Last month, I reviewed The Ghosts of Martyrs Square, Michael Young’s new book, for The Nation. Shortly after the review appeared, I got in touch with Mr. Young and invited him to expand upon certain themes from his book in the form of a QN interview.
Very much looking forward to the discussion that follows.
**
Q: You ended your book by saying that sectarianism, at best, can be “a way station on the path toward a Lebanon that is a common concern for all its citizens.” Elsewhere, you have spoken of the need for a new “social contract” in Lebanese political life. Could you describe what you think that social contract might look like, in broad terms?
MY: In Lebanon’s post-Independence history, there have been two broad agreements to define sectarian relations: the National Pact of 1943 and the Taif Accord of 1989. Both were the culmination of previous political developments, traditions, proposed reforms, interferences by outside powers, and so forth. For better or worse, they came to define political relations in Lebanon, at least in a formal way, though often, as during the years of the Syrian military presence, Lebanese political life was shaped by Syrian interests and by Syria’s ability to exploit Lebanese divisions and power relations.
The result was a further degradation of our constitutional institutions, adding to their already considerable degradation during the 15-year war. In that context, what remained of our social contract as something positive disintegrated. Left in its place was a negative understanding of social relations, whereby Lebanese society was no longer there as a common concern for its citizens, but as a place defined largely by a minimalist sense of self-preservation, usually communal self-preservation, with Syria serving as able manipulator of this very negative notion of statehood. Communal leaders calculated largely in terms of how their decisions might play out with respect to Damascus. When the Syrians left, the Lebanese were too divided to develop a new social contract, as well as being prevented from doing so, a reality infinitely complicated by the fact that Hezbollah has no interest in a social contract that offers it anything less than full autonomy to retain its weapons, mainly on Iran’s behalf.
What social contract would I welcome? We can go into the details later, but in general, and ideally, one in which sectarianism has been transcended, but also where the liberal impulses that sectarianism has created spaces for–paradoxical spaces, for sectarianism is often based on illiberal institutions–are preserved. What preoccupies me in Lebanon above all is liberty, and the ability of the society to block or avert the rise of a single party or coalition of forces that may seek to impose its will on all. The confessional system has, for better or worse, been the prime mechanism preventing this. But as you noted quite correctly, I see it only as a way station toward a system where the Lebanese define themselves not by their differences, but by their common desire to defend a pluralistic, democratic system.
To achieve this, and I’m speaking in very broad terms here, the Lebanese need to find mechanisms to gradually break down bastions of sectarianism, albeit within a sectarian context at first, because this bargain alone can offer the tradeoffs allowing the communities to accept change. Otherwise, nothing will be achieved; society will not suddenly agree to jump from sectarianism to a system shorn of sectarianism, nor is this even sociologically realizable. Resistance to such an endeavor would undermine reform from the start.
I must add, however, that I don’t see that any progress will be possible until a solution can be found to Hezbollah’s arms. No community, least of all the Sunnis, will engage in national negotiation on reform in the face of a militia that has made amply clear, above all in May 2008, that it will resort to violence against its fellow Lebanese to defend its autonomy. Hezbollah is an anti-state, in many respects, and it would block any efforts to surrender its weapons in return for greater power to the Shiite community–though, for what it’s worth, I have proposed such an exchange in several of my articles. My point was, let’s impose this choice on Hezbollah and follow the liar to his doorstep, as the Arab saying goes, and compel Hezbollah to admit that it views its partisan interests as more important than those of Lebanon’s Shiites. But Hezbollah knows one thing better than most: without its weapons the party would effectively cease being Hezbollah.
Q: You have frequently criticized various Maronite Christian political leaders (from Michel Aoun to the Gemayel clan and Suleiman Frangieh) for their “inability to come to grips with the sectarian contract of 1943… [and] the Taif Accord,” and you’ve characterized many of their proposals as leading towards “communal suicide.” To what extent are these leaders merely pandering to public opinion on the “Christian street”, and is there any politically viable way to sell deconfessionalism to Lebanon’s Christians?
MY: Certainly, there is demagoguery involved in the way many Christian, particularly Maronite, leaders have opposed political reform as laid out in the Taif Accord. That said, a parliamentary majority in 1989, as well as Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir, were defenders of Taif, so I think we need to be careful when we say this.
The problem today is that it is very difficult to persuade the Maronites in particular that their surrendering sectarian quotas in parliament and the presidency may be the only way for the community to extract itself from an often debilitating sense of decline. To an extent I can understand this fear. The state the Maronites will surrender power to is hardly one inspiring confidence. What is necessary for such a reform process to work is a national dialogue that can address fears on all sides, but particularly on the side of the Christians, who have the most to lose from a termination of the 50-50 ratio in parliament.
On the other hand, I feel, perhaps idealistically, that only when the Christians liberate themselves from the belief that their role in Lebanon is intimately tied into the number of seats they hold in parliament and Maronite control of the presidency, will they begin to examine more carefully the vital role they play, or can play, in Lebanese society; and only then will Christians gain in confidence. If everything is reduced to numbers and shares, the Christians, naturally, will feel perennially weak, because the numbers and shares are not in their favor. But when we talk about the intangibles—the fact that Christians add a dimension to Lebanon not found in most other Arab societies, that they tend to form a cosmopolitan community with great depth in the diaspora, hence are more powerful than they know, that educationally and historically Christians have brought a lot to Lebanon—then the Christian self-image can change.
Alas, I see very little impetus for change among Christians today. The community, which is in most respects my own, for I’m half-Maronite by birth, is characterized by a lack of political vigor and imagination, of economic innovation and daring, and of intellectual dynamism when it comes to the community and its role in Lebanon.
Photo credit: the NYT's very talented photog in Beirut (and elsewhere), Bryan Denton
I think that Muslim leaders, at least those concerned with Lebanon’s future as a pluralistic, open society, would much prefer a confident Christian community to a depressed one. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not sensible to view Lebanon in a mechanistic, static way as either a Christian or Muslim country. This is a place with infinite and invigorating fault lines, but if we want to focus on sect, than the least we can say is that it is a country of Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians, each with their very different priorities, worldviews, histories, and so on. The dynamics between these three large groups (and granted the internal divisions within each community) are complex, and to me have rendered anachronistic the simplistic Christian-Muslim dichotomy of the past. In this context, self-isolation is disastrous.
But let me add one final thought, and a key one. The Christians are better off embracing political reforms now, voluntarily, and I mean by this the Taif reform process, than finding themselves one day forced to surrender sectarian quotas because the Muslims are in agreement that the time has come for them to do so–because after all that is what Taif mandated. Better to negotiate reform from a position of strength, rather than to clutch on to eroding powers, behaving as an increasingly isolated irritant to the other Lebanese communities.
Q: How would a peace agreement between Syria and Israel impact Lebanon, in your view?
MY: That depends on what basis it is agreed. During the 1990s, the principle according to which the Syrians, the Israelis, but also the Americans and the Europeans, conducted negotiations, was that Syria would recover the Golan Heights, and only then would a discussion be opened relating to Syria’s presence in Lebanon. In specific terms this meant delaying all discussion of Resolution 425 (1978), which called for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory, until the parties could resolve the Israeli occupation of the Golan under Resolution 242 (1967). Needless to say, this was effectively a way of saying that no one would challenge Syrian hegemony over Lebanon while peace negotiations were taking place.
This equation broke down in May 2000, when the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon, even though Syria and Hezbollah tried to keep the southern front open by literally inventing the Shebaa Farms pretext. I believe it was Nabih Berri who managed to dig the issue up from some dark recess. Hardly a soul at the time could find the farms on a map.
But until the Israeli withdrawal, when negotiations were still ongoing, the Syrian president, Hafiz al-Assad, believed that once an agreement was reached between Syria and Israel, no one would really challenge the Syrian role in Lebanon afterward, particularly if Damascus offered to guarantee the Lebanese side of a peace agreement with Israel and compel Hezbollah to go along with any final settlement.
In other words, Assad had managed to lock himself into a negotiation where he would be handed back the Golan, but then would receive Lebanon as an additional incentive, or should I say endowment. It was very cynical, a clever move on Assad’s part, and I am persuaded that that is still Bashar al-Assad’s aim–of course assuming that negotiations resume one day. Certainly, Bashar’s interest in re-imposing Syrian domination over Lebanon would indicate it is.
I don’t see a peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel before one that takes place between Syria and Israel. Nor am I persuaded that Syria will enter into talks with Israel without the Lebanese card in hand first as leverage for a favorable deal. Going even further, I don’t see that the Syrians really regard the Golan Heights as a priority; their priority is to win back Lebanon, which politically and economically reaps much more, even as they are far more interested in a process of negotiation than a settlement, which would force the regime to dismantle a substantial part of its security apparatus—which it doesn’t want to do, because it protects the minority Alawite regime.
By the same token, I don’t see that there is much interest in Israel to hand over the Golan, particularly in the absence of a comprehensive settlement that includes the Palestinians as well. And since Israel does not seem willing to give up anything on that front either, I think we can safely say that no serious peace negotiations are in store for the foreseeable future. I’m not sure if I answered your question, but perhaps in the grimmest way possible I have.
Q: What kinds of reform mechanisms might actually bring about real institutional change in Lebanese politics? When Nabih Berri proposed the creation of a national commission to explore the possibility of implementing the Taif Accord, the response from the Christians was instantly hostile, and they were abetted in their rejection of his proposal by their allies in the Future Movement (and to a lesser extent in Hizbullah). Similarly, the Boutros Commission’s draft law and subsequent electoral reform proposals from Interior Minister Ziad Baroud have been summarily dismissed. How does one move forward without a strong executive pushing reform through?
MY: I think you’re addressing several issues here: the nature of reform, the fear of the Christians, who will lose the most in any reform effort, and implementation of reform. I’ll look at the first and third, as we’ve already discussed the Christians.
On the nature of reform, I believe that Taif has outlined a mechanism that is specific enough to be a road map toward change, but also vague enough that it allows flexibility. Taif, as I said earlier, was an accumulation of ideas on political reform that had been circulating since the mid-1970s. I agree that ultimately Lebanon should move toward a deconfessionalized parliament, though I believe it necessary to establish, at least for an initial period, a Senate where all the communities can be represented, to reassure the groups who will be expected to lose the most power, above all the Maronites.
I think a rotation of senior posts between all communities, or even between the Maronites, Sunnis, Shiites, and Druze (if a Senate is created), if that is the best we can hope for, would be a step in the right direction. Yes, the proposal is sectarian in many ways, but it would also break the unhealthy bond that communities have tended to create with particular leadership posts. In this way it could widen the horizons for all the communities, particularly the Maronites, who cannot see that their insistence on retaining the presidency, the weakest of the top three posts, is marginalizing them.
Alongside this, I am also in favor of deeply changing social relations. Civil marriage has to be permitted, and the establishment of a non-sectarian sect is something to be considered. The religious establishments in Lebanon are stifling, and that is the problem. They will resist this, and the politicians as well as a substantial portion of the population that falls for the canard that greater secularization is somehow an abuse of morality will side with them. However, that doesn’t prevent Lebanese society from gradually striving to create secular spaces. Reforms aiming at deconfessionalizing the society may create the momentum needed to introduce significant changes in society, though we should not underestimate the difficulties.
Ultimately, will Lebanon be able to shed the confessional system? I think such a process will take much time, as it’s in our DNA, and it would be naïve to insist, in the name of political correctness, that this can and should be done rapidly. Nor do I believe it’s a good idea to enforce deconfessionalization by writ, since it simply would not work.
I will address only briefly the issue of executive power as mechanism for pushing reform. Which executive power do you mean? The president’s? The prime minister’s? The cabinet’s? Each institution reflects Lebanon’s sectarian contradictions. Either everyone must agree, which requires tradeoffs, or nothing gets done. Is this the definition of a dysfunctional system? Of course it is. But when you speak of a “strong executive”, what you’re really doing is creating a vicious circle: You need a strong executive to impose reform, but you need reform to create a strong executive… And the sectarian nature of the system has a tendency to neutralize both sides of that equation.
You mentioned the Boutros Commission. With all due respect for its work, and for many of those participating in its meetings, among whom I count several friends, that project was a pie in the sky. In no way would the political class have ever accepted such a scheme, nor did the Lebanese even understand it, so complicated were its proposals. It was the work of intellectuals and academics, individuals of high intelligence doubtless, but it went against the sordid grain of how Lebanese politics are generally conducted. It was never going to get very far among the politicians who had the final say on it.
