Bullshit. He scuttled off to Riyhadh to beg forgiveness, he was given a good spanking and sent back home after the Saudis told him to pull all his troops out of Lebanon.

The Saudi royals may be likened to gangsters, but it takes a special kind of logic to imagine they're controlling Assad in his confrontation with Saudi-backed political forces in Lebanon.

Ahhhh yes, after being exposed as the clueless dolt that he is, the smarmy weasel sheds the smarminess and goes straight for the rage and profanity. How typical of the smarmy internet weasel!

"He scuttled off to Riyhadh to beg forgiveness..."

And to beg that his current debt be rolled over, so that he could stay in business, a request that the Saudis quickly honored. You'd know this, if you knew anything about that region.

"...it takes a special kind of logic to imagine they're controlling Assad in his confrontation with Saudi-backed political forces in Lebanon."

Actually, nobody imagines ANYTHING, other than you, bub. We knowledgeable observers simply point out the obvious, that the Saudi gangsters have long provided financial support for the Syrian gangsters, a fact that you were obviously unaware of, as you bluster your fantasies and smarminess. Smart of you to drop your clueless denials of this reality, however, bub, it really made you look like a fool.

You see, son, the first part of a learning process is to gather data, and this must occur long before any foolish "analysis" might be attempted, analysis such as your fantasy that anybody said the Saudis "control" Assad's actions in Lebanon. We really can't know that one way or the other, can we? Not if we're following a legitimate learning process, that is.

All we know is what we know, that the Saudis have LOOOOOONG supported the Assads financially, despite your ignorance on that matter. Some of us always knew of this, but you didn't, obviously. Now you do.

Now, try to leave the smarminess out of your posts, son. Just take this new bit of knowledge you've obtained, and try to build upon it. You'll get along better.

Well, oh vastly learned one, possibly you might explain why the Saudis direct Assad to oppose a Saudi-backed political force in Lebanon? Because I'm having some difficulty with that one.

Hmmmmmm, back to the smarminess, eh bub?

Hard to make sense of that nonsense you just posted. So again, you'll have to explain yourself a bit more. As we've previously established, smarminess doesn't pass for anything but, well, smarminess.

And again, before you launch off into your foolish "analysis", you might want to start off with what you DO know, rather than what you fantasize. In this particular discussion, your new-found knowledge starts off with the Saudi's historical financial support for the Assads. We clear?

Are you avoiding the question? If so, why?

Goodness, was that an attempt at a question? Why, it appeared simply as another of your fantasy assertions, composed of a sloppy and grammatically incorrect grouping of words, followed by a question mark.

Perhaps you should try again. And remember, as you formulate your "question", that the Saudis have looooong funded the Assads.

Well, you've made it obvious that you are dodging the question. I think I'm done with you now.

Your naivete is almost laughable sir! It's ashame that they even allowed you into bint jbail at all given the anti-shia rubbish you peddle on your pages. It's quite interesting, though, that you've only interviewed the March 14 camp. And if you only knew how fractious and opportunistic that camp really is. Before you try to (re)present Lebanon to your Western readers, I recommend taking a lesson in humility and quit pretending you understand a single fucking thing about this country. Because you don't! I promise. And until you get off your high horse and venture into the interviews you'll obviously never be willing/able to secure, you will be consigned to the realm of whining punditry. And go take some Arabic lessons while you're at it. Not all Lebanese speak French as their first language. And by the way, I'm glad the Aounists are "more civilized" than those poor Shia. They should just go back to collecting garbage huh...

Scroll up, Bub. You were done when you denied that the Saudis fund the Assads, which exposed you as a clueless internet dolt.

MJT, calling Hizbullah "terrorists" make the article more than an "unapologetically biased" one.
Also, you must have known by now that such tone you're writing with makes you a sectarian guy in Lebanese 'standards'. The demonstration was totally peaceful and civilized despite the attacks from the the so called "March 14" supporters that killed a demonstrator! ( It happened at the beginning of this month. See this video)

Yeah - how dare you call an organization that straps bombs onto children, that deliberatlely rockets civillian towns with zero military value, that blows up peacekeepers who came to help their benighted little country, that blows up community centres 10,000+ miles from their homeland "terrorists" - for shame, the "Party of Allah" is just a humble political party, much like the Democrats with a social service arm modelled on the Rotarians. I mean really, just because they have an armed "wing" that occupies a third of their nominal country and which can unilaterally decide to pull their country into a full-on shooting war with another country, you call them "terrorists"? I suppose you think that all the parades with the masked gunmen, the toddlers dolled up like "martyrs" and the exhortations to genocide make the Pary of Allah any less of a legitimate political player? Sir, your bias is showing!! Don't you know that all these things are just colorful threads in the rich tapestry of Arab-Muslim political life? You, with your smug western-Zionist-crusader values like reverance for life and a preferance for freedom, how dare you cast aspersions on the right of a quasi-soverign people to raise mold their society into one giant IED?

