February 07, 2007
On the Top Floor of Lebanon’s Civil Society
BEIRUT – On March 14, 2005, Lebanon captivated the world when one-third of the country demonstrated in downtown Beirut and demanded free elections and the withdrawal of the occupying Syrian military dictatorship.
A nakedly imperialist Baath government was defeated by its foreign subjects, and it was defeated live on TV. Lebanon had pushed itself far out of the Middle East mainstream and liberated itself from what Ghassan Tueni calls “the great Arab prison.” Later that year Ghassan would see his son Gebran, An Nahar newspaper editor and a member of Lebanon’s parliament, murdered on a hillside road above the city by a Syrian car bomb. Beirut’s spring was a short one, and may yet go the way of a similar uprising that exploded in Prague in the late 1960s before it was smashed under the treads of Soviet tanks.
The Assad regime in Damascus brooded over its loss of face, property, and cash flow in Lebanon, and responded with a vicious campaign of terrorism and murder in the streets of Beirut. The city started to look once more like its old frightening self when it epitomized urban disaster areas. Hezbollah’s unilateral instigation of war with the Israelis and their ongoing now-violent push to topple the government make Lebanon look more like Iraq than it looks like Prague.
I’ve contributed to this image myself with my own writing and photographs, though I try not to do so. The unspoken media rule “if it bleeds, it leads” applies to blogs and independent journalists as much as it does to mainstream media reporters. Warmongers, terrorists, and jihadi fanatics are more interesting to read about than quiet shopkeepers who never hurt anyone and wished they lived in a normal country. I am well aware that my recent work portrays a skewed image of Lebanon, but it’s hard to avoid in the media business.
So I met up with Eli Khoury, one of my old acquaintances from the Beirut Spring, who I met immediately after March 14 two years ago while the Syrians were still rulers of Lebanon. Eli was one of the elite of the movement back then. He still is today even while he and his kind get almost no press. They are, for the most part, staying home, hugging their flags, and waiting for the darkening Hezbollah storm to blow over or explode in conflagration.
Eli is the CEO of the advertising firm Saatchi and Saatchi in the Levant. He worked on Iraq’s first post-Saddam get-out-and-vote campaign, then applied his advertising and design skills to Lebanon’s movement to oust the Syrian occupation. His work was seen all over the country back then, and it’s still all over the country today.
He also runs a professional political consulting firm called Quantum. I went to see him in his futuristic post-modern office on the top floor of a glass tower in East Beirut. I felt like I had been whooshed into the 23rd century when I walked in there. The lighting, the windows, the walls…the whole place appeared straight out of a science-fiction movie. His employees looked like they had been genetically engineered to human perfection. I should have taken some pictures.
“It’s good to see you again,” he said. “How can I help you?”
“Lebanon is a disaster right now,” I said, although it certainly didn’t look that way from his spiffy uber-modern tower looking out toward the mountains and the Mediterranean. “And it looks even worse than it is in the media. I wanted to check in with you again and interview somebody sane, show the other side of the story. Lebanon looks like a terrorist state again to Americans. And also to the Israelis.”
He put his face in his hands then blew out his cheeks. “This,” he said ominously and nodded. “This is the most important thing.”
“What are you working on these days?” I said.
“Have you seen the I Love Life billboards?” he said.
I had.
They appear everywhere I’ve recently been in the country except (I am sorry to say) where the Shia live, where Hezbollah’s terrorist and “martyrdom” propaganda is erected instead. The I Love Life billboards are written in English, French, and Arabic, and they are ubiquitous in Christian, Sunni, and Druze areas.
“Hezbollah intimidates me on their TV channel,” Eli said. “They are calling me a racist now because of this campaign, because I am implying that they love death.”
The campaign’s Web site says as much explicitly on the Mission Statement page, but “racist” is a silly label to stick on it. Hezbollah’s propaganda is extremely violent and grotesque.
Below is a photo I took of a Hezbollah billboard on Sheik Abad Hill along the border with Israel. In the lower-left corner a Hezbollah fighter is shown holding up a severed Israeli head by its hair.
“What do you think,” I said, “about Hezbollah’s reported use of human shields? Some Lebanese have a hard time believing it really happened.”
“Of course the whole concept of Hezbollah is to use human shields,” he said. “Not everyone in Lebanon understands this, though, because Hezbollah tries so hard to cultivate an image of decency. Also politicians here are reticent to say everything they believe. They have to be careful how far they go when they criticize Hezbollah and the Syrians. Sometimes they go back and forth for a while and contradict themselves before they are able to take a firm stand.”
You see this even with Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, the fiercest critic of Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah in the entire country. Jumblatt calls for regime change in Syria now, and he accuses Hezbollah of having a hand in the ongoing assassinations. For a while after the Syrians left even he kept his ties with Hezbollah, referred to them as a legitimate “resistance,” said they should keep their weapons, and so on. Only lately, almost two years later, has Jumblatt’s opposition become absolute.
Eli and I first met at the headquarters for the Movement of the Democratic Left, a leftist group that split with the Communists over their support for the Syrian Baathists. I sat in on political strategy meetings with Eli, journalist/activist Samir Kassir, Member of Parliament Nayla Moawad (whose husband was briefly Lebanon’s president until the Syrians killed him after a few weeks in office), and other assorted March 14 leaders.
I didn’t dare write about these meetings at the time they were held. Bombs had been exploding somewhere in Beirut every four days or so, and these were strategy meetings with people who were surely on a Syrian hit list. I did feel slightly nervous around them, especially in that party headquarters which for all we knew could have been taken out at any time.
Samir was later killed by a car bomb on his way to Eli’s apartment.
His photo is still displayed all over Beirut.
He and others murdered by Lebanon’s former occupiers haunt the city like ghosts. I still can’t walk past portraits of Samir, whom I briefly knew at the end of his life, without shuddering.
I remember innocently asking at one of these meetings if the March 14 movement had considered taking the parliament building by force as Serbian activists had in Belgrade when they ousted Slobodan Milosovic from power.
Everyone in the room wanted to do it. But they didn’t dare. “There will be blood in the streets,” Asma Andraos told me. They weren’t worried the Syrians would kill them. They were worried Hezbollah fighters might storm out of the dahiyeh and massacre the liberals on behalf of Damascus.
Later, just before the Syrians finally left, a few people at these meetings openly advocated storming the parliament anyway, Hezbollah’s weapons be damned. Their political calculus was moving fast. Lebanon’s democracy and independence movement would not, and will not, surrender to foreign powers or tyrants. March 14’s demands were met shortly after this happened. The Syrians went away. Free elections were called by Damascus’ puppet regime. Who can say if parliament would have been seized if they hadn’t backed down?
“What do you think about last July’s war?” I said to Eli.
He sighed. “The Israelis bombed these bridges all over the country. Why? If you want to hit the most important bridge bringing weapons into Lebanon, hit Syria. Why do they want to protect him?”
It does look, from Lebanon’s point of view, like Israel is sort of aligned with Syria. There is a Syrian-Iranian axis with malevolent designs on Lebanon, and there is also what looks like a de-facto Syrian-Israeli axis.
There is no Syrian-Israeli axis, not in the real world. But from a practical Lebanese point of view that doesn’t make any difference. While most Lebanese want regime-change or at least regime-punishment in Syria, the Israeli government openly, categorically, opposes any such thing. The Israelis dread the idea of post-Baathist Syria, and they therefore swear they will do nothing whatsoever to weaken or punish Assad. They want to negotiate with him and preserve his regime.
This is horrifically offensive in Lebanon, especially after the Israelis bombed Lebanon and left Syria alone last July. Lebanon only shares a border with two countries, and both of them are Lebanon’s enemies. The fact that these enemies don’t like each other helps Lebanon not at all since both kill Lebanese and leave each other alone. The Israelis even called Assad in Damascus last July to soothe him when their troops landed in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley near the Syrian border. They didn’t want him to worry that they were gunning for him.
“99 percent of our problems are Syrian,” Eli said. “An Alawite government in Syria is good for us. Just not this Alawite government. Anything, even a bin Ladenist government, would be better than the Baath government.”
Israelis feel constantly threatened in their (as they see it) weak and small country. Lebanese feel the same way, and even more so. Syria insists Lebanon has no right to exist, and both Israel and Syria can pulverize Lebanon militarily at will.
Most Lebanese people I know, from every sect including the Shia, would have been perfectly happy if the Israelis bombed Syria after Hezbollah launched their attack. A large number of people in an Arabic country openly supporting an Israeli war against another Arab country would have been something to see. It would have changed forever some of the geopolitical dynamics in the Levant.
“If the Israelis were smarter there would be a lot more pro-Israeli opinion in Lebanon,” Eli said.
His personal assistant brought him a thin boring sandwich.
“I’m on a diet,” he said, “so this is all I get. I eat when I get stressed. Nasrallah makes me gain weight. I put on ten kilos during the war.”
“What was it like here during the war?” I said. “I was in Iraq, Jordan, and Israel at the time.”
“Most of us sympathized with Israel’s response for the first couple of days,” he said, ”until they bombed the airport.” Lots of Lebanese people I know told me the same thing, and they said it during the war not just in hindsight. “We thought it was fishy, though, when there was no ground war. They fought the war like it was a Nintendo game. I know the Israelis are careful with their targets. But you never know if the guy flying the bomber over your head at any given moment might miss.”
“The Israelis were hoping Lebanon would rise up against Hezbollah,” I said.
“How are we supposed to deal with Hezbollah when Israel’s Syrian buddies keep arming them?” he said. “And when the Israelis themselves can’t beat Hezbollah?”
“There’s an old idea that’s been around in Lebanon for a while now,” I said, “and I think it confuses a lot of people. [Lebanese Prime Minister] Fouad Seniora recently said it again. He said Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel. Can you explain to a Western audience what that’s all about?”
“The last Arab country,” he said. “This is the statement of those who want to make peace but know that they can’t. They don’t want to get ganged up on by the Arabs. We are the least anti-Israel Arab country in the world.”
There’s another old saying that has been around for a while, and it’s directly related: No war without Egypt. No peace without Syria. Lebanese can’t make a separate peace with Israel without Syria, not when Syria still partly rules Lebanon through its proxies, its intelligence agents, its bought men (including the president), and its assassins.