It was a gamble, I suppose, to at least introduce new ideas into political practice, to get the ball rolling, such as allowing expatriate Lebanese to vote, which I think is necessary. However, beyond that it was dead on arrival. I agree with you that electoral reforms, particularly things like proportional representation or the direct election of the president, have the capacity to fundamentally alter the Lebanese political system. Yet that is precisely why the political class will undermine such measures at every turn.
Q: In your book and in various other writings, you’ve criticized the figure of the “statist”: the politician who has no regard for the sectarian system and tries to break it in favor of a more consolidated central hierarchy. Statists include figures such as Fouad Chehab and Bashir Gemayel, but also Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah. In your view, was Rafiq al-Hariri not a statist? What about March 14th’s politicians today, with their calls for “building the state”? And is statism necessarily a vice?
MY: I would certainly not include Nasrallah in the category of “statist”, as I consider Hezbollah to be, almost by definition, a personification of an anti-state. Bashir Gemayel wanted to strengthen the state, certainly, but I believe he saw the state very much in sectarian terms, as the life raft of the declining Maronites, so I would greatly hesitate to place him in the same sentence as Fouad Chehab.
As for Aoun, he is no more than an opportunist when it comes to the state—a man who will fight the Lebanese Forces in 1989 and 1990 because allegedly he could not accept an armed militia, this in a time of generalized civil war; but who now advocates Hezbollah’s right to retain its weapons, at a time when there is a state, or some semblance of one. I believe that Aoun’s driving ambition always was to join the ranks of the traditional political class, and he saw the state as his ticket. Now that he’s succeeded, all he really wants to do is preserve a dynasty by handing the political and economic power of the Aounist movement off to his sons in law, because he doesn’t have a son of his own. Meanwhile he will say and do anything for or against the state to maintain his power, and keep this semi-filial venture alive.
What about Hariri? Hariri was a statist, but he also very much became a traditional politician. When he began his reconstruction effort in the early 1990s, he did two contradictory things: he revived those state bureaucracies he needed to advance his agenda, and in some cases tied them more rigidly to the prime minister’s office. For example, he revived and streamlined the Finance Ministry and gave new impetus to the Council for Development and Reconstruction, whose budget was attached to his office.
But Hariri also sought ways to circumvent the ministries and administrations he could not control, and in that sense his project could not really be called a project of national administrative resurrection. In some ways perhaps this was understandable, as it allowed him to move his program forward. But the state wasn’t the better for it. He tried an administrative reform effort, but all it really turned into was an administrative purge, one he was forced to backtrack on. So in that sense Hariri was a paradoxical statist, at best.
But Hariri also became a quintessential traditional leader. He devastated the traditional families in Beirut in the 2000 elections, effectively replacing them, though he had already made major political inroads in the capital as of 1992. He became the leading Sunni, and succeeded through his wealth and patronage networks in expanding his reach to Sunnis around the country, even if the Syrians always made it a priority to contain or undercut him, particularly in the North and Beqaa where their means of intimidation was especially efficient. By the time he became prime minister in 2000, Hariri was the main enemy to a powerful part of the state, particularly its intelligence and security services, and that year’s election was the first major revolt of the traditional politicians against Emile Lahoud.
But after this long introduction, let me hasten to correct you. I’m not critical of the statist, as such, despite my libertarianism. Some level of state presence is always necessary. Fouad Chehab, for instance, merits considerable admiration. Lebanon’s first major post-Independence institutional reform program occurred mainly during his mandate (though Camille Chamoun was not idle on that front), and I’ve always had great respect for many of those who rose from Chehabist ranks, such as Fouad Boutros, Elias Sarkis, and so on. Rather, I’m critical of the abuse that has often accompanied statism in Lebanon.
To simplify, there have been two broad power structures in Lebanon, even if that has changed in the last decade and a half. There have been the traditional leaders, whose power derives from such things as family, money, or some other form of primary loyalty; and there have been those seeking to challenge the traditional leaders, and whose only available instrument has been the state, and specifically the sticks of the state, namely the security and intelligence services.
At the time of Chehab, as you well know, the political system drifted into a conflict between the traditional leaders and the Deuxième Bureau, or the military’s intelligence service. We saw a lesser replay of that under Emile Lahoud in 1998, when he tried to use the various security services against Rafiq al-Hariri. But Lahoud was no Chehab, and Hariri benefited from the collaboration on occasion of the Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, Ghazi Kanaan, who saw an opportunity to cut Lahoud down to size, play Hariri and Lahoud off against one another, and ensure that Lebanon remained under Syria’s thumb.
In the past 35 years, after the war started, state institutions have gradually deteriorated, and the Syrian presence, particularly after the war between 1990 and 2005, exacerbated this, even if there was improvement in certain sectors. The judiciary is in urgent need of reform; the state bureaucracy tends to be inefficient, bloated, and corrupt; the army is a house of many mansions; the electricity utility is a cancerous mess, and so on. For one to defend the state in Lebanon imposes a question: What state are you defending? Certainly, the traditional sectarian leaders have contributed to corrupting the state, but so too have those within state institutions.
We can’t hide behind a wall of theory here. What practical means can Lebanon adopt to ameliorate the state? Unfortunately, the answer has eluded generations of political leaders, and in the absence of an answer, the traditional leaders have benefited.
However, I wouldn’t want to suggest that I defend the traditional leaders. They do, in general, allow for a more pluralistic system by default, because they balance each other out; and such equilibrium, or call it gridlock, has, historically, created wider spaces for free expression. But beyond that the political leaders, from all persuasions, have tended to feed on the state and derail all reforms. But to righteously raise statism as one’s standard is meaningless if the state is as bad or worse than the traditional leaders.
Qifa Nabki 
I have read over the years most of what Mr. Young has written and often I find myself in general agreement with his goals, liberty, democracy, independence and reason. But this does not mean that I share his vision. Unfortunately I find very often that we are at opposite ends because although we want to get to the same place we follow different paths. Mr. Young, who I have no doubt is a big supporter of personal liberty, as he often reminds us, happens to be also a believer in the invisible hand. I would even venture to say that he is a very strong advocate of Adam Smith and a neoliberal. This is where we part company. To me total reliance on the invisible hand and neo liberalism is a philosophy that is concerned with efficiency only at the expense of equity. And more fundamentally, it rests on weak logic. What is good for the individual could be good for the whole as they claim but that is not always the case. An excellent example of this, a classic one, is fire in a theater. It makes perfect sense for an individual to run to the exit but if all are to do so simultaneously then that would be disasterous. What is good for one may be good for the whole but it does not have to be. That is why I would want to get to liberty through the help of an accountable government that will help ease the inequities of the social system but yet will enforce the laws of the land equally and fairly. Yes we can have liberty with a strong central governmentthrough setting up a workable system of checks and balances.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 16, 2010, 2:57 pmideot
Posted by g rizk | August 16, 2010, 7:54 pm“We can’t hide behind a wall of theory here. What practical means can Lebanon adopt to ameliorate the state?”
In the end, this question was more important than all the answers. Not that I know the answer, but I sure would like to hear some good ones.
Posted by AIG | August 17, 2010, 11:34 amAIG,
Unfortunately not enough people are interested in asking meaningful incisive questions, actually very few are interested in raising any questions and so we wind up in a rehash of old tired cliches.
You might not find an answer that you like on this issue but what is important is to ask the question. If we ask it often enough then an answer will emerge but our problem is that we do not ask these questions often enough, if ever.
A good example of a wasted potential is this very medium that we are using, the internet. Instead of raising new important questions , most of the activity ends up being a repackaging of the same news over and over again.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 17, 2010, 12:10 pmFirst off, Qifa, there is an interesting follow-up post to your post on Arabic: http://bloggingthecasbah.blogspot.com/2010/08/slaughter-of-arabic-language.html
I saw that Ghassan saw it … as he left good comments.
Now to Young’s book: Well, not quite enough AK-47’s and Whiskey for my taste, but I really liked how he explored the background of Nasrallah.
About halfway through the book he uses a psychological approach to piece together what we know about the man … and I think he offers some really fresh thoughts on one of the most powerful men in the Levant.
And the irony, of course, is that it’s a 100% different life-story from Harari … with the exception of Hassan’s son and Saad’s father both being victims of war – the sickness of the Middle East. The Human Race.
Posted by Abu Guerrilla | August 17, 2010, 2:48 pmThe Chap. Total War – Very Interesting Stuff
I’m forgetting the name of the prof. who wrote a book on the psychological approach of understanding American presidents … but it looks like Young has read it. Or at least followed in that tradition. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything as focused on Nasrallah as that – psychologically speaking.
Posted by Abu Guerrilla | August 17, 2010, 2:53 pmThis is a long interview, and there are many things that can be discussed. But I wanted to just mention a couple. for example, Young says (among other things on this topic):
“Hezbollah is an anti-state, in many respects, and it would block any efforts to surrender its weapons in return for greater power to the Shiite community…let’s impose this choice on Hezbollah … and compel Hezbollah to admit that it views its partisan interests as more important than those of Lebanon’s Shiites.”
1) I agree that Hizbullah is largely “anti-state”, but that is a result of the state’s history of failure and its long history of oppressing the Shia while empowering the christians. Young is sympathetic to christian “fears” of losing power but he unsympathetically wants to “impose” his false choice on Hizbullah? that doesn’t make any sense, and exposes his bias.
2) The question here should be: why does Hizbullah want to keep their weapons? and what “partisan interests” does he think Hizbullah is protecting? Young implies that hizbullah only want to keep their weapons because they are a foreign proxy (“mainly on Iran’s behalf…”). This is truly silly. It simply ignores the facts on the ground, that Hizbullah fought a 20 year war against Israel, was again attacked just 4 years ago, and ignores the history that many Lebanese parties worked directly with Israel (thereby subjecting the Shia to significant oppression). I’d like to know why he discounts these issues?
3) My reading of Hizbullah is clearly different than Young’s, but even trying to ignore my personal biases, it’s not hard to see that Hizbullah and the Shia have been at the butt’s end of the war between the Sunni and the Christians, over the years, and that they might view a level of independent action as a means to protect their community. It amazes me that he thinks the issue is just that Hizbullah should want more power for the Shia. It’s silly. Hizbullah doesn’t simply want power, they want a sense of the “liberty” that Young claims to believe in, and that can only come from self-empowerment. If, as a libertarian, Young can’t understand that, then he’s hardly the thinker he believes himself to be.
4) Let’s say that the Shia are given more power internally. Well, that is their due based on history and the sheer numbers of their community. But another reason it’s not enough for Hizbullah is because of the sectarianism and direct opposition to Hizbullah expressed by the other Lebanese parties (ignoring the very real issue of defense from Israel). If Im Hizbullah, the question wouldn’t be whether we have more power, but do we have the ability to protect our community both domestically and internationally. Having more power in a broken political system might provide them enough ability to protect themselves internally (though, it’s an open question), but it’s not enough to protect them internationally. For that, they need the assurance that the army can and will actually preform it’s duty. And until then, i would be shocked if Hizbullah legitimately entertained the question of disarming (or integrating) the resistance.
Young also says:
“I don’t see that the Syrians really regard the Golan Heights as a priority, their priority is to win back Lebanon,…”
1) For Young to say that Syria does not consider Golan a priority is just silly. I don’t want to go into a full analysis, because it would take too long, but I am just registering my complaint.
2) If even little Hariri has decided to make up with Syria, and Aoun no longer claims that Syria has the goal to take over Lebanon, since Syria and lebanon have established embassies, and conducted normal relations for several years now… It’s just a wild attempt at mental gymnastics to claim that Syria’s top priority is to take over Lebanon. I think Young simply wants to believe this to justify his past hatred for Syria, but there seems little evidence that it is true.
3) Personally, I am still an Arab nationalist in the Nasserist sense, and would like to see one federated Arab country. So, in principle, I am not against Syria and Lebanon being one state.
anyway, that’s enough for now… (though those were hardly my only criticisms).