Racist!

AR - are you really so dense that you can't realize that Michael is probably one of the best friends Lebannon could have? He shows an American audience a human, interesting side of a country that is most recently famous 'round these parts for killing job lots of Marines in their sleep. He actually cares about the people of Lebannon, at a time when most Americans would not be overly concerned if the entire Arab-Muslim middle east were to fall into a black hole - and most would likely sigh with relief. Oh well, I guess that anyone that isn't ready to lick the sweat off your balls Carter or Ramsey Clark style can never be a friend to the Arabs in your book. So be it.

double-plus-ungood:

I didn't call them journalists either (in fact they are both university professors and universally recognized experts in their field, which is Middle East history and contemporary studies), but they do in fact produce content and analysis that does more than just scratch the surface of issues in the Middle East, more so than a typical journalist would. So actually, they are much more knowledgeable, insightful, and useful, than mere "journalists".

I would agree that Abukhalil isn't necessarily objective or unbiased, but he is honest, which is more than I can say about many people who purport to know anything about the Middle East (including our blog host). To say Juan Cole is biased or isn't objective is abjectly ludicrous. Perhaps you'd like to back up this claim in some way?

Or, what would you consider "unbiased" and "objective"?

holdfast,

Please explain how Michael is a friend--nay, BEST friend--of Lebanon? Of all of Lebanon, or just the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze? What about the 40% of the population of Lebanon that is Shia? Is he their "Best Friend" too?

Please explain.

As for the rest of your blather, I can't find anything useful, relevant or accurate to respond.

Abraham,

Don't be silly. Juan Cole would not dare say his blog posts are unbiased. Everyone knows his opinions. He only seems unbiased to you because he shares your opinions.

As far as my making no attempt to speak to Hezbollah supporters, keep reading. Of course I spoke to them, too. This is only the first of 15 articles I plan to publish. I can't squeeze all my material into one place. This was just an introduction.

If you want to dismiss out of hand what I write, fine. I really don't care. For the most part I write what I see and hear. Your experience in Lebanon (if you have any) is naturally different from mine and your opinions may vary.

I would agree that Abukhalil isn't necessarily objective or unbiased, but he is honest,..

And funny, and quite angry.

To say Juan Cole is biased or isn't objective is abjectly ludicrous. Perhaps you'd like to back up this claim in some way?

I'd say that Cole is very knowledgable, but his analysis isn't objective. For example, he has repeatedly used the term "thug" in reference to Iraq's al Sadr and "goons" for his supporters. This may descriptive, but is hardly objective.

Also, Abraham, I not an enemy of the Shia. I am, however, an enemy of Hezbollah. They threatened me with physical violence for what I wrote on my blog, and they scream "Death to America" on a fairly regular basis. I am, as you know, an American.

Being friends with these people is impossible. If they want to change their attitude toward me personally and toward my country in general, I will change my opinion of them.

Abraham - I think I explained it rather clearly - perhaps your reading comprehension skills aren't up to the task? Unlike, say, Juan Cole or other members of MESA, Totten reaches a politically diverse audience (as evidence, you and I are here having this argument). Bluntly, I regard Cole as a lying sack of s**t and wouldn't believe him if he wrote that the sun rose in the east. Moreover, Totten reports his experiences as a concerned but non-Arabic speaking American traveling in the middle east - a point of view that many here can relate to. Also, unlike Cole, Totten actually gets out and spends time on the ground, seeing things with his own two eyes. Sure it'd be cool if he could also speak Arabic, but he's working with what he's got - leveraging it as well as he can, unlike Cole who is content to sit fat, dumb and happy in his ivory tower. I happen to know that Totten has interviewed Hezb'Allah leaders before, and I'm assuming we'll see more of that in this series of articles (unless they chose to make it too dangerous for him).

