December 29, 2006
Hezbollah’s Christian Allies
This is the second installment in a series. You can read Part One here if you missed it.
BEIRUT – While Hezbollah staged a mass protest and sit-in downtown Beirut with the hopes of ousting the elected anti-Syrian “March 14” government, I watched from the patio of a café across the street. Sitting at the next table were two men in orange, one with an orange hat and one with a scarf, which identified them as members of Michel Aoun’s (predominantly Christian) Free Patriotic Movement, the only non-Shia political party of any significance in Lebanon that dared form an alliance with Hezbollah.
The two Aounists smoked cigars and calmly watched the crowd. A man at the next table scowled. Everyone else ate their lunch as though nothing was happening just 30 feet away. The dread of civil war hung over Lebanon like a pall. But if these people weren’t nervous, how could I be? It’s a cliché that fear is contagious. What’s less widely understood is that calm is also contagious. Then again, we were a self-selecting lunch crowd. Thousands of Beirutis were hiding in their homes, hugging their flags, and wishing they lived in a normal country.
I asked the two Aounists if I could join them at their table, if they would be willing to explain to a primarily Western audience why they formed a political alliance with an Islamist militia.
“Of course,” they both warmly said and gestured for me to sit.
“Pull up a seat,” said the man in the hat. “Can I buy you a coffee?”
The man on the left introduced himself as Jack (yes, that’s his real Lebanese name) and said he worked as a pilot for a major airline. The other was named Antonios. He worked as a tour guide in Baalbeck.
“So why are you with Aoun and Hezbollah?” I said.
“Aoun is honest and correct,” Antonios said. “Hezbollah in America is seen as terrorists, I know. I understand. But they are a large party in Lebanon and we have to live here with them. So we have to convince them to come back, to put down their arms and join the rest of us. We cannot do it by fighting.”
At least they don’t want to do it by fighting today. Another Aounist I know explained their strategy to me earlier in the year: “We’ll extend our hand and ask them to join us. But we can’t wait forever. If they refuse to disarm we’ll crack the shit out of them.”
“On the other side,” Jack said, “is the Hariri family which has governed since 1990 with and without help from the Syrians. They’re only interested in keeping the Ministry of Finance so they can pay no taxes and steal from us like they do through the cell phone companies.”
Indeed, Lebanon’s cell phone companies are the corporate equivalent of rapists. It costs two dollars a minute to call the United States from Beirut, and it costs 50 cents a minute just to make a local call. This in a country where the average salary is only 800 dollars a month. A member of my hotel’s staff told me a Mexican businessman who stayed with them recently had to pay four dollars a minute to call his wife in Mexico City.
Until the Syrians were chased out by the March 14 Movement, broadband Internet access was banned in Lebanon to prevent people from making free or cheap long distance phone calls using Skype or other Internet services. The ban has since been lifted, but Lebanon’s telecommunications infrastructure is still terribly behind the rest of the world and the region.
“Hariri spent 10 million dollars in the north on his election campaign,” Jack said. “But he stole that money from the government, from us.”
“Seniora should accept this and resign,” Antonios said. “We are voting with Aoun because he is honest and not corrupt. March 14 doesn’t want a man like that in charge of finance.”
I doubt most Aounists are aware of what happened to the left in Iran after the 1979 revolution. Liberals and leftists formed an alliance with the Islamists to overthrow the corrupt and dictatorial Shah Reza Pahlevi. After the Ayatollah Khomeini took power, though, first the leftists were liquidated, and then so too were the liberals. Soon enough only the rightist religious fanatics remained.
“I understand why you don’t want a war with Hezbollah,” I said. “But why does that mean you have to form an alliance with them? Do you really believe Hassan Nasrallah is your friend?”
“No,” Jack said. “He isn’t our friend. But if Hezbollah is truly a part of the government they will give up their arms.”
“Hezbollah no longer uses arms against Lebanese,” Antonios said.
This is almost true, but not quite. I found people in the South whom Hezbollah shot at with machine guns during the July War only a few months ago. But I hadn’t met these people yet at the time, and Jack and Antonios may have had a hard time accepting it even if I had told them about it.
“Hariri accepted Hezbollah’s arms back in 1990,” Jack said, which was of course true.
The situation was different then, though. Southern Lebanon was still under Israeli occupation. Hezbollah’s ideology and tactics may have been distasteful to most of Lebanon’s citizens, but foreign occupation was even more so. Hezbollah was given temporary support by the majority of the people of Lebanon for their struggle against the occupier.
Almost all that support evaporated after Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory. Hezbollah was supposed to disarm. Instead they kept their weapons and warped Lebanon’s delicate power-sharing arrangement -- the Shia have their own army while no one else does. This is why Hezbollah is widely detested in Lebanon and why claims that Hezbollah is a popular people’s movement are flatly ridiculous. Hezbollah is a well-armed parochial sectarian movement that is deeply offensive and dangerous in a country where every group is a minority and none are allowed to bully or lord it over the others.
That, of course, is not the only reason Hezbollah frightens most Lebanese. Hezbollah is also, as everyone knows, a proxy militia for Syria and Iran. The Aounists may have legitimate grievances against the “March 14” government, but they’re paying precious little attention to the wider regional picture.
Tony Badran, a Lebanese research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, calls Michel Aoun a “useful idiot.”
“Aoun's calculations fail to take in some dangerous regional realities. Syria is more than pleased to see Aoun attacking the anti-Syrian government. So is Iran, whose supreme guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently predicted the defeat of U.S. and allied interests in Lebanon. Wittingly or not, Aoun is serving these foreign masters for free.”
Michael Young, opinion page editor at Beirut’s Daily Star, thinks Aoun has doomed himself with his useful idiocy no matter how the crisis resolves in the end.
“The general knows he and his own are the weakest link in the campaign against Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The Aounists cannot long endure an open-ended sit-in, both because they are not earning salaries to do so and probably because the looming holiday season threatens to melt their momentum. And there is something else: Aoun realizes that as package deals are unwrapped left and right to resolve the ongoing crisis, his chances of seeing the presidency diminish. Indeed, the latest basket of ideas from Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa includes a proposal for the March 14 coalition and the opposition to consent to a compromise president. If that process goes through, Aoun will not be the chosen one… can the general then convince Hizbullah and the Syrians that he's their man? If the Syrians are back in town by then, their preference will be for someone more controllable; and if they are not, this will mean that all sides must accept a compromise candidate. In neither case does Aoun fit the bill.”
The strangest thing about Aoun’s alliance with Hezbollah, who is of course allied with Syria, is that Aoun was for years Lebanon’s most militant enemy of Syria as the prime minister and as a general in the army.
“Why is it,” I said to Jack and Antonios, “that Michel Aoun is now pro-Syrian when for years he was the staunchest anti-Syrian leader in Lebanon?”
“Aoun is not pro-Syrian,” Antonios said. “He just wants normal relations with Syria. We can’t fight Syria.”
Sure enough, Lebanon cannot fight Syria. Not militarily, at least, any more than little Kuwait could defend itself against an invasion from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Aoun, you could say, has surrendered to Syrian power, or at least acquiesced to it.
Only the West can or will at least try to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
“What do you two think of US foreign policy here?” I said.
“We love America, but have doubts,” Jack said. “They let Syria come in here in 1991 for help in Iraq.” Jack was referring to former Secretary of State James Baker, who green-lighted Syria’s invasion and overlordship in Lebanon in exchange for “help” during the first Persian Gulf War. How Hafez Assad lent any meaningful assistance in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait has never been clear. Lebanese were sold to the Syrian wolf for a cheap price indeed, and Aoun constantly harps on this point to his followers.
“Now they put their fingers in here,” Jack continued. “They used the Syrian election law.”
The Syrians did write Lebanon’s current election law, and they did it strictly in a way that would benefit them. They gerrymandered the voting districts so that anti-Syrians were marginalized and pro-Syrians strengthened. Jack is annoyed that the US supported quick elections in post-Syrian Lebanon without first pushing for a new electoral law.
“The US will hand us over to the Syrians again for help in Iraq,” Antonios said. “That is what Washington is speaking of doing right now.”
Actually, the Iraq Study Group (headed by none other than James Baker himself) explicitly said Lebanon is off the table, that Assad cannot expect any American support for his little imperialistic adventures. But this detail has been lost in the wash, and I can hardly blame Jack and Antonios for suspecting the worst now that Baker is back.
This isn’t the first time Michel Aoun made a tactical alliance with people who have little or nothing in common with him politically instead of trying to forge ties with more natural allies.
Aoun became prime minister in 1988, near the end of Lebanon’s civil war. He formed an alliance with Saddam Hussein, Hafez Assad’s old Baathist rival, and openly declared war against Syria. The Aounists were the last militant anti-Syrians in the country. Nearly everyone else surrendered to Syrian domination as a way to resolve the intractable 15-year conflict. Aoun couldn’t hold the Syrians off, and he was exiled to France after his surrender.
The US used diplomatic pressure to help get him out of exile last year. But he never forgave the American government for green-lighting his defeat at the end of the war. He still harps on this point today, and so do his partisans, as though Syria would have been unable to rule Lebanon if it weren’t for James Baker – a dubious assumption at best.
Even so, the US does have the bad habit of being fickle with its friends in the Middle East. Many people in the March 14 bloc likewise are worried the US will abandon them to Hezbollah, the Iranians, and the Baath. Anti-American elements in March 14 will tell you that the reason they don’t trust America is not because they hate the US, but because Americans are unreliable allies who care only about themselves and not about Lebanon.
In any case, Aoun’s alliance or détente with Syria, like his alliance with Hezbollah, is mostly just tactical. He wants to be president more than anything else. He’ll do whatever he thinks he must in order to get it, and probably figures that once he’s in office he can do whatever he wants. Unlike the current Assad-appointed Syrian stooge of a president Emile Lahoud, Aoun would be beholden to no one. The man is a loose cannon and always has been.
Foreign policy, though, is not what most motivated Jack and Antonios. They kept steering the conversation back to corruption.
“According to the people ruling Lebanon,” Jack said, “money is the only thing that matters.”
“Nasrallah is honest,” Antonios said. “He takes care of his people. Sure he gets money from Iran, but everyone gets money from outside.”