“It sounds crazy, though,” I said.
“What sounds crazy?” he said. He had no idea what I was talking about.
“When Seniora or anyone else says, without any context, that Lebanon will be last Arab country to make peace.” I said, “It sounds like he’s saying Lebanon hates Israel more than everyone else, that Lebanon is the most fanatical country.”
He thought about what I said for a second, then startled himself. “My god,” he said. “I never thought of it that way.”
“Maybe the Israeli government gets it,” I said. “I don’t know. They aren’t stupid, but there is a lot they don’t understand about this place.”
“What should Seniora say instead?” he said. I could tell I disturbed him. Lebanese at times have no idea how some of their statements sound to Western ears.
“I don’t know,” I said. “He could explain the problem more clearly, but that would only get him in more trouble with the Syrians and with Hezbollah. He’s in an impossible position. So he should probably just shut up and not saying anything about it one way or another.”
Eli looked pained. “I will tell him you said that when I next see him,” he said.
“You will?” I said. That surprised me. I have no idea if the message was ever relayed.
“What do you think of Michel Aoun?” I said.
Michel Aoun is the former general who recently returned from exile and formed a realpolitik alliance of sorts with Hezbollah. His (predominantly Christian) Free Patriotic Movement joined Hezbollah’s “March 8” bloc, yet he and they still think Hezbollah should be disarmed and not allowed to start unilateral wars with the Israelis.
“Aoun just wants to be president,” Eli said. “He doesn’t give a flying fuck how he gets there, even if he destroys Lebanon. He’s positioned himself as the bottleneck so he can be the solution. He learned this well from the Assad regime. His intelligentsia is gone. He’s left with people who think he is right about everything. 20 percent of Aoun’s people are militant and will do whatever he says. Another 20 percent believe his silly story that Saudi Arabia is trying to take over Lebanon.”
“How many Christians actually find him appealing?” I said. He used to be one of the most popular Christians in Lebanon, but his star has fallen since he broke with the March 14 movement.
“Most Christians are liberal and will not be attracted to narrow sectarian parties like the Lebanese Forces,” Eli said. “Except in times of danger. Aoun provided this outlet for these people by being deliberately non-sectarian. The problem with his strategy, though, is that he lost a lot of Christians and didn’t gain many Shia. Before Pierre Gemayel was assassinated Aoun polled at around 37 percent of Christians. But he lost a lot of support since then. Geagea is at around 27 percent.”
Samir Geagea is the leader of the Lebanese Forces, a sectarian Christian political party that had a militia during the civil war. The Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb (previously know as the “Phalange,” another Christian militia from the civil war days) are sometimes accused of being fascists by their detractors. What did Eli think of that?
“Is the Kataeb fascist?” he said. “I don’t think so. They saw that the number of Christians in Lebanon was decreasing. And they dug in because the region was on fire. They want to preserve themselves. I told the Phalange and the Lebanese Forces that they should change their names. They sound like they’ve come out of the 1940s. You know about the Syrian Social Nationalist Party? Those people are the real fascists. They modeled themselves after Hitler and Mussolini. Look at their flag.”
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (think “national socialists,” aka Nazis) put a spinning swastika on their flag. They are basically the Lebanese branch of the Baath Party and want to merge Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and even Cyprus (!) back into “Greater Syria.” Several members were recently arrested by the army for plotting terrorist attacks inside Lebanon. One of their offices was torched by angry citizens a few weeks ago. The few hundred members who remain have aligned themselves with (who else?) the Hezbollah bloc.
“There are two long term strategies for Lebanese Christians,” Eli said. “One half wants a unified country and a liberal democracy. The other half wants a federation. There is no fascism. They just want to be left alone.”
“How likely is another civil war?” I said.
“The odds of civil war?” he said. “Between the Christian factions, zero. Maybe between Sunni and Shia. Less likely would be a war between Christians and Shia.”
“What about the Sunnis?” I said. “Where are they at right now?”
I asked Eli questions like these because he knows the Lebanese “street” better than almost anyone else in the world. He is paid a lot of money at his consulting firm for his advice, and he has hard data to back up what he says. He is not just mouthing off, and what he says comports well with my own readings of the country after living there and visiting several times.
“Recent polls show that 65 percent of Sunnis are at least moderately pro-American,” he said. “Most Sunnis who don’t think of the U.S. as an ally wish the U.S. was more of an ally.”
When my mother visited me in Lebanon I told her that the Sunni Muslims were slowly coming around and are no longer the anti-Americans they once were when they supported Yasser Arafat’s state-within-a-state in West Beirut. Today around 80 percent of them rally behind the Arab-style neoliberal agenda of Saad Hariri’s and Fouad Seniora’s Future Movement. The American support of Lebanon’s Sunnis against Hezbollah and the Syrians is paying off, though it is dampened by American support for the Israelis. She had a hard time believing me at first and was touched when a conservative Sunni shopkeeper in the northern city of Tripoli said “You [Americans] are new friends of ours here in Lebanon.”
“Before the 1970s our democracy was at least as good as in Italy or Greece,” Eli said. “[Egyptian President Gamal Abdel] Nasser and the Arab-Israeli war ruined us. Without Nasser, the PLO, and Assad we would be like Italy is right now, or at least like Greece. Our circumstances are bigger than the country. And our biggest problem right now are the ‘realists’ in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel.”
Most Lebanese think the American and Israeli “realists” who want to negotiate with the Syrians are painfully naïve at best, and downright sinister at worst. There’s an old saying about the Damascus regime in Beirut: Assad starts the fire, sells the water, and never delivers. And Lebanese will never forget that Secretary of State James Baker green-lighted Syrian domination of Lebanon for completely unneeded “help” in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
“We want to replace the March 14 movement with a broader civil society movement,” Eli said. He has been a big civil society booster in Lebanon since I have known him. “This way we can include the Aounists and isolate the pro-Syrians. Only around 30 percent of the Shia are ready for a movement like this, but the overwhelming majority from all other groups are already there. March 14 was the day the Muslims joined the Christians in the Lebanese project. It was in the making before, but it finally came into being then, on that day.”
I remember March 14 activists back in the day telling me the Christians and Sunnis of Lebanon were working on the formula to resolve the clash of civilizations. This can obviously never happen while Hezbollah blows up the country with their adventures on the southern border.
“The Druze, of course, have joined us as well,” Eli said. “I really like the Druze. They have deeply civilized values up there in those mountains.”
“What will it take to get the Shia on board with this project?” I said.
“The Shia are naturally liberal,” he said. “They are not, when left alone, interested in jihad. Traditionally they have been secular and leftist. Do you know why they used to be secular leftists?”
I didn’t.
“School teachers who were leftists weren’t wanted in Beirut,” he said. “So they were sent out to small towns in the Shia parts of the country. Then Iran came in and replaced them with Hezbollah. They will come around when Hezbollah is gone. [Samir] Kassir’s Democratic Left used to be communist and pro-Syrian. But now they are militantly anti-Syrian. When political theories fail in the Middle East they fail hard. People who believed in them have a tendency to support a total opposite point of view later. That’s why the Shia will be okay after Hezbollah is defeated.”
“Hezbollah will always have some support, though,” I said.
“Yes,” Eli said. “Among irrelevant people. The fact that we have some of these silly leftists who support Hezbollah just shows we are a normal country. We are like everyone else. Those people are everywhere. Did you see the protestors in London who said We are all Hezbollah now? Give me a break.”
“How many people in Lebanon hate Israel and want no peace ever?” I said. Rarely have I met anyone who says they never want peace. Online polls of Lebanese (which are of course unscientific) show overwhelming support for peace with Israel now or after outstanding issues between the two countries have been resolved. I have never seen “Peace never” receive more than a 10 percent response in these polls.
“Very very few,” Eli said. “60 percent of the [Israeli-backed until the year 2000] South Lebanese Army was Shia. The Shia were pro-Israel until Hezbollah came in from Iran, and they will be again when Hezbollah leaves.”
“How will Hezbollah ever leave, though?” I said. “What is the solution to this problem?”
“The solution to Hezbollah is [a United Nations] Chapter 7 [resolution],” Eli said. “Like in Kosovo. When there is a will, there is a way. It will take fighting, though. Hezbollah will not just give up their guns. One thing we can do is bring back General Aoun’s old officers. They have guts, and they are multi-confessional.”
He pulled out a piece of paper and drew, in a single flourish, a remarkably detailed silhouette map of Lebanon that included most, if not all, the contours of Lebanon’s coastline and borders. Then he drew circles around the Shia areas in the South and the Bekaa Valley.
“Block off the Shia areas,” he said. “Surround them utterly with international troops, like from NATO. NATO can do this if Israel stands aside, withdraws from the [allegedly occupied] Shebba Farms, and stops all these over flights. Then deploy smartly, and do it slowly. I’m not saying storm Lebanon, go house to house, and kill a bunch of people. Just surround them, block them off from Syria forever, and announce that it’s over. 80 percent of Lebanon would accept this if it’s done right, with government and international approval, and if Israel, at the same time, resolves the outstanding issues.”
I instinctively opposed Israel’s invasion in July because I had little faith they could achieve their objectives, that the destruction would be mostly pointless. But I think this plan might actually work if the international community could ever be persuaded to go along, and if the Lebanese government ever actually asks for it. I don’t see either as terribly likely any time soon, though, and resolving the problem by severing Hezbollah’s links to Syria and Iran is probably better.
“If [Speaker of Parliament] Nabih Berri doesn’t vote for the tribunal [to put Syria officials on trial for assassinating former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri] this is where we are going. Only Hezbollah will seriously oppose it, plus the fools on the radical left, but they are irrelevant. Aoun keeps telling Lebanon that the United States doesn’t care about our problems and will never save us. If this happens he will lost all his credibility. You have to have faith in the Lebanese public to move forward. If Seniora calls all Lebanese to go downtown tomorrow and publicly oppose Syria and Iran, they will do it.
Of course they would. They already did it on March 14, 2005, and they did it without being asked.
“If Lebanon gets a strong anti-Hezbollah leadership," he said, "the country will enthusiastically follow.”