Most Americans do not care about the color of your skin or the name of your god - but they do find it a lot easier to relate to people and peoples that share similar aspirations (a good life for one's family, education and safety being prominent) - and don't spend most of their days yelling "Death to America". I think most Americans can see that in the Lebanese people that Totten profiles here, which leads to a de-mystification, which can only help relations on a person-to-person level. Abraham, however, isn't interested in humanizing the Shi'a to this largely American audience - rather he chooses to to try to defend Hezb'Allah, which most Americans simply won't buy. Sure maybe Republicans think we should bomb them and Dems think we should wait and hope they go away, but nobody outside the Ramsey Clark-Carter-Chomsky crowd actually LIKES the murderous bastards, which is where Abraham and his ilk lose their audience. Oh well, at least he's honest - though I really do hope he's wrong and that the majority of Shi'a don't support Hezb'Allah's genocidal aims.

Stumbled across your blog, what a load of deliberately ill-informed rubbish. Yet another one of the "they're just Shia" voices. You expect the Shias to permanently live in squalor under the boot of your Christian fascist and IDF pals because ...? My favorite part of your cold war spy tale cum orientalist fantasy is how you seem to think those black-shirted Hezbollah baddies have you "on their list" and are whispering into their shirt cuffs about you.

By the way, the obnoxious commenters are coming here from the Angry Arab blog. Google it if you want to read it.

You expect the Shias to permanently live in squalor under the boot of your Christian fascist and IDF pals

You don't know a damn thing about me. No one in America thinks the Shia should live in squalor under Christian or Jewish fascism. Americans do not think like that.

The reason I dislike Hezbollah is because Hezbollah is a magnet for Israeli invasions and I prefer Lebanon live in peace without being invaded ever again.

Thanks for reading.

Ok, fine, I'll grant you that Juan Cole employs pejoratives in describing the various factions about which he writes. But to assume Cole is biased towards or against any particular faction is absurd. As but one example, Cole was unapologetically critical of Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel, whereas a great many of his readers (including this one) found the criticism to be misplaced or irrelevant. And even though I don't agree with Cole 100% on everything, what does that have to do with his being objective or not? Many people agree with him. In all the words being written about the Middle East, some people are wrong but are believed to be correct, and some are correct but believed to be wrong. Amidst all the noise, someone is right. Taken as a whole, the facts, history, and Cole's writings combine to demonstrate that he generally is.

As for your considering Hizballah to be your "enemy", how is it that a supposed journalist can express enmity against his subject matter and still call himself a "journalist"? I know you have admitted you are neither objective nor unbiased. I appreciate the honesty. However, and especially as an outsider with no particular knowledge of the customs, culture and language of the place he covers, it taints all your writing, making it completely useless as a source of information. By proudly expressing your bias, you are relegating yourself to irrelevance.

And why do you suppose Hizballah screams "Death to America"? Perhaps because the bombs that rained down on them came from us? Or did they pick their object of hatred out of a hat? How would you explain it? Is it because every bomb that fell on Lebanon last summer was either paid for or supplied by you, I, and our country in general? Yes, I know you have acknowledged this fact in the past, but do you not take it one step further to see the simple connection? What about in 1982? I read all the time that Arabs hate us for our freedoms and blah blah blah, but usually that's being expressed by right-wing conservative types. To hear a self-described "liberal" profressing a similar line is odd. Hizballah has a valid gripe against the US. Do you know enough of your history to understand why? Do tell.

Who threatened you with physical violence? What were the circumstances? When and where did it occur? If you already wrote about it then I'd appreciate a link to the article so I can read about it.

Are you truly interested in becoming friends with "those people"? What outreach have you done to express your friendly intentions, and how have you expressed it?

Finally, I'd appreciate an answer to my query: Do you read or speak Arabic?

how is it that a supposed journalist can express enmity against his subject matter and still call himself a "journalist"?

Because they threatened to kill me.

Anyway, I never said I was unbiased. Bias in journalism is rampant. The difference between me and many other journalists is that I admit it and don't try to hide it.