This is most likely true. Say what you will about Hezbollah, they aren’t known for financial corruption. (UPDATE: Tony Badran deftly dissents in the comments.)
“Does Mr. Bush pay taxes?” Jack asked me.
“Of course,” I said.
“Hariri doesn’t,” he said. “This is justice?”
“No,” I said. “Of course it isn’t justice.”
“Seniora has been in government for 15 years,” Antonios said. “We have no medical scheme, no national education, 55 billion dollars in debt, and no retirement system. Why? 200 dollars a month is the minimum wage. We try to increase it, but they say they have no money. Then they spend 800 million dollars on a new company. This is why we are with Aoun. Our government is not a government. It is like we are ruled by a private corporation for the benefit of the boss.”
I liked these guys, and I sympathized with their positions and complaints. They aren’t terrorists or fascists or anything like it. They’re liberals, basically, although most of the “March 14” bloc parties are relatively liberal in a Middle East way as well. If the Aounists had more decent and respectable allies in their opposition to the government their rallies wouldn’t be considered a “crisis” by anyone in the international community.
“Foreigners should stop sending money to Lebanon,” Jack said. “The government will just steal it. They should send someone like you here to watch exactly what happens to that money.”
“Thanks, guys,” I said and laughed. “But accounting isn’t really my specialty.”
The waiter came by the table.
“Do you want another coffee?” Antonios said.
“Get another coffee!” Jack said.
“I’ll have another coffee,” I said to the waiter.
Jack puffed on his cigar.
The opposition isn’t demanding absolute power in Lebanon. They’ll go home if the government gives Hezbollah, Amal, and the Free Patriotic Movement enough slots in the cabinet that as a bloc they’ll have veto power over government decisions. They want blocking minority status, which just goes to show you how much support in Lebanon Hezbollah actually has. Just giving them one part of a minority faction will sate them for now. If they really were a mass popular movement they would demand a lot more than that.
One reason they want veto power is so they can block the UN tribunal that will indict and punish the assassins of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Everyone knows the Syrians did it, and Hezbollah can’t have their patron in Damascus made into a formal pariah by the United Nations.
Why on earth, though, would the Aounists want to block that? The Aounists were a part of the “March 14” movement that ousted the Syrian occupiers from Lebanon after Hariri was killed.
“So, what about the tribunal?” I said to Jack and Antonios. “Do you really want to block the investigation?”
“We are worried,” Antonios said, “that [Saad] Hariri wants to use the tribunal to go after people whose faces in Lebanon he doesn’t like.”
I think I must have audibly sighed when I heard that. But these guys live in a part of the world where politics has always been a ruthless and murderous business. Political enemies really do disappear into dungeons. Voicing the “wrong” opinion in a newspaper column can get you car-bombed on the way to work in the morning. Foreign powers really do manipulate local governments for their own craven gain. Paranoia naturally thrives in environments like Lebanon’s, and I’m honestly surprised it isn’t an even bigger problem than it already is.
“We are not against anybody,” Antonios earnestly said. “We just support our country. We are normal people and we work every day.”
“Do you think there will be more war in Lebanon?” I said.
“No!” Jack said. “Not with ourselves, and not with Israel. I think there is a deal under the table between the Israelis and Hezbollah. Both sides lost and don’t want to do it again. The situation in the South is finished. If it happens again, Nasrallah will lose his case.”
I hope Jack is right, but I fear he is not. Hezbollah has restocked its arsenal. Hezbollah has made no formal announcement that its war with Israelis is finished. If Hezbollah wants peace or at least an armistice, they are keeping their intentions very much to themselves.
If Hezbollah increases its share of government power, more war with Israel is only that much more likely. And the more official state power that Hezbollah is able to garner, the more incentive the Israelis will have to attack all of Lebanon next time there’s war.
Jack and Antonios are in a terrible spot. At some point Hezbollah needs to be mainstreamed. But if they’re mainstreamed prematurely, Lebanon as a whole will be moved into Israel’s kill zone.
The alternative, though, is also quite grim.
“If Israel can’t deal with Hezbollah, how can Seniora and Jumblatt?” Antonios said. “We have to negotiate with them. If we don’t then we will divide on sectarian lines and we will no longer have a country. Look at that mosque next to the church.”
“We need this,” he said. “Christians need Muslims. And Muslims need Christians. That is what Lebanon is.”
Post-script: Please donate and help support independent journalism. I am not independently wealthy, and I have to pay all travel expenses out of my own pocket to bring you these dispatches. Your donation helps defray the costs of my trip to Beirut and South Lebanon, and may also go toward covering my next trip abroad – which is coming up soon in six weeks.
If you would like to donate money for travel expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, you can send a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Enlightening as always. Thanks for sharing.
To defang Hizbollah will require the funding from Tehran be cut off. This may happen on its own, if one can believe the recent articles claiming Iran's oil infrastructure will completely collapse within 8 years. If that doesn't pan out, their threat will not be diminished unless the U.S. seizes the Iranian export facilities as has been bruited about.
It's a good point to make though, that the Lebanese have to live with Hizbollah regardless.
Posted by: TallDave at December 29, 2006 12:44 PMIt's always funny to hear the Aounists talk about Lebanon not being able to fight Syria. Not so much because they leave out the obvious flipside, that Syria is waging war against Lebanon, but that -- as your readers just read above -- it was none other than Aoun who declared a disastrous war against Syria, after declaring an "elimination" war against the main Christian militia at the time, the Lebanese Forces! The audacity is amazing.
Behold the genius of the dear leader: declare a war against other anti-Syrian Lebanese and then one against Syria afterwards (after everyone was ten times weaker)! In other words, the worst possible time to launch war, and now, the worst possible time to declare submission! Not to mention that with the Lebanese Forces militia, the General declared a war of elimination, but with Hezbollah, an openly pro-Syrian and an organic Iranian tool, he declares an "understanding"! It's simply too delicious for words. But then again, that's the brilliance -- and unspeakable hypocrisy -- of Michel Aoun. Oh and by the way, the General has a habit now of bashing France and the US, meanwhile, were it not for France and the US, he'd be six feet under now, courtesy of the Syrians.
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 01:05 PMExcellent piece yet again.
Aoun and Friends are proof that America and Europe don't have a lock on "useful idiots."
"How Hafez Assad lent any meaningful assistance in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait has never been clear."
Sir,
Have to check my books at home for better info. Syria sent around 15,000 guys and lost 3. Some tank units, but I can't remember the total composition at work. Tank unit, IIRC. Not sure they ever did much, but they were put with the Arab units, who fought next to USMC areas (some were supposed to be integrated into other UN forces, but nobody wanted to fight alongside them considering their level of training).
Posted by: Spade at December 29, 2006 01:27 PMSpade,
Did we really need those 15,000? It's not like Saddam would have won if they stayed behind in Syria.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 29, 2006 01:34 PMYES! Im back..
Firstly, Spade,
Syrian sent tens of thousands of troops into lebanon in order to rescue who? Yes, the christians. Who sent them? America. When syria is following american agenda, they are peacekeepers, but oooo when they don't, gues what they become? You guessed it old bud, OCCUPIERS. Syria lost in lebanon 11,000 soldiers for the sake of Lebanon, not itself. They didnt have to go in their alone, if at all. But they did and they protected the christians. But then some people at the time were stupid, like Aoun, and raged war against the syrians. ANYWAYS, i am not justifying any of the syrians acts in lebanon, but my point is, America has never sacrificed a SHOE for lebanon, let alone anything else. Another thing is lebanon NEEDS syria. Partly become it is a big power in the region, its only neutral neighbour (unlike israel) and for socio+economical purposes too. Lebanon can survive withought the help of america, but can not withought syria.
"The Syrians did write Lebanon’s current election law, and they did it strictly in a way that would benefit them. They gerrymandered the voting districts so that anti-Syrians were marginalized and pro-Syrians strengthened. Jack is annoyed that the US supported quick elections in post-Syrian Lebanon without first pushing for a new electoral law."
And now Mr totten, to prove you wrong that hizbollah or the 8 march alliance are not syrian puppets. If they were, they would not dare change the election law. But NO, they are not puppets and now they are demanding for a new election law because the current one is flawed and does not represent the true majority. Lebanon should vote in one big block, its too small to be made into state-like constituencies. Thats one. Two, you said something about hizbollah only demanding for minority vito in government and that this shows they are weak and do not have a majority. Well, if you call the sit-in a Putsch when they only ask to participate, what will you say if hizbollah and co. wanted something more? Eh? And to prove you wrong again, they are now not demanding a national unity government, they want a new election law, collapse of government, and new parliamentary elections followed by presidential one. ENJOY buddy. I won't be surprised if you now call that a coup, but beware if you do, it prove what i said above to be true ;)
“We are worried,” Antonios said, “that [Saad] Hariri wants to use the tribunal to go after people whose faces in Lebanon he doesn’t like.”
I dont know why you said that you made an audible sigh when you heard this. Making that sigh infers your thinking its bullshit, but its not. Marwan hamadeh before yesterday claimed that hizbollah is inciting for his assasination just because al-manar, hizbollahs tv station, carried a responsive and double sided report (you dont see that much on the march 14 future tv do you ;)) taken from reuters which was taken from a well informed israeli news outlet about hamadeh having a link with the israeli assasination attempt of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah during the war by aiding the intelligence agencied to find wthe whereabouts of the Sayyid. This report is an old one anyway. Back to the point, because hizbollah did this, hamadeh criticized them and attacked them verbally, as well as claiming they were phsycologically terrorising him (i don't get this, hizbollah failed to fire a single bullet throughout the crisis, so just for the sake of it mr hamadeh creates his own type of terrorism - very cheap) and that because of this he will be filing a complaint to parliament, justicw ministry, info minitry, the UN, and YES you uessed it, sir, the UN commission handling the international court case. So as you can all see, the UN commission is now being used to settle scores, blackmail or counterattack anyone they d(march 14) don't like the look of, not to sincirely find out the truth. A final word people, he also, along with jumblat the nutcase, claimed that hizbollah had something to do with the assasinations when even the governmental leaders denied this even though hizbollah claimed that they would be ready to be the first to be investigated. So now hamadeh wants hizbollah to be drawn into this case to further complicate the crisis. Nice!
