Michael,
I just wanted to take this opportunity to commend you on your blog. I think it is one of the most fascinating reads on the internet.
One of the best things about your blog is that it gives me some hope regarding the entire region since you often relate comments by moderate Lebanese who want peace with Israel (I'm an Australian born Jew living in Israel for 15 years now). This is something I don't find elsewhere. It makes me think that maybe there are many others throughout the middle east - in Syria, Iran and other "Sworn Enemies" of Israel who might feel this way.
One thing I think most people don't understand is that the vast majority of Israelis only want Peace, and any friendly moves in our direction are always greeted with optimism and warmth. Our government does some questionable and downright stupid things, and the suffering of ordinary, innocent Palestinians and Lebanese indeed saddens me, but I also believe Israel to be on the whole a very liberal and just society.
Perhaps I am a victim of propaganda, but I honestly believe that if Israelies were to see demonstrations of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians etc. wanting peace with Israel, we would relenquish the occupied territories in a heartbeat, and welcome the creation of a friendly Palestinian state on virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza.
For the time being, I will vote for the right in the next Israeli elections, because right now I can't feel that peace is on the horizon. And I think I am very typical of a majority of secular Israelis.
Anyway, keep up the excellent work. I look forward every morning to opening up your site and finding a new entry.

I was wondering if anybody had any comments on why Syria (secular Baathist government, predominantly Sunni population) is allied with Iran and the Shia population in Lebanon. The only thing I can think of is, perhaps, their desire for instability in Lebanon so they can have more influence.

I'm with cb, perhaps someone has already answered that, but I'm curious about what's behind that alliance too.

I agree with Jonorose that this blog is one of the most enlightening sources of information about the Middle East (and Lebanon in particular) around.

If I may, I also want to comment on some of the things you said Jonorose, as it might spur off a further discussion while MJT is away:

First of all you mention Lebanese that want peace with Israel.

Some of the Lebanese who comment on this site, will be in a better position to answer this one, but rather than wanting 'peace' that would involve embassies, business deals, tourists crossing borders and that sort of thing, is it more a case of them wanting to ignore Israel altogether and get on with their lives - something I guess most Israelis would settle for as well as a first step?

Regards the other countries, sadly I suspect most of the Arab street really does want to see the 'Zionist entity' pushed into the sea - and believes that given time it's possible.

From an Israeli perspective, you say that you would support a Palestinian state if you thought the Arabs really want peace but in the meantime, you will carry on voting for the right.

On an emotional level, I can understand why...actually I can't as I have no idea what it's like living in a country where the overwhelming majority of people in the countries surrounding you, want you gone.

But a question for you. Rationally isn't a vote for the right exactly what a group like Hamas wants?

Extremist groups aiming for a radical solution (in this case the destruction of Israel) traditionally have an interest in the temperature being kept to boiling point. Compromise is the last thing they want. And if some civilians on their side lose their lives in the process, all in the interests of the cause, isn't it?

The right in Israel seems to have no solution except to turn the screws even further, thus radicalising opinion and discrediting figures such as Abbas that are probably genuine in wanting a negotiated solution.

The Palestinians won't go away and Israel would have to do something extreme such as wholescale population transfer to solve the problem by force.

As a result, doesn't it make sense to support political parties that are prepared to look for a two state solution and negotiations - though obviously not at any price?

I think Syria tries to kill 2 birds with one stone:
1. Attach Lebanon to itself.
2. Return Holan Hights.

NPR discovered the Iraqui Kurds last night (1/30/07). Of course, they had a negative slant -- interviewing young men complaining about lack of opportunity, corruption by the older generation, etc. Did you hear it by any chance?

Dirk,
Unfortunately I think in retrospect that every concession that the Israeli left has made has turned out to be a poor decision, at least from a security point of view.

Rabin signed the Oslo accords, handing over thousands of weapons to the PA police, who then turned their weapons on Israelis, both soldiers and civilians.

Barak withdrew from Lebanon, and the result was Hizballah arming itself to the teeth and we all know where that led last summer.

Sharon/Olmert withdrew from Gaza, and virtually every day Israeli citizens of Sderot are terrorized by Kassam missiles.