Posted by Joe M. | August 17, 2010, 6:12 pmBy the way, above I said:
“If Im Hizbullah, the question wouldn’t be whether we have more power, but do we have the ability to protect our community both domestically and internationally…”
And just to emphasize this point, this is exactly the reason that Hizbullah decided to join the political process in the first place. They came the the realization that they couldn’t protect themselves internationally without addressing their internal vulnerabilities. They know their strength in Lebanon can be demonstrated by their numbers and (now) economic might, and that is why they treat internal politics as a much lower priority than they do the resistance. They have more ways to protect themselves internally than just by governing or weapons… But externally, they have the justifiable view that the “only language israel understands is the language of force…” (to paraphrase an zionist cliche about the arabs). And that is why the resistance continues to maintain the foremost priority to Hizbullah. Also, obviously, in the context of continued zionist aggression against them (and other Arabs).
Posted by Joe M. | August 17, 2010, 6:21 pmJoe m says:
“Personally, I am still an Arab nationalist in the Nasserist sense, and would like to see one federated Arab country. So, in principle, I am not against Syria and Lebanon being one state.”
Joe, we have found another issue to disagree about:-) Wake up and smell the coffee or the roses or whatever, Pan Arabism is dead. I have learned though never to say never but in my opinion it is very difficult to make a case for it at given the current geopolitical dynamics in the ME.
My vision of an almost ideal solution , and I do not believe that Mr. Young will disagree will be to form a customs union that will eventually metamorph into an EU kind of an association. Actually I might devote the rest of my journey to doing serious research on this very issue.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 17, 2010, 6:28 pmGhassan,
Nasser would have opposed a federated Arab state, so while i believe in the Nasserist vision overall, im not opposed to reaching it in parts. And a customs union is not a bad place to start… So we might not disagree as much as you think.
Though, one advantage to political integration of the Arab states is that it presents an opportunity to establish more effective political institutions… but, let’s leave this discussion for another day.
Posted by Joe M. | August 17, 2010, 7:23 pmJoe M writes: “1) I agree that Hizbullah is largely “anti-state”, but that is a result of the state’s history of failure and its long history of oppressing the Shia while empowering the christians…”
While that was a true statement back in the 70s, this argument is beyond weak in this day and age.
I am tired of hearing this excuse bandied around as justification for Hizballah.
While this rationale held true back in the civil war days (and was a major ingredient in said civil war), long gone are the days of the “deprived” and “underprivileged”. The Shia community has come a long way since then. It boasts some of the wealthiest Lebanese, it boasts its own successes in education and businesses. There are just as many (if not more) highly trained and educated doctors, businessmen, entrepreneurs and attorneys coming from the Shia community as there are from other sects/parts of Lebanon. Long gone are the days of the “Christian/Sunni elite” monopoly on commerce and education.
There may be many justifications for HA holding on to their weapons, but this is NOT one of them. Let’s stop with the charade, ok?
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 17, 2010, 7:46 pmAh. A Nasserite. Well that explains a lot…
A completely failed ideology that’s been dead for over 50 years (except in the minds of a few irrelevant people).
While I have absolutely no problem with the idea, in general (meaning, I don’t hate it or anything), I have to point out that it’s pretty much failed completely. The Arab world has shown, for the better part of 50 or 60 years that they have almost nothing in common EXCEPT (and here is the irony) the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had there not been an Israel in 1948, no one would be talking about arab unions or anything like that. The so-called Arab world is too diverse. At BEST, something like the EU. But no more. You have a people who, let’s be completely honest here, are very tribal in their mores (compared to the West, say), meaning, by their very nature, are incapable of unifying. When you throw sect into the mix (on top of tribe), you really have pretty much nothing in common there between Iraq and Algeria except a vague notion of language (and i dare you to understand an Algerian speaking his own vernacular).
The only SOLID commonality between these so-called “Arab” countries is actually religion (putting aside for the purposes of this discussion minorities like the Christians of Lebanon or Egypt and so on). Which brings me to the following: While Nasserite Arabism is completely failed, and was always doomed to fail. I’d be a lot more afraid of the current “Islamic Unionism” (not sure if that’s a real word) currents that have been developing in the ME over the past 10-20 years (well, they predate that, but they’ve more recently come to the fore).
Mind you, I personally believe in a federated planet (Star Trek jokes aside). I’m long past nationalism. So this tirade of mine is more of an academic observation. Not something I care for either way.
I’ll say it one more time: Nasserism, just like Communism, is a completely failed ideology that never had a chance of succeeding. EVER.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 17, 2010, 7:56 pmdoes anyone even care what mr young thinks, he is a one track man, obsessed with Syria. What an idiot
Posted by g rizk | August 17, 2010, 9:00 pmBad Vilbel,
regarding your post #11, id posit that lebanon is not really out of the civil war phase yet. And that domestically Hizbullah is playing a defensive game against the type of ideology that fed the civil war. Id even agree that recently, maybe, after 2000 (when israel withdrew and hizbullah) and 2005 when they entered government, Hizbullah gained the upper hand to such a degree that they were able to be aggressive rather than defensive (and as of the last 2 or 3 years, they have become the power center), but I don’t think that’s enough to say that they need not be concerned about the other parties ganging up on them (as we’ve seen in the form of M14). And, at least domestically, the history of oppression is reignited every time you get a situation like the telecommunication network, or possibly the tribunal indictments.
My point is, i think it’s legitimate for Hizbullah to be unwilling to let down their guard in this type of climate. After all, they fought and organized to put themselves in a position where they “boasts some of the wealthiest Lebanese, it boasts its own successes in education and businesses…” and they did that on their own, from scratch. to then decide to put their lot totally in with a Lebanese government that has such a history… well, i am sympathetic to their concerns.
Posted by Joe M. | August 17, 2010, 10:13 pmOh the double irony. It was Nasserism that cemented the US hold on the middle east. Nasser and his Pan-Arab vision scared the daylights out of the Gulf Arabs. They especially liked the way he described their oil as “Arab oil”. I know who they were secretly supporting in the Six Day War. Nothing was a more useful tool than Nasserism for America’a divide and conquer strategy.
Furthermore it was Israel’s ability to fatally discredit Nasserism that made Israel so valuable to the US.
It turns out that Nasser and his ideology were the greatest gift ever to Israel! I guess I have to thank you Joe M. for supporting the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by AIG | August 17, 2010, 10:47 pmAIG, interesting take on the historical perspective. I hadn’t heard or read this kind of reasoning. (Not passing judgment, just finding it interesting).
At the risk of going off-topic may I ask what your view of a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Middle East might be? Regardless of whether you think it’s feasible in the short term, what would that ideal solution be? (Curious – not intending a discussion here but just wanting to read your answer, recognizing that I may be asking for something you may have written about before.. if so, ok also to just send the link).
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 7:42 amWhat took So Long NewZ
400,000 Palestinians can now work legally in Lebanon.
“That’s One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11004945
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 18, 2010, 10:11 amHP,
My view of Nasserism is quite common in Israel and also among many Western historians.
The best way in my opinion to achieve peace and prosperity in the middle east is to get accountable governments. That means governments that actually get replaced peacefully if people deem them to have failed and vote them out. You can call it “democracy” but it is really aligning the interests of the governed and those in power as much as possible. Accountable governments are worried that there is not enough electricity or jobs and are less likely to fight stupid wars.
I believe that before the Arab world finally attains such governance, it will go through an Islamic period. The Arab dictators (Mubarak and Asad being prime examples) have left only one option to replace them, the Muslim Brotherhood. They hunted down and discredited any liberal or democratic alternative to them so that the West is really left with no choice but to accept them as the alternative would be worse (Hamas is the example of the bad alternative).
But of course, the lid is going to blow one day (sometime in the next 20 years). Most likely in either Egypt or Syria but maybe Jordan. This will create a domino effect and a race to extremism among the Sunni dominated countries. In the end, after a few decades of experimenting with Islamic rule, the Arabs will come to the conclusions that Islamic rule may not be the solution also.
Maybe there could be a soft landing, but given how good Asad and Mubarak are at what they do, I very much doubt it.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 10:28 amThank You, AIG. I hope you’re wrong about the islamic-state hiatus prior to true democracy, but I don’t know. We have an example of Islamic rule in Iran and it’s not pretty nor is it clear how and when it will evolve into a true democracy. Despite its difficulties and failures and bound-to-failure confessionalism, I do believe that of all the Arab countries, Lebanon has been the most advanced in its long struggle to approach true democracy. It may still take a long time, and if the demographic pressures remain the same (Christian emigration, extremely high birth rate of Shi’a, time may well lead to an islamic-state hiatus). Her again, most hope that this will not happen, but clearly time will tell. The fact is that many of us occasional or regular contributors here left the country as a result of the closed opportunities for moderate folk like us who are professionally competent, politically unaffiliated, and seeking a civil society with equal opportunity for all. 15 Million Lebanese have found what they were looking for outside their native country and represent the Lebanese diaspora, eminent in its accomplishments and melding within its environment, but very unengaged politically.
The intervening of an autocratic rule prior to the emergence of true democracy is often viewed as an indispensable evil where the transition from chaos to democracy cannot be achieved in a direct way. Spain was an example with Franco. We could also mention Yugoslavia with Tito but there the transition after Tito ended up with a fragmentation of the country.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 1:13 pmLeave Nasserism alone. Why don’t you comment about what your “most moral army in the world” does instead of lecturing us about Arab dictators?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/eden-abergil-facebook-pic_n_683816.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100136500045599&v=photos
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/08/18/01003-20100818ARTFIG00359-des-photos-chocs-impliquent-d-autres-soldats-israeliens.php
Posted by quelqu'une | August 18, 2010, 1:18 pmAP,
Yes, but! And it’s a big but!
For all the complaints about this not being enough, the world community must remember and note that many other refugees had come to Lebanon and done superbly well! No better example than the Armenians who were and continue to be extremely hard working, disciplined, with full allegiance to their adopted country, grateful for any service they are given, and over the decades, rising to economic, social, and political prominence. Sure there were the bad apples but no more than in any normal society.
What did the Palestinians do when they came to Lebanon?
Smuggle arms and form militias. Launch military operations against Israel under the lunatic dream of “liberating Palestine.” Declare that the “road to Jerusalme goes through Beirut.” Allow criminals and assassins to hide in the camps. Form a state within a state. Exploit the political weakness of Lebanon and the dream of pan-Arabism to pursue futile armed struggle against Israel which only brought misery and destruction against Lebanon.
Already we hear complaints that this is not enough. The right response is to accept this opening, prove their value by working diligently and in a disciplined fashion, work towards a better future for their children, give up the milita-based armed struggle from within Lebanon and volunteer for other Arab armies if they really want to server militarily, and, most importantly, open the refugee camps to full Lebanese control. Sure, there is corruption in Lebanon but there is also the seed of reform. On balance it will be 1,000 times better to have the rule of Lebanese law in the camps than the utter chaos of the law of the jungle currently reigning there.
By contrast, we must all acknowledge that HA is made of Lebanese citizens. As much as we may disagree with their ideology, they have the right to operate within the politics of the country (not the independent militia).
Also, we never forget the cause of this mass migration of 400,000 people into Lebanon, at the time almost a fifth of the Lebanese population. These people lived in a land that was home for them. They deserve the right to return home or at the very least to be given a level of compensation that enables them to have dignified living along with a controlled way for the distribution of such compensation without the corruption that would have most of it stolen and hence maintain the problem.
One small step. It’s true. Let’s hope the opening is used and followed. I want to be hopeful but experience has taught me to be skeptical.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 1:32 pmAIG,
As grim as your assessment of the ME future is, I can’t really find much fault in your analysis and rationale. I tend to agree.
I’d have to add, that not only will the arab countries need to move towards a certain degree of “accountable governance” for peace in the ME to work. But so does Israel, in a sense, need to evolve.
I know you don’t like hearing this. And I know you’re gonna probably get defensive. It’s natural. But really, Israel needs to move past some of its demographic fears, and evolve into a less “race centric” mentality for all this to work.
An accountable Arab world is all well and good. But it’s not gonna be enough as long as there’s a state in the midst of all this that defines itself based on being “for Jews only” (or something along those lines).
There’s gonna need to be a more…i am not sure how to put this…almost like a European mentality to the whole region (that being both Israel and the Arab states) before we really attain any kind of lasting peace.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 18, 2010, 1:40 pmBV,
Israel is a Jewish state just like Germany is a German state and Japan is a Japanese state. The Jews in Israel are not a race or a religion, we are a nation. Israel is not for Jews only, there are many non-Jews in Israel. There is nothing problematic about nation states that stops them from living in peace with their neighbors. In fact, do you really believe that if Israel was in Europe it would not be at peace with its neighbors?