Posted by: hizbollah lover at December 29, 2006 02:07 PMMichael, I'm afraid that you uncritically buy a little bit too much into the Hezbollah propaganda, appropriated by the Aounists, about their "financial cleanliness." It's all part of a carefully constructed mythology of indoctrination that has been in formation for over a decade.
It's nonsense. Let me remind you of facts. Hezbollah hasn't "put its hands on government money," the tale goes, but the tale leaves out that Hezbollah 1- hadn't joined the government before, and 2- has an entirely separate and parallel economy of its own, completely independent of state institutions and not subject to fiscal accountability!
Hezbollah receives hundreds of millions from Iran, money that doesn't pass through the Lebanese banking system! Nabih Berri doesn't have the same luxury in order to maintain his patronage system and still claim cleanliness!
Furthermore, left out are all the racketeering activities of Hezbollah, both in Lebanon and abroad, esp. in south and north America, as well as in West Africa. (This is not to go into the question of money from drug trade and other illicit activity.)
So, this myth is absolutely false. It's all predicated on the fact that they hadn't participated in government before. It's all part and parcel of the Hezb's carefully constructed program of being inside and above the system simultaneously. (This is the main reason why they will never disarm the way the naive Aounists think -- as relayed to you above. The point is to use the system to protect the weapons, and to use the system to stay above the system at the same time!)
Let me add another thing here, to highlight Aounist selective amnesia and hypocrisy. What about their other allies?! Is Berri clean? Are Talal Arslan and Suleiman Frangieh (who were both in the government under the Syrians, and who are feudal lords of their own rights -- since Aoun hates political feudalism!) clean, or better, poor?! And so on and so forth.
The Aounist populist phenomenon, and its predictable use of the "corruption" card is hardly new in the political dictionary. Look at south America and post-Soviet eastern European countries. You have the same phenomenon, where illiberal, anti-democratic, pro-Soviet politicians run on an anti-corruption campaign to nail the politicians that while democratic, may have corruption problems (though those are often systemic, and endemic to the society, ironically as a result of decades of previous practice, than just a problem of the politicians themselves).
I believe Ivan Krastev has written about this, and maybe Moises Naim as well.
The problem is that in Lebanon this is related to regional dynamics, threats to independence, and the maintaining of a state-within-a-state status for a private militia of another state with imperialist ambitions! Aoun would love to make it all a domestic issue -- as if we're in Norway -- but everyone with a brain knows it isn't.
Populist demagogy is what Aoun does. And let's not let that blind people to other realities and hypocrisies.
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 02:13 PMIf they care so much about corruption and dirty money why don't they care about Hezbollah's leading activities in the drug trade?
Posted by: Corinne at December 29, 2006 02:20 PMHizb lover:
I think these Americans sacrificed more than "a shoe" for Lebanon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
But why let facts get in the way of praising "neutral" Syria....
Posted by: just the facts ma'am at December 29, 2006 03:20 PMMJT,
Right on the money. But Aounists conveniently forgot one thing;
Since you are in the neighbourhood, you might want to interview the people from SOLIDA, who have a sit-in next to the ESCWA building. Many of thier children were kidnapped because they were Aoun supporters, a fact that Herr General now denies.
Note: It is an established fact that those 15,000 Syrians were useless back in Iraq. Most of the fighting was done by Americans, with some egyptian units pinching in...
Posted by: Jeha at December 29, 2006 03:27 PMThat was an excellent read, and I enjoyed it immensely. Informative, and carried the mood of a sidewalk political chat over coffee quite well.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 29, 2006 03:51 PMGreat post, MJT!
I must also echo Tony's comments here in that:
1. The hypocrisy of Aoun and his bunch when it comes to "cleanliness and corruption" is beyond belief. How easily they overlook their allies' corruption (Hizbullah, Berri, Franjieh).
2. Also, to echo Tony's comments: Hizbullah might seem to be above corruption, for the mere fact that they haven't been in government yet. And one also overlooks the fact that they pay no taxes on the billions they get from Iran. Hariri might not be paying taxes, but neither do Nasrallah and his goons.
3. Lastly and most importantly: We have much bigger issues at play here than corruption. If the Aounists cannot see that, they are beyond naive. If Lebanon ends up back in Syrian orbit, or worse, under the direct guidance of Ahmedinjad and Khamenei, they won't even get to bitch about corruption in sidewalk cafes. They'll end up "disappeared".
Guys, you need to gain some perspective here. I'm reminded of the saying about the guy bitching about his couch being uncomfortable while his house is on fire...Might wanna worry about the fire first and leave the couch issue for later...
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 29, 2006 04:21 PMNice post. Keep up the good work. A few points :
Tony Badran in the comments made a misleading comparison between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Forces.
Hezbollah's ideology is despicable but HA fought exclusively Israel (with a very minor exception : a small clash with Amal). While the Lebanese Forces terrorized their own Christian community for fifteen years. They formed death squads and went on numerous killing sprees and ruthlessly slaughtered hundreds of their fellow Christians. They imposed illegal taxes on the Christians, stole their daily bread and humiliated them at checkpoints. You should investigate their drug deals and the
massacres they committed in Ehden, Safra, the Mountains, Amchit and elsewhere. In terms of crime, nefarious fascist ideology and corruption, they are no better than Hezbollah.
This is the main if not the only reason for Aoun's popularity : the resentment of the Christians against the thuggish behaviour of the Lebanese Forces who used to control the Christian Street before Aoun came to power. You should have emphasized this in your article : Aoun's popularity is a result of resentment against LF thuggery.
It is true that Aoun is a useful idiot for HA but the Lebanese Forces are also useful idiots for the corruption of Saad Hariri and Saudi Arabia. They are offering the Wahhabi project a Christian cover and they got only one minister: the tourism minister.
Besides, notwithstanding the nutcase Aoun himself, the Aounists in general are decent, educated and peaceful fellows, while the LF base is mostly made of religious fanatics, bigots and illiterate street thugs.
Tony Badran's views are biased because he is a sympathizer of the Lebanese Forces. Keep that in mind when you quote him. The LF hate Aoun since 1989, because he tried to cut off their illegal sea ports and he denied them access to their sources of revenue from drug exports.
Posted by: Sandra at December 29, 2006 04:41 PM"hizbollah lover", your reading comprehension skills suck ass. I was talking about Syria's contribution of troops to the UN coalition in Saudi Arabia to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Nowhere did I mention Lebanon. This was fairly obvious. Your next post shall be, "Mr. Spade, sir, I am sorry I misread your post and then published a long, uninteresting, and rambling post about something. Next time I will engage my brain before I engage my keyboard." You may then drop and give us all fifty push-ups.
Also, Syria is only a "big power" because Lebanon is so weak, and it is that way partly thanks to Syria (who naturally wouldn't want a stronger Lebanon). I think if Lebanon didn't have the Syrians (and by proxy Hez) dragging them down they could be the Eastern Med power. Lot of potential there (as much as Israel).
Totten: Probably wouldn't have meant anything if they weren't there. Their troops and equipment were pretty awful and nobody wanted to fight alongside them. UN thing. Looks nice for the "coalition" and that's apparently important. Anyway, they did lose 3 guys in the fighting, which isn't much, but still 3 guys. I like to give people credit even if I think there should be B-52s orbiting over their cities.
Posted by: Spade at December 29, 2006 05:43 PMSandra, if you're an ignoramus who knows nothing of which you speak, which you obviously are, then don't presume to know anything about me and whom I "sympathize" with.
Needless to say, not only is your statement stupid and baseless, it's actually wrong.
So next time, think twice before you open your mouth to utter such stupidity. Maybe next time, with some help from above, you'll realize that it's best to keep your mouth shut, as opening will result in the stupidity you subjected us to in your comment above.
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 05:54 PMYeah, Sandra, and that "small clash" with Amal lasted over 3 years. And before that, Hezbollah was in the "cleansing" business of areas it now dominates. Add to that some choice assassinations of Communist leaders and figures. Add to that a possible assassination attempt against Camille Chamoun.
Should I go on?
Again, take the advice I gave you right above, and repeat. Always repeat. In time, maybe you'll get the hang of it.
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 05:57 PMSorry, that was a typo, it's 2 years, not 3.
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 06:05 PMAnd just a comment to put things in perspective. When we talk about "Hezbollah's activity during the Civil War" we have to remember, that unlike Amal, the PSP, the Phalanges, the Lebanese Forces, etc., Hezbollah wasn't formed until ca. 1982.
Aside from intimidation, breaking into and vandalizing bars, hotels and liquor stores (which they did again in Taboo bar just recently), assassinations, and such, by 1985, when Amal was fighting the Palestinians, already then Hezbollah intervened at times (not full out) on the side of the Palestinians.
That war lasted to about 1987. By 1988 they were at war with Amal for 2 years. By 1990 the civil war was over!
So basically, their role in the war, given when they emerged, is hadly as benign as the propaganda wants to make it. Who knows how it would've developed had the war not ended in 1990? They had just started to warm up!
Posted by: Tony at December 29, 2006 06:23 PMThese "Christians" are nowhere near being real Christians. They're heathen with a thin Christian covering, what the Bible calls wolves in sheep's clothing.
The Bible is very clear about people that worships crucfixes and the like:
Psalms 115:4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
Psalms 115:5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
Psalms 115:6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
Psalms 115:7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
Psalms 115:8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
it's also the 2nd commamdment:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
So calling them Christian is wrong, even if they themselves call themselves Christian. The Bible calls them heathens, and what other way to define a Christian than to let God's Word decide who is a Christian or not. Anyways interesting article.
Posted by: Kristian at December 29, 2006 06:50 PMKristian, God keeps his opinion of people to himself. Why don't you follow his example and not presume to speak for him, mkay?
Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 29, 2006 07:14 PMKristian, what in the hell are you babbling on about?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 29, 2006 07:25 PMjust the facts ma'am
You idiot i already explained the barracks a million times, scroll up and read you dim wit.
Posted by: hizbollah lover at December 29, 2006 07:51 PMadd my voice to tony and BV's.
considering the state of your comment section lately, michael, why don't you update the actual post (instead of just making a note of tony's dissention)? not everyone is going to wade through the comments, and the post as it stands may be misleading to those who don't know better.