Every gesture we make seems to come back to haunt us.

I don't consider myself right wing (though I guess my world view is fairly in line with the neo-cons), but I will vote for the party that I believe will offer my family the most security (at least as long as real Peace seems to be a pipe dream), and right now I have to think that the Israeli left simply can't offer me that security.

One of the best things about your blog is that it gives me some hope regarding the entire region since you often relate comments by moderate Lebanese who want peace with Israel

It's funny, I had exactly the opposite response to this excellent site. I came here expecting to meet peace-loving Lebanese. But scratch the surface, and you discover that they don't really want peace, in fact they are pretty hostile to Israel. They just don't want to fight. Well, that would be good enough for me if they were in power, but it's certainly disappointing.

I have come to think that Lebanese Christians really could stand up to Syria if they could agree to peace with Israel. But they can't, so that's that.

Yafawi, you've "met" a lot of crazy Lebanese here because the self-described "Angry Arab" sent a bunch of troll traffic my way.

Read the Lebanese blogs I link on my side bar for more sane and encouraging points of view.

There are many Lebanons in one little country. The crazies want to define the whole country in their image. Resist.

And don't forget the reasonable Lebanese who do post here: Jeha, Rampurple, Bad Vilbel, Abu Kais, Charles Malik, Josey Wales, Tony Badran, Carine, Blacksmith Jade, etc. None of them are with Hezbollah, and none of them want war with Israel.

I was wondering if anybody had any comments on why Syria (secular Baathist government, predominantly Sunni population) is allied with Iran and the Shia population in Lebanon. The only thing I can think of is, perhaps, their desire for instability in Lebanon so they can have more influence.

Comes down to a marriage of convenience and nothing more: Didn't the Syrians originally come into Lebanon on the side of the Phalangists in the 1970s and so are more than happy to support anyone who they think will further their goals?

Dirk,

Let me draw your attention to a logical fallacy in your question about right-voting satisfying Hamas.

If indeed it is true that Hamas will never compromise and accept Israel--which is not obvious only to those in denial--then what the Israelis do makes no difference. Therefore, it is rational to vote for the right if the right holds the same belief and, therefore, will maximize security relative to appeasement.

Now, you may make an alternative argument that left-voting will satisfy the international community that Israel is genuinely for peace. Unfortunately, believing that is denial too, given the history of anti-semitim (which never went away), the huge propaganda efforts of the western-left--which is now aligned with the Islamo-fascists--and the collapse of knowledge and reason in the west due to the destruction of the educational system.

Simply put, Israel is being made to seem an "inconvenient state" whose disappearance will solve all the world's problem. This is nothing but a repetition of Chechoslovakia/Munchen and it may well have even worse consequences if the west does not wake up.

FP
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

Well, there is still a lot of work to do towards peace, as this quickshot I made in Beirut shows....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNUSfOoWPqo

This a question for anyone in the region (Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey etc..):

Are the ancient ports near you underwater? If they are is it because there was a change in sea level or what?

This is for anyone in the region or people who have visited:

I don't know the details to this story, but apparently at some point during the current war in Iraq there was a midget setting off bombs. The U.S. recieved information that the guy setting off bombs was really short so they went to arrest him. They ended up detaining everyone in some sort of midget village (it's possible that they just detained all the midgets they could find, I don't know the details), 50-100 people, so they could figure out which midget was setting off the bombs.

My question is, Are handicapped/retarded/not normal people expelled from society like lepers in the region?

Michael, I am not talking about the the crazies. I might have missed one, but none of these people seem prepared to like Israel - they just don't want war. Of course you might say not to expect them to love Israel, wanting peace should be enough, and you're right. But the thing is, there are plenty of Israelis who want to LOVE their neighbors, despite all they have done to us. Cold peace is okay, but it leaves me cold.

I will vote for the party that I believe will offer my family the most security

That's of course a completely natural reaction, but what you've said raises two questions: First of all, would things have been any better had Barak not withdrawn from Lebanon and Sharon from Gaza?