The problem is that most Arabs reject the Jewish nation having a state in the middle east and view us as crusaders or colonialists. But Israel cannot stop being the country of the Jewish nation because then it will stop being Israel. Maybe you are against nationalism whatever its manifestation. But almost all Israeli Jews are nationalists and believe that the Jews need at least one country in which they control their own destiny. I do not see that changing in the next 100 years.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 2:05 pmBravo BV, well said!
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 2:06 pmHmm, a valiant attempt at nuance, AIG. However, with the positions and statements of the religious extremists in Israel, all previous pronouncements about the religious foundation of the country, the link to Biblical texts, do you really think it’s going to be easy to make the points you’re making and have them acquiesced by the majority of either Israel or Arab countries??
It’s all well and good if everyone in Israel shared this interpretation of yours. I doubt it and it sounds like a stretch to fit a square peg in a round hole. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise and would very much like to be, but it’s going to take stronger arguments and some on-the-ground validation and opinion statistics from the Israeli side.
Here’s an example of a statement (by PM B.Netanyahu) that gives rise to doubt about the acceptance of what you say:
“The Jews have been building in Jerusalem for 3,000 years”
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/netanyahu-aipac-pilpul_b_512135.html
Now, 3,000 years ago, the Jews clearly identified themselves by their religion, no?
Instead of “Israel is a Jewish state just like Germany is a German state” the ideal is to have Israel as the United States, welcoming people without regard to race, religion, or national origin. But then, doing that (1) takes away the aliya and (2) gives you the kind of country that Joe M. is advocating!
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 2:15 pmI think you misunderstand me, AIG. (I suspected you would).
Germany is for Germans. Yes. France for French. But those nations (putting aside some of their immigration issues of the moment) are still diverse enough. I don’t think Israel fits quite the same mold).
We’re not talking about how the Arabs feel today about Israel. Put that aside for the sake of this academic exercise. And try to think it through with as much detachment as you can.
France and Germany are not built around the notion of being exclusively French or German (if that made sense). They have plenty of non-German/French immigrants.
When I mentioned getting over your demographic “hangup”, that’s what I meant.
France does not say “We won’t naturalize any non-French people, because we’re scared they’ll become the majority”. Israel does say that. No? (We’re talking in a broader sense, about the whole right of return issue, for example, but in a more general sense).
I used the words “getting over your demographic hangups” on purpose. I am not contesting whether Israel would be peaceful or at war with its neighbors. I believe Israel has no real desire for war, whether it’s in Europe or in the ME.
What I’m talking about is having a country that’s very defensive about its demographics.
I would say European countries do not have that hangup. Sadly, both Israel and Lebanon do (for different reasons). We have our “sectarian balance” hangup, and you have your fear of becoming a non-Jewish nation.
Either way, these are both non-democratic (at their core) values.
I’m sorry if you disagree. I know you’re gonna say Israel is plenty democratic. And in many ways, it is. But when it comes to the Jewish character of the state, it is NOT.
The USA does not say “We only naturalize white people, because we don’t wanna turn into a Latino country.” (Race based)
Nor does it say “We only naturalize English speaking people, because we don’t wanna turn into a Spanish speaking country” (Language based).
Nor does it say “We only naturalize people who were originally from a certain part of the world” (geographic or “nation” based).
Israel does. Israel is a nation for Jews. Period. That’s NOT the same thing as saying “The US is a nation for Americans.” There is a clear difference in my mind (see examples above). You may not see it that way. And that’s fine.
But to get back to the main point: I agree with your view about the ME only becoming peaceful when it grows up, has accountable governments AND (this is the part I added) loses some of its tribal hangups (And this goes for Arabs and Israelis alike).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 18, 2010, 2:21 pmHP,
Most Israelis are secular. I am an atheist. Zionism is a secular movement and has nothing to do with religion. Zionism is the result of secular European Jews coming to the conclusion that they have little chance of being assimilated in 19th century Europe.
It is clear that from the beginning the Jews were a tribal nation and not a religion. The tribes of Israel are based on the sons of Jacob. A Jew is someone from the tribe of Judah (the other tribes were “lost” in the Assyrian exile).
It is true that others formed religions based on the traditions of the Jewish people. But our “religion” is just the customs of our tribe.
If you are not yet convinced, check out how the Romans looked at the Jews. For the Romans the Jews were just another people, not a religion.
But in the end, and don’t take this personally, it really does not matter what you think. What matters is how Jews define themselves, and we have self determined ourselves to be a nation.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 2:51 pmBV,
It is completely false that Israel naturalizes just Jews. The Israeli naturalization laws are very lenient. In fact, much more lenient than Japan’s.
What the French say is that we only naturalize people that are willing to assimilate into French society. But what does that mean? It means learning French. It means learning French history. It means accepting the ideals of the French constitution. Look how protective the French are of their language and culture and their fear of English dominance and influence on French. Would the French accept government schools in France not teaching in French? Not without bloodshed. The French are just as fearful of the “demographic” threat as Israelis. In fact, when the percentage of Arabs in European countries reaches the 20% it is in Israel, we will see which countries remain as tolerant as Israel.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 3:07 pmHP,
You wanted statistics:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175700
67% of Israeli Jews are secular or not very religious traditionalists (meaning they probably go to the synagogue a couple of times a year).
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 3:37 pmAIG, no arguments with your statements on my side. I’m talking about the perception on the outside. I don’t actually know the statistics there but anecdotally, the perception appears quite different than how the Jews view themselves. Is this incorrect?
If you agree, then the challenge is to understand what caused that perception and whether it can be changed since it affects how the masses will agree to be steered by their leaders.
No worries. Nothing taken personally here. I find it quite interesting, illuminating in fact, in light of how I see perceptions on various sides be so far apart.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 4:17 pmAIG, I think something you said in some earlier post rings quite true. The biggest challenge is for each party (Israel / Arabs) to take on the extremists in their camp and prevent them from sabotaging civilization and progress towards peace. It’s a very challenging task, clearly, on both sides, as religious extremism has a way to push its proponents to “extremes” (hence the qualification of it as such!) whereas the moderates, well, are moderates, and so less tolerant to risk and less willing to engage their own in a fight.
We do see this on both sides, maybe to different degrees, but in the end degree doesn’t matter; extremists spoil the future for all of us.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 4:23 pmHP,
Certainly you are right in the case of the Arab world. The secular Arabs insist Israel is a religious state and a theocracy like Iran or Saudi. The Pan-Arabists see Jews as European and latter day crusaders. Just look at the loops the SSNP has to go through in dealing and defining the Jews.
In fact, it is mostly the Palestinians, because of their close interaction with us, that understand that the Jews are a nation. Most of the rest of the Arab world is fuzzy about the concept and views us in the way that best fits their political views.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 4:35 pmI hear what you’re saying, AIG (re: your comment about France).
I still think it rings a bit differently.
Israel’s biggest fear is the demographics of Arabs. No?
I mean, by your logic, you should have no problem assimilating the several hundred thousand Palestinians (the right of return people) as long as they agree to learn Hebrew and assimilate into society.
Would that be ok with you? Something tells me most Israelis would have a problem with that.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 18, 2010, 4:37 pmHP,
Degree does matter. Extremists that are willing to play by democratic rules are much less dangerous than those that espouse violence or view themselves above the state and rule of law. It will always be the case that in order to protect freedom of speech one has to allow expression of extreme views.
It is much easier for me to confront Israel’s extremists because by and large they are represented in the Knesset and agree to play by democratic rules. Your challenge is much greater because you have to confront your extremists using the rules of the jungle and risk your life and freedom in the process. Naturally, most Arabs are reluctant to do that.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 4:52 pmAIG, that’s why you are in Israel (I think) and I am in the U.S. Also, you have an x% of 6-millionproblem. We have a y% of 350-million+ problem. Not only does degree matter but numbers matter too. In the end my only quibble with your side is the occasional provocations and insufficient support for the moderates that cause conflagration of conflict or play in the hands of our extremists. Two examples of each kind:
– Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount that provoked intifada #2
– Unwillingness of Israel to give up the portions of the Shebaa farms to Lebanon which would take away (and agree not solve) an issue from the hands of HA that allows them to keep having pretexts.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 4:58 pmBV,
The problem is that the Palestinians are a nation too. They do not want to become Jews, and why should they? They have their own shared history, culture, language etc. that they are proud of, and rightly so. Our problem is not with Arabs per se, but with any group that would want to change the nature of the state (if you want the “Jewishness of the state”). I would have the same problem with several hundreds of thousands of Italians coming to Israel.
Bi national states are almost always not successful. Even Belgium is not working. There is no reason to believe that a Jewish-Palestinian bi-national state will work. In fact, there are many reasons to believe it will be a disaster.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 5:07 pm“The French are just as fearful of the “demographic” threat as Israelis. In fact, when the percentage of Arabs in European countries reaches the 20% it is in Israel, we will see which countries remain as tolerant as Israel.”
This “Eurabia” myth – defined by AIG as if it was a social phenomenon based on purely objective facts – shows a new common point between Zionists and European islamophobic extremists : the same racist paranoia. Bouououh! Arab’s plethora of children!
Here is a short but interesting comment debunking this racist myth – it’s entitled : Why “Eurabia” Is Like “Jew York City”: An Examination of Terminologies
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003463.html
Excerpt :
“Racism is, then, a critical element–perhaps a dominant concept–relative to these concepts. If European Muslims or New York City Jews are inherently subversive, undermining legitimate decisionmaking processes in political and social life, how can anyone who belongs to either category be allowed to participate at all? Eurabia and Jew York City are, at their roots, concepts which demand the ghettoization of the groups from which they take their names, their exclusion from any non-subordinate role. These terms’ use is a good marker for some sort of highly exclusionary racism.”
Posted by quelqu'une | August 18, 2010, 5:12 pmHP,
I am mostly in Israel and occasionally in the US but do most of my business with the US.
It is not clear how anyone could have stopped Sharon from visiting the temple mount. Even if the government would have denied him access he would have appealed to the courts and won, thus making the government look even more stupid and allow Sharon to win more political points. I think that if Sharon would have known that his visit would have caused the second intifada, he would not have attempted it. But, I am also not sure that Sharon’s visit was more than a pretext to start the intifada. I think Arafat came to the wrong conclusion from Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. He believed that violence would get him the same results in the West Bank and Gaza and therefore used Sharon’s visit to instigate violence.
As for Sheba, please explain why it is Israel’s interest to leave. In fact if Israel leaves, HA will claim it is because of their arms and then insist on Israel leaving the “seven villages”. It is clear to me that HA will always find some excuse to retain their arms and taking one pretext away will not solve anything, just give them another “victory”.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 5:20 pmquelqu’une,
I am not saying that 20% Arab or Muslim population is bad for Europe. I am not saying anything about Arabs, my statement is about European societies. These societies will find it very difficult to live with a 20% Arab minority. Just look at the success of the anti-immigration parties, even in ultra liberal Holland.
Posted by AIG | August 18, 2010, 5:29 pmAIG,
Forgive my ignorance but what are the “seven villages?”
Of course HA will find pretexts. That’s not the point. The point is to weaken their arguments and the support they get from otherwise neutral folks in Lebanon. Basically take away another card they have. They made big hey of the Shebaa farms and continue to talk about the necessity of their weapons because not all Lebanon land is liberated. Israel’s interest would be in:
– demonstrating good will to the neutral Lebanese and the worldwide community
– taking away one more card from the hands of HA (as I said above)
– prove, as HA continues its belligerance, that they are the bad actors, the proof being not for those who are already convinced of that but for those who need to be, including the FPM members.
As far as the Sharon visit to the Temple Mount, I understand what you are saying. It is important however to understand the power of the religious sentiments that were inflamed by his visit, resulting in having every muslim rally behind the extremists and those who otherwise would have wanted to have the intifada No. 2 anyway. Maybe it would have happened anyway and maybe Arafat wanted it to happen. Sharon sure made it easy for all those guys to have it justified and look like they were the ones in the right.