I told him I thought it would be a better idea to cut Hezbollah off from Syria and Iran, but he didn’t agree. “Cripple Hezbollah and Syria. Then go after Iran. Half the problems in Iraq would be solved at that point.”
The problem with all this is that it’s purely intellectual and theoretical. None of it is going to happen. Like it or not, the United States is retreating for now into a “realist” posture where tyrants and the status quo are frozen in place. Many Republicans and even most Democrats are behind this even though it’s the old right-wing position the left used to hate.
Eli isn’t happy with this at all. “I am a liberal by nature,” he said. “But this is a luxury in the Middle East. We have to be a little bit neocon here in Lebanon. Otherwise we cannot survive.”
Post-script: If you like what I write, please click the Pay Pal button and help make it happen. I have to eat and pay bills, and your donations are the only thing that makes my work possible. I would do this for free if I could, but we don’t live in a Star Trek money-free universe yet.
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.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 01:34 AMAnother excellent article Michael. However anyone holding out for some kind of international solution to HA in Lebanon is simply living in dreamland IMO. The only way this is likely (and I am really speculating here) is that a US attack on Iran will ensure that the entire region heats up for a while with Lebanon (as ever) playing its role as the fighting ground. Maybe, just maybe that would sufficiently weaken HA to enable the more pro western parties to take control. Several commentators were also surprised that Israel took so many pains to treat Syria carefully in the recent war. There seemed to be real confusion (which seemingly remains) in how to deal with Assad
Posted by: saul Richmond at February 7, 2007 02:42 AMOne is reminded of Deep Throat's advice: "Follow the money." This is why addressing Iran and Syria before Hizbullah is perhaps the best strategy.
Iran may provide the strategic inspiration but Syria is surely the high street bank and shopping mall for Hizbullah's material assets.
When offered an option of a guarantee on his regime's survival in return for reducing support for Hizbullah, Assad will surely always look to back the longevity of his regime. It's just a matter of getting the right carrot/stick package together which is what the US realists are debating at the moment.
Whilst this does nothing to improve the prospects for the Syrian people, the Lebanese would surely appreciate anything that reduces Syria's involvement.
If Syria's fingers were materially taken out of Lebanon, would Iran logistically be able to send money and arms to Hizbullah directly?
Posted by: Neil at February 7, 2007 02:50 AMGreat post, MJT.
I commmend you on touching on so many aspects often missed by Western media and analysts. Indeed, the "‘realists’ in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel" , as well as those retards who protest that "We are all Hezbollah now" seem stuck in a 1950's cold war frame of mind.
It is rare that Westerners point out the appearance of "a de-facto Syrian-Israeli axis". The net effect the one dimensional view of the world, exemplified by the summer war, was that Israel destroyed Lebanon, making it just weak enough for Syria to barge back in. The Israeli "Bitkhonim" obsessions is costing us dearly; as you point out that "both kill Lebanese and leave each other alone". Indeed, in a previous life, I recall being shot at from both sides, and the "fishy" war remind me of the days when both sides appeared to use us in their chess game...
Further compounding the problem is that, while a "Alawite government in Syria is good for us", this one is led by a "fils-a-papa" with a short-term, mafia-style interest. I fear that the net results of his policies is tho bring Salafis in charge of Syria in the near future.
An interesting point your interlocutor raises is that while "Before Pierre Gemayel was assassinated Aoun polled at around 37 percent of Christians [and] Geagea is at around 27 percent", I think the trend now is somewhat reversed, after last Tuesday's event. Trouble is, people have nowhere else to go; not only does "Seniora lack balls", but it his alliance who brought back Berri, and his governement who got Hezb in...
We're stuck between incompetence on one side, and fanatics on the other. While we paid the price for the come back of "realists" in the US, recall that you owe 9/11 in large part to those same realists.
If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting.
Posted by: Jeha at February 7, 2007 03:46 AMThe SSNP is not a branch of the Baath Party. Ideologically they are not Arab nationalists; they want to merge Greater Syria, as you mentioned, but because they want to unite historical "Syrians", not Arabs. They have favored Syria historically for that reason, not really because they share the same ideology as the Baath. They have allies in the Baath regime (they've recently been legalized there), but they are not pan-Arabist. They are the non-Arab answer to the Baath. They include Cyprus because they believe it to be geographically part of Syria. Note that there is nothing particuarly ethic about this. It's mostly a geographical thing that says Syria is a "nation" and comprises the borders they claim. There is a Lebanese branch of the Baath, but I forget what it's called. The Kataeb itself was inspired by Hitler and by Franco; its founders said as much and were not apologetic about it. Most of the militias in Lebanon, esepcially the Christian ones, have their inspiration in continental nationalist thinking. The SSNP is not the Baath though, ideologically or practically.
Posted by: Nouri Lumendifi at February 7, 2007 03:49 AMThe Iraq experience has probably made a good chunk of Americans skeptical about every sending in troops to that region to foster some sort of democracy.
If 80% of Lebanon supports disarming Hezbollah than they should do it themselves.
Posted by: NM at February 7, 2007 03:55 AMYesterday I wrote comparing your reporting with that of the BBC's Jim Muir at my blog - http://www.di2.nu/200702/06.htm - then today you go and prove the point with this. I have never seen the BBC (or for that matter any traditional media folk) write this kind of informative background piece. Thank you and keep up the (very) good work!
Posted by: Francis at February 7, 2007 04:13 AMSurely the problem with Syria is that there is no alternative at the moment except Islamic / Muslim brotherhood type groups.
So while the Baathist regime's behaviour may be ruthless and immoral, from an Israeli stand point at least it is predicatable and there are certain red lines that (for Israel at least) won't be crossed.
As a result, hoping for regime change in Syria won't be enough. Instead, maybe there needs to be a programme of fostering a sensible opposition to Assad within Syria?
Posted by: Dirk at February 7, 2007 04:47 AMMJT,
You always talk badly about the SSNP and always mention the swastika on their flag.
I always thought it was a tornado but that's probably my ignorance.
But I find it a bit strange that you start your same article by praising Ghassan Tweini (one of the founders of the SSNP) who was the first deputy for the SNNP and who probably had a lot to say in choosing a logo for the party and shaping the original ideology?
Of course today he is has a disagreement with them but your complain about them never seems to be the current party behavior but their whole conceptual ideology which he helped found...
I personally know a few SSNP members and they are not half as bad/violent as you make them seem, their unification "dream" doesn't mean they want Lebanon to be ruled by Syria's dictator du jour, rather a big free big democratic country composed of current Lebanon Syria (and a few others) ... but that's another story for another thread.
Posted by: Anonymous Leb at February 7, 2007 06:19 AMNouri Lumendifi is right 100%, actually until rather recently the SSNP and the Baath were deadly foes.
Posted by: Anonymous Leb at February 7, 2007 06:23 AMNouri Lumendifi, and Anonymous Leb have a point;
Arab politics is still stuck in a time warp, with a fascit-style parties and communist-inspired groupings. Most intellectuals of any measure actually aligned themselves with one or the other.
Ghassan Tueni, to his credit, evolved away from that. Others did not have the same good judgement. Today, we are far from the ideolgies of old; the parties are but shells to facilitate family or clanic ambitions. Except, that is, for the fundamentalist parties, who build real political machines based on ideologies.
Posted by: Jeha at February 7, 2007 06:51 AMLebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel
Tragic, because the best thing the Lebanese could do for their country is make peace with Israel.
They would have nothing to lose but everything to gain.
In one fell swoop they would undermine Hezbollah's excuse to stockpile weapons that threaten their own country even more than Israel. And they would have a new found ally in their existential struggle with Syria.
I wonder how the Lebanese populace would respond to the initiation of a peace process?
Posted by: mertel at February 7, 2007 07:01 AMA large number of people in an Arabic country openly supporting an Israeli war against another Arab country would have been something to see. It would have changed forever some of the geopolitical dynamics in the Levant.
That's happened a couple of times already, but the world is determined to forget about it. (If they remember, they might get blown up by a terrorist bomb, right?)
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 7, 2007 07:27 AM1) Israel's invasion to destroy the PLO of Lebanon in 1982.
2) Osirak.
3) Israel's own Arab population, which clearly supported Israel's wars in 1973 and 2006.
We're stuck between incompetence on one side, and fanatics on the other.
I think that about covers it for Lebanon, Israel, the US...
Another fine interview, MJT -- I had to stuff the tip jar for this one.
Mertel is right -- alas Siniora lacks the courage and/or will to be so daring -- but what an astonishing way to disrupt the regional calculus it would be for Lebanon and Israel to sneak off together and make peace. I get such a strong sense that Israelis and Lebanese are very much alike in many ways. If there is a hope to resolve the multiple clashes of cultures, these two countries look like they have the best chance. (Wow, on the other hand, that's depressing!)
When Siniora's remarks about 'the Arab nation last to make peace with Israel' were reported in the Israeli media, I got the sense very few people in Israel took it literally, and regarded it as meaningless political-ass-covering by an essentially powerless and fawning head of state, although it was of course used as fodder by all sides. MJT -- do you really think Israel's leaders were confused by that statement? Is it really possible the Lebanese didn't see how that could be taken at face value?
Posted by: Pam at February 7, 2007 08:08 AM“Block off the Shia areas,” he said. “Surround them utterly with international troops, like from NATO. NATO can do this if Israel stands aside, withdraws from the [allegedly occupied] Shebba Farms, and stops all these over flights. Then deploy smartly, and do it slowly...
MJT, you opposed this approach when it was proposed using Lebanese Army troops. Why, when NATO doesn't even know the locals from the guerillas, could NATO by itself hope to succeed if Lebanese themselves don't even hope to try?
Furthermore, why didn't Lebanon support a Chapter 7 approach last summer, rather than pushing for Chapter 6? Why would Lebanese support a Chapter 7 resolution now when they didn't support it then?
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 7, 2007 08:15 AM"Eli isn’t happy with this at all. “I am a liberal by nature,” he said. “But this is a luxury in the Middle East. We have to be a little bit neocon here in Lebanon. Otherwise we cannot survive.”"