Secondly, especially given the ticking demographic clock, what is the long term vision of the right and what sort of country will be they leaving your children with? It seems that other than to crack down hard, they don't have any kind long term solution.

I obviously don't need to tell you that time is on the Palestinians side and a lot of Palestinian intellectuals (and I gather Israeli Arabs as well) are happy to sit it out, even if things carry on like this for another decade or so. Especially since soon they will outnumber Jews between the Med and the Jordan at which point they start arguing for a one state rather than a two state solution

Jonorose,

Not only have the left decisions prove bad, but some of the claims of the right about Arafat's intentions, and what the consequences of Oslo would be proved right.

Note that the only times Hamas has agreed to cease-fires was when serious military and financial pressure was put on them. You can see it even with lesser pressure now, in their fights w. Fatah. Unfortunately, just about the time the pressure is effective, the West is again blinking and saving them (meetings w. them, fund releasing, etc.)

Therefore, while the policies of the right may not bring peace, at least it will hold them at bay and minimize losses. IMO, that's about all that can be done currently. Anything else is an illusion.

Dirk,

IMO it was in Israel's interest to withdraw, but they should have also done something about Hezbollah while they were out. Israel used to be good about such things, but like the west they deteriorated after Oslo and the peace treaties, and transformed their army into policing the territories and did not adjusting to threats such as Hezbollah. They lowered their guard.

The same time bomb is not just for Israel, but for Europe, Japan and others. Only if the West wakes up and takes serious action to reverse the trends and stand up to the menace, will it survive, including Israel. If they don't, well, in social evolutionary term, they won't survive.

It is difficult to see an alternative.

If indeed it is true that Hamas will never compromise and accept Israel--which is not obvious only to those in denial--then what the Israelis do makes no difference. (FP)

Well, I suppose that would be correct if Hamas was the only representative of the Palestinians. Obviously they aren't, and mainstream figures around Dahlan and Abbas still favour a two stage solution.

the huge propaganda efforts of the western-left--which is now aligned with the Islamo-fascists

In fairness I think that's a generalisation. Personally I'm disappointed with the way that some left / liberals see everything through the prism of 'whatever the US is for, I'm against' (something neatly summarised in UK newspaper columnist Nick Cohen's book "What's Left"), but that's certainly not true of everyone.

And the reverse is also true - some on the right unfortunately see everything through the prism of 'if you don't agree with everything I say, you are an appeaser / on the side of Islamic terrorists etc.'

Abraham is a sick twisted individual and he is not allowed to post here. I delete all his comments, and I delete every comment written in response to him.

I am considering editing his comments instead of deleting them, though.

Consider yourself warned, Abraham, since you refuse to comply with my rules.

If you post again and piss me off enough I will make you "say" something embarassing, and you will not be able to change the text back or have it removed.

If you don't like that, all you have to do is stop posting where you aren't welcome.

Abraham,

Hopefully you will see this before it gets deleted with your asinine comment.

The only person here who comes out looking stupid is you. You have no substance beyond ad-hominem attacks. You can keep shouting nonsense, but we will keep laughing at you.

Dizzy.

Dirk,

Well, we will probably have to disagree on both counts.

I am very skeptical about the intentions of Abbas/Dahlan, not to mention their power. Those who wish peace usually focus on purely what they say to the west, and not on what they say internally and do/don't.
Ditto for the western left and right. Ignoring the irrational extremes--which always exist--the former is suicidal and the latter is reality-based.

The evidence for all this is, IMO, overwhelming.
One reason I started the blog is to document the evidence.

Wishing certain things does not mean they will happen.

FP and Jono, I agree that the right will be more effective at keeping up pressure now, but the question comes back again about what happens in 30 years time?

I may be wide off the mark here, but one of the things that has struck me is that Arabs have a much keener sense of history than people in the west.

A lot of Islamic groups of course make the bizzare parallel of Israel being a succesor to the Crusader states - bizzare because the Crusaders of course massacred the Jews they found in Jerusalem in 1099!

But at the same time they are aware that though the Crusader states lasted 200 odd years they were eventually dislodged. By that viewpoint 60 years of Israel isn't long at all.