I don’t quite agree with you about Arafat drawing the wrong lesson from the 2000 withdrawal. He had nothing to do with the military pressure applied in Lebanon. This was all HA’s doing (and of course they take pride in it and use it eternally to glorify themselves). Arafat’s military pressure when he “occupied” Lebanon resulted in the 1982 Israeli invasion and his ouster into exile. Furthermore, the military pressure in Lebanon consisted of targeted military operations aiming at military targets. That’s not what intifada #2 did. It’s a different scenario there, one whose flames, in my opinion, were fanned, rather than calmed, by the behavior and provocation (unwise) of certain Israeli politicians. Shimon Peres would never have acted this way.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 5:31 pmAIG, you were wise in using “almost” in your statement above (#36) that “bi national states are almost always not successful.”
Of course the best counter-example to that is a multi national example: Switzerland – successful and enduring – and successfully using democratic voting to even curb the seeds of any behavior or outfit or building that would begin to cause issues.
With time, persistence, and a bit of luck, many of us hope that Lebanon is on such a path. If successful, its diversity will carry it further than other country of comparable size and population.
I do believe that diversity is a major asset that helps in success. The French soccer team won the 1998 world cup in great part due to the diversity of its team.
I compare countries who insist on such elements of nationalism to monochromatic beams. Regardless of how beautiful the color, it is at a different level of competition compared to the rainbow or any polychromatic beam.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 18, 2010, 5:43 pmmichael young is stupi
Posted by g rizk | August 18, 2010, 6:34 pmg riak,
Why must you insist on making a fool of yourself everyday?
Posted by ghassan karam | August 18, 2010, 7:43 pm“If you are not yet convinced, check out how the Romans looked at the Jews. For the Romans the Jews were just another people, not a religion.”
That may have been true thousands of years ago, but the present reality is much different. What percent of Israeli Jews are of European decent, and therefore have no Jewish blood? Being a Jew is spiritual & religious, not genetic nor national.
Posted by Nasser V | August 18, 2010, 11:00 pmEuropean descent*
not genetic nor racial (a better term).**
Posted by Nasser V | August 18, 2010, 11:14 pmNasser,
“Being a Jew is spiritual & religious, not genetic nor national.”
Are you a Jew? How do you know?
It is amusing that some Arabs think they know what Jews are better than the Jews themselves.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 12:02 amHow can it be your race or ancestry if you don’t share the blood of the original Jews? It’s a religion, isn’t it?
People can call themselves what they want, but they’re not always right.
Posted by Nasser V | August 19, 2010, 12:21 amThere’s Persian Jews, Iranian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Egyptian Jews, yatta yatta yatta…Jewish Jews? No. Your nationality is Israeli. Your religion is Judaism. You don’t like hearing this because it means your “Jewish state” is a theocracy.
Posted by Nasser V | August 19, 2010, 12:31 amHow do you know I don’t share the blood of the original Jews? Did you test my blood? And by the way check this article:
G.Atzmon, L.Hao, I.Pe’er, C.Velez, A.Pearlman, P.F.Palamara, B.Morrow, E.Friedman, C.Oddoux, E.Burns and H.Ostrer. Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 03 June 2010.
It shows that the the Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews shared common ancestors in the Middle East about 2500 years ago and that they are distinct populations from the European ones.
And since when does one need any specific blood to be part of a nation? Nations are formed by self determination, which does not require common race or ancestry.
Yes, we Jews are so stupid that we don’t know what we are. You are digging yourself a bigger hole.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 12:33 amThere are Lebanese-Americans, Lebanese-French, Lebanese-Kenyans etc. etc.
What does this show about Lebanese? Nothing except that there is a Lebanese diaspora.
I am an atheist. Obviously my religion is not Judaism. Nevertheless, I am a Jew like many other secular and atheist Jews because I belong to the Jewish nation. It is a pity that you are so brainwashed.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 12:39 amI was obviously not referring to you in particular.
Aren’t Syrian Jews Middle Eastern Jews??? So these European/Syrian Jews are distinct populations from the European Jews? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Could you rephrase that?
It’s also widely known that Ashkenazi Jews (you know – the ones who are first-class in Israel) are purely European. So they have no Semitic ancestry.
You are using the word Jew like it is a race. Being a Jew is not a race. Arab Jews are just that – Arabs. Ashkenazi Jews are Europeans. But I partly agree with you – Israel is a nation in that it is a group of people living under a single government.
This is not something we could actually have a debate about. I disagree with you, that’s the end of it.
Posted by Nasser V | August 19, 2010, 1:00 amBut those Lebanese-Americans and Lebanese-French could be Lebanese-American Christians or Lebanese-French Muslims. The first part is the nationality, the second the religion.
Israel is the only country in the world to base its nationality on a religion.
Posted by Nasser V | August 19, 2010, 1:08 am“Israel is the only country in the world to base its nationality on a religion.”
That’s right and even led to cruel disillusions :
– http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-firm-peddled-fake-jewish-identities-686101.html
– http://www.pogrom.org.il/eng_articles.php?art_id=25
– http://www1.alliancefr.com/actualites-miscellanees-news0,148,0.html
Posted by quelqu'une | August 19, 2010, 5:29 amAIG,
Although you are right that Israel might not qualify to be regarded as a traditional theocracy yet it comes so close that we need to drop the pretense. If it sounds like a duck , and walks like a duck then it is a duck 🙂
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 19, 2010, 7:35 amNasser V, curious how you would classify/characterize countries with a declared state religion such as:
Iran, Pakistan, Bengladesh, Indonesia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia ?
Where does nationalism begin (end) and religious affiliation end (begin) ?
Not taking a particular side but intrigued by what the debate might reveal.
For full disclosure my principle is to preserve the sanctity of the separation of church and state. A state must of course protect itself, its citizens, and its borders and so some measure of immigration selectivity and policy is required but these should not be based on any characterization derived from religion, race, gender, national origin, etc…. but on certain merits (professional or family link to existing citizens, etc.) that promote the well being of said state.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 19, 2010, 7:52 amAIG,
If one builds on your thought train, should then the Lebanese diaspora (15 million strong) declare that they belong to the nation of Lebanon and seek to establish a homeland or, say, grow Lebanon geographically to be able to accommodate all such Lebanese coming back “home” while encouraging them to do so?
If this were to happen, should it start with a Libano-zionism?
How would you view that? How do you think the Jewish nation would view it? How do you think the world would view it? How do you think the Arab nation would view it?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 19, 2010, 7:56 amHP #55,
A theocracy is not to be confused with a state religion. Saudi Arabia, Iran and others who claim Sharia as the standard by which they conduct their lives are theocracies. State religion is a totally different matter. The UK has a state religion but yet is a secular country.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 19, 2010, 8:13 amThanks, GK. I stand corrected. Didn’t know that the UK had a state religion. Hmm. One more reason it’s good the U.S. won the revolutionary war 🙂
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 19, 2010, 8:24 amGK,
On this issue you are just completely and utterly wrong. It doesn’t look like a duck nor quack like a duck. In what sense is Israel even close to being a theocracy? Just one example, the laws are based on British common law and not any religious text. Just visit Israel and see.
HP,
What is the problem with Lebanese in the diaspora coming back to Lebanon? I think many do so. Why would I have a problem with that? As for the geographic extent of Lebanon, the Lebanese have the right to believe whatever they want and try working towards their goals.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 9:54 amAIG,
I expected you would say that. Forget about the opinion of a heathen and look at what Gideon Levy wrote last year in Haaretz where he made the famous statement that Israel is much closer to Tehran than it is to Stockholm:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gideon-levy-let-s-face-the-facts-israel-is-a-semi-theocracy-1.2438
Then there is always Menachim Begin who always argued that there both nationalism and religion are intertwined into Jewishness which in essence prevents say a moslem from being Jewish 🙂
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 19, 2010, 10:32 amGK,
Gideon Levy is on the fringe of the fringe. I am surprised you are quoting him as evidence of anything. Based on his faulty line of argument, Turkey is a theocracy and so is the US.
Only 12% of Americans identify themselves as secular versus over 40% of Israelis:
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=386
Levy’s mistake is to confound how religious people are with their system of government. There is no necessary relation.
As for what Menachem Begin said, what does it matter and what does it prove? “Proving” a point by quoting one politician at one time is very easy, but it is just propaganda. I can prove anything in the world and its reverse quoting Jumblatt.
So, can you spell out a substantial argument that Israel is a theocracy? By the way, what is your definition of a theocracy?
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 10:48 amfrom the Oxford English reference dictionary:
theocracy:
1 a form of government by God or a god directly or through a priestly order etc.
IMHO, this describes Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Israel has a WHOLE lot of catching up to do to match those utopian theocracies…
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 19, 2010, 11:08 amAP,
That is why Gideon LEVY is pining for a theocracy…. 🙂
http://www.cohen-levi.org/the_levites/the_levites_today.htm
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 11:14 amAIG,
Israeli Liberals are an interesting breed. Stark proof that Jews aren’t really so smart and certainly not smart enough to plan 9-11 or take over the world;)
Michael Ramirez hits another home run….
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 19, 2010, 11:21 amAIG/AP,
Don’t plan on having a lengthy give and take on this issue. Usually I am more of a believer in say your piece and move on. So let me make few brief remarks:
(1) If you had bothered to read, AP. the previous posts then you would have found out that I made it clear that Israel is not a traditional theocracy and so your efforts at quoting what a theocracy is is redundant.
(2) AIG, I hope that you are not claiming that any statement by any individual is as valid or as important as any other individual. Some carry more weight in specific areas than others and that is precisely why the ideas of Menachim Begin are to be taken more seriously than some others over the issue of Jewish nationalism. He is afterall one of the major figures and played a huge role in the establishment and definition of the state.
(3) You cannot dismiss Gideon Levy by saying he is a fringe thinker. Would he become more credible if he were to agree with you? Since when is the validity of an argument tied to whethyer it is popular or not.
(4) The status quo in Israel has played a major role in the delicate balance between the secularists and the orthodox and I think it will continue to play a role? Who Is a Jew is a question that is essentially a religious one; remember it speaks of conversion; and it entitles those that meet the definition important privileges,
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 19, 2010, 11:32 amIf you had bothered to read, AP. the previous posts then you would have found out that I made it clear that Israel is not a traditional theocracy and so your efforts at quoting what a theocracy is is redundant.
GK,
Actually, I did read your previous quote where you said, “…Israel might not qualify to be regarded as a traditional theocracy yet it comes so close that we need to drop the pretense.
I guess AIG and I do not believe Israel comes “so close” to a being a theocracy.
AP
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 19, 2010, 11:53 amGK,
Menachem Begin played a very minor role in defining Zionism and Jewish nationalism. Now, if you can quote Jabotinsky on this issue…
I explained why Levy’s argumentation is faulty. On the other hand, you cannot claim that Levy whose position maybe represents that of 0.1% of Israeli Jews represents Jewish thinking. Do you think that just quoting Ayan Hirsi Ali when arguing with Muslims is a fair tactic? What is fair to do, is to take one of Levy’s arguments and explain why you think it is correct. I have not seen you do this yet.
Who is a Jew is NOT a religious question in the context of “privileges”. It is a legal question with the Israeli supreme court having the last say on the matter. The “privileges” (basically the right to be a citizen of Israel) are granted by the State of Israel and not by any religious institution. It is like any court in the US interpreting the immigration law.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 11:58 amAIG, you said “I can prove anything in the world and its reverse quoting Jumblatt.”
This proves two things:
1- you do have a sense of humor
2- you like stating tautologies ( 🙂 — take this with a grain of salt. It’s a joke! )
OK, one more piece of trivia. By noting his name in Arabic I prefer to use “n” instead of “m” to render the closer pronunciation of his name (Junblatt — the two “t”s are to reflect that it is guttural “t” which is a different letter in Arabic than the soft “t” as in Beit). Furthermore, it gets closer to “lunatic” by sharing one more letter with that word.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 19, 2010, 12:18 pmIsrael refers itself as a “Jewish state”.
Gideon Levy’s opinion, even though he is not a mainstream commentator, is shared by others. Cf. Yair Rotkovich “Turning into theocracy”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3860319,00.html
More precisely, the “Jewish state” is as an elected theocracy based on ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
Posted by quelqu'une | August 19, 2010, 1:16 pm“Israel refers itself as a “Jewish state”.”
Another example of fuzzy logic. Of course Israel is the Jewish state, it is the state of the Jewish nation. But since some people are so brainwashed they cannot understand the distinction, they only accept Judaism as a religion so the fact that Israel calls itself the Jewish state is “proof” that Israel is a theocracy.