Posted by: carine at December 29, 2006 07:54 PMJosh, what God thinks of folks is pretty clearly stated in the Bible. God doesn't keep his opinions to himself. If he did, we'd all be in the dark as to what righteousness is.
Now, Kristian's point was that calling the LF Christians is inaccurate. Based upon their systematic, regular, and natural behavior, I'd have to agree. They call themselves Christians, but calling the sun, "the moon" hardly makes it so.
Is this a minor point about an otherwise interesting and informative article? Yes.
Posted by: InRussetShadows at December 29, 2006 08:09 PMI'm more than a little curious at the claim, made by hiszbollah lover, that the Syrians lost, no mention of whether these are KIA, MIA or wounded, some 11,000 soldiers. Up until 1990 the most reputable figures could claim only 35,000 troops in the country while even the Syrians themselves noted that the withdrawal recently numbered some 14,000. That's a casualty rate of almost 33% over the long period of occupation. Frankly no army in the world could survive with those numbers of casualties. But then even Edward Said admitted that hyperbole was part and parcel of argument in the Middle East.
Posted by: Pat Patterson at December 29, 2006 08:21 PMRusset, thus far God has had the courtesy avoid ruining the conversation on this weblog by posting his disproval of the 90% of humanity who doesn't think exactly the same things you do, please don't spoil his record by being rude on his behalf, OK?
Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 29, 2006 08:42 PMKristian, Your quotes as they are don't apply to a cross. They apply to an idol or image of God to which people worship instead of God. If the object refocuses a person to the path of God that they have forgotten, then it has a temporal use in Christian worship. One's own imagination will supply ones self with an image of God that is less than God. Then you will think you are either God in your form or a Servant of God. One path leads to greater sin, one path to a lessor sin.
In the end it's probably easier to judge a Christian by their work. If they are being nice to people and not harming anyone. Then that is a great job done in this lifetime. The distribution of religious artifacts is inconsequential.
Sorry to OT. I found the Auonist arguements and rebuttals by the commentators informative about the situation in Lebanon. Something I don't get from the free press in the United States.
Posted by: jd at December 29, 2006 08:53 PMHezbollah Lover,
I will not let you post here if you insist on insulting others. Almost everyone here will sharply disagree with your political views, and if you can't handle it you need to go somewhere else.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 29, 2006 11:38 PMWell written Mr Totten. One wonders how if the Lebanese government is stealing so much from their own country,imagine how much the Syrians are stealing from Lebanon? Lebanon is a cash-cow for the Alawite Mafia and they are not going to give up Lebanon without a big fight -simple as that.
Posted by: james just at December 30, 2006 12:02 AMThis is off topic but, Merva are you reading the comment thread? In another thread you said you were a film-maker from Lebanon and I was wondering if you knew the film-maker from the articles on Slate a few years ago.
The writer was visiting Lebanon (he loved it btw) and talked to an actress who had just finished a movie about America as the lead actress named Erica or something similar. What is the plot of that movie? Is "erica" a decent person or a whore or what? I read the article a long time ago, but it would be pretty sweet if you have seen the movie and let me know what it was all about.
Posted by: mike at December 30, 2006 12:35 AMLast August I posted on the financial scams and extortions of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. My post asked far more questions than it answered. I would appreciate any answers that any of you may have about this. The post can be found at http://tbirdofparadise.blogspot.com/2006/08/hezbollah-does-its-funding-include.html Thanks.
Posted by: Bird of Paradise at December 30, 2006 12:57 AMHave to check my books at home for better info. Syria sent around 15,000 guys and lost 3. Some tank units, but I can't remember the total composition at work. Tank unit, IIRC.
I was under the impression that the Syrian contribution was mostly artillery. The number you give re size sounds about right.
Not sure they ever did much, but they were put with the Arab units,
None of the arab units did much. There was a Kuwaiti ground force in on the liberation push, and the Saudis did some airstrikes, I think that's pretty much it for offensive arab military action.
who fought next to USMC areas
I'm pretty sure those were the Kuwaitis.
(some were supposed to be integrated into other UN forces, but nobody wanted to fight alongside them considering their level of training).
Yep. Alongside, in front of, behind... no western units wanted to be anywhere near those guys.
Posted by: rosignol at December 30, 2006 02:56 AMKristian, what in the hell are you babbling on about?
The Old Testament prohibitions on producing 'graven images' and the like. The intent seems to have been preventing idolatry, the rules are quite similar to the Islamic prohibitions on images.
These rules are largely forgotten or ignored by modern Christians, who tend to pay more attention to the New Testament than the Old Testament.
Posted by: rosignol at December 30, 2006 03:25 AMIIRC the images were not to be of humans, or was it to include animals or living things? Guess George Eastman is doing 120,000 RPM in hell...
actually it irks me b/c someone gave me a menorah, actually a hanukkiah, that has figures of what look like lumpy children holding the candles. Can't decide if it is idolatrous or not, but haven't used it in years.
Posted by: nichevo at December 30, 2006 03:32 AMIIRC the images were not to be of humans, or was it to include animals or living things?
Dunno. The christian holy books have been translated, edited, and re-translated so many times over the millenia that all I'm really certain of are the basics... the context associated with a lot of the rules have been lost.
Posted by: rosignol at December 30, 2006 04:12 AMJack and Antonios are not alone in a terrible spot.
Most Lebanese are.Corruption is the game in town.
Tony Badran should be banned for trolling and attacking personally others in this blog's comments section.
But then I don't think we can expect MJT to apply the same comment rules for his "civilized" friends that he uses for the terrorists.....
This blog is a joke....Tottie and his supporters are ignorant clowns. I will go elsewhere for educated commentary.
Enjoy your circus.
Posted by: Frank at December 30, 2006 05:20 AMthe only guarantee for the protection of the christian of lebanon is their alliance with the chiaa for the following reason:
1.both of them, the christian and the chiaa are minorities in the middleast of a sunni majority who are allies of the united states.
2.the saudi wahabist wants the control of the whole middleeast backed by the americans to face iran and syria the only non sunnis in the region which happens to be chiaa, so the famous claim and propaganda arrive: the axis of evil syria and iran who wants to destroy the power of the sunnis in the MEA and the nuclear weapon arguments
of course iran will have nuclear weapons like israel and korea and china and others but in no less then 10 years so iran is not that big threat for the world at the moment.
The only thing the american want from iran is the oil same story of iraq.
for god's sake where is the weapon of mass destraction in iraq or where is bin laden in afghanistan?
nothing but lies and you want us to beleive that america wants to spread the democracy in the middleast, of course they are St peter of today who wants to spread peace and justice in the world.
if they want to make democracy in the MEA, why dont they start from Saudi arabia the biggest totalitarian regime in the world?
why don't they protect the minorities in the
MEA the christians and the chiaa?
3. syria cant get back to lebanon, unless the USA want that, syria is very weak, but is very strong compared to the super weakness and passivness of saudi arabia the american puppet.
if u read history, syria entered lebanon and went out from it when ordered by the americans to do so.
4. if one community in lebanon wants to control everything she is defenetly signing her self-destuction and self banning, nobody in lebanon can bann anybody, and that is what the sunnis now are doing for themselves, they cant control lebanon by themselves they must work with the christian and the chiaa which are out now. and that's why charistians and chiaas are allies now.
they are forming a majority in lebanon against the controlling of the sunnis backed by saudi arabia.
as for hezbollah, their understanding with Aoun made it clear that syria will not return to lebanon, and no foreign interfence will take place on behalf of lebanon which means no for iran in lebanon.
and as a christian i beleive hezbollah because they prooved to be very honest and very indepedant and very lebanese.
tony,
u seemed to be very nervous person, unable to accept other's point of view, so you want the ohter point of view to shut his mouth up, well you are a great supporter of democracy.
Ted -
Tony Badran uses the Bill O'Reilly right-wing reactionary approach to debates. He yells, insults, and tries to intimidate the others to win his points.
He could only wish to be a democrat.
Posted by: Brad at December 30, 2006 05:36 AMif they want to make democracy in the MEA, why dont they start from Saudi arabia the biggest totalitarian regime in the world?
Because that would be stupid.
The biggest totalitarian regieme in the world is either Russia or China, depending on if you're going by geography or population.
Saudi Arabia isn't even in the top 10... and more importantly, the Saudi government knows full well that the wahabbi militants hate them, too, and the Saudi government is discreetly cooperating with the US on reining in the militants.
Other governments, which are not cooperating with the US on matters related to reining in islamic militants, are a much higher priority.... which is how it should be.
[...]
and as a christian i beleive hezbollah because they prooved to be very honest and very indepedant and very lebanese.
You should study what happened to Kohmeini's non-religious allies once he siezed power.
Posted by: rosignol at December 30, 2006 05:41 AMUmmm, to the very "cute" ted and brad, I'm afraid that your comment is useless. I wasn't harsh in response to someone who disagreed with my opinions. I couldn't care less if "Sandra" disagreed with me.
You'll note that my reaction was not about "opinion" but an unfounded claim that I was a Lebanese Forces sympathizer, and thus my views should not be taken seriously.
As a matter of fact, your silly comment about disagreement, tolerance and democracy and all that jazz actually applies to Sandra's comment, not mine. It is Sandra who dismissed everything i said based on a stupid, unfounded, and ignorant statement about my inner thoughts and political sympathies, both things she knows absolutely nothing about as she doesn't know anything about me. (The attack was also on her comment).
So next time before you wax all indignant and stuff, actually read what it is you're saying.
As for you agreeing with my views, I don't give a hoot really, so don't flatter yourself!
Posted by: Tony at December 30, 2006 05:53 AMLong time reader (well kind of), first time commenter.
Thanks for the insight Michael.
Posted by: Drima at December 30, 2006 06:03 AMrosignol,
"You should study what happened to Kohmeini's non-religious allies once he siezed power"
i have no problems trying and see what will happen, we are already living in hell, we have nothing to lose i assure you.
if it turned to be true the thing you are saying than we are soo unlucky, but i beleive that it will not end like the kohmeini revolution.
Thanks for the response Tony.