Which comes back to why a lot of Palestinians are content to wait in a war of attrition, and why the only long term solutions for Israel are a negotiated agreement with sane Governments in the region on one hand, or wholesale deportation of the Palestinians on the other - something I'm sure you wouldn't agree with

Dirk,

Depends on what you mean by "sense of history". There are serious problems with their INTERPRETATION of history.

The west does not have a sense of history in the sense that they tend to forget or ignore it in their wishful thinking and that has something to do with my claim of educational collapse. Today in most of the west children are mostly trained for jobs, not educated.

And to reiterate a point: the wish for a long term solution does not mean there will be one. Steps need to be taken to achieve it, and they are not.

Something I do agree on is that Hamas activists truly believe that Israel is a temporary phenomenon and one of the most eye opening things I've read is the following article from Haaretz from Nov:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789124.html

Haaretz journalist Avi Issacharoff interviews the Hamas spokesman in Gaza. In addition to getting the answer that they truly are fighting to return to their pre 1948 'homes', the Hamas spokesman is also asked why they would do something as counter productive as fire lone missiles across the border only to invite retaliation?

The answer, is to create 'a balance of fear' - ie to keep things cooking constantly at more or less boiling point - something extremist groups the world over thrive on.

Re: why is Syria aligned with Iran?

Syria calls itself Ba'athist, but it is really run by a government composed mainly of Alawites, a minority Msulim sect considered by orthodox Muslims to be heretical. They seems closer to Shiites than Sunnis. The Assad family are all Alawites.

The Alawite situation is very complex. Go here for an introduction:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/191

Briefly, when France held the League of Nations mandate for Syria after the Ottoman Empire was divided up after WWI, the Alawites supported the French since they didn't want to be under Sunni domination. The French groomed the Alawites for power, assuming that, as a mnoirity, they would always be dependent on the French for support, thus allowing France to keep control of Syria. This didn't work out; but the military and government are filled with Alwaites, even though they are only about 12% of the Syrian population.

As for Lebanon, Syria has never recognized the independence of Lebanon and they have never forgiven France for separating Lebanon from Syria. Syria has fomented sectarian strife in Lebanon specifically to give them cover for invading it and trying to take it over. That some Lebanese factions have, for their own reasons, helped them do this is regrettable, but there it is.

As for Iran, Syria by itself is weak and isolated. It needs a powerful protector. With the USSR gone, Iran is the only one who can fill the bill. And the Hizb'allah rebellion in Lebanon serves to weaken Lebanon, paving the way for increased Syrian penetration.

Of course, I assume that Syria believes that they are using Iran for their own purposes. Whether that proves to be true or not is still not clear.

The situation with the Alawites and Ephraim's comment is interesting.

It also seems to be that Syria, for all its faults, is one of the least 'Islamic' countries in the region and that, as another minority, the Alawites try and bind the Christians to the state

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604573.stm for a background. William Dalrymple's book about Christians in the Middle East (From the Holy Mountain) also makes the point that outside Lebanon, Syria is the only Muslim country where Christians have some semblance of equality and I've read that for that reason it's a favoured destination of Iraqi Christians fleeing the country.

outside Lebanon, Syria is the only Muslim country where Christians have some semblance of equality

Reminds me of that line from the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket: "Here you are all equally worthless."

I'd much rather live as a Christian in Turkey or Tunisia or Malaysia or Morocco or Iraqi Kurdistan or Bosnia or any other number of Muslim countries.

Dirk,

The fact that Haaretz article opened your eyes to what Hamas' objectives are only demonstrates how little the west knows, understands and wants to know about the reality of the conflict. It is obvious otherwise, part. since Hamas is absolutely open about it everywhere.

And Michael is right about Syria.

Here is a good example of the moronic left (which obviously lost the domestic battle and has found a new cause) and how its propaganda is being propagated to the western young generation without a background to see thru it.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/1/31/opedFinkelsteinLivesInElaborateFantasy

I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
Mark

A person's religion makes no difference where evil is concerned. Think of Syria as a mafia family that controls or shares Lebanon with whomever it wants to. lebanon is a racket for the Syrians. If you were a crook would you willingly give up all that Lebanese money? Iran is also Syria's trump card at the Middle East poker table. Lebanon will never be free unless its people are willing to sacrifice and rise up with their army and throw Hizbollah out of the country. They got rid of syria last year, now to finish the job and throw hizbollah out. Nothing less will do.