If you would rather call me a "writer" than a "journalist," that's fine with me. Journalism is a detested profession. Americans view journalists less favorably than they view used car salesmen.

hey totten, they don't want to be your friend b/c you're a blithering dumbass white guy stomping around their country trying to write about how miserable and uncivilized they are. go fucking figure. why don't you go to darfur and save us all the bother of hearing your fantastical musings on Lebanon. in case you were totally unaware, hizballah has tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of supporters here in the US. and these people don't scream death to america, i promise. and neither does hizballah in lebanon. why didn't hizballah celebrate 9/11. they mourned and expressed their deepest condolences to the american people. so go do some research and quit peddling your Friedman-esque "i-have-shia-friends" rubbish as journalism. we see through it full stop! and before you run your mouth about hizballah threatening your life, think again my man. they could give a shit about some bumbling idiot like you. in case you didn't know, after the israelis left lebanon w/ their tails b/t their legs in 2000, hizballah turned over the SLA collaborators to the lebanese authorities. and guess what, they did the same damn thing again in July when they caught the mossad spy ring pinpointing buildings in the daHiyeh for laser guided bombings. interesting huh, the very people who most severely threatened hizballah and they didn't threaten their lives like they did yours. you need to grow up and quit thinking you've got something new to say. you're kata'ib friends have already crossed all the bridges you're attempting at the moment. so just dig up some of that good old literature.
and another thing, until you can interview nasrallah or qassem or any number of other figures in arabic, you can't step up to the plate w/ the big boys b/c you're just going to writing from secondary selective reporting. so clean up your act and go home. no one cares what sort of anti-hizballah diatribe you've got up your sleeve. hizballah is here to stay my friend. and that i hope leaves you quivering at night. that's what the reality is, they're not going anywhere and they're only going to get stronger while the puppets of the Middle East like Abbas only grow weaker and weaker and weaker and weaker....

This guy's just a Hezb'Allah schill. No talking sense to him.

Oh - and by your logic, Israelis should have been in the streets screaming "death to Iran" and blowing up Iranian embassies, mosques, cultural centers etc - since all of the rockets that fell on Irael came from or were paid for by Iran.

Also, I only speak a little Arabic. And no, I can't read it. Most Lebanese speak English and don't like to speak Arabic to foreigners anyway. So learning the Lebanese dialect is not at the top of my to-do list for practical reasons.

hizballah is here to stay my friend. and that i hope leaves you quivering at night

Sorry, no.

holdfast,

To compare an academic, noted scholar and expert of the Middle East, it's history, culture and people, who speaks/reads/writes Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, etc., to a blogger is...funny. "Haha" funny. You, too, are "haha" funny. To conjecture that Cole locks himself in a room and gets all his news from the internet like you do is flabbergasting, and demonstrates that you know who Cole is, but not what he writes or says. To even pretend like you do is insulting.

As an Arab and a Muslim myself, I find it quite obnoxious that little cretins like yourself would insinuate that you somehow know more about Middle East politics or culture than I do, just because you read the likes of LGF and swallow every bit of garbage that the right-wing hate sites present on their main pages.

I spend most of my time visiting these festering garbage dumps in an attempt to initiate debate with the denizens within, but I always somehow seem to get blocked from commenting. Anyone expressing a sympathetic tone on Hizballah or who opposes the blanket bigotry and hypocrisy applied to Arabs in general is met with the same type of reaction as you have shown. Your mind is closed off to anything that doesn't fit what you have already decided to believe, so whatever I have to offer is lost on you anyway, which is why instead I find myself responding to your ignorance rather than correcting your misconceptions about the people of the Arab world. Except for this one bit: if you don't know that Hizballah is currently and by far the most popular group in all countries that comprise the Middle East then you, quite frankly, don't know jack fucking shit. Your ignorance betrays you.

If you would rather call me a "writer" than a "journalist," that's fine with me. Journalism is a detested profession.

How about "propagandist"? That's more accurate.

Americans view journalists less favorably than they view used car salesmen.

Yes, because a bunch of guys go around spreading propaganda under the guise of "journalism", giving real journalists a bad name.

As for your inability to speak or read Arabic, that says it all. Until you do, if you ever bother to learn (and you would if you were really so interested in the Lebanese), you will never understand the people and the culture of the Arab world, and therefore your writing will only ever represent artifacts of reality. Your words are, and will remain, completely unreliable and irrelevant.

Thanks for conveniently avoiding most of my other questions. Your non-response was much more informative than any answer you might have given, if you were more intellectually honest.

Oh - and by your logic, Israelis should have been in the streets screaming "death to Iran" and blowing up Iranian embassies, mosques, cultural centers etc - since all of the rockets that fell on Irael came from or were paid for by Iran.

Um, they are, dipshit.