Wow! I never thought I'd see a quote from a Lebanese that so perfectly expressed how I feel about current world politics. And I think a great many Israelis would agree with this statement, ie. all those that used to vote for the left but have shifted to the right since the 2nd intifada and 9/11.
Michael, would you say that these moderate opinions are typical of a large number of Lebanese? How about Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis etc?
Posted by: jonorose at February 7, 2007 08:52 AMExcellent, excellent, excellent, as a Lebanese I can affirm that Eli's statements are the closest to Lebanese realty. He has an excellent and grounded understanding of the Lebanese events, history and body politic. That's a good friend to have.
Posted by: Rami at February 7, 2007 08:58 AMIt occurs to me to wonder: what if Israel, in a concession to get formal peace with Lebanon, agreed to hand over the Sheeba Farms area? Not because they necessarily agree that it should be (or ever was) part of Lebanon -- but just because it is something to give in exchange for getting Hezbollah under control of the national government.
The Syrians would likely be furious, of course. But would that kind of concession make a significant difference in the dynamics within Lebanon?
Posted by: wj at February 7, 2007 09:28 AMAnonymous Leb: But I find it a bit strange that you start your same article by praising Ghassan Tweini (one of the founders of the SSNP) who was the first deputy for the SNNP and who probably had a lot to say in choosing a logo for the party and shaping the original ideology?
Tueni today is ideologically the opposite of the SSNP. He sort of proves one of Eli Khoury's points about what happens to people who walk away from a failed ideology. Tueni is a very old man, and the SSNP is a very old party. I'm not going to hold it against him that he belonged to then, what, 50 years ago?
Of course today he is has a disagreement with them but your complain about them never seems to be the current party behavior but their whole conceptual ideology which he helped found...
My complaint is about both. If the SSNP had evolved into a liberal party instead of a Hezbo-Baath ally I would say very different things about them.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 10:29 AMSolomon2: MJT, you opposed this approach when it was proposed using Lebanese Army troops.
The Lebanese army effectively does not exist. Tattoo that on your forehead. You really have no idea how weak and useless that "army" is after suffering 15 years of deliberate subversion, degradation, and sabatoge by the Syrians.
Forget the Lebanese army for at least the next ten years. The Iraqi army, weak as it is, is vastly superior.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 10:35 AMA great interview with a person who, I think, represents the best in the March 14th movement at the moment, especially that Samir is gone.
Yet, I don't agree with his NATO idea. The only, and easiest, solution for Lebanon is toppling Assad's regime, something very much doable, but is not being done for the reason mentioned in the interview itself.
Thanks MJT.
Well, another Lebanese liberal who wants outsiders to do garbage collection for Lebanon.
Hezbollah is not comprised of Syrians and Iranians. Not majority of it anyway.
HA foot soldier's mind set has to be changed through more effective propaganda rather than through 'I love life' billboards. Once it is done HA will go away on its own or with relatively light push.
"Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel"
I do not think Seniora needs to worry about misinterpretation. Even I did not interpret this wrong way. Everybody knows, Lebanon is not its own master. Not just yet, but I am wishing and hoping.
Posted by: leo at February 7, 2007 10:50 AMWell, another Lebanese liberal who wants outsiders to do garbage collection for Lebanon.
Hezbollah is not comprised of Syrians and Iranians. Not majority of it anyway.
HA foot soldier's mind set has to be changed through more effective propaganda rather than through 'I love life' billboards. Once it is done HA will go away on its own or with relatively light push.
"Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel"
I do not think Seniora needs to worry about misinterpretation. Even I did not interpret this wrong way. Everybody knows, Lebanon is not its own master. Not just yet, but I am wishing and hoping.
Posted by: leo at February 7, 2007 10:51 AMWow, Michael. Real information that I can't get from the MSM or the internet. Excellent.
Those advancing the idea that all that needs to be done is topple Assad are offering a simplified solution. How do you know what will replace it? How do you know what the other players will do? Turks? Saudis? Iranians? Russians? Chinese? Europeans? You just don't go around toppling regimes w/o feeling confidant the ramifications will go in your favor. At least not responsibly.
Posted by: cb at February 7, 2007 11:16 AM"HA foot soldier's mind set has to be changed through more effective propaganda rather than through 'I love life' billboards. Once it is done HA will go away on its own or with relatively light push."
If you know a more effective propoganda meme than "I Love Life", please, by all means, share.
Posted by: Jason at February 7, 2007 11:45 AMi never imagined that seniora meant something else when he said lebanon would be the last to make peace with israel. amazing the ambiguity (unintentional and intentional) around here.
i do wonder how strong hizbullah would remain if nasrallah was 'removed' from the picture. his personality cult is amazingly addictive to the shia. but, then again, i see how hamas has survived despite the severe culling of it's leadership.
Posted by: abu yussif at February 7, 2007 12:03 PMThe Lebanese army effectively does not exist.
Omega80 disagreed with your assessment of the Lebanese Army. Though I wonder, if the L.A. is as hopeless as you say, whether the "nonlethal" military supplies the U.S. is sending to Lebanon will really stay with the Army, or will they instantly be redistributed to militias, as happened in the 1980s?
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 7, 2007 12:07 PMMichael, have you read DEBKA's report today about the establishment of a Special Hariri Tribunal?
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3816
Wondering what you think the effects might be.
Posted by: Anne Lieberman at February 7, 2007 12:34 PMGranted that I am sitting far and away in a land where the price of freedom was bought long ago and although repaid recently, true sacrifice hasn't been a requirement of an entire generation (only those who admirably chose to serve) - my take is that the Lebanese Army must be the first movers. It seems like Hezbollah has the might of a guerilla army - small arms and tanks. If the Lebanese army comprising most of the other parts and under the auspices of the goverment moved against Hezbollah it would be the only chance to shame the international community into doing the right thing.
The problem is that the UN is not going to fix it, and the US has higher priority targets before Hezbollah. I can't help but think how much this is like LOTR. People with the strength to fight won't. Those with the courage to do so can't. But perhaps like the courage of Pippin and Merry shamed others to do more the Labanese Army or general populace could do the same. Regardless fighting evil is almost always a bloody affair.
Posted by: Brendan at February 7, 2007 12:36 PMAnne,
I have to ignore Debka. They are sometimes right, but so often wrong and unreliable. Same with Stratfor, which I learned the hard way by quoting something silly they published and got my ass fact-checked.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 01:06 PMThe elephant in the room is the fact that Hezbollah has remained the only armed faction in Lebanon. Thus, the end result of all the losses in the civil wars was to give them essentially de-facto control over the country.
One of the rationalizations of this is that they were resistance to Israel. But this was a copeout. Israel left Lebanon, most Lebanese don't have problems w. Israel, they know that Hezbollah is a Iranian/Syrian creation. So by leaving Hezbollah armed, they bought themselves the current reality.
If they went through the trouble of civil wars, they should, at least, have rid themselves of ALL the armed militia. But they did not, either because they would not, or could not, and they are now living the consequences.
BTW, the Israeli failures are of a similar nature: in the same way in which the Lebanese may have to fight again (under much worse circumstances), so will Israel.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 01:17 PMMichael,
That's my impression of Debka too. I used to read them regularly and I became wary of their "Debka exclusive sources", which were frequently wrong. What is more, they often contradicted themselves in back-to-back comments.
The trick is to know when they do have something, but that is hard, unless it's consistent with one's known reliable knowledge and sound reasoning.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 01:21 PMI must agree with a previous comment elsewhere on this blog that the root problem in Lebanon is lack of natioanl cohesion. No outsider can create this, let alone the UN. I mean, it's the colonial powers that created these states and yet only where they left dictators/autocrates the state survived. In Lebanon there was not one and it didn't.
I recall how the pro-Iraq war faction was referring to the nationalism/patriotism of iraqis that would prevent a civil war or breakdown. But anybody who lived in the ME knows how much of an illusion that is. Topple the autocrats/dictators of the ME and you'll end up with the same consequences as in Iraq.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 01:30 PMReligious fanaticism is a strong enough factor for continuity in the face of leader elimination.
After all, you're following god, and he knows what he is doing, and if you want to reach paradise and those virgins, you cannot possibly stop.
Exactly right: "I love life" is precisely what Islamists count on to win.
History shows that those who are not prepared to suffer and die for their cause lose.
This is exactly what is happening to the west vs. islamism.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 01:40 PMPeace with Israel would have enormously benefitted ALL arab countries, particularly the palestinians.
As I already stated, one tragedy of the arabs -- and there are quite a few of them -- is that they hate israel more than they love their own life and future.
The arab regimes have no legitimacy, which is why they use hatred of Israel (and the west) as a substitute. So the arabs lose in two ways: from a costly conflict w. israel (it causes palestinian self-destruction now), and it keeps those awful regimes in power.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 01:47 PMfp -- I understand what you are saying, but does that mean the only answer is to support dictators, the more horrible the better, in order to preserve order? Assad's father oversaw the death of something like 20,000 people in Hama over a week. Is that what we can look forward too?
I agree that we cannot expect democracy to be established overnight, but does that mean the choice is anarchy or dictatorship?
Posted by: Room 237 at February 7, 2007 02:00 PM
Michael, well done - fascinating stuff. You dig into the divisions within Lebanese society really well. It always seems to me that so many figures within Lebanese politics - Sunni, Shiite, or Maronite - have blood on their hands from the civil war that Westerners supporting one faction or another against (usually) Hezbollah and Syria could very well end up with egg on their faces. Such is the problem with backing someone like Aoun. Anyway, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Nick at February 7, 2007 02:08 PMThat's not what I meant at all.
I was referring to history and not making recommendations.
The reality is that most ME states are artificial creations of the colonial powers. Why those states ended up with dictators/autocrats has to do with both colonial and internal factors (there are links to sources on my blog that document that).
Undoing now what history has created -- including cultures -- will involve heavy costs. Whether those costs are worth paying is a normative issue.
Those trying to democratize the ME ought to consider this issue before they do it.
The current west knows very little about the history and culture of the ME. It either expects it to behave like the west (americans) or it appeases it (EU). Both will pay the price.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 02:11 PMIt is rare that Westerners point out the appearance of "a de-facto Syrian-Israeli axis".