But, unfortunately, you did personally attack Sandra by calling her an ignoramous and stupid in addition to telling her to shut up (just like Bill O'Reilly). That is not up for debate.
So the question is why are you so nervous (as Ted said)?
I think you do care about people that disagree with you. I think there are two issues.
Firstly, you need for other's approval probably stems from the fact your mother did not love you enough. When other's disagree with you, your mother issues and bitterness emerges and results in attacking others.
Secondly, I believe that since your political commentary is for hire (you have been in the employee of people such as Martin Kramer's Campus watch for years) that you realize that it is intellectually dishonest. You are upset with yourself because you pimp your intelligence out and, hence, you are generally rude and agressive with views that dissent with your's.
Whatever, it's your life.
Posted by: Brad at December 30, 2006 06:21 AMThanks for the response Tony.
But, unfortunately, you did personally attack Sandra by calling her an ignoramous and stupid in addition to telling her to shut up (just like Bill O'Reilly). That is not up for debate.
So the question is why are you so nervous (as Ted said)?
I think you do care about people that disagree with you. I think there are two issues.
Firstly, you need for other's approval probably stems from the fact your mother did not love you enough. When other's disagree with you, your mother issues and bitterness emerges and results in attacking others.
Secondly, I believe that since your political commentary is for hire (you have been in the employee of people such as Martin Kramer's Campus watch for years) that you realize that it is intellectually dishonest. You are upset with yourself because you pimp your intelligence out and, hence, you are generally rude and agressive with views that dissent with your's.
Whatever, it's your life.
Posted by: Brad at December 30, 2006 06:22 AMSorry...typo it's employ not employee.
Happy New Year all.
Posted by: Brad at December 30, 2006 06:24 AMi have no problems trying and see what will happen, we are already living in hell, we have nothing to lose i assure you.
You're not in hell yet. When Iran decides it needs another 'crisis' to distract everyone from it's nuclear program, and Hizbullah starts firing missiles at Israel again, then you'll be in hell.
if it turned to be true the thing you are saying than we are soo unlucky, but i beleive that it will not end like the kohmeini revolution.
Revolutions follow a consistent pattern.
After the old order is overthrown, the revolutionaries consolidate power. Allies of convenience are purged, either killed or driven into exile, until one faction has complete control.
Posted by: rosignol at December 30, 2006 06:33 AMActually, Brad, or should I say Dr. Phil, once again you demonstrate your poor skills of reading.
I never called Sandra stupid. I called her statement stupid. And I called her ignoramus, in the sense of an ignorant person, because she is ignorant of my political sympathies, and everything else about me. I also didn't tell her to shut up (I'm not calling you dishonest for saying that, I'm just calling you someone with a reading deficit. It's pitiful really, but don't give up! Don't stop believing!). I said, that before she opens her mouth next time to say the kind of unfounded and stupid thing about something she knows nothing about (my inner thoughts and political sympathies), she should think twice, and then realize that in that case it would be best for her to not open her mouth and say such nonsense.
So I don't know maybe you missed the reading class while getting your degree in cheesy pop psychology.
A second statement of stupidity on your part: >>you have been in the employ of people such as Martin Kramer's Campus watch for years)<<
Wow Brad, so much crap in one place, how did you manage!? Maybe you and Sandra got together and decided to see who can read palms better? Or perhaps you were insulted that I called Sandra's comment stupid, and you thought only you deserve that honor. OK, granted. You win hands down.
1- Kramer has nothing to do with Campus Watch. Never has. Campus Watch is Daniel Pipes' project. (Do your homework Brad. This ain't cheese pop-psy school anymore, you're a grown up now).
2- I was never employed by Campus Watch. I have never received a dime from Campus Watch ("for years"!!! Such buffonery).
Let me explain it to you because, obviously they don't teach this at cheese pop-psy school. There's a thing called the internet. And when people write things on the internet, if it's accessible, it becomes public domain. And so, people can access it, and sometimes reproduce it, within certain limits. And so, an organization that's called Campus Watch keeps track of critiques of Middle East studies. I happened to be doing some of that. So Campus Watch quoted my public domain critiques, with full attribution. And... well, I'm afraid that's it Brad! Sorry, not as exciting as your Dr. Phil extravaganza, and certainly not as stupid, but there you have, not all of us went to cheesy pop-psy university.
And apparently, you'r quite slow Brad. So I'll make this easy for you and repeat what I said. Maybe this time, some adult will help you understand. I didn't take issue with Sandra over a matter of opinion. OK? Is that formulation readable, cause apparently you have a reading deficit. Let's try again: I didn't criticize Sandra's comment over a disagreement in opinion.
She made a categorical -- stupid and factually wrong -- statement about my thought process and political sympathies, and dismissed me based on that. Now chew on that for a month, maybe someday you'll figure it out.
Now, analyze that sweet pea.
Posted by: Tony at December 30, 2006 06:45 AMTony, nice try you O'Reilly wanna-be.
You're nothing but a hired hand for the right-wing. It must drive you crazy the Syrians kick the shit out of your country when they feel like it.
Enjoy those apples jokerman.
Posted by: brad at December 30, 2006 08:02 AMWow, great comment Brad! I mean you could've tried hiding the fact that you are an idiot who can't read who was just shown in public to be an idiot who can't read, but instead, being the idiot that you are, wrote something even dumber! Congrats!
Yeah, cause only right-wingers hate it when thugs hurt their country! Are you suggesting, Brad, that you rejoiced on 9/11?! You moron!
Could you have come up with a dumber retort!? What an idiot... But thanks for proving to the readers that your crow got shoved down your throat so deep, that all you could do, with all your Dr. Phil skills, is to come back with such a pathetically stupid statement as your last one!
Congrats, I didn't think you could be dumber. You learn something every day!
Posted by: Tony at December 30, 2006 08:12 AMRe: Brad and Ted's Excellent Adventure
It is very sad that palm readers have been denigrated in all of this.
As far as shouting down opposing view-points are concernced, that has historically been the province of the idiot so-called left, who can't handle any kind of opposition. That's why Chumpsky calls opposition from people with bona fides leftist credentials, "Stalinists". Moreover, from the strictly big mouth varieties, Baathist Georgie Galloway is a classic idiot in point.
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at December 30, 2006 08:24 AMTony, you have done nothing but reveal your intellectual insecurity with all your name calling.
Of course, I deeply mourned when my fellow Americans died in the tragic events of 9/11. But I laughed at how silly the anti-Hezballoh faction of the Lebanese looked when they completely fragmented in the wake of Hariri's death. That group could not organize their way out of a paper bag. Really after thousands of years of "civilization", and you were outplayed by Iran and Syria. Congrats, really, that was a great job.
Syria and Iran should just annex Lebanon and make the on-the-ground reality official.
As for ankhflhonsu, you sound like a real uniformed jerk. You have no credentials to be be allowed to comment on this forum. You're just a idiot with a keyboard.
Posted by: Brad at December 30, 2006 08:49 AMBrad is banned for trolling.
Sorry, Brad. I know you think this is unfair because both you and Tony are hurling insults at each other. But you started it, you're lying about Tony, and he is a friend of mine, so you lose.
Hint: In the future, if you want to have interesting and productive arguments with other people, don't start with personal attacks, and especially don't attack people because of lies you yourself invent about them.
Bye.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 30, 2006 08:51 AMTotten is a dictator
Posted by: bradly at December 30, 2006 09:08 AMNo, Brad, I just don't want my comments section looking like what you see at Little Green Footballs and Daily Kos. I have to kick one of you out, and you're it.
Future posts by you will be deleted.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 30, 2006 09:13 AMBy the way, Brad, you're the one who says others have "no credentials" to post on this forum.
Good riddance to you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 30, 2006 09:26 AMTotten is a dictator
Of course he is. This is his blog, you see. Put up and paid for with his own time, effort, and money. That means he owns it and gets to set whatever rules he chooses and take any action he sees fit to take.
You were thinking it was some kind of public utility?
Posted by: OregonMuse at December 30, 2006 09:40 AMUnlike the current Assad-appointed Syrian stooge of a president Emile Lahoud, Aoun would be beholden to no one.
I doubt Nasrallah would agree.
Meanwhile, Auon and everyone else seems to forget that Lebanon is, under law, required to push for "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State."
He is an international outlaw (whatever that means). I know - it means nothing. But it's depressing that a group that's required to be disarming is not only continuously arming, but "peacefully" occupying Beirut.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at December 30, 2006 09:46 AMBrad...Brad...Brad
In the words of that great American, Bugs Bunny:
What a maroon!
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at December 30, 2006 09:48 AMCynthia posts 1.both of them, the christian and the chiaa are minorities in the middleast of a sunni majority who are allies of the united states.
God I love sectarian posts like that! Specially when the authors then claim to be for a secular Lebanon.
2.the saudi wahabist wants the control of the whole middleeast backed by the americans.
And then backed up by the typical paranoid conspiracy theories. It used to be "the jews want to control the world.". Looks like we've moved a step up to "the wahabis want to control the Middle East."
eyeroll
Posted by: Bad Vilbel at December 30, 2006 10:01 AMCan't speak for the Aounist, but Khomeini's allies on the "left" were more or less communists, who were by no means liberal democrats. They were militant as well and they lost to the mullah in the ensuing power struggles. Most would form the MKO
Posted by: NM at December 30, 2006 10:15 AMThat was an excellent read, and I enjoyed it immensely. Informative, and carried the mood of a sidewalk political chat over coffee quite well.
For once I agree with dpu. I have more sympathy for the Aounists than I did before reading your article. I still think they're wrong, but I can understand why they do what they do.
It's hard for Americans to understand the Lebanese point of view - Lebanon is a very small country (approx. 4 million people?) - they have to shift alliances, make concessions, perform a sort of moral triage to survive.
Groups like the Aounists have good reasons for seeking refuge in apparently cynical alliances, even if these alliances are ultimately self destructive and opposed to everything they previously stood for. Larger, stronger Western nations (and political groups) don't have the same excuse.
Posted by: mary at December 30, 2006 01:37 PMAounists are well-intentioned dupes. Useful idiots. We have well-intentioned dupes (and dopes) like that in the West too.