Dear Dirk,

The Crusaders came from nation states or nascent nations states, such as France, Great Britain, Germanic areas. In the back of their minds they knew they could always return home.

The Jews, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. There is no going back to Germany or France, etc. For the Israelis who are descended from Middle Eastern Jews, there is no returning to Yemen or Iraq, etc.

Israel is the last stand of the Jews, and it's not going anywhere. The sooner the Arabs realize that, the sooner we can all get on with our lives. If the Palestinians wish to wallow in self-pity and hatred and "refugee camps" for the next generation, they only have themselves to blame for their retched conditions.

I'm sick and tired of people lecturing Jews and Israelis about peace (not saying you are, Dirk). The Palestinians -- the Arabs -- can't even make peace among themselves. How are they going to do it with the Jews or the West?

Arabs: Get your house in order. Then come to the table.

I was re-reading an interesting article that came out March/April 2002 -- long before Hariri was assassinated called:
"Why Assad Stepped Foot in Beirut . . . Twice"
http://www.meib.org/articles/0203_l1.htm

But then to my surprise I just read this news today-article called:
Syria dictating Hezbollah's conditions in Lebanon

"The conditions set by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, according to Abu Faour, are: the formation of a new 30-seat government in which the Hizbullah-led opposition controls 11 seats, allowing it to veto decisions.
The Syrian conditions also include the adoption of a new elections law in three months, early parliamentary elections in six months, rejection of early presidential elections, and rejection of any attempt to form an international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of ex-Premier Rafik Hariri and related crimes prior to completion of the international investigation in these atrocities."

Full article here:
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/01/syria_dictating.php

I thought Iran & Saudi Arabi were working on something but then I see the above article..
WTH IS GOING ON?!

Thumbs up, Zak.

Even a couple Palestinians recently have said the violence is in them, can't blame the Israelis for Hamas and Fatah etc etc being hopelessly incapable of resolving their differences without resorting to bloodshed... Or for Shia vs. Sunni in Iraq or Lebanon, or any of a couple dozen other Arab vs. Arab and/or Muslim vs. Muslim violent confrontations in the past few decades. Can't even blame the US.

Here's an interesting article on what I'd call peculiarly violent contemporary Shia celebrations of Ashoura in
Lebanon . These people have memories like elephants. (Self-censored elephant gun/ extinction joke.)

Pam,

Well, if this is what they instill in children:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/ashoura.children.ap/index.html

what else should we expect?

The Crusaders came from nation states or nascent nations states, such as France, Great Britain, Germanic areas. In the back of their minds they knew they could always return home.

That's true to an extent. One of the reasons the Crusader states failed is that after grabbing some loot and absolving themselves of their sins, most did return home after each crusade. But, some settled during the 200 odd years of 'Outremer', as the Europeans called the place.

The Jews, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. There is no going back to Germany or France, etc. For the Israelis who are descended from Middle Eastern Jews, there is no returning to Yemen or Iraq, etc.

I completely agree with you. But the point is that a lot of Arabs fantasise that they can somehow 'return.' Ahjmadenijad's rantings about how the Jews should be given land in Germany, the US etc is a view that's shared widely in the region (though not by most Governments).

And that brings it back to Jono's original comment all the way at the beginning. Personally I don't think it's a case of people in the Arab countries needing to demonstrate how they love Israel and want peace.

A simple realisation that Israel is here to stay and needs to be dealt with on that basis would surely be enough of a start.

For some trenchant analysis on Syria and Lebanon (from March 2005!) see Jim Lederman:

http://jimlederman.com/blog/comments.php?id=10_0_1_0_C

His predictions are pretty much on the money.

Thank you, Ephraim.

"A simple realisation that Israel is here to stay and needs to be dealt with on that basis would surely be enough of a start."