The Israelis, sadly but naturally, are focused on their own border security. They would gladly sell out the Lebanese and give Lebanon to Syria if Syria would promise to crack down on Hezbollah and prevent the border attacks. This includes most of the peace movement, too; they're so transfixed on the idea of "peace" with Syria that they'd sell out the Lebanese eagerly.
So far Bush and the Administration has done quite well in resisting the pushes from left and right to sell out Lebanon. I only hope it lasts, and I fear as Michael does that the rising wave in American politics opposes it. It's always so much easier to sit back and let the dictators take over.
Posted by: John Thacker at February 7, 2007 02:55 PMFor anyone wondering, the Hebrew in the Hizbollah poster says:
Sharon, Don't Forget that Your Soliders are Still in Lebanon.
With the pictures, it's pretty eary.
By the way, I wouldn't pay much attention to this guy, he sounds like another Ahmed Chalabi type trying to get us to intervene in others' affairs for personal gain. The statement that half our problems in Iraq would be solved if we "got rid" of Iran is absurd. Even if true, we'd still have the other half of the big problems we have in Iraq and we would also have hundred times more problems in figuring out what to do with Iran. The Israelis, unfortunately, are right. The Ba'ath need to stay in power in Syria, and the Middle East would be a much more stable place if the other Ba'ath (who hated the Syrian Ba'ath) were still in power in Iraq. Sad, but true.
Posted by: Jon S. at February 7, 2007 03:15 PMThe Israelis should not be expected to settle inter-arab conflicts, so references to them "selling out" the lebanese reflect an attitude that does not warrant comment.
For a country that did not have peace for its entire existence, it would be insane not to be transfixed on peace. Unfortunately, the current leadership is incompetent and weak and, therefore, too eager offer concessions. But none of this has anything to do with "selling out" Lebanon.
In the same manner in which nobody is lifting a finger to solve Israel's problems with the arabs, nobody should expect Israel to solve Lebanon's problems.
The fact is that had it not been for Syria and Iran, Lebanon wouldn't have had a problem; or at the very least, it would have been a solvable problem.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 03:26 PMhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_lebanon
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359786340&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 03:29 PMThe fact is that had it not been for Syria and Iran, Lebanon wouldn't have had a problem; or at the very least, it would have been a solvable problem.
And had it not been for Syria and Iran, Lebanon wouldn't have been a problem for Israel; or at the very least, it would have been a solvable problem. Yet Israel goes and attacks Lebanon rather than Syria.
Israel is eager to conclude a peace treaty with Syria, and would not shed a tear if the price of that treaty was US and Israeli acceptance of Syrian dominance of Lebanon.
Posted by: John Thacker at February 7, 2007 04:01 PM“Block off the Shia areas,” he said. “Surround them utterly with international troops, like from NATO. NATO can do this if Israel stands aside, withdraws from the [allegedly occupied] Shebba Farms, and stops all these over flights. Then deploy smartly, and do it slowly. I’m not saying storm Lebanon, go house to house, and kill a bunch of people. Just surround them, block them off from Syria forever, and announce that it’s over. 80 percent of Lebanon would accept this if it’s done right, with government and international approval, and if Israel, at the same time, resolves the outstanding issues.”
I agree with Eli Khoury and want the same thing he does. Sadly, the lesson of Iraq has taught me to be wary—very wary—about such guarantees.
Posted by: Zak at February 7, 2007 04:02 PMfp: nobody should expect Israel to solve Lebanon's problems.
Right. But Lebanon's worst problems always become Israel's problems. At the very least Israel shouldn't make those problems worse.
Conveniently, solving Lebanon's (external) problems will also resolve Israel's Lebanon problem. Lebanese understand this better than Israelis do, which I find amazing and strange to say the least.
The fact that Assad keeps a quiet border with Israel is irrelevant because he uses Hezbollah to hit Israel instead. It makes little difference from where Assad attacks Israel. The fact remains that he attacks Israel. Keeping him around guarantees he will continue attacking Israel because it pays off.
There is no way Assad will sign a peace treaty with Israel, ever, unless his choice is to sign or be destroyed.
A negotiated treaty is pure fantasy. Assad cannot remain in power in Syria without the Arab-Israeli conflict. His existence requires that war to continue forever, or until the war comes to Damascus.
I'm sorry, that's just how it is. The sooner the Israelis figure that out, the better.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 04:14 PMIt's amazing to me what sort of requirements people have of Israel that they never require of anybody else.
Israel did not attack Lebanon, it attacked those who attacked it from Lebanon. It's not Israel's fault that Hezbollah is holding Lebanon as a shield to serve Iranian/Syrian objectives. I wonder what position you would take if your country were in Israel's situation.
Had Israel attacked Syria, the world would have have then criticized Israel for expanding the war to a country that did not fire a shot, destabilizing the whole ME. There is NOTHING that Israel can do that satisfies its critics. What exactly have you ever expressed about Hezbollah attacking civilians in Israel? Anything?
Would any of the arab countries, including Lebanon, shed a tear if Israel were wiped off the map? So why should Israel? It's its responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, as is Lebanon's to protect its. The only difference is that Israel cares and does, and the arab countries don't care and don't.
So please.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 04:20 PMMichael,
Agreed. The problem is that Israel by itself cannot solve the external problems, precisely because the west acts like it did facing the nazis. Therefore, Israel is compelled to do the next best thing and defend itself.
When Israel solved an external problem for the world by bombing the Iraq reactor, all the world got up in arms criticizing it. I wonder where we would have today with a nuclear saddam.
Israel may well be forced to solve the external problem again, but thats only because the west is so hypocritical and pathetic in fulfilling its responsibilities.
The fact is Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. The world did not like the jews when they could not defend themselves, and not when they can. They only like them dead.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 04:27 PMIn fact, there are writings out there that recognize that using proxies is much more effective for Assad and Iran than doing the fighting themselves, which they would lose.
The reason Assad won't sign peace w. Israel is that without the scapegoat of Israel his regime would not survive. As I said before, the alawite minority has no legitimacy and were it not for the scapegoat, he could not justify the nature of his regime. The only way to survive is to destabilize the region without direct fighting.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 04:32 PMfp: Had Israel attacked Syria, the world would have have then criticized Israel for expanding the war to a country that did not fire a shot
So what? The world demonizes Israel no matter what, so that doesn't make any difference. Israel should seek results, period.
What exactly have you ever expressed about Hezbollah attacking civilians in Israel? Anything?
I was in civilian areas in Israel that were under bombardment by Hezbollah rockets. I was one of the civilians being (indirectly) targetted. So what do you think I had to say about it? I sure as shit didn't approve of rockets that might have killed or wounded me personally.
You can read what I wrote under fire here, here, here, and here.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 04:34 PMfp: The only way to survive is to destabilize the region without direct fighting.
Yes. So shut the fucker down or live with his exported instability forever. It's that simple.
Hezbollah will exist as long as the Syrian and Iranian regimes exist. Any more adventures in Lebanon need to factor that into account.
Asking the Lebanese army to shut down Damascus and Tehran is like asking Kuwaitis to pull off a regime-change in Baghdad or asking Panama to fix Colombia. This problem is way bigger than Lebanon. Pretending otherwise guarantees failure.
The best Israel can accomplish in Lebanon is damage control, and they aren't even very good at that.
Donald Rumsfeld was right: If you find yourself with a problem you cannot solve, enlarge it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 04:41 PMFP, you make many good points, however, please remember that without "The West", i.e. the U.S. (where I live), there would not be an Israel. On a personal note, I still remember my father showing me pictures that he had taken (quite against regulations) of some Concentration Camps he had helped liberate during his walk from France to Germany in 1944 & 1945.
The U.S. has many faults, and we've made, are making, and will continue to make mistakes, though hopefully in the end our decisions will have been "good enough".
BTW, I was quite vocal at the time in my support about the service Israel did for the world by bombing the Iraq reactor. My guess is that either us or Israel (or both) will have to do the same thing to Iran.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at February 7, 2007 04:57 PMMichael,
Of course it should. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hold only Israel to standards that they would not dream applying to the other side.
However, with Israel encircled by enemies, Europe whoring for the moslems/arabs, and anti-semitism rising even in the US, don't so cavalierly dismiss the potential consequences for Israel. The distance between criticism and doing damage is not as long as some think.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 05:21 PMMichael,
The question was not directed at you, but at those here who criticize Israel for attacking lebanon and not syria.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 05:23 PMA negotiated treaty is pure fantasy. Assad cannot remain in power in Syria without the Arab-Israeli conflict. His existence requires that war to continue forever, or until the war comes to Damascus. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. The sooner the Israelis figure that out, the better.
Bingo, Michael. The Islamic credentials of the ruling Alawites has always been suspect because they are considered heretics. Thus, they gain their legitimacy to rule by playing the radical Arab nationalist card—and that means leading the Arab world in opposition to Israel.
I don’t think the Alawites can hold on to power indefinitely. Their time will come. If Israel made peace with the current regime, it is up in the air as to whether the succeeding regime will honor the peace. It’s probably a mute point anyway since I don’t see Assad making peace with Israel.
Posted by: Zak at February 7, 2007 05:30 PMMichael,
I agree.
But Israel cannot be expected to solve regional and world problems for the west. It has limited resources and is surrounded by enemies both in the area and among those who ought to support it.
So as long as it is left to fend for itself don't be surprised if it'll be confused and fuck up. I mean, relative to what the US has done in Iraq and the cowardice and stupidity of the EU, Israel's failures are resounding successes.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 05:34 PMFP, you make many good points, however, please remember that without "The West", i.e. the U.S. (where I live), there would not be an Israel.
I am not sure what this means. But Israel was established because of the hard work and sacrifice of thousands of Jews who fought their asses off in the 1948 Israel/Arab War. The "West" did not help Israel, they did not send troops, they did not die for Israel. The US did nto send Israel arms, and neither did any other Western coutnry. In fact, the British tried to keep holocaust survivors from going to Israel to fight. The idea that the "West created Israel" is an anti-Semitic fallacy, usually propagated by Arabs and Jew-haters all around.