Posted by: Carlos at December 30, 2006 01:49 PMeach time I read something here about Lebanon that just kills me :)
how come hariri and the hizb don't have to pay taxes?????
isn't that just ludicrous? is there a special law exempting some Lebanese from paying taxes?
i just don't understand ........
Posted by: tsedek at December 30, 2006 02:17 PMGreat piece, as usual.
Thank you, MT.
And now - a rhetorical question, based on the comment thread and especially the attacks on Tony:
How come anybody remotely pro-democracy, pro-Western or anti-(insert armed group here especially if it's radical), is automatically "right wing" (ie "bad") these days?
This doesn't make any sense to me, unless "left wing" is by extension, supportive of (armed radical group), anti-Western and anti-democratic. (Well, watching Galloway's antics a person would have to wonder?)
Isn't this just a way of shutting up people who have an idea, and besmirching them before they're allowed to make their point?
Why? What's to be feared from dialogue and an exchange of ideas, and maybe even some mutual respect? And what's wrong with moderation and civility? Isn't that at the very root of lawful society? Is it such a smart idea to be sticking labels on each other?
I get the feeling that we're all - not just Lebanon! - teetering on the brink - shouldn't we start trying to treat each other with more kindness - immediately?
Posted by: Sophia at December 30, 2006 02:58 PMHow come anybody remotely pro-democracy, pro-Western or anti-(insert armed group here especially if it's radical), is automatically "right wing" (ie "bad") these days?
I think if your read the entire exchange, it was begun by Sandra alleged that Tony was pro-Lebanese Forces and therefore biased. Tony took offense and called Sandra an ignoramus and stupid. Further in the thread he is accused (once) of being hired by the right wing.
I'm not sure that qualifies to the automatic labeling that you mention. And, while I'm left-wing myself, I personally don't equate "right-wing" with "bad," I'm on good terms with several conservatives whose opinions I respect.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 30, 2006 03:35 PMI don't think that DPU is representative of those who consider themselves left-wing, unfortuately.
I consider myself a reformed socialist and my reformation occurred precisely as a result of the behaviour by so-called left-wing types, of which Sophia speaks.
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at December 30, 2006 03:51 PMThe dhimmitude of Christians in the Middle East is something to behold. The unmitigated cowardice of their craven existence would have made Shakespeare squirm. But he was busy writing tales about Shylock and noble Porsche. LOL.
Posted by: redaktor at December 30, 2006 05:05 PMGreat post, Michael! Thanks for that refreshing read this morning.
Posted by: harrison at December 30, 2006 05:13 PMI consider myself a reformed socialist and my reformation occurred precisely as a result of the behaviour by so-called left-wing types, of which Sophia speaks.
Political ideology isn't a club that one changes because of the other members. It's a philosophy and a belief system. Plus, no matter what ideology one embraces, it has more than a few asshats in it, whether left, right, or middle. The trick is to remember that the asshats on the other side are just asshats, and are not representative of the cream of the crop.
I don't think that DPU is representative of those who consider themselves left-wing, unfortuately.
Thanks, that was nice. Uh, wait a minute... hang on, parsing the comment again... Yes! That was nice, thanks.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 30, 2006 05:32 PMSomething also needs to be said about one other myth, that Hezbollah doesn't behave like militias.
They actually behave far worse. For instance, it was recently revealed that Hezbollah's intelligence was gathering files on Christian students who were with the Lebanese Forces at the Lebanese university.
This kind of intelligence gathering against other Lebanese is a well known Hezbollah practice.
Then there's the intimidation. Be it the rallies, the speeches, and oh, yeah, the constant reminder that they're armed and no else is (with hilarious statements like, "we could take over the country, but we don't!") or, more recently, the bullying vandalism and rushes into Christian and Sunni areas for bullying.
All the above is typical fascist, brown shirt behavior. I could go on of course.
I don't know how people simply choose to glance over this and other issues and uncritically swallow Hezbollah propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: Tony at December 30, 2006 06:14 PMwhat a silly guy this Rotten is. I can't beleive people would bother read this crap.
Posted by: sadiche at December 30, 2006 11:46 PMGood points Tony, if you want to learn about propaganda read about Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda. But I believe that Lebanon all comes down to money, the rake off from Lebanon is too much to lose to give up for the Alawite mafia, everything else is just contratemps.
Posted by: James Just at December 31, 2006 05:09 AMTony,
That's hilarious! Extensive retorts considering you don't give a "hoot" about that guy's opinion.
Posted by: Ralph at December 31, 2006 05:33 AMYeah Ralph, super funny, but again like Brad you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Personal claims about me are separate from opinions and points of view.
I correct the former, and don't give a hoot about the latter. For instance, if someone like you, e.g., disagrees with my take on Hezbollah, that would be a good example of me not giving a hoot about what you think (especially if you don't contest my data). But if you make a claim about who pays me, etc. It's a different story.
But hey, if it made you laugh, knock yourself out. And no need to thank me for teacing you something new today about the difference between opinion and personal attacks. Take it as my new year's gift to you.
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2006 06:25 AMYo' hello :)
Do you see me?
I'd like to have an answer to my above question.
Why don't the hizb and Hariri not have to pay taxes????
Is it just me being completely stunned about this fact???
Posted by: tsedek at December 31, 2006 06:28 AMWell, tsedek, I don't know about Hariri not paying taxes. That could be true, but I don't know.
As for Hezbollah, I also don't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit. I don't know if you saw my note about how they have a parallel economy. But more than that, their areas are controlled, like gang turf here, where it's well nigh impenetrable for state institutions.
For instance, let me give you a recent example. The other day a police patrol came upon a few building violations in the Hezbollah stronghold in southern Beirut, and when they approached it, they were attacked. Again, gang style (but, um, not "militia"! So they're ok!).
Similarly, when the Prime Minister unveiled a plan -- a plan mind you, not a law -- for economic reform, Hezbollah did what they do best, which is what I told you above: intimidation. They sent people to the street and turned the thing into a sectarian issue. So the plan becomes about something far bigger and more dangerous. It's called blackmail. And so the plan was scuttled so as not to start a bigger fight. Of course, the Hezbollah cheerleaders who fancifully see them as some sort of proletarian vanguard completely ignore that Hezbollah is dead set against any sort of reform, as it would only damage its vast patronage network.
The same applies to taxes. Taxes need enforcement. But when you have your own security zone, well, you get the picture. (Same applies for collecting on electricity and utiliy bills).
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2006 07:14 AMtsedek,
hariri is a lot more classy than hizbollah, they change the law for their own benefits (when hariri dies, they have changed the law so the taxes they have to pay in order to inherit the wealth to the heirs will be zero %, and this cost the governement 4 billion dollars of loss ) or they pay the taxes at full and then stealing them back by the curupted institutions.
hariri and its gang are professional theives but very classy.
i think tony forgot to explain to you about hariri the big theives or maybe intended to do so.
they say, that hariri intended to put lebanon under huge debt so he can exchange it later with the nationalization of the overly sunni palistianian refugies in lebanon, so he can change the demography of lebanon in his favor.
yes hariri wasnt at all saint as thye want us to think about him.
Mmmm yes, when in doubt, fall on the stupid, illogical, incoherent and baseless conspiracy theory of "intentionally putting the country in debt in order to nationalize the Palestinians"! (And hey, Aounists are not sectarian! Never forget that!)
Wonderful! You see, this is why I love Aounists! They're just adorable!
I won't bother with the rest of the comment. The above is enough.
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2006 09:15 AMtony,
who told you i am an Aounist,
if i said and can be without predjudice that Hariri is corrupted to the bones does this mean "i am Aounist".
plz cant any non-Aounist see that Hariri is corrupted? unless he is blind by propaganda, thus unfurtunatly i cant do anything to proove him wrong, and even the pro-haririst know that he is corrupted and they still follow him.
by the way i am not sectarian either but i am sure that Hariri is not only sectarian he is a big extrimist but in a "classy way".
anyway, happy new year and this is my last comment coz i have to go to celebrate and wish to have more sane people in lebanon and in the world in the future.
I never said you were an Aounist. The argument you made however, is a staple of Aounist propaganda. Not everything I say is directed at you.
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2006 10:32 AMThank you both for the answer, gentlemen!
I appreciate it.
It sounds very messy from here...
:(
I thought this was a pretty good article. I mean, you'd have an easier time dealing with Lebanon if you were less quick to write definitive moral conclusions into your articles. (helping avoid a "mean bad guys, nice bad guys" incoherency), but I nitpick.
Iran didn't work out so well, but what does one say when a massive popular revolution drives out a dictator? "No, stop that, take it back"? Iran might have worked out better, meaning I suppose less political repression and more tolerated pluralism within the clerical regime, if not for the violent counterrevolutionary guerrilla warfare against the nascent regime within months and the invasion by Iraq within a year.
Posted by: glasnost at December 31, 2006 11:55 AMBrigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 1
Brigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 2
Brigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 3
Brigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 4
Brigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 5
Brigitte Gabriel Lebanon and Islam part 6
Brigitte Gabriel, Radical Islam part 7
Posted by: Bob at December 31, 2006 12:14 PMArguing about who is more corrupt, Hizballah or Hariri/Fouad Siniora, by way of anecdotes, misses the point. Hizballah takes in money and outputs services without getting noticeably rich. Very little of this money enters into official government institutions. You can take the part where it fails to transit through state institutions and call it corruption, or at the least, unlawful behavior. Also, Hizballah doesn't spend much money on Sunnis or Christians. But for Shiites, Hizballah successfully appears to be disinterested in personal financial gain, and effectively outputting services for intake of money. The postwar South reconstruction fiasco would be an example of that, or at least a perceived example.
It seems like Aounists believe, at least, that Hariri/Siniora takes in money and outputs relatively less services at greater personal profit. We don't have statistics to see which set of organizations/affiliations is pocketing more proceeds, but the corruption issue seems to be a maze of relative and imperfect competition.
The argument here is a lot like the argument, "who's the foreign puppet?" Hizballah, the puppets of Iran and Syria? Sunni puppets of Saudi Arabia? March 14, American puppets? Seriously, everyone's working with foreign backers, which is part, or even most, of the problem. The "puppet" argument is always there to be used when movements and factions fight for power in a weak country surrounded by larger ones. Foreign backing and/or coordination is no moral crime, (though it's often illegal!) or else conflict scenarios are littered with criminals. What matters is what is done with the backing.