That simple realization won't come as long as the west (including the US like Jimmuh and Walt and Mearsheimer), including some jews (Judt, Finkelstein)and even some in the US (Jimmuh), declare Israel a mistake, and the cause of all trouble in world, condone and throw tons of money at Palestinian terror factions (including Fatah), and do nothing about Iran; and as long as Israel lowers its guard and loses its deterrent and its wish for peace forgets that if you want peace, prepare for war.

I would go as far as to say that the West's denial and Israel's leadership failures they have made it certain that they prevented such a realization from happening.

I always said that bringing Arafat closer would have exactly this effect (which he admitted) and that the only way to know whether the realization occurred is when the INTERNAL language and school curricullae in the Arab?Palestinian world change.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU2N2Q5NzJiYjRlOTA0MjNjOTc0NGU5OTY2NTdmYmQ

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=733

Just came across this:

http://www.forward.com/articles/study-group-advisers-surprised-upset-by-israel-ir/

I amanged to dig out the Arafat admission:

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1046

It is actually from a video available publicly on memri tv.

This is the "moderate" that the west has pumped money into so that his wife could live in luxury in Paris.

You're welcome, cb. Since Michael hasn't corrected me, I assume that 1) I am substantially correct or 2) Michael just isn't paying attention.

Under the Ottomans, Syria referred to a geographic area, not a state or a national identity. "Syria" was generally considered to include what is today Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and Jordan. These areas were divided into various adminsistrative districts, none of which correrspond to any present-day national borders, which are a result of great power (Britain and France) machinations.

The present government of Syria still believes in the concept of "Greater Syria" which includes all of the countries which occupy what was considered Syria under the Ottomans. This is really all that is needed to explain Syrian attempts to destabilize, invade, or otherwise subvert Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. Elements of the PLO have long been Syria's weapon of choice in this effort. Black September, the PLO's attempt to overthrow the King Husseisn, was, in many respects, a Syrian coup attempt. An invasion of Jordan by Syria in support of the PLO was only prevented by the IDF. This allowed Hussein to finish off the PLO and drive them into Lebanon, where they were used as Syria's cat's paw in instigating the civil war there, which Syria used as a pretext to invade.

Anyway, Syria's desire to reconstitute "Greater Syria" is the magic decoder ring that clarifies everything they do there. A strong, united Lebanon would be a disaster for Syria, and for Iran as well. Syrian and Iranian geopolitical strategy requires a Lebanon under their domination.

Thanks for the additional comments, as well. I wasn't even aware the PLO had attempted to take Jordon, sounds like they are everybody's pawn. I seem to remember reading somewhere that in Arab's eyes, they are not well thought of.

I wonder how much Assad and other Alawites really care about Lebanon, sounds like they've been isolated for centuries. Given the attention to detail he pays when allocating government and military positions to Sunni's, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if he's more or less responding to Sunni desires so he doesn't piss them off and suffer a coup, but then again, power is intoxicating, as they say.

BTW, the article you posted has some differences from the wikipedia page on Alawites, if you care. I'm starting not to trust wiki.

cb,

The fact that you did not know about PLO's Jordan history is another example that validates my claim that most western public does not have enough background on the ME and are easy targets for islamist/arab propaganda. This explains the increasing anti-jewish/israeli stand.

This is not intended as a personal critique of you. I do not see such lack of background entirely as the fault of the public. Rather, it is a result of what I deem to be the collapse of the educational system in the west, which has transformed itself into essentially a vocational and socialization system, devoid of science, history, geography, logic, classics, etc.

I'm not sure if the PLO could be considered everybody's "pawn"; that assumes that the PLO is actually an independent representative of a people called the "Palestinians", which it is not and never has been.

The PLO was created by the Arab League in 1964 as a front organization for their continued war against Israel. Many factions within the PLO were simply extensions of the secret services of different Arab states. For example, a significant faction of the PLO, As Saiqa ("The Thunderbolt") was an extension of the Syrian Ba'ath party. 70% of its members were Syrian nationals, not "Palestinians", and it reported to, and was completely under the control of, Damascus.

Basically, rather than being a "pawn", the PLO was, more or less, the muscle for different Arab countries as they jockeyed to use the PLO for their own ends.