Hey Abraham,

You are welcome to stick around, post comments, and argue with people. There is no point in having a comments section where everyone agrees with me and with each other.

But I need to ask you to be nice. If you are polite here, you will get a polite response in return. If you come in here and insult people, you will be insulted in return.

I will ask you to leave if you cannot comply with these rules. If you choose to comply and are treated rudely by others, I will ask them to leave.

This is not Little Green Footballs, and I will not tolerate my comments section resembling the one over there.

Michael
I'll repeat what I said over at Dean's World. Your comments really attract the freaks, and I wouldn't waste your time arguing with...

1. Cowards who hide behind pseudonyms and fake email accounts.

2. Terrorist apologists on the Left who read a Chomsky book and claim to know all there is to know about American foreign policy.

3. The English-speaking propaganda wing of any terrorist organization.

4. Anti-semites - whether in Europe, the US or the Middle East.

Who cares what they think? I sure as hell don't.

No problem. With the exception of holdfast, I think so far I've been pretty civil, and honest.

I will return as much respect as I receive from you.

Thanks for conveniently avoiding most of my other questions.

I'm busy writing an article and don't have time to spend all day in the comments.

Also, you'll get a better response from me if you refrain from insulting me.

You'll find I'm pretty easy to get along with if you exert a little effort. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I will ban you if you don't change your attitude.

Abraham,

Calling me an irrelvent and intellectually dishonest propagandist is not showing me respect.

You know damn well that a huge number of people in Lebanon agree with my political opinions. The fact that I don't speak Arabic fluently and that I express my opinions rather than hide them does not mean (by itself) I am wrong.

Leave the insults at the door.

Fine, perhaps when you're not so busy you can explain the nature of your contacts with Hizballah? I am most interested.

I'll respect Michael's decision not to link to angryarab's site, but to help people find the post (which does not mention Mr. Totten by name) I suggest searching the main page for the phrase "The White Man went to Beirut"

It's an interesting site to read. I have lots of experience reading on-line hatred by Muslims etc.. This isn't quite as bad a some of the radical Islamist sites, but it's good to get a feeling for the tenor of Muslim paranoia and hatred.

Oh and I was specifically refering to the comment section, though the main page is pretty bad too.

You know damn well that a huge number of people in Lebanon agree with my political opinions.

Granted. An even larger number don't.

The fact that I don't speak Arabic fluently and that I express my opinions rather than hide them does not mean (by itself) I am wrong.

What makes you so sure you're right? How long have you spent, in total, in the Middle East, or Lebanon in particular? What countries have you visited?

I stand by my comment that you will never get a true picture of your favored subject until you can immerse yourself in Arab culture and truly understand it. You're an outsider, and have an outsiders views and opinions. And I might speculate that these are opinions based on what people already sympathetic to your political leanings have told you in English.

I have much more to say, but in fairness to you I'll withold the remainder of my remarks until I've had an opportunity to read the rest of your series. Then we'll see what we're dealing with.

I must admit, my expectations are already biased.

Wow - with a razor wit (and manners!) like that I'm shocked that your attempts to "initiate debate" while "slumming it" on righty blogs meets with so little success. It really is too bad that at the end of the day all you are doing is reinforcing all the negative stereotypes of Muslims and Arabs that people like Totten are trying to dispel. So be it.

As to Cole - well, far be it from me to point out to a mega-genius like yourself the fallacy of appeal to authority, but . . . Anyway, I've read Cole (he actually does seem to spend a lot of time on the net), and frankly I'm not impressed. You like him because he gives an academic gloss to your beliefs - fine, that's your right, but though I don't have all of Cole's credentials, I have enough education and common sense to be able to tell shit from shinola. I also know enough about history and the failings of the "great mean" to recognize the value of a first person observer on the ground (as an example, William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - penned by a mere journalist, is probably the best print window into that era). I don't agree with everything Totten writes, but I appreciate his observations and insights - they give me some food for thought and help me to formulate my own conclusions. You clearly prefer to be spoon-fed your "thoughts" by Cole and Nasrallah.

You may very well be right about Hizb'Allah's popularity - I don't think I denied it, though I really don't think it says anything good about you and your ilk - seems more like an indication that all your other institutions, leaders, ideas etc (Nasserism, Socialism, Pan-Arabism, Ba'athism, Saddamism) have been miserable failures and the you are desperately grasping any straw that will give you the illusion of some control. It is not unlike what some southerners here in the US did with the Klan after the Civil War (even the hoods look kind of the same). I hope you're really proud that the most popular group in the middle east is a Persian-bankrolled version of the Klan (are you perchance an Al'Kleagle?)