As for Michael's fantasy that Israel should topple the Syrian regime --- have you learned nothing from Iraq?????? If the US cannot accomplish anything in Iraq, what makes you think that Israel will accomplish something in Syria. You are living in fantasy-land dude. And Iran???? Please, you and what army. Anyone who says "Donald Rumsfeld was right" in connection with our foreign policy is living somewhere where clapping loud enough makes little fairies come to life. It's called Neverland.
Posted by: Jon S. at February 7, 2007 05:34 PMZak,
If you really read the history of Israel in detail you would see that given how the west ignored the holocaust, they were not exactly eager and helpful to create Israel. They reluctantly agreed to it almost by default and were never excited about it and very supportive.
The US has as much used Israel as support it, and it looks like it is on the verge of abandoning it out of the same reasons as EU. Just watch the dhimmicrats.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 05:40 PMJon,
You got it.
Michael is right that Syria OUGHT to be shut down. That, however, does not mean it is feasible or prudent.
Nothing unifies arab states as the hatred of Israel. Enlarging the war to Syria and Iran is not something to be done by Israel. But those who can and should do it are either cowardly or incompetent.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 05:45 PMMJT,
So what? The world demonizes Israel no matter what, so that doesn't make any difference. Israel should seek results, period.
Should, but cannot.
First of all, bombing Damascus (and Tehran) will not get Syria (and Iran) to stop sponsoring Hezbollah. It's a sad fact. It would kill a lot of people, but there's no guarantee that the people that take their place - if even the right people are killed - will be anti-Hezbollah or even neutral.
This is horrifically offensive in Lebanon, especially after the Israelis bombed Lebanon and left Syria alone last July.
It's horrifically offensive in Israel that Lebanon lets Hezbollah "guard" their Southern border and "protect" Beirut against Israeli invasion by launching cross border strikes into Israel and killing/kidnapping IDF soldiers and launching missiles into populations centers.
I know the anti-Hezbollah Lebanese always say there's nothing they can do about it - which means Israel is paying for Lebanon's unfinished/"cold" civil war.
And I don't blame Israel for not wanting a Muslim Brotherhood state in Syria (or Egypt - or anywhere else). As awful as Assad is, and he is, the B-team up there is just as bad - but nuttier.
It's not like Israel is propping up Syria to spite Lebanon.
If Lebanese are pissed, let them do something, but - I don't know - stop demonizing Israel - talk to them, try to make peace and form their own Israel-Lebanon-(Egypt-Jordan) axis against Syria.
Step up.
Maybe non-Hezbollah Lebanese should stop cowering at being called "Mossad" or "Zionist tools" and respond, "it's better than being a facist Syrian stooge" - and do something constructive.
Both sides are going to throw charges at the other ad naseum, and around and around it will go.
So what do the non-Hezbollah Lebanese suggest the Israelis do aside from bombing Damascus? And what do they have to say about - at a a minimum - back channel negotiations and coordination?
It's time to stop complaining (for both sides, I guess) and start talking and acting in concert for the greater good.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 06:03 PMI am not too worried (OK, a little) that Israel is that eager to make peace with Syria. The one public 'outline' I read had Israel hard line on a minimum 15-year phase out of the Golan before it would go to Syria, and other elements as well that said to me they won't budge as long as the situation looks unstable.
I heard half a dozen different IDF and political folks speak last June, and the one universal was that the Golan would never be just turned over to Syria. Any withdrawal by Israel -- which was resoundingly opposed by all anyhow -- would have to be exquisitely and very, very slowly executed. Even Olmert and Peretz aren't so stupid to think that having the Golan cliffs bristling with Syrian artillery would ever be tolerable.
But the same people also said that the Muslim Brotherhood is in very good position to take Syria in the next 4-5 years, and that would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel (and for Jordan) (and maybe also for Lebanon). It wasn't a question of not knowing who would replace Assad -- it was much more a matter of knowing, and knowing it would be much worse. It's not like Israel could occupy Syria, after all, now is it?
Not to mention Iran already had signed a pact to defend Syria by all means if it was attacked. I think Israel had to at least keep that in mind.
MJT, favorably quoting The Donald... shame on you.
Posted by: Pam at February 7, 2007 06:04 PMSo what? The world demonizes Israel no matter what, so that doesn't make any difference. Israel should seek results, period
I think Israelis want to live a normal life, just like other people in the West. The list of people who consider themselves enemies of Israel is pretty long, and many of these support (either financially or more directly) those trying to kill Israelis in one way or another.
If Israel went around the world killing all these terror-supporters, where would the bloodbath end? Jews get sick of making these bloody efforts, even when they are successful. I recall reading accounts of Jewish servicemen in the British Army at the end of WWII who popped into defeated Germany to exact deadly vengeance against prominent Nazis. They got tired of spilling blood fairly quickly and turned their attention to relieving refugees instead.
Probably something similar is working the Israeli psyche here; I know that's how my mind worked before MJT convince me otherwise. "The rockets aren't actually being launched from Syria, right? So ignore the Syrians."
The Israelis have to feel that it all goes together, then work up the courage to ignore international law and do the job. The world can openly hold its nose and secretly applaud afterwards.
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 7, 2007 06:04 PMAccording to information I have US did not involve itself with Israel as close as it is right now until after Yom Kippur war. Circa mid-70s.
Before that time Israel was buying military hardware mainly from France and was doing its own dying.
As to Lebanon, it may hate Israel but if they are smart they should learn from their enemies how to build a country, especially when chips are down and all you have is yourself.
May be then Seniora will not have the reason to think that "Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel".
Posted by: leo at February 7, 2007 06:10 PMPam:: MJT, favorably quoting The Donald... shame on you.
Well, did he have a point or didn't he? I think his remark was right on the money. Doesn't matter that he was wrong about other things.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 06:10 PM“How are we supposed to deal with Hezbollah when Israel’s Syrian buddies keep arming them?” he said.
That is an offensive statement. I don't care who this guy is.
“I don’t know,” I said. “He could explain the problem more clearly, but that would only get him in more trouble with the Syrians and with Hezbollah. He’s in an impossible position. So he should probably just shut up and not saying anything about it one way or another.”
No, he should exhibit - for once - courage. And tell the truth. Yes, many Lebanese have been assasinated by Syria for less. But at the end of the day - even in the tough positions they are in - the (non-Hezbollah) Lebanese are going to have to stand up.
I know it's easy for me to say - but it sure beats waiting around hoping that Israel and America "rescue" them by wiping Damascus and Tehran off the map.
It's not going to happen, and not because of the de-facto "Zionist-Crusader-Shia-Alawite axis," either.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 06:17 PMGreat article and discussion! As a Lebanese I agree with Eli's statements. I talk to a lot of Lebanese and the majority are very close to Eli's point of view which is the Lebanese realty.
Posted by: Ghassan at February 7, 2007 06:22 PM"Anything, even a bin Ladenist government, would be better than the Baath government"
What a sure-fire way of selling the Israelis on doing what you want them to do.
Come on.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 06:28 PM
FP, I never said that the West created Israel, nor did I mean to imply that (for all practical purposes) anyone other than Jews gave up their lives to create Israel.
Would you disagree that if the U.S., the U.K. and France had told the the Arabs after 1948 that they could do what they wanted to re Israel without any interference or retribution from the West, that there would no longer be an Israel?
Foremost, every Nation, including Israel, has interests, not friends (cannot find the source for that quote). We give Israel probably about $6 Billion a year in goods & services. I am in favour of our providing this aid, both in helping Israel to continue to exist, and for our own National (pardon me, selfish) interests.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at February 7, 2007 06:49 PMWell, at the same time US, France and UK have pumped tons of money into the terrorist palestinian factions and arab states and supported them politically. Had they not done that, they probably wouldn't have had to give so much money to Israel.
But you are right, if they support Israel is in line with their interests, and not out of altruism.
I was, however, referring to history, not what happens now.
Incidentally, Iran's islamic revolution WAS created by the west.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 06:57 PMSpeaking of Iran:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/8/2007&Cat=2&Num=17
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480×360.asp?ai=214&ar=1377wmv&ak=null
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 07:01 PMJustice,
The unfinished civil war is, indeed, THE ISSUE here. As I said earlier, fighting a civil war and then letting only one militia armed doesn't exactly justify blaming Israel for rearming Hezbollah, does it, particularly since it's so obviously absurd.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 07:13 PMThe quote regarding states having interests, not friends is De Gaulle: "Les Etats n'ont pas d'amis. Ils n'ont que des intérêts."
Posted by: shungry at February 7, 2007 08:11 PMSoCalJustice: What a sure-fire way of selling the Israelis on doing what you want them to do.
I partly agree with Eli, actually. Syria's Baath regime is extraordinarily brilliant. Assad outsmarts damn near everybody, and his imperial apparatus is vast.
Replacing him with Islamists would instantly destroy that imperial apparatus, and brilliance would be replaced with incompetence. A new regime there, no matter how foul, won't be able to accomplish squat or fool hardly anybody.
Syria is a poor and physically weak state. The only reason Assad can project power is because naive idiots get suckered by him again and again and again. No knee-jerk mullahcracy could get away with what he gets away with. And a knee-jerk mullahcracy would be much easier to resist inside Syria, and would (probably) instantly find itself subverted by the Syrian people themselves.
It would be a hideous thing. But most of the hideousness would be contained, whereas now most of the hideousness is exported.
I don't know. I could be wrong. But I totally get Eli's point.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 08:18 PMThis is a spectacular in-depth interview. It was so engrossing I couldn't stop reading and looking to see a healthy prescription and hoping against hope that it would finally come.
As it's not so easy in the real world. And sadly, it seems out of reach for Lebanon.
Forced to hit the tip jar. Outstanding article.
Posted by: Romanesq at February 7, 2007 08:42 PMMJT,
That might benefit the Lebanese and some Syrians who are anti-Baathist, but I still can't see the Israelis wishing for a Jihadist state bordering it.
The Baathists already support and harbor Hamas and Islamic Jihad. A Jihadist state would actively join in - and yes, they would get clobbered, but a lot more Israelis would have to die too.