I could say, using a frame of judgement, that the whole fight over the March 14 tribunal smells like a puppet fight to me, personally. American puppets trying to set up a long-run takedown of the Syrian government, and Syrian puppets trying to wreak havoc to hold them off. Now, America is definitely interested and creating incentives that the tribunal go forth, and Syria is definitely doing the opposite (as well as directly bumping Lebanese off). But is this simplification all there really is to the story? I don't think so. Some Lebanese really want Syria indicted, and some Lebanese really don't.
Me, I don't really think it makes sense for Lebanese priorities to be indicting Syria. If the US wants to indict Syria for Hariri's death, it should act like a man-state and hold its own trial. Lebanon indicting Syria is, basically, a declaration of war against the country. Doing that though, Lebanon is voluntarily stacking legal courts up against military force. It's only heroic if it works. I don't see it working.
Posted by: glasnost at December 31, 2006 12:26 PMInstead they kept their weapons and warped Lebanon’s delicate power-sharing arrangement -- the Shia have their own army while no one else does.
Well, there's at least two armies involved - one being the Lebanese army. How's Shia recruitment in the Lebanese army going, one wonders?
“Aoun is not pro-Syrian,” Antonios said. “He just wants normal relations with Syria. We can’t fight Syria.”
It's a very similar situation to Russia and Ukraine. You can have an open show of defiance and oust a government cozy with the dominant regional power, but the dominant regional power will then ruthlessly punish and undermine you. It seems to be an almost irreversible fact of life with authoritarian states. At some point the active opposition from the regional power has to be ended - a deal has to be struck. Unless you can genuinely jeopardize or eliminate the regional power. In Ukraine, the democrat revolutionist has recently let the Russian puppet become his prime minister. Good? Bad? Surrender? Or, not as good as a completely successful revolution, but nevertheless better than a collapsed one?
Posted by: glasnost at December 31, 2006 12:38 PMLiving next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.I imagine that it's much worse when the beast isn't as friendly or even-tempered, but you still have to deal with it. Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 31, 2006 01:15 PM
Oh, we can't fight Syria but we can fight Israel, as Hezbollah wants (and does, without consulting anyone, including Aoun with whom he had a "memo of understanding")?!
Posted by: Tony at December 31, 2006 03:35 PMglasnost and Tony,
I prefer my leader to be slightly corrupt, than devoted idealist. There's nothing wrong about mild corruption.
I'm not talking of course about a corruption on a scale of Yasser Arafat, of billions.
I'm sure that a mildly corrupt leader will protect his personal wealth, and by so protect me too.
If you look at Lebanese economy, there's the problem of huge debt, but don't forget that for a country that just not long ago survived a long war, it's doing not bad; sure better than Syria, Egypt, Jordan and and....
Mind that it was Syria to send workers to Lebanon ; show me a colonizer who goes to work for his successful colony.
So, I'm not judging weather Hariri was corrupt ; I don't know. If he managed to lift Lebanon from it's ruins, and kept some in his pocket, it's OK with me.
"and as a christian i beleive hezbollah because they prooved to be very honest and very indepedant and very lebanese." cynthia
"You should study what happened to Kohmeini's non-religious allies once he siezed power." rosignol
Yeee and whatever khomeini did (or murdoch claims he did) to the non-religious allies, thats him ok? cynthia is talking about hizbollah, not khomeini. There is a big difference between the two, one is a person, the other is a party, one is dead, the other isn't, one is iranian the other lebanese, and thats the biggest difference. Everyone knows that lebanon doesn't work with anyone excluded, even the super minorities.
Hizbollah and every lebanese knows this from history and from the revolt going on now in lebanon. BUT, the only difference between revolt and what is happening in lebanon is that the people do not want to OVERTHROW the government, they just want to join in. Now tell me whos more nationalistic or which lebanon works beter, the one that excludes everyone apart from itself and SOME very few minor CRIMINAL allies, or the one that wants participation and not replacements???
Posted by: hizbollah lover at December 31, 2006 07:55 PMDPU:
Not to change subject, but CANADA vs. US ?
Canadian population: 33,098,932 (about the same as California!)
U.S. population: 298,444,215
In fact, two countries about the same size but the populations differ. And, 'approximately 90% of the population is concentrated within 160 km of the US border."
Canada doesn't really have much to whine about. What if Mexico were their neighbor instead? Although Mexico is one of the wealthiest south of the U.S. border, about 8% of that population is still illiterate. What if those millions were streaming into Canada instead of the U.S.? Then they would have a REALLY SERIOUS health program crisis to be sure.
Lucky Canada again: "Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs more than 85% of Canadian exports." One of the shortest routes to wealth, isn't it?
Posted by: JAS at December 31, 2006 08:18 PMhabeebi tony, trust me, for lebanon to survive, we NEED SYRIA. its a fact, you cant deny it and should live, acceptt it and let live. we are a small country. It is only logical and normal for us to befriend out neighbours, especially the powerfull ones. You agree with me that syria is a big and powerful state. Israel is small but VERY powerful. Unfortunately for us, Israel is an enemy state. Syria is not. We can not trade with any country east of our land exept through syria, not israel. we can not have any bussines deals with any neighbours, exept syria yet again because israel is an enemy entity, not state, i dont recognise israel as being a real state, although i do recognise it as an entity/force because if someone assumes their enemy does not exist, then when they are attacking you, you are indirectly claiming you were not attacked, which is not logic. ANYWAYS. i do not like the syrian regime or the way they handle things. they have many many MANY bad things about them. But the only reason i prefer them than israel is because they, in general, were and still are good to us and palistine. they are the ONLY arab country who THINKS of and SUPPORTS the palistinian cause, they allow all weapons to get to hizbollah and therefore without them we are completely defenceless, unless cyprus decides to become a military power in the region. they stopped our crazy civil war which killed 150,000 lebanese killed by the people of the same nationality! that lasted 15years! however much you dis syria, the syrians were clever enough to find a way to stop the civil war in couple of months, unlike us stupid lebanese who couldnt do it for 15 years and couldve bin higher unles the syrians got involved! while sharon was butcherin the people of beirut, syria was striving to protect it and as a result lost 11,000 of its own. even our national resistance didnt lose that much. hizbollah lost 3,000 and im guessing the rest lost the same number fighting ISRAEL only. syria also calls for arab unity, unlike the saudis and emiratis who want to stay the way they are in order to keep their regimes and their money. not to forget their full bellies. syria couldve LOOONG time ago allied with america against everyone america is against. believe me, lebanon would have been FINISHED. think about it. if syria follows the US and western ways, bashar would be a VERY powerful and diplomatically protected man, therefore so would his regime. his country will not have anymore US sanctions. his economy would prosper. his military capabilities will anything but grow and the list goes on and on. but no, syria chose the hard way, and are the only arabs to do so. they chose to stay arabs with honour, pride, dignity and patriotism, not only for syria, but for the arab WORLD. plz take a momment and think about it. withought syria, imagine how the arab world would be like, or at LEAST how lebanon would be like. ill give you a quik anser. they would be exactly like palistine, non existant on every map of the world. because just like the palistinians, when israel and US said their will be an embargo, jordan and egypt obayed without questioning. if syria were to be with THEM, the fate of lebanon would lie in the hands of everyone else exept the lebanese. thank you.
Posted by: hizbollah lover at December 31, 2006 09:31 PMBob, I just played the first few seconds of that last video with Bridgett saying that Iran is run by madmen who will nuke Israel at the earliest possible moment.
If that's true then there won't be any Persians alive in the next century. Iran is a country that not only won't survive a counter attack, it's a country that could blow over in a strong wind.
Notice that a small earthquake killed thousands in (appropriately named) Bam? Built to less than third world standards. When the Iranian government talked about rebuilding Bam, I didn't hear a single word about earthquake proofing it this time. Israel doesn't even have to hit Iran to destroy the pathetic place, they just have to shake the ground a little.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 31, 2006 09:32 PMwithought syria, imagine how the arab world would be like, or at LEAST how lebanon would be like.
Lebanon would prosper and be at peace.
The Lebanese civil war would never have happened if it were not for the Arab-Israeli conflict and all the asshole regimes (Syria, etc) that insisted on using Lebanon as their battlefield.
Israelis will leave you alone forever if you leave them alone. Israeli soldiers would much rather go to the beach, drink beer, and chase girls that fight you in Bint Jbail.
Syria, however, will not leave Lebanon alone until there is a new government in Damascus.
Arab "unity" is not all its cracked up to be.
Most Lebanese choose liberty instead of unity for good reason.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at December 31, 2006 10:31 PMTony said:
But hey, if it made you laugh, knock yourself out. And no need to thank me for teacing you something new today about the difference between opinion and personal attacks. Take it as my new year's gift to you.
Oh, I find your tantrums hilarious in more ways than one. As for your self-aggrandizing pedantism, it is plain pathetic.
As for disagreeing with your opinions, I will not bother to go there since you don't give a "hoot" if I disagree with you (very mature, by the way). Suffice to say there are enough problems with your "factual" evidence - overwhelmingly based on misinterpretation, rumors, and conspiracy theories - that it is not even worth engaging with. They wouldn't stand up in circles where they would be subject to scrutiny and fact-checking.
And no, I am not a Hizballah supporter. I just have disdain for sloppy thought, hypocrisy, and arrogance - particularly when unfounded. And that is not a personal attack, it is an attack on your opinions.
Posted by: Ralph at January 1, 2007 02:55 AMWaht do you know about Lebanon anyway, Ralph? Tony has mastered his subject, and he makes a living thinking and writing about it. He is also Lebanese. You're just a guy named Ralph who hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the country at all. Show us what you got or back off. Hopefully you know a little more than what you've read in newspaper articles and on blogs.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 1, 2007 06:13 AMMr Totten, you are unable to see this, but your regional views lead you to an inibility to constructively and objectively look at Lebanon's internal issues. If you could, you would never champion the cause of the Futuremovemnt and allies. Why did you bother interview the Aounists, your conclusions are pre-written anyway, and you are so wrong on the clique Presidency and Aoun thing.