Great stuff Michael. Agreeing with you (or disagreeing with you for that matter) isn't the point...people who don't get that are missing out on something.

Abraham wrote: Please explain how Michael is a friend--nay, BEST friend--of Lebanon? Of all of Lebanon, or just the Christians, Sunnis, and Druze? What about the 40% of the population of Lebanon that is Shia? Is he their "Best Friend" too?

Well, before you came to this site and while Michael was in Lebanon just recently he had a Shiite Lebanese hosting his blog for him...

MJT wrote: By the way, the obnoxious commenters are coming here from the Angry Arab blog. Google it if you want to read it.

Double-plus-ungood and I got into it before about the Angry Arab blog. I said it drips with hatred, he wanted me to actually identify where there were drips of hatred, as if hatred is a liquid and as if I was speaking literally and not metaphorically, but such is DPU's style of debate...

Anyway, some of the most paranoid anti-Semitism I've ever encountered can be found in the comments section of Angry Arab. As'ad Abukhalil seems to appeal to a very nasty crowd, which tells you something about Mr. Abukhalil...

Abe wrote: As but one example, Cole was unapologetically critical of Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel, whereas a great many of his readers (including this one) found the criticism to be misplaced or irrelevant.

Hezbollah attacked Israel unprovoked, crossing the border, killing soldiers and kidnapping others. They launched missiles at Israeli population centers, unprovoked.

That's okay with you?

If so, fine, but then you have no right to complain about Israel's response, which no doubt I am sure you do or did or will do.

Everyone pipe down! The great Middle East expert holdfast has spoken!

Yes, I suppose my "appeal to authority" negates my argument, whereas your appeal to diversity of readership ("reaches a politically diverse audience") and your appeal to authority of a "concerned but non-Arabic speaking American traveling in the middle east" trumps my point that Cole is far more reliable as a source of Middle Eastern news and analysis.

You may very well be right about Hizb'Allah's popularity...

No, I am right. This fact was widely reported, and stories about this started coming out several days into the summer's war, when it became apparent than Hizballah was not only holding their ground, but kicking Israel's sorry ass. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Jordan (as a Mid-east expert you'll realize that these are all countries with a minority Shia population) and byeond, the general mood was one of admiration for Nasrallah and Hizballah, with photos of the former being displayed in shop windows, cars, etc., and his name becoming the most popular name given to newborns. Of course, you didn't hear any of this because it didn't pass through your filter.

I don't think I denied it...

No, but you did say:

Abraham, however, isn't interested in humanizing the Shi'a to this largely American audience - rather he chooses to to try to defend Hezb'Allah, which most Americans simply won't buy.
Sure maybe Republicans think we should bomb them and Dems think we should wait and hope they go away, but nobody outside the Ramsey Clark-Carter-Chomsky crowd actually LIKES the murderous bastards, which is where Abraham and his ilk lose their audience.

So by trying to help people understand the relationships between the Shia of Lebanon and Hizballah (which for all intents and purposes are practically synonymous) and explain the relevance of the latter, how and why they came to represent nearly 40% of the population in Lebanon, and why they aren't simply going to go silently into that good night, I am turning people off? Or am I really just turning you off? Why is that? Is it because what I am saying doesn't fit with the pure bullshit and Israel propaganda that you read in your pro-Israel newspapers and on your favorite web blogs run by WASPs where the message basically boils down to "Arabs = BAD!!!" and which you've come to believe as factual without so much as raising a critical eyelash?

You wouldn't be interested in what I had to say either way about the Shia because to you they're just fucking towelheads, so why pretend? You've already made your mind, which is why nothing
I tell you will be of any interest or any use. You're just arguing for the sake of expressing your vitriol.

As for Hizballah, your main beef with them is that they are a threat to Israel. Stop pretending you care about Lebanon. Your only concern is to promote the interests of Israel as a voluntary shill because you've bought into the line that their interests are entwined with American interests.

Angry Abraham:

Oh - and by your logic, Israelis should have been in the streets screaming "death to Iran" and blowing up Iranian embassies, mosques, cultural centers etc - since all of the rockets that fell on Irael came from or were paid for by Iran.