If certain Lebanese are wishing for that, I guess I can understand - but from an Israeli perspective, it looks like he just want the heat (i.e. Syrian Baathism) taken off him and his people and shifted (even more) towards the Israelis - kind of a parallel move to what most corrupt and despotic Arab dictators have done since the mid-20th century.
And a knee-jerk mullahcracy would be much easier to resist inside Syria, and would (probably) instantly find itself subverted by the Syrian people themselves.
And replaced with?
Unfortunately, there are only two options for Syria (and almost every Arab country) right now - and they both suck.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 08:51 PMMichael,
There is something to what you say, however the advantage of a mullah-based regime would be the relative legitimacy. Fanaticism can beat incompetence, part. when suffering and martyrdom are prized.
I don't doubt that if Israel put its mind to it they could readily damage Syria and topple Assad. But there are regional issues to consider. As soon as the Israeli leadership thought the regime to be a serious threat, I'm sure they will do it, but not before.
Although I am quite worried about the current leadership, I must admit.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 09:08 PMThere is one thing that struck me, though, about the interview: one could not help contrasting the socio-economic status of Eli with that of the average shia in Lebanon: one would expect the difference between their positions.
Now, I am not ignoring the responsibility of the segments of lebanese society for their own circumstances, but still...
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 09:13 PMI don't mean to sound like I'm knocking real solutiosn to real problems.
I just don't think talking about a bin Ladenist Syria is practical or beneficial.
I know we're in the realm of "what will be less bad" and I know that there are loads of decent Lebanese who view Syria as a much greater threat and problem than the Israelis.
I would like to see those people work with the Americans and Europeans to figure out a decent solution to their problems.
Obviously calling Hezbollah the "National Lebanese Resistance" (cough UNSC Res 1559 cough) while the world is calling for their disarmement did not help.
If Seniora moves for a UNSC (or even General Assembly) Resolution which states that Israel should bomb Damascus in retaliation from future Hezbollah attacks, then I will support him. If he gives a speech saying that Israel is within its rights to attack Damascus until they give up support for Hezbollah, than I will support him.
Or any other Lebanese leader that takes such a stand.
Someone in a cafe saying such a thing to an American reporter, though - while nice, is not particularly helpful, unfortunately.
The Israelis take more heat than any other country in the world. They are scrutinized more than countries which are much bigger, much worse, in much safer neighborhoods with less hateful neighbors, etc... etc... etc....
Despite what Robert Fisk and Juan Cole say - they cannot and do not go around bombing people and can't just take out proxies.
They get accused of using pretexts when they attack people who are directly attacking them.
I wouldn't lose any sleep if they took out Asaad. Watching Diane Sawyer interview him - that giggly bastard - made me sick.
But where is the Lebanese intelligence services? Why have they not infiltrated Syria? Why do they not do to Syria what Syria is doing to them? Is there no underground movement? Can a Lebanese not pull off a Syrian accent? Steal some Syrian clothes? Get themselves close to the regime?
A Mossad agent did it (Eli Cohen) in the '60s. It was amazing.
Where are the patriotic Lebanese?
You would think it would be easier for them to do it than the Israelis.
Time for them to cause some mayhem.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 09:23 PMThe sad thing is that so many people consider themselves patriotic lebanese (and genuinely so), but I don't believe they realize what that would really entails.
As I said earlier, there isn't really national cohesion. There is loyalty to the faction, with its faction believing it is patriotic.
Given the demographics -- similar to everywhere else -- at some point the shia will be the majority and for some reason I doubt that will end well.
Posted by: fp at February 7, 2007 09:34 PMAnyway - don't mind me. Cranky after a long week - and it's only Wednesday!
Anyway, I'm glad things in Lebanon have quieted down since the protests.
Although the news from Israeli/Lebanon border today was troubling.
fp,
A few freelancers would be enough to get the ball rolling.
I would love to see a Lebanese intelligence officer take out a top Baathist, and watch everyone try to blame it on the Zionists.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 09:40 PMSoCalJustice: If he gives a speech saying that Israel is within its rights to attack Damascus until they give up support for Hezbollah, than I will support him.
Why should Israel get permission from Lebanon to bomb Syria? Israel will never get formal permission from Lebanon.
But I'll tell you this with certainty: No country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States, would support an Israeli invasion of Syria more than Lebanon would. The Lebanese government might pretend to oppose it in order to cover their ass, but the Lebanese street would would react very differently.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2007 09:49 PMMJT,
Why should Israel get permission from Lebanon to bomb Syria?
Even the world's only superpower looks for its "coalitions of the willing." The Lebanese gov't is not the only one that needs to "cover their ass."
but the Lebanese street would would react very differently.
The Lebanese street is, from all appearances, pretty equally divided.
Israel has every legitimate reason to attack Syria right now. And so do Lebanese, for that matter. But it's not going to happen for obvious political factors - at least not yet.
And as for the idea of Lebanese infiltrating Syria and getting close to the Baathists to cause mayhem - they should be doing the same to Hezbollah.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at February 7, 2007 10:10 PMFP Incidentally, Iran's islamic revolution WAS created by the west.
Well, the West certainly shot itself in the foot regarding Khomeini (i.e. the French giving him refuge and the CIA not appreciating the threat Khomeini posed), but I don’t think it’s not fair nor accurate to accuse the West of “creating” the Iranian Islamic Revolution. The Iranians obviously played a significant role, too.
Posted by: Zak at February 7, 2007 10:33 PMJon S. said:
"If the US cannot accomplish anything in Iraq, what makes you think that Israel will accomplish something in Syria. You are living in fantasy-land dude. And Iran???"
The U.S. cannot rebuild Iraq if Iraqi's and their arab brothers destroy the country. It cannot stop a pointless civil war either.
If Israel wanted to roll into Damascus they probably could, but any country would have a problem if they tried to integrate a country in the M.E. with the modern world. "Destroy things and go home" or "More rubble=less trouble" will replace retoric for peace and freedom which are foreign concepts to begin with.
Iran isn't a scary nation. Have the Persians ever fought a non-proxy war without gathering in large numbers and rushing the enemy? Napalm or cluster bombs could end the rush before it began. If it had to, I would bet that the U.S. could destroy the Iranian military next Tuesday. There would be partisans, but it wouldn't be major if it was a "kill everyone and go home" war.
Posted by: mikek at February 7, 2007 10:56 PMI would agree that, from my perspective, that Iran is not a scary Nation; until they have nukes.
Also, doubt that Israel would attack Syria without U.S. approval, or assistance. Not sure why we don't take out Syrian leadership, though I said the same thing about Arafat & also about currrent Iranian leaders. The Iranian "street" has had more than a generation to bring their country back into a civilized world.
Kind of like the "more rubble, less trouble" approach. Primitive, provincial, barbaric? Perhaps, but where has our rhetoric and diplomacy got us?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at February 8, 2007 04:31 AMThe Iranian "street" has had more than a generation to bring their country back into a civilized world. Kind of like the "more rubble, less trouble" approach. Primitive, provincial, barbaric? Perhaps, but where has our rhetoric and diplomacy got us? (Ron)
I think there are two points worth making regards Iran.
First of all, the Iranian population is in many ways less 'Islamic" than say the population of Saudi Arabia.
Reformists controlled both Parliament and the Presidency in the late 1990s and until 2005. And Ahmadinejad won more because of promises to dole out oil money to the poor than due to any kind of fundamentalist fervour.
Secondly, a lot of people make the mistake of comparing today's Iran to say Saddam's Iraq in 2002. A crazy, dangerous dicatorship in control of WMDs (leaving aside whether Iraq really had them!).
That's far from the case. The system of Government is kind of an Islamic oligarchy with various factions competing for the attention of the 'supreme leader' (Ahmadinejad is not a 'President' in an American sense), and one group which is again gaining ground is the realists around former President Rafsanjani, who are old style capitalists and Islamic conservatives.
Allegedly they offered the US a deal in 2003 to end support for radical Lebanese and Palestinian groups in exchange to an end to sanctions - not unlike the kind of deal the US ended up making with Gaddafi's Libya.
Recent media reports coming from inside Iran is that the realists are taking the US threats seriously and are starting to sideline Ahmadinejad, apparently he was slapped down in a recent session with the supreme leader when he said that sanctions wouldn't matter to Iran.
The point is that an agreement with Iran might well be possible that would involve among other things Hezbollah's dollar pipeline being shut off. With a still largely poor population of 70 million, that wouldn't be that unpopular on the Iranian 'street.'
Posted by: Dirk at February 8, 2007 06:53 AM"If 80% of Lebanon supports disarming Hezbollah than they should do it themselves."
My sentiments exactly. Smart bombs are for dummies.
Posted by: redaktor at February 8, 2007 07:10 AMDirk, I appreciate your points.
Two items:
1) I believe that the Kurds, Iraqi Marsh Arabs and Iranians would attest to the fact that Iraq did indeed have, and used, WMD's (not nukes, but WMD nonetheless).
2) How close do we let Iran get to having a Nuke before we take action to stop them? We hosed up with North Korea, and the world will pay a price for that (read China and especially Japan's point of view on this topic). I do not want to repeat the same mistake with Iran. For over twenty years I have been hearing about how Iran (i.e. "the street") is not so bad; the actions of the Iranian government would indicate otherwise.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at February 8, 2007 08:47 AMWhat would Israel DO with Syria after they invade? What the US did in Iraq?
What about the treaty it has with Iran? Does Israel need another proxy front? Aren't 3 such fronts enough (Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank)?
The sheer fact that Lebanon would bless it is not good enough motive. To repeat: only perception that Syria is a serious or imminent threat would drive such a step.
The only question is whether Israel's current politicians and military would be capable to perceive such a threat and have the guts to take action. There I am not so sure, but that is another matter.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 11:02 AMZak,
Khomeini is not the only suicidal creation or pumpup of the west. So is Saddam, Osama, Noriega, you name it. In fact, most of the enemies of the west were such.
BTW, Jimmah Carter and Brzezinsky who now pontificate on ME conflicts and think the US should talk to Iran, Syria and Hamas are the ones that armed Osama in Afghanistan and let the shah fall. Tha gall.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 11:08 AMAllegedly they offered the US a deal in 2003 to end support for radical Lebanese and Palestinian groups in exchange to an end to sanctions - not unlike the kind of deal the US ended up making with Gaddafi's Libya.