This is becoming the case in the PA as well: Hamas, while Sunni, is increasingly funded by Iran and is becoming the Gaza equivalent of Hizb'allah, Iran's tool in Lebanon. The Sunnis, and the US, are lining up behind Abu Mazen and Fatah. Only the Hamas threat can explain the utter stupidity of the US, and the idiots presently in charge in Israel, in continuing to fund him.

Ephraim,

You can add the late USSR in the bargain. They also funded the PLO for their cold-war purposes, hence the somewhat socialistic/totalitarian nature of the PLO and a small part of the reason for the abysmal Palestinian economy.

In fact Abu Mazen got his PhD in Moscow.

I've been having a debate with people on another forum regarding Syria's interference in Lebanon. One of the things I mentioned was that Syria seems to be attempting to destablize Lebanon in an attempt to generate an excuse to move back in. I've run into an awful lot of opposition to this, however, as multiple people seem convinced that if Syria attempts to reoccupy Lebanon then the Israelis will conduct an air bombing campaign to keep the Syrians out - going so far as to turn Syria's infrastructure back to the stone age if necessary. I've been digging in my heels on this, but I don't think my arguments are pulling the weight I'd like them to.

Any thoughts on the idea?

What?

Anybody who believes that Israel will bomb Syria if it invades Lebanon is too stupid to breathe, let alone argue. Syria is already IN Lebanon via Hizb'allah anyway. Why would they need to invade?

Israel would probably start shoting if Syria started actually moving its army to the border. Barring that, I can't imagine Israel would do anything.

Anyway, Syria does not need to move uniformed troops in to dominate Lebanon. Hizb'allah and Syrian agents posing as Lebanese will do just fine.

Syria is using Hizb'allah and its allies to topple the government so a pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian government can take over. Once that happens, a Syrian invasion will be completely unnecessary.

I think the main Syrian game right now is to prevent the UN tribunal. First priority. At this point its allies in Lebanon are managing it. See:

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/01/syria_dictating.php

As to Israel, the obvious picture is that the political class in Israel is too weak to undertake any adventures. However, sometimes this is precisely what makes elites dangerous. In fact, a little bit of that was in evidence when they started the Hezbollah war.

As much as Syria would want that it will never try to annex Lebanon as long as Syria is in the state of war with Israel.
And it is not because it is concerned with Israel's interference in to process.
It is because Syria will immediately become responsible for terror attacks, which might come from Lebanese territory.
It would make Syria proper a fair game as far as Israelis are concerned.
Current situation in Lebanon suits Syrian interests perfectly.

Leo - the one big problem I have with that argument is that up until about a year ago, Syria WAS responsible for Lebanon. What has changed since the withdrawel that would make Syria reluctant to reassume 'oversight' of the country?

fp:

Are you saying it was Israel that started the "Hizb'allah war"?

You mean they "started" it by responding to a direct cross-border attack on their troops?

Kind of like a guy "starts" a fight by hitting someone back after he is attacked for no reason?

I don't mean to sound uncharitable, but if that's what you actually believe, you have a real problem. Only someone who believes that Jewish self-defense is somehow immoral could possibly say something like that.

Hizb'allah started that war. Olmert was just too cowardly and stupid to let the army do what it needed to do to finish it.

I thought fp meant more that the inexperience and need to look tough led to Olmert-Peretz wildly mishandling the military response after the HB cross-border provocations, but maybe he really meant 'started.' I recall at the time a lot of people on all sides commented that an old warhorse like Sharon would have responded in a much more measured way, because he didn't need to prove his power or his security credentials.

I agree that people in the US and the West are awfully ill-informed about the history of the ME -- no one knows about the Black September events, no one recalls that the PLO has in the past declared Jordan as well as Israel to be their rightful inheritance, etc.

I find people are shocked to learn that Jews were in the region continuously, were immigrating and buying property legally for 75 years before 1948, or the founding and growth of Tel Aviv, or the expulsion of Jews across the ME -- and I know for certain in that knowledge has 'converted' a couple anti-zionist-leaners pretty completely to two-staters, and several pro-Israel neutrals to staunch pro-zionists.