And of course, a person criticizing a law he thinks hurts Israel’s secularism is provided as “proof” that Israel is a theocracy. It is certainly proof that Israel is a democracy where there is free speech and open discussion.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 1:56 pmThis is pretty hilarious. All you people talking about race/religon/nationality/genetics.
First off, in this day and age, I would argue none of those concepts apply to define a people. The entire discussion is completely moot because those notions have long been polluted by conquests/intermarriage/etc.
If one wants to argue about that sort of thing, the only true SCIENTIFIC determining factor would be genetic. And we’re not about to all go get our DNA mapped. I don’t think. The rest is academic.
What makes me Lebanese is that I was born in the state of Lebanon, as defined by the UN/French Mandate. That is an entirely artificial construct that has ZERO bearing on race or nationality.
A man born in a borderline village could have just as easily been “Syrian” today, had the people who drew those lines in 1920 put his village on the Syrian side. Simple as that. It doesn’t make him different race-wise or genetics-wise.
And religion is besides the point here, since all these “nations” are drawn artificially. Religion is also an artificial construct brought by man. People can convert.
The ONLY thing that makes Jews Jews today, or Arabs Arabs, is the “traditions” they are raised with.
If you’re raised in a “Jewish family” with Jewish traditions. You probably call yourself a Jew.
It doesn’t mean you ancestors came from the ancestral tribes of Israel. For all I know, you could be the descendent of a Chinese/Japanese tribe who converted to Judaism in the 1600s.
Same goes for any other self-proclaimed “nationality” or “race”.
Short of talking genetics, this entire exercise is futile.
The meat of the subject that there are groups of people TODAY, in TODAY’s world, with TODAY’s borders (as drawn by various wars, conquests, mandates, etc.) that lump themselves under a given banner. Be it Lebanese, Israelis or Syrians.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 19, 2010, 1:59 pmThe Jews in Israel are not a race or a religion, we are a nation. A Jew is someone from the tribe of Judah.
…the Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews shared common ancestors in the Middle East about 2500 years ago
AIG,
You got me confused. How can Jews be not a race, and at the same time descendants from a tribe? Who is really a Jew?
Posted by Badr | August 19, 2010, 2:12 pmThe Jew Conundrum (con’t)
Badr,
If you claim you are a Jew, then you’re a Jew.
If you claim to be a Palestinian, then you’re a Palestinian.
Religion and your national affiliation are defined by you and no one else.
Legally, however, the definitions depend on the various government interpretations.
The UN, for example, gives an EXCEPTION to Palestinians even though they may never have set foot in Palestine:
Descendants of Palestinian refugees under the authority of the UNRWA are the only group to be granted refugee status on the basis of descent alone.[6] Based on the UNRWA definition, the number of Palestine refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950[2] to over four million registered with the UN in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee
Similarly, Jews can immigrate to Israel based on Israel’s “Law of Return”. And this may include non-Jews married to Jews.
Of course, all those living in Israel (jew and Gentile) are Israelis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 19, 2010, 2:24 pmBV,
What makes you Lebanese is the fact that you define yourself as Lebanese (you self determine yourself as Lebanese). You can just as easily define yourself as American but don’t. It is a person’s choice how he or she defines himself, there is nothing scientific, geographic or genetic about it.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 2:25 pmBadr,
Let me clarify the point. Perhaps most Jews are genetically related. The evidence so far suggests they are. But, being genetically related is not a reason one is a Jew. One’s genes do not determine one’s Jewishness. One could convert to Judaism (which really means become a member of the tribe) without having any genes in common with other Jews. One can be born to a Jewish family and denounce one’s Judaism in favor of another nationality. A person is a Jew because it is a decision he makes of either not changing the identity he was taught at home or by accepting a new identity.
That is not to say that people other than Jews have not defined Jews as a race. Many Europeans who did not “know” they were Jews were surprised to be defined as such by the Nazis and then murdered.
As you can notice even from this discussion, many people think they know better than the Jews how to define them.
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 2:35 pm“Religion and your national affiliation are defined by you and no one else.”
AP, are you serious?
Posted by quelqu'une | August 19, 2010, 3:06 pmFor the record, and I say this with all humility, this latest debate you are having is idiotic.
Posted by dontgetit | August 19, 2010, 3:29 pmdontgetit,
Maybe the debate is idiotic, but you don’t give us any reason to back your humble opinion. So, why is the debate idiotic?
Posted by AIG | August 19, 2010, 3:47 pmAIG,
I still can’t understand how you can consider Israel to be a Jews state and democratic state at the same time. You’re justifying your claim by believing that Judaism is a national identity instead of a religion. You’re still going to have to deal with the reality that almost third of Israel’s population isn’t Jewish. So your democracy isn’t really a true democracy. You can, however, claim democracy for Jews. I disagree that Judaism is a nation. It never was.
Posted by Prophet | August 19, 2010, 3:50 pmAIG:
Here is a hint:
http://www.google.com/images?q=arab%20antisemitic%20cartoons&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1363&bih=821
Are Jews portrayed as a religion or an ethnicity?
I understand the confusion, though. Look at this realistic portrayal of Jew, dressed like the normative Israeli and demonstrating the characteristics typical of his religion, rather than his culture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWtgBAgSJU&feature=player_embedded#!
Posted by dontgetit | August 19, 2010, 4:05 pmAIG, you are saying the same thing I did. You can be a Jew who doesn’t have genetic links to the original tribes of Israel (through conversion, marriage, whatever).
Where we disagree is where you say that I’m Lebanese because I define myself as such. Not true.
I define myself as a human being.
I am Lebanese because my passport says so.
Well, I’m also a US Citizen, because my US passport says so.
Had I been born a few villages to the east, I might very well be carrying a Syrian passport, even though my great grandfather could’ve been “Lebanese” (since there was no such thing as Lebanese back in 1900, say).
The label “Lebanese” has almost nothing to do with who I am. It has everything to do with where I was born geographically. I now reside in the US. I hold US citizenship. Yet, when people ask me “Where are you from originally?” I say “Lebanon”. Why? Because on the day I was born, I happened to be within the bounds of a country called Lebanon that was so defined, not by its people, but by a French mandate. I don’t go calling myself “Ottoman”, although, technically, at one point, the city I was born in was part of the Ottoman Empire. Nor do I call myself Roman (again, same city, different time period).
So as you see, the word “Lebanese” does not come from my genes, nor from my location (same city, Beirut, could be Ottoman or Roman or even Phoenician). The word “Lebanese” simply indicates that in PRESENT TIMES, under CURRENT LAW (UN recognized countries), I was born in what they call TODAY “Lebanon”.
Like I said, this entire discussion is moot, cause really, I agree with you, it’s all about how you define yourself. This label I have as “Lebanese” is a legal/geographical label (that’s what my passport says), it has absolutely nothing to do with who I am. I could easily decide to renounce said citizenship and decide to be a hindu with Indian citizenship tomorrow. Legally, that would make me an “Indian”, but again, that wouldn’t change who I am. Would it?
So in essence, the word “Lebanese” or “Jew” or “Indian” have no real meaning beyond that framework. All notions of “race” and “genetics” have zero bearing on any of this.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 19, 2010, 4:06 pmBTW, I don’t mean to focus on Arab anti-semitism or even anti-semitism generally. It is just low-hanging fruit that should make the argument easily evident to this readership. really, my point has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Anyone who has any direct experience or familiarity with Jews knows that the idea that they are bounded by religious rather than ethnic or cultural ties is just silly and applies to some fictional concept of Jews, not Jews as they exist in the world.
Posted by dontgetit | August 19, 2010, 4:12 pmdarn – no edit feature.
I did not mean to say above that religious ties are of no consequence to Jews. Only that ethnic and cultural ties are important.
It is not either/or. If I had to come up with a complete description, I would say: The Jews are a nation, originating in the Middle East and disperse throughout the world by a number of foreign conquerors and then re-scattered by various host countries over the last two centuries. The religion of the Jews is Judaism.
“Israel” is another topic.
Posted by dontgetit | August 19, 2010, 4:25 pm76. quelqu’une Says:
“Religion and your national affiliation are defined by you and no one else.”
AP, are you serious?
quelqu’une,
Yes. BTW, how do you explain Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian nationality if he was born in Egypt and also called-up to do military service in Egypt?
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 19, 2010, 7:12 pmAP
I have to break my promise regarding having my say and moving on:-) So you don’t think that there is a difference between nationality and citizenship? Let us assume that my daughter has a British passport does that make her British? But you are the one who believes that Judaism is not part of being Jewish so why am I asking?
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 19, 2010, 8:32 pmAP,
i think “religious and national affiliations” need to be interpreted beyond the subjective – and de facto very limited – representations you (or anyone else) might have of them.
You won’t drown into water because you are possessed by the idea of gravity.
The example of Yassir Arafat proves that one’s identity is more complex than a matter of individual and imagined “free” choice.
Posted by quelqu'une | August 20, 2010, 9:15 amSo you don’t think that there is a difference between nationality and citizenship?
GK,
No, I never said that, and I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion. Citizenship is legal status with a host country. Nationality is a personal affiliation only you can ascribe to. Of course, others may want to tell you that you’re are this or that nationality, but ultimately, you determine your nationality.
Let us assume that my daughter has a British passport does that make her British?
That’s up to your daughter. I assume a British passport make her British in the eyes of the British government. However, if your DAUGHTER wants to be referred as Lebanese, then she is Lebanese. Others around her can disagree with her, one way or another.
Similarly, I could say my nationality is Jewish, American or both. There are many Jews who feel their only nationality is the nation where they reside. Most European Jews felt that way until the Holocaust. Most Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews felt that way until the creation of Israel.
But you are the one who believes that Judaism is not part of being Jewish so why am I asking?
Judaism is a religion and only you can define that for yourself.
Being part of the Jewish People (or Nation) is also something only you can define for yourself. I am sure most American Jews define themselves, nationally to be Americans. And that’s fine too. I define myself to be a Jewish-American.
The example of Yassir Arafat proves that one’s identity is more complex than a matter of individual and imagined “free” choice.
quelqu’une,
It is complex. I don’t disagree with that. Part of the problem in the Arab-Israeli conflict is that 2 young nations were born out of the 2 world wars: Israel & Palestine. The PLO was formed only in 1964, and the world, generally did not recognize a Palestinian people until (I would say), the mid-70s and 80’s. If the “Zionist Project” never took hold (say there was no mass immigration there of Jews), I would say, most likely, Palestine would never have been created, and it would have been swallowed by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
Yasser Arafat’s nationality could have easily been Egyptian, and Edward Said’s nationality could have easily been Jordanian, Egyptian or American.
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 20, 2010, 11:22 amQN,
How about a survey of your blog readers/contributors as to whether the new, jut-announced, direct talks will lead to real peace this time. Could be a multiple choice answer like Yes/No/Dunno
Optimistic as I am I’ll vote Yes.
Sure we can do it in the comments, here, but then folks will tend to be too verbose. Nice to get a Yes/No sense of your blog “staff.”
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 11:50 amAP,
You said in #87
“The PLO was formed only in 1964, and the world, generally did not recognize a Palestinian people until (I would say), the mid-70s and 80′s. If the “Zionist Project” never took hold (say there was no mass immigration there of Jews), I would say, most likely, Palestine would never have been created, and it would have been swallowed by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.”
Well, even taking what you said as fact, namely that “the world, generally did not recognize a Palestinian people until []the mid-70s and 80′s” this does not mean there wasn’t a Palestinian people or that they didn’t think of themselves as a nation. I can tell you from the Palestinians that came to Lebanon in 1948 that these folks were very much (and still are!) Palestinians first, second, and last.
I don’t believe any of what you said implies that you’re denying that there is a Palestinian identity. However, there has been “marketing” and propaganda campaigns (in the US press) that try to deny that Palestinian people existed as standalone and that they are merely Jordanian, etc., and that they claimed Palestinian nationality only as a reaction to the formation of Israel. Unfortunately this is the kind of propaganda that inflames feelings and makes people desperate and mistrusting.
Quite frankly I have an aversion to what Palestinians did in Lebanon and how they played a major role in causing, directly or indirectly, so much destruction in my native country. I also vehemently disagree wit the path many of them have chosen over the years for claiming their rights, the worst being of course the abject, ineffective, and inhuman terrorism followed against innocent civilians. Regardless one’s desperation NOTHING justifies that and I reject it completely.