The deal was for us to end sanctions and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.
The quality of intelligence information is an essential part of asymetric warfare. This 'offer' was an attempt by Iran to disable our intelligence gathering ability while gaining diplomatic cred. What were they offering us in return? Words, as usual. Do you really believe that they'd disband Hezbollah, disarm them or end their support of the strongest paramilitary force in the region (other than Israel)?
If we'd gone through with the deal, Iran's support of Hezbollah and other 'militant' groups would be covert rather than overt - and, with our lack of intelligence info, covert operations would be easier.
They'd also have the cash and ability to increase their support of terrorism and they'd gain a lot of status in the Middle East for their successful efforts to cheat the Western rubes. Following in Libya's footsteps...
Our decision to turn Iran's offer down was the right one.
Posted by: mary at February 8, 2007 11:10 AMSigning any arrangement with Iran would be a fantasy: apocalyptic moonbats waiting for the Mahdi just CAN'T stop what god tells them to do. Bear in mind that Islam permits to lie to the infidels and sign TEMPORARY agreements with them.
The mullahs are weak. That should be exploited:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/iran_no_bombs_no_appeasement.html
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 11:15 AMSpeaking of Iran:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26853
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 11:20 AMThe US let the Shah fall and the french flew Khomeini to Iran. That sounds like created to me.
Even if the US propped the shah he might have fallen anyway, but without the french prostituting themselves, Khomeini might have not been the substitute.
Moreover, EU (helped by "allies" China and Russia) have propped the islamic republic to where it is today.
So please.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 11:52 AMFP,
At times the US was allied with some of those characters when some of our interests lined up with there. I think it is a stretch to say the West created them. In international relations you have to work with who you got. Just because Bin Laden wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan at a time when we did to0 (and so we supported the mujahadeen) doesn't mean we created him.
Posted by: Zak at February 8, 2007 03:56 PMfp, my point was that there is nothing Israel could do in Syria if they toppled the leadership. Why waste time trying to create a country if you can just destroy everything and go home?
If people decide that they are going to fight you can either destroy them or beat the will to fight out of them. It's up to you when and why you do it.
Posted by: mikek at February 8, 2007 04:02 PMThe problem is that the west has little understanding of other cultures, and very myopic, short-term perceptions of interests. In almost everything they did in the middle east they fucked up. Yet now the only problem seems to be Israel. Massive stupidity.
We do not have refined enough measurements to decide whether it was creation or not. Let me put this way: they have a lot to answer for.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 04:17 PMIn the ME there is no such thing as destroy and go home. Ask the americans, and they don't have borders with iraq.
I know of nothing that can substitute the Assad regime that would make any significant beneficial difference to Israel.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 04:20 PMFP, you do get a bit exercised.
We can pick up our marbles and come home, leaving you to deal with all of your friendly neighbors if it would make you feel better (and get rid of some of the venom you have in your system).
Posted by: Ron Snyder at February 8, 2007 04:30 PMHow interesting that venom is so quickly seen in those defending israel, but not as quickly in its enemies. Given who is the true venomous side, if that won't exercise one, nothing will.
Anyway, this is not venom but logic. To those without it, it probably looks like venom. That's OK, we're used to it. That is why I called my blog The Fall of Knowledge and Reason.
Anyway, your marbles are my marbles too, if you are in the US.
fp
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/
"The Lebanese army effectively does not exist. Tattoo that on your forehead"
Lebanese troops and an Israeli army patrol exchanged fire on their shared border on Wednesday
Dang! Now I have to laser it off! (Maybe, just to be safe, I should tattoo it on my butt?)
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 8, 2007 05:30 PMBy "does not exist" was meant that it is not an army that could solve the internal lebanese problem -- hezbollah -- neither capability- nor motivation-wise.
They did not shoot at Hezbollah who buried explosives there, but they did shoot at a vehicle trying to find it. Now THAT they can do.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 05:55 PMThen the question is one of motivation by the soldiers and gumption by their leaders, not capability. So if Lebanese leaders really really wanted to - if they believed that soldiers would ignore the Syrian-installed chain-of-command and sectarian loyalties and tried ordering their troops to fight for Lebanon directly - then the Lebanese Army could do the job.
Why am I always implicitly asked to assume that it is too much to expect Lebanon's leaders to be brave?
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 8, 2007 06:15 PMWell, had they been brave, Lebanon wouldn't be where it is.
I was careful to mention BOTH capability and motivation. The army is drawn from the same society, and from what I know and read about it, my guess is that even if it were motivated, it would not have much chance between Hezbollah and Syria.
Posted by: fp at February 8, 2007 07:46 PMGuessing. You're guessing. I recall reading one memoir of an elite Soviet soldier during a review of Spetsnaz troops by his marshal. He would have LOVED it if his commander had ordered them to take out the bad guys in the Politburo, and he was sure everyone else would go along, too. He wanted to. Everyone did. But they couldn't do it without the order.
I've read a lot of MJT, but he insists this isn't possible. Either there's some nuance I'm not getting, or else I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Knowing as little as I do compared to MJT and most of the Lebanese bloggers here, I should be wrong. Yet before today, would MJT have thought the L.A. would seek out a firefight with Israeli troops?
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 8, 2007 08:09 PMSolomon2: if they believed that soldiers would ignore the Syrian-installed chain-of-command and sectarian loyalties and tried ordering their troops to fight for Lebanon directly - then the Lebanese Army could do the job.
Not a chance. You're asking to pit the Arab world's best fighting force (Hezbollah) against the Arab world's worst.
I really don't understand why we keep going around in circles on this, or why this is hard for people to understand.
If you think there is a weaker Arab fighting force than the Lebanese army - name it. And if you think there is a more effective fighting force than Hezbollah - name it.
And if you agree that this fight would be as lopsided as I just described, please explain to me why you think Lebanon would be better off AFTER the Lebanese army lost a war with Hezbollah, and why the Lebanese army would be wise to pick a fight they know they can't win.
You're an American. You're accustomed to your army being able to win every fight. That's not how the rest of the world works. Picking fights you are guaranteed in advance to lose is a very bad idea, and it frankly amazes me that you keep pushing for it.
In theory, yes, the Lebanese army should take care of Hezbollah. But until the Lebanese army can fight Hezbollah AND Syria and Iran, forget it.
There is a reason we rescued Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Kuwait was defenseless. Lebanon is also defenseless. Syria destroyed the Lebanese army. Okay? That's just how it is, and wishing otherwise will not make it so.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 8, 2007 08:27 PMSolomon2: would MJT have thought the L.A. would seek out a firefight with Israeli troops?
They aren't trying to kick Israel's ass. Obviously they can't do any such thing, nor do they even want to. They are trying to show they are an army to undercut Hezbollah's claim that only they can protect the country.
It's all theater, and it's all politics.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 8, 2007 08:29 PMInteresting 'fact'. Of cause I cannot be sure but it does not appear to me that Lebanese are participating in this discussion. If I am correct, why? Guesses?
Posted by: leo at February 8, 2007 08:31 PMSimple. They've been asleep the past couple of hours. They're getting up to eat breakfast and go to work now, just as I'm going to call it a night. So long!
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 8, 2007 08:53 PMLeo,
Here is your answer.
Lebanese account for 0.45 percent of the readers of this blog at the time of this posting.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 8, 2007 08:53 PMThe article on Iran by Amil Imani in American Thinker (and on his site( amilimani.com) as put here by fp is the most informative and comprehensive piece on Iran that I have read in years.
His analysis is fascinating and his suggestions for dealing with the problems are compelling.
A must read.
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at February 8, 2007 09:03 PMI agree with you Michael on your reply to Solomon2.
People don't understand that the Lebanese Army (Army means the military forces: Air Force, Navy, Army, …) went through years of getting rid of anyone who does not show loyalty to the Syrians and eventually to Hizballah! The Lebanese Army is not ready to pick up a fight with HA yet! I just learned that the obligatory service (Khidmat Al-Alam) has been cancelled and I think this is a good thing to rebuild the Lebanese Army! You will limit who will serve in the Army to people who have been screened.
Another issue, fighting a guerilla urban war is different than defending the Lebanese border.
The only way is weaken (not to eliminate) HA is to dry the supply routes! The world community must deal with that issue and must stop the funding sources of HA from Syria, Iran and other HA sympathizers.
To Leo, I am Lebanese and I have been participating in the discussion! I can tell from some names that they are Lebanese.
Posted by: Ghassan at February 8, 2007 09:05 PMOh, one last word:
Picking fights you are guaranteed in advance to lose is a very bad idea, and it frankly amazes me that you keep pushing for it.
George Washington lost nearly every battle he ever fought, save for the Trenton and Yorktown. Sometimes he was pretty sure in advance what would happen. But his army and country toughened up in character and defeated the British and their Tory supporters - with help, eventually, from foreign troops and supplies.
Amazing, isn't it?
Success was never guaranteed, and the Americans of 200 years ago paid the price so we wouldn't have to. The Lebanese have yet to fight such a battle.
Posted by: Solomon2 at February 8, 2007 09:10 PMAlthough I am in the US but I am Lebanese American and I keep in touch with my friends and family in Lebanon and with fellow Lebanese outside Lebanon on a daily basis. I think tracking visitors to this blog by country does not reflect who is Lebanese and who is not!
Posted by: Ghassan at February 8, 2007 09:10 PMfp said:
"In the ME there is no such thing as destroy and go home. Ask the americans, and they don't have borders with iraq.
I know of nothing that can substitute the Assad regime that would make any significant beneficial difference to Israel."
There probably isn't anything better than Assad in Syrias future. If Israel is cool with that they need to accept the fact that hezbollah is going to keep attacking them. Instead of bombing the airport in Beirut focus on why Assad isn't that bad or Hezbollah.
If things continue to get worse (which they probably will) I gurantee the U.S. hammers a country in the middle east into dust within the next twenty years. No ground troops for reconstruction or stability and no worries about civilians. Then you go home with deterance.
Posted by: mikek at February 8, 2007 09:42 PMI don't think the russian and