Angry Abraham: Um, they are, dipshit.

Me: Please provide evidence of Israelis shouting "death to Iran" and blowing up Iranian embassies, mosques and cultural centers.

Angry Abraham (who seems to be checking his anger now) wrote:

What makes you so sure you're right? How long have you spent, in total, in the Middle East, or Lebanon in particular? What countries have you visited?

While I think it is certainly helpful to spend time in a place that one studies and writes about, and to speak the local language, I do not think it is a necessary prereq.

You should discuss MJT on the merit of his arguments and nothing more. A person can spend plenty of time somewhere and speak the local language, but it hardly mean the person thus becomes a expert.

I have yet to read any persuasive arguments from you, Abraham, just a lot of criticism of MJT for not speaking Arabic and for not having spent a huge chunk of his life in Lebanon.

Abe: I have much more to say, but in fairness to you I'll withold the remainder of my remarks until I've had an opportunity to read the rest of your series. Then we'll see what we're dealing with.

I must admit, my expectations are already biased.

Well, you're really going to hate the fact that MJT sees the Israelis as human beings that have a right to exist...

Zak: Double-plus-ungood and I got into it before about the Angry Arab blog. I said it drips with hatred, he wanted me to actually identify where there were drips of hatred, as if hatred is a liquid and as if I was speaking literally and not metaphorically...

Wow, that conversation must have wounded you deeply for you to still being going on about it. Apologies.

But to clarify - the contention was that he was anti-American. I asked for a link to a single post that displayed anti-Americanism, you said you didn't have to, the whole site was dripping with it. I then said that it should be easy to find one, then I thought we amicably agreed to disagree, little knowing that this had scarred you horribly and that you would repeatedly bring it up over and over again.

As for hatred, sure, he hates everyone, as I think I demonstrated with a cataloging of everyone that he attacked on a single day of posting. It's part of his charm. That and his hair.

Anyway, some of the most paranoid anti-Semitism I've ever encountered can be found in the comments section of Angry Arab. As'ad Abukhalil seems to appeal to a very nasty crowd, which tells you something about Mr. Abukhalil...

I've met some spectacular trolls here in the comment section of MJT, and I won't simply stand by and let you talk that way about Michael.

Abe wrote: No, I am right. This fact was widely reported, and stories about this started coming out several days into the summer's war, when it became apparent than Hizballah was not only holding their ground, but kicking Israel's sorry ass.

Ahem, Hezbollah did not beat Israel. Israel has the power to carpet bomb the entire south of Lebanon into rubble, easily. They didn't because they have morals.

Hezbollah did not beat Israel. Israel has the power to carpet bomb the entire south of Lebanon into rubble, easily. They didn't because they have morals.

And Vietnam was a US victory for the same reason.

Abraham, why don't you call yourself "Ibrahim?"

Or, why not call yourself "Avraham," which is, after all, the correct and original Hebrew pronunciation?

DPU: I've met some spectacular trolls here in the comment section of MJT, and I won't simply stand by and let you talk that way about Michael.

Huh?

Huh?

You're suggesting that because he has trolls in his comment section he is a bad person. The same logic and judgment would then apply here to our host.

Did I hold myself out as an expert? No - I'm a guy with some education who has spent quite a bit of time reading and thinking about the topic. You're a screaming looney who seems constitutionally incapable of answering a straight question and instead must put slurs in the mouths of his adversaries due to an inability to reason and argue cogently.

I said that I admired what MT does - and you said that Cole is right because he has a bunch of degrees. One is an appeal to authority, one is expressing a preference based on product. You figure the difference. Clearly you don't even know what the term means - read a book or email Cole for the answer. Totten's appeal to a wide audience doesn't make him right - but it does make him useful, since his readers can be exposed to ideas they might not otherwise get, since at least a good chunk are unlikely to devote their lives to reading Prof Cole's writings.

So the Arab Street was in love with Nasrallah this summer. In the past it was pictures of Nassar, Sadat, Saddam, Arafat, whomever - it's whoever looks good and the moment and it won't last.

Not getting overrun as quickly as Arabs usually do = kicking ass? ROFLMAO! Talk about defining victory down.

Re Hezb'Allah - I was expressing the hope that Arabs (including Shi'a) could be, and could be presented as, something other than terrorists and terrorist supporters - you seem to want to disagree and argue that Shi'ism is synomymous with the world's nastiest terrorist group (sorry Osama, b