At the same time, I will be the first to defend their rights and argue vociferously against the unjust treatment they have received, the (pardon the truth) ethnic cleansing that caused so many of them to flee their native land, and to consider many of the actions of some of the Israel founders – and many of the actions Israel continues to take – simply a continuation of a policy of repression against people trying only to claim their native land and their right to a country of their own.
All this talk about national affiliation, religious affiliation, etc., is well and good, but the fact remains that Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer severe injustices caused both by their enemies and by their supposedly friendly allies in the Arab countries.
In the final analysis what really matters now is how the whole region moves forward towards defining a way of life that puts aside all this misery caused by armed conflict and finds a cohabitation way to divide up the land, respect every person’s human rights, and directs all energies towards improving the standard of living and the life conditions of future generations.
I applaud Sec’y Clinton, and, more importantly, special envoy George Mitchell (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mit0int-1) whose mother, by the way, was a Lebanese immigrant (and father the orphaned son of Irish immigrants) for their recent achievement, even if it’s just the starting point of what I hope will be the last phase in this bloody conflict. Mitchell was key in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and I hope and pray that he will succeed equally in the Middle East. I look forward to the day when I’ll share a mezza of hummus and falafel and tabbouleh with AIG and AP and where we get in very loud arguments (maybe even a food fight) as to who really invented those succulent dishes.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 12:43 pmHP,
I still don’t think this makes any sense. Your example that Palestinians were Palestinians even in 1948 is fine. Except…Did these same people call themselves Palestinians in, say, 1800? Under the Ottomans?
I don’t think so. They were more likely to be “Arabs” living in part of the Ottoman Empire (with no real distinction from the Arabs living in Syria or Beirut, except that of living in a different region of the Empire, with its own customs/traditions).
Therefore, they seem to have defined themselves as Palestinians only as a result of the word “Palestine” coming about in the 1920s when the british mandate was created.
The whole issue is completely subjective. Really. “Palestinian”, “Lebanese”, etc. are words that simply derive from a man-created construct (in this case, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire into mandates). None of these countries/states/words existed prior and therefore cannot be used to refer to these people other than relative to a particular time. “Palestinian” may very well apply to post 1918 people who lived in a certain area defined by the Allies. But I assure you that the very ancestors of those same people did not call themselves “Palestinians” in the 1800s. Or Lebanese, for that matter.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 20, 2010, 1:40 pmAs a long time lurker this is the first talk back.
About ethnic cleaning. I belong to Jewish Hazbani family. My direct family left Lebanon before there was Lebanon. Jews lived in Lebanon since history began, before Christianity or Islam. In abour 1945 there were 30.000 to 50.000 Jews in Lebanon. In about 1950 there were 40.000 to 60.000 Jews in Lebanon. Jews from Mideastern countries that could go to Israel, Europe, USA went to Lebanon. In about 1970 ethnic cleaning of all Jews started started. By 1990 it was toal and complete. The Jewish community in Lebanon was exterminated 100% after at least 2000 years, I will say it again 100%. There are now Jewish communities in Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Moroco, Yeman. It should be noted that all these Jews that were ethnically cleaned were not Zionists, there was no Zionist movement in Labanon.
Talking about ethnic cleaning. Just to compare, in Israel inside the “green line” there are more Arabs: Muslim, Christians, Druze, than there were in whole Palestine 1n 1945.
What did you, fine people from Lebanon, who totally exterminated that absolutely native community wanted them and others like them to do? so they went build Israel where they can protect thems selves againt total exterminaters like you. I will say it again: its not unique but still rare situation – total extermination of a native population. Next time when a Lebanese will talk about Israel and ethic cleaning think about these iron solid facts.
Posted by Rani | August 20, 2010, 2:00 pmToo harsh, Rani. I had classmates in high school, close friends, Jews in Lebanon. What’s harsh is the use of the word “extermination.” OF course you know this is false. They did feel the pressure to leave to less risky environments and greener pastures, for sure. So did many Christians, mind you, HP included. I actually did a school documentary in middle school for my school magazine about Wadi-boujmil in Beirut, the major Jewish neighborhood. It is unfortunate that all this disappeared, but it was not extermination. Puhleez!
Mind you, they left after the civil war started in Lebanon. The civil war started Lebanon as a result of many factors but the most important is the Palestinian refugee problem, 400,000 strong in a country then of less than 3 million. And who caused the Palestinian problem? hmmm? Israel. Hey, it was YOUR fault 😉
Remember again, not only the Jews left, but many many Christians.
Really not the same as what happened to the Palestinians in 1948. Very different.
BV,
I’ll have to go study history more to figure out what was the situation in 1800 for the rest of the folks and tribes, etc.
BUT, and it’s a big BUT, I can tell you one thing. Mount Lebanon and the Lebanese existed, big time, and had relatively special independent status granted by the “bab-el-aali” of the Ottoman empire. Then again we know about the theory that Lebanese are descendant of the Phoenicians, ancient people, etc.
Not sure about when Palestinians became defined. Maybe others versed in history can comment. Still, their mass exodus from Palestine — their home and native land — in 1948 was essentially forced, unfairly, and they have been suffering ever since. You don’t quibble with that, do you?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 2:58 pmAs I said before, all these discussions are well and good but what REALLY matters is the practical way out to a solution that serves everyone’s interest and gives something to hope for to the younger generation. I hope the most recent initiative succeeds and will keep up the hope and encourage everyone else to do the same.
Can’t wait for the food fight with AIG, AP, BV, and Rani!
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 3:01 pmIn many ways, BV and Rani, you’re saying it yourselves. Before 1948 all was fine and dandy. For all the horrors inflicted upon the Jews in Europe (including Russia!!!) the Jews in the Middle East enjoyed a relatively good life. Sure there was discrimination. There was discrimination against Christians, too. In Damascus, there were two sidewalks, the high one and the low one. Christians were supposed to walk on the low one. If they were caught walking on the high one they were told “tawriq ya khanzir” (take the low road you pig). Still things were evolving for the better and nothing even close to the cruelty of what the Europeans (including the Russians) imparted to the Jews could even be conceived.
The reward for the Middle East? Zionism implemented in such a way as to cause the enduring Palestinian problem. You can have your opinions and beliefs and attitudes but you can’t make the Lebanese change their correct perception of who created the imbalance and caused the current mess. Even if you’re winning militarily, are smart, successful, etc. A deep feeling of genuine truth about what caused all this is in every Lebanese heart.
That’s why I say, whether in Lebanon or in the Lebanese diaspora, we all rally to the Palestinian cause and its rights (while most, if not all of us condemn, lament, and are infuriated by the stupid terrorism pursued by many Palestinian and Arabs). Believe me, we are the ones you want to be friends with and get help to solve the situation. Leave the quibbling to your real enemies. Anyone who espouses terrorism is the enemy of all of us.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 3:09 pmLast week end I asked the spokesperson of the STL a question about the UNIIC and the STL to which she responded immediately.
In an effort to continue my campaign of emphasizing the hugely important difference between the two institutions I posted a piece in which I also included the answer to my question from Ms. Issawi both on Yalibnan.com and my personal blog. As expected the post on Yalibnan had a flurry of commentary that covered the whole spectrum. If any of you has not had enough about the controversy then you might wish to give that piece a look: This is pure gibberish and demagoguery if I have ever heard any. Actually you are deliberately spreading false information and that is unexcusable: I will only share with you a headline from April:
http://rationalrepublic.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-all-stl-critics-are-wrong.html
As usual I am thankful for the hospitality of our host QN.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 20, 2010, 3:22 pmHP,
What happened to the Lebanese Jews was much worse. There were many Palestinians left in Israel after 48. They are a community of over 1 million people now, more than the 800,000 refugees that the war created! But there are no Jews in Lebanon (there are probably a few families that are hiding the fact they are Jews) and certainly no Jewish community life. Yes, many Christians, Shia, Sunni and Druze left Lebanon, but their communities are still intact. Only the Jewish community was annihilated. Don’t let yourself off the hook so easily.
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 3:51 pmAIG, you use “annihilated” which is no better than “exterminated.” I also of course take no responsibility in what happened there since I consider myself a similar “victim” who had to flee. “Much worse,” well, yes, by the measure that there is no longer such a community with clear identity, a place of worship, etc. No quibble there. But again, who caused that? how did it happen? And it is not “much worse” by other measures of how it happened. I know. I was there. You weren’t. It’s true that I was not in Palestine myself so you one could criticize me there for making claims about how bad it was. But that, my friend, is documented, with pictures, films, unchallenged and agreed-upon historical facts. I don’t know what you’ve heard or assumed about how the Jewish emigration from Lebanon happened but I can assure you there’s no comparison to what happened to the Palestinians.
Again, though, we can agree to disagree on all this, and the point will remain how to have this whole area move forward. I’m hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel. I hope you join me.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 4:05 pmUnfortunately AIG many Lebanese believe strongly that we are off the hook because we rebuild the synagogue in Beirut. A synagogue for less than fifty people left in the whole country who are afraid to say that they are Jews. What a hugely successful PR campaign.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 20, 2010, 4:05 pmI’ll tell you a real story about coexistence. In high school, in Lebanon, kids (actually young men of 16-17 years) form groups that spend time together during the breaks (breaks within the schoolday, not holidays). The trio that was the closest in my school for the 3 years of high school at a particular location was made of 3 wonderful young men, all friends of mine, one Jew, one Christian, and one Muslim (happened to be Sunni but that’s not important). They were inseparable and worked together on school work as well on amusement activities. Alas, the civil war destroyed this bond. I have lost touch with all of them and they have lost touch with each other.
Who’s to blame? is this the right question to ask, or the question how do we make sure this never happens again so such friendships are what teach all of us how to move forward instead of repeating the mistakes of the past?
I’m not putting blame on anyone on this blog, mind you. Just thinking aloud. Ins’t it time for peace at last?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 4:11 pmHP,
I will be happy to read the book that describes what actually happened to the Lebanese Jews. Which book do you recommend? I hope it is by a respected historian.
I would really like to know, did they take up arms like the Palestinians and ask the armies of the neighboring countries to invade in an attempt to throw some other sect into the sea? Did they reject an international compromise like the Palestinians (the partition of 1947)?
The Palestinians lost their land in a war they started. They of course had the right to start the war. But to complain about the results? What war did the Lebanese Jews start?
I am not blaming anybody either. Just explaining my historical perspective. It is best to look forward, not backward.
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 4:23 pmHP,
I felt your response in Post 89 was rather reasonable and I agree with it, say, 90%.
OTOH, I can’t discount AIG’s POV because it seems, as an Israeli, he is more familiar with the hardships the Jewish communities surrounding Israel experienced. Certainly, the Palestinians were not the only people hurt by this conflict.
My ex-in-laws who were Jews from Syria and Yemen had everything taken from them when they left their respective countries. They aren’t suing…;)
Posted by Akbar Palace | August 20, 2010, 4:38 pmHP,
About your post #94.
Me and Rani saying the same thing? I take offense to that.
Rani’s post was some incoherent babbling about ethnic cleansing.
My comments had nothing to do with that.
I was merely pointing out, repeatedly, that this discussion is kind of moot, on the account that all these claims of belonging to this or that “nationality” mean absolutely nothing when said “nationality” is not defined throughout the ages, but is rather nothing but a word that has no meaning to anyone outside of its current context.
I know the inhabitants of mount Lebanon has their own community under the Ottomans. And that, again, is a snapshot at a given point in time. And going back 3000 years, the Phoenician kingdom of Byblos was its own independent nation. Does this mean that the residents of present day Byblos should claim to be Phoenician and demand independence from Lebanon? Of course not.
Does this mean “Byblos Phoencians” are a “nation”? Maybe a group of people today claiming to all be descendants of these Byblos-ians should band together and start a “nation”?
Again, all these notions in this discussions are really just words, with no absolute meaning. They vary in meaning from time period to time period, from conqueror to conqueror, and are all man-made constructs.
Now if you wanna talk genetics. A scientific proof to this or that assertion. That’s fine. But that’s an entirely different discussion.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 20, 2010, 5:20 pmBV,
Science is a man made construct also. Was Newton right? According to you of course not. His laws are obviously wrong as Einstein’s laws are much more accurate. But your view is a little harsh. Even though all that Newton said was 100% false, it was a good approximation to reality. It is very easy to demand absolute truth, but then, we would not say anything.