I did not know the extent of Syrian pre-colonial 'holdings'-- I did read that the old-old Syrian 'elite' were related by kinship and marriage to the al-Saud family.

Just saw a description of early Bashar Assad era-rule as 'strategically autistic' due to his inexperience and the heavy-handed influence of his father's old advisors -- do you knowledgable folks think that is still the case? (I loved that term, and you probably know who else I would apply it to....)

Ephraim,

I suggest you pay attention to nuances, and not jump to conclusions.

No, that is not what I said. What I meant is that had the govt been based on an elite more sure of itself and experienced both politically and militarily, they would have started and/or conducted the war differently, with serious aforethought (not to mention taking preventive measures to avoid it altogether). As it is, theirs was a kneejerk reaction, which they mismanaged.

When I first heard that Olmert would be prime-minister I started worrying. When he appointed Peretz as defense minister not only did he validate my concern, but made me wish he would never have to undertake a war (similar thoughts occurred when Sharon appointed Halutz as cheif-of-staff, btw).

The point I was trying to make is that strong leaders don't panick when they face circumstances that they need to react to.

The fact is that there is a serious crisis of leadership in Israel. They don't have vision and strategy, are weak, confused, corrupt and therefore suceptible to erratic behavior dangerous to the state. Consider the release of funds to Fatah.

Pam,

You got it.

Again, that's why I started the above mentioned blog, where I put links to information that the average westerner does not know (although many prefer not to know, because it suits their prejudices). Earlier postings also contain links to core research into the history of the conflict and the validity of the Israeli and Plaestinian narratives.

fp:

OK, got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have to agree with you about Olmert and Peretz. A total disaster. I cannot for the life of me understand why either of them are still in office.

It is my understanding that the IDF wanted to drop troops on the Litani River, leapfrogging the frontline Hizb'allah positions, and then fight South to the Israeli border, catching Hizb'allah in a pincer movement. Olmert, fearing a wider war, nixed this plan and decided to listen to Halutz, who thought that everything could be accomplished from the air.

This was a huge mistake, as we saw. Troops were sent into the field with ambiguous orders; orders were issued and then countermanded, etc. Omert sent out the IDF to be murdered for no purpose. You cannot have tanks just sitting there waiting for orders and not expect them to get blown up.

In any case, the IDF didn't lose this war. The political echelon did, by cutting the IDF off at the knees and not giving it free rein to fight properly.

This will not happen the next time.

That the political level utterly failed is clear. The army has exhibited failures of its own. It has become too much of a policing outfit and has not adjusted to the enemy. What is obvious is that the army did well where it had intelligence (long-range missiles) and pretty badly where it did not. There has been too much wishful thinking, similar to that in 1973.

Olmert and Peretz are still in power because the failure is not of just the politicians in power, but of all the elite (many of which are under investigation). Frankly, I do not see who could replace them that is better. If there were any, they would have arisen by now. What is most concerning is that the young generation are actually worse than the old.

Basic principle.

The West had to stop Hitler who snuffed millions and would have ruled us by the bullet.

Melosovich was genocidal with his ethnic cleansing. Mass murder can not be allowed to spread without challenge.

Saddam killed Shiia in the south and gassed the Kurds in the north, looting the
death villages the morning after.

Ahmadinejad is supporting both sides to kill each other. The Sunni Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Al Sadr city Shiia Blackshirts under Muqtada al Sadr.

We could not afford to ignore the spread of Nazism in 1940 and we can not afford to ignore the spread of Islamofascism today.

More troops may help matters, but I think stealth and rewards for intelligence leading to the capture of ringleaders like Muqtada Al Sadr is the most promising way to go.

Without leaders and Iranian payola, the Blackshirts would fade back into routine life. = TG

The single most important weapon the west can have against Islamofascism is intelligence, of two kind (1) Smarts (2) Inside information. This is also precisely where the west is weakest.

Why is it that western recruits/converts can go in, and intelligence agencies cannot, at least not in significant manner?

This is very interesting information the fact that amateurs are involved is great.