This is an example of ridicolous pre-concieved notions "Sure enough, Lebanon cannot fight Syria. Not militarily, at least, any more than little Kuwait could defend itself against an invasion from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Aoun, you could say, has surrendered to Syrian power, or at least acquiesced to it. "
not wanting to fight Syria after it's departure, and acquiescing to it are not the same kettle of fish. This is where your pre-concieved notions, almost identical statements to the Harriri propoganda machine, tend to show.
The majority of Lebanese know, that if Syria was to ever attempt re-occupation, it would be Aoun that would fight it, and Saniora, Jumblatt etc who welcome it with open arms.
Posted by: robert at January 1, 2007 06:30 AMHariri and Jumblatt would welcome the Syrians with open arms? Where on earth did you come up with that one, Robert?
The Syrians killed Hariri's father, and they'll kill Jumblatt too if they ever get a chance. Jumblatt is asking Washington to destroy the regime in Damascus.
It's not 1991 in Lebanon any more. Catch up!
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 1, 2007 06:37 AMOK, mr totten, i really do not see the point of arguing with you because obviously somebody has mangled your mind up. Your so paranoid about syria, and iran, that you can hardly see whats infront of you. You sound like the same extremists that come on Al-Jazeera and claim they would stop terrorising the world until America is subjected to islamic rule. The only difference between you and them is that they are brainwashed/wealthy CIA agents whereas you're a reporter who can't see beyond his nose and who clearly searches very, VERY hard for people whose opinions are at least shared minimumly by SOMEONE in lebanon.
So, i have this to say. If you think you are doing any good to lebanese, i can assure you alot of us, includng myself are not very pleased. I seriously don't know where iran even came into the game, but i did notice they were being called by their names after their defiant stand concerning their nucleur projects. I really do not recognise one moment in history where iran ever posed a threat to the state of lebanon. They and syria are being criticized more than America and Israel who were responsible, DIRECTLY, for the destruction of lebanon as well as being the same culprits who fuelled the civil war by arming all sides in the conflict. I see iran as a saviour because they armed hizbollah who were more concentrated on one enemy and who refused civil war. Syria did not even know what lebanon was before the civil war, so as far as i know what you said about them in the above article is nothing but an opinion, not truth. Everyone here wants to know the truth of what happened. not what you THINK happened. And my friend the civil war was started because some people wanted the palistinians to stay in lebanon because they thought they were obliged to help because it was an Arab/muslim cause not just palistinian. Other said no, they are bad for the country. The other side saw that the negotiations were not going their way, so they started the civil war by opening fire at a bus in beirut holding lebanese shia muslim and palistinians in it. If you want to know more about the civil war, go check video.google.com and type in the war of lebanon and watch the videos, theyre very educational and i think you need to so your disturbed and grotesque view of things in lebanon is fixed again. PS syria entered to protect the christians during the civil war, the christians therefore allied with them but then because they realised that syrians were actually muslims too, the same people they were trying to fight in lebanon, they faught the syrians.
Back to the point, can you, toten, please post here what you think is a good formulae in whereall lebanese are winners. But this solution must concern lebanons government and their safety. So can you plz post that then ill post you my opinion. Please do not get carried away too much, because as far as we both know the mullas are not in control of lebanon and don't want to be, biggest proof is that hizbollah has never joined a government from before, 2005 was its first time after being literally begged to because they refused. Again now they are saying they do not want a hizbollah representative in a new national unity government, they would settle for allied or political figures who share the same view, pro-resistance.
Posted by: hezbollah lover at January 1, 2007 08:18 AMHezbollah Lover: please post here what you think is a good formulae in whereall lebanese are winners.
Democracy.
Disarmament of Hezbollah.
Disarmament of Palestinian militias.
Palestinian refugees are resettled outside Lebanon.
Israel hands the Shebba Farms to the United Nations.
A peace treaty with Israel, so that Israel never invades Lebanon ever again.
No foreign interference from Syria, Iran, the United States, Saudi Arabia, or Israel.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 1, 2007 09:29 AMEr... Michael,
Not only am I Lebanese, but I also study Lebanese history. Modern, not ancient, mind you. I would love to participate in your discussions but that would mean checking in on a regular basis and I don't have that much free time on my hands.
You startled me about Tony. See, I've never seen his name outside the Blogosphere. When you said he made a living "thinking and writing" I thought you meant it literally. But beyond a couple of pieces, I don't see anything written by him. So, I still have some faith in the better judgement of most people.
Wow, wouldja look at the time! I have to go now. Been fun talking to you.
Posted by: Ralph at January 1, 2007 09:37 AMhello readers,
its my first time posting here but i wanna thank you Mr. Totten for such a nice blog.
i want to just talk a little bit about the topics you posted your last post:
Democracy.
1- Disarmament of Hezbollah.
Well... i dont know how to even start talking about this, however we shall always remember that hezbollah never ever said it tends to keep those arms forever. (or else proove it)
nevertheless, hezbollah has always said that this moment when hezbollah will disarm itself should happen in certain conditions which are:
a. the withdrawal of the israeli troops from shebaa farms and kafarchouba hills and the 7 villages.
b. the return of all lebanese prisonners. (no matter what they did)
c- the disarmament of palestini refugees in lebanon
d. equip the lebanese army with new weapons and technologies including anti-air systems and anti-naval parts so it can defend the country in case of an attack.
so as long as one of these conditions is not available plz dont expect hezbollah to disarm itself... why? well.. heres why:
lets say hezbollah disarmed... the next day the peacefull israeli army decides to attack lebanon (for any stupid reason exactly like in 1982) who will defend lebanon...? wouldnt they (the israelis) enter until beirut kill whoever they want steal leave take massacre watever and whoever they want??? who will stand in their face???
the lebanese army?
its helpless and it will take the IOF 2 hours to destroy all its barracks...
the people??
this is what the usa and israel want... take lebanon back to 1982...
well dear readers, we wont accept that we wont start forming our resistance again.... fight the invadors again... loose our youngsters again... no no i can garantee you it will not happen....
so for the time being... every person/state which demands the disarmament of hezbollah wants the destruction of lebanon! and that is a fact untill the 4 conditions i mentionned before are applied... then there will be no need for the weapons....
2-Disarmament of Palestinian militias.
i suppose its related to the 1st point
3-Palestinian refugees are resettled outside Lebanon.
thats for sure... noone wants their stay in lebanon
4- Israel hands the Shebba Farms to the United Nations.
its also related to the 1st point
5- A peace treaty with Israel, so that Israel never invades Lebanon ever again.
never! or at least not before 50 years or not before all arabs have signed a peace treaty with them.
-------------------------
finnaly about the article you wrote...
its really nice how you search for anything even if in this case 2 FPM supporters who have their own opinion and doesnt necessarly repreesent the whole party... to try and prove your point and that is that every1 in lebanon hates hezbollah...
anyway its your opinion but i wanted to make some points clear from the other point of view.
Posted by: Ali* at January 1, 2007 11:07 AMAli:
It is sad to see how deep-seated the most ridiculous propaganda about Israel is. Israel will loose all interest in fighting Lebanon as soon as it doesn't feel it needs to worry about the Katyushas (sp?). This should be crystal-clear to every thinking person. The fact that you think otherwise attests to the level to which you've been brainwashed to hate. A pity, you sound like an otherwise reasonable person.
Posted by: allpeaceallthetime at January 1, 2007 11:26 AMallpeaceallthetime,
Actually, given the fact that Israel decided to drop cluster bombs in the final days before the UN ceasefire was to take effect, it's not hard to understand why some Lebanese would be so distrustful.
Posted by: NM at January 1, 2007 11:59 AMNM,
If you don't want cluster bombs in Lebanon (and I don't want them either), then do what you can to make sure Hezbollah doesn't start yet another war with the Israelis.
When was the last time Israel dropped bombs on Egypt or Jordan?
You either want war with Israel (which means you get cluster bombs in your country) or you want a peace treaty. Which is it?
You can't have war and not get bombed.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 1, 2007 12:06 PMMichael totten,
"When was the last time Israel dropped bombs on Egypt or Jordan?"
plz tell me where is the democracy in egypt and in jordan i would rather prefer 100 times living in actual troublous lebanon than living under these 2 opressive regimes.
I'd much rather live in Lebanon, too, Robert. My point about Egypt and Jordan isn't that they're democratic (they obviously are not), but that they have a peace treaty with Israel and they no longer get bombed or invaded by Israelis because of it.
Lebanon needs democracy and peace.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 1, 2007 01:06 PMMJt,
but you know very well that there a very important relation between democracy or totalitarity and stability, especially in the MEA.
Egypt and jordan have stability and one of the reason is because there is only one opinion and one point of view that is allowed to take place,
and this opinion must guarantee the interest of israel; and in the other hand it may not suit well the people of that country where the absence of accountability of the government may happen, and that's what is happening in Egypt and in Jordan.
i call for peace with Israel too but not on behalf of lebanon's interest, we should be both equal so no country would attack another.
Maybe Robert is trying to say that they can't have both democracy and peace because Muslims hate Israelis so much that they don't want peace with Israel.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 1, 2007 02:40 PM'If you don't want cluster bombs in Lebanon (and I don't want them either), then do what you can to make sure Hezbollah doesn't start yet another war with the Israelis.
When was the last time Israel dropped bombs on Egypt or Jordan?
You either want war with Israel (which means you get cluster bombs in your country) or you want a peace treaty. Which is it?
You can't have war and not get bombed.'
Fair enough mr totten, then again show me ONE arab person who actually like kind abdullah of jordan, or mubarak of egypt lol. im talking in the arab world, not foreigners. THEN compare their popularity to that of sayyid hassan nasrallah and gamal abdil nasser! i think you will find a really huge margin. Then you should interpret these statistics into something that can be used to conclude from, it will tell you alot about what the arabs want, and dont want. the biggest thing they dont want is to live humiliated, occupied and especially not in peace with an enemy country which stole lands and is still in the habbit. the arab history is all of war and bravery and battles to prove they are men and fearless, strong etc etc i do not think they will think of being defeated by the zionists who have no history of having any kind of war hero in their history of existence. i will reply to you