All the time, our scientific concepts evolve. Did the Greek philosophers when coining the term atom mean the same as we do now? Of course not. Even though we used the same word, we were not talking about the same thing.
As for what a gene is, the definition is changing all the time. So when you speak of genes, I can easily argue that you are talking nonsense. In fact, if you think you know what a gene is, write it down and then see if your definition really encompasses our current understanding. But wait, let me give you a bigger challenge. Biology is after all science that is merely a human construct. All biology is chemistry and physics. So, please define a gene in chemical and physical terms just to make sure you do not use words with no “absolute meaning”.
In the end of course you will fail, because “gene” is just an approximation with no absolute meaning.
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 6:00 pmHabibi BV, it was an error on my part, and I apologize. You are right in your last post and maybe I misunderstood earlier and incorrectly lumped a response to both you and Rani. I stand corrected.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 6:01 pmAP, on #101, I hear you. My in-laws had everything taken from them when they had to leave their house in a non-christian (dont want to be more specific) neighborhood of Lebanon. They fled with the shirts on their backs and had to start again from scratch. They are not suing either.
Maybe, just maybe, our children will look back on all of this in the whole Middle East as one big protracted civil war among people who otherwise have a lot in common at the human level.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 6:06 pmHP. No problemo. 🙂
AIG,
You’re seriously trying to tell me that genetics is “subjective”? Come on!
I get what you’re saying about science being relative to what we know today (as opposed to what wasn’t known in 2000BC).
But really, I think it’s safe to say that when we can prove with DNA tests whether a certain blood sample belongs to individual A or not, then I think it’s pretty clear that we could – in theory – prove or disprove whether you and I are related or not through distant gene markers.
If you deny that…Then, well, you may as well join the ranks of those idiots who’re trying to convince me that the earth is flat.
We do use this kind of science to convict people of murder crimes (at least in the US). We do use genetic science to fend off some diseases or conditions. We do use it, more importantly, in the real of law (criminal, etc.)
So if you’re not willing to recognize said science. Then I guess you wouldn’t object if a certain rapist went free in your town, after claiming that the DNA evidence against him was “subjective”. Right?
Or maybe you should’ve released Sameer Kuntar many years ago, since really, the gory scientific evidence that he murdered that family was “subjective”.
Give me a break.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 20, 2010, 6:13 pm@ HP :
“Anyone who espouses terrorism is the enemy of all of us”
I hope this “anyone” also include states who espouse terrorism.
“I look forward to the day when I’ll share a mezza of hummus and falafel and tabbouleh with AIG and AP and where we get in very loud arguments (maybe even a food fight) as to who really invented those succulent dishes.”
The way you sing the praise of normalization reminds me of a lobotomizing 1990’s French commercial clip : “l’ami Ricoré”
Posted by quelqu'une | August 20, 2010, 6:20 pmBV,
All humans are related, that is a scientific fact, we all have common ancestors, so what you say is nonsense since we do not need any test to know that any two people are related.
Seriously, do you deny that deciding how “related” two persons are is subjective? Are we related if our common ancestor lived 20 years ago, 200 years ago, 2000 years ago? What is the cut off and how is that not a subjective call?
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 6:22 pmThat was PRECISELY my point, AIG.
All these constructs are man-made. That’s what I said to start, no?
My point was not even directed at you originally. But at the notion that there was such a thing as “Palestinians” or “Lebanese” or “Jews” in any other sense than one of purely man-made subjectivity. (Then I added, unless you bring science into things. But a non-issue anyway).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 20, 2010, 6:33 pmquelqu’une, that’s a very cute video!
Not sure what you call it “lobotomizing” ?
L’ami Ricoré seems like a delicious chocolate drink which, the video says, once tasted, becomes a beloved drink and friend of your breakfast.
Normalization has to happen. Better sooner than later. What is the alternative? continuing war and fratricide? Who wins?
It has long been established that NO ONE wins in war, no one. The real war to be one is really the war against extremism on both sides, the war towards separation of church and state everywhere, the war for human rights, for the rights of women, the rights of children, etc… it’s a long fight, but will remain on the backburner as long as the distraction of armed conflict from the Israeli-Palestinian problem continues.
and yes, terrorism is terrorism regardless of who perpetrates it. Terrorism is the sowing of terror in the hearts of people by indiscrimately targeting and killing innocent people. Define or observe such an act, regardless of whether perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, and it is terrorism and it is wrong and counterproductive and criminal.
If head-on confrontation is not possible due to imbalance of power or other constraint, then there are civil disobedience and peaceful means that are much more effective (and civilized and humane) than the crime of terrorism.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 6:39 pmBV,
As I explained to you in #103 a gene is also a man made construct, it is just an approximation of reality. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with man made constructs as you seem to imply. The terms “Palestinians” or “Lebanese” or “Jews” are just as valuable as the term gene. If you insist on just using non-man mad constructs, you will mute most of the time.
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 6:43 pmAIG, on #100, I’m not sure if your question is rhetorical (I assume it’s not – although I’m a bit surprised because you seem otherwise to have good references), but here’s a brief article with links about the Jewish community of Lebanon. I think this is all a matter of undisputed record.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/lebjews.html
One of the points I was trying to make is that the difficulties that this community faced in Lebanon is part of the difficulties most Lebanese faced. Many non-Jewish Lebanese, perhaps a majority of those Christian but the distinction was mostly economic, emigrated permanently. To do so, of course, you had to have the means. Many who would have liked to leave didn’t.
You’re right about the need to move on. I am very hopeful of the efforts by George Mitchell. Sure, one man doest not make or break a peace process but I believe in the strong influence of a person as a catalyst that enables something to happen which otherwise would not happen.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 6:51 pm… at the risk of stretching this ad nauseum, I do want to point one thing in the link above. Someone who just goes to the article for one second my draw the wrong conclusion from the numbers quoted in the title: 20,000 in 1948 to less than 100 in 2008. One has really to read that small article instead. For example the drop from 20,000 in 1948 to about 7,000 in 1955 is clearly due to the free choice of some of those Lebanese Jews to go live in Israel. The article is accurate, I believe, but folks have to read…
Note that even more left after the 1967 war but even if we stick to the 7,000, note what fraction that represents of the Lebanese population at the time of some 2Million+. Compare that to the fraction of the Palestinian population in Israel which had to leave.
I’m guilty of rehashing things here and I apologize. Move on we must. Pretty much everything is in the records. 100 years from now folks can look at all this much more objectively.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 7:06 pmI’ll move on from this topic.
But I will disagree with you. A gene is not a man-made construct. DNA is made up of actual molecules of amino-acids. Same as a gain of sugar is a grain of sugar. Not an approximation.
It is a scientific proven fact. Same as the earth being a planet orbiting the sun is not “an approximation”.
Now let’s move on. This conversation is going nowhere and is far removed from the original headline of “An Interview With Michael Young”. 🙂
Posted by Bad Vilbel | August 20, 2010, 7:07 pmOh la la, HP!! This cutie family singing a boring tune promoting a ready-to-consume happiness rather sounds like brainwash.. Even the beverage itself (which is not chocolate) doesn’t taste good, believe me.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
I understand your point though your argumentation against war is very similar to Maréchal Pétain’s when he asked the French not to resist to German invasion in 1940.
He said : we are tired of war, we need peace and a secured collaboration, etc. Concretely, the word “collaboration” meant willingness to accept Germany as the dominant force in European affairs.
It also meant not only accepting, but promoting discriminatory policies against the Jews of France – who have been led to extermination camps not by the Gestapo but by the French police itself. These massive racist crimes happened under “peace” and in the name of “we are fed up with wars”.
Of course, no one wants war but who wants of this kind of collaborationist peace ?
Posted by quelqu'une | August 20, 2010, 7:31 pmquelqu’une mon amie 🙂
I stand corrected on the drink. Sure looked of chocolate color but then I browsed through the other video commercials and learned it has coffee and chicorée. So I said to myself, yikes, Chicorée??? Isn’t that the spinash-like veggie we make nice meat and vegetarian dishes with? with coffee? Sheesh!
So maybe lobotomizing is the right characterization given that it is made to sound so yummy when I take your word it’s not.
But back to our discussion, I understand your point also; however, what solution do you propose?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 7:54 pmAIG, is the news of the resumption of talks being taken positively (or even seriously) in Israel?
It’s starting to get mentioned in Lebanese online media (and maybe more in the papers tomorrow) http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&87A292368E538E0DC22577850059017F but in an unassuming no-commentary fashion.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 20, 2010, 8:13 pmBV,
Also a unicorn is a unicorn, but just like a grain of sugar it does not exist. What is the maximal size of a grain of sugar? What happens when we add one little bit of sugar to that amount?
A gene is of course a man made construct. The term was coined before people knew that DNA existed. It is a gross simplification that a gene is a specific stretch of DNA. There are organisms that do not code their genes in DNA. You think you know what a gene is but you are mistaken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene#Changing_concept
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 8:57 pmHP,
Let’s say Netanyahu and Abbas accept an agreement based on the Clinton Parameters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters
The diaspora Palestinians will reject it out of hand and Hamas will call him a traitor. 50% of the Arab world will see this as humiliation and most of the Lebanese will be against it because they will view themselves as being stuck with Palestinians.
For what’s it worth, I would accept such a solution and I suspect most Israelis. But seriously, it will not bring peace. The Palestinians would still be divided and Hamas would still fight Israel.
The problem is that most Palestinians are seeking “justice” not peace. Joe M. can explain this to you better since I see no difference between their “justice” and the end of the Jewish state.
Posted by AIG | August 20, 2010, 9:10 pmAIG, I re-read some of the material about the Clinton parameters and modulations that followed. To me, things are amazingly close for the sensible and moderate folks on both sides to reach agreement. Of course, there will be outrage and opposition from each side’s extremists, not only on the Palestinian side. You say the opponents on the Arab side will be 50%. I’m not so sure. Like everywhere in the world there is a silent majority that doesn’t get counted in situations where folks refrain, often out of fear, from expressing their opinions. Remember also that there will be danger of extremists in Israel taking some kind of subversive action (remember the assassination of Itzhak Rabin?).
In the final analysis, this is the challenge to both sides: to ensure that the choice for life and a positive future for the next generation prevails against those who want to hold on to the past and its misery and its hate.
I’m no expert in the details of the negotiations but I understand the importance of some of the symbolism of the final elements in the settlement. For example, there have got to be ways to make the land ratio swap 1:1 by using some land somewhere that is inconsequential. Some symbolic return of some Palestinians, with some limits, along with significant, extremely attractive, and well controlled in its distribution, compensation package for those Palestinians who will need to then permanently settle outside their original native land, all this seems quite workable.
I don’t know what similar changes would make things more acceptable to some of the otherwise reticent Israelis.
One thing is true to me (and I think “quelqu’une” may disagree with me here — in a friendly way nonetheless), and that is that George Mitchell is a true game-changer who has the wisdom, poise, experience, determination, and persistence to be the catalyst that helps define and effect those modulations that might well make this the final and successful phase of the long peace process.
There’s a lot of “barking” that’s going to happen on both sides. Sure, it will be louder on the Arab side simply, at least, because there are more Arabs than Israeli. We should all hope that those folks’ bite is nothing compared to their bark. Yasser Arafat once said “enough is enough.” I’m sure some Israeli leader said the same thing at one point or the other. At no time does this ring more true than now.
I recognize your rather fatalistic view of the poor prospects of the current peace efforts and your painting of failure scenarios. Despite what you say, I have to believe that you would welcome an alternative scenario were you become pleasantly surprised that you were wrong. Ditto for Joe M.
Finally, by the way, whatever happened to “Shai” of the old SyriaComment days ??
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 3:33 amAbout people who have had Jewish friends. “I have or had or knew a Negro, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Roma (Gepsey) friend” is the oldest racial excuse in the world. In most cultures it is a standard joke.
Sanctimoneus preachings about eternal justice aside. Between about 1949 and 1969 the border bewtween Lebanon and Israel was like the USA-Canada border, now. Better than USA Mexico border, now. In several Arab Israeli wars in these years not one ! not even one Lebanese was killed while hundreds, probably thusands, of Arabs and Israelies were killed.
Lebanon became the tip of the sword of the Arab muslim wars against Isrsel + total hate after about 1970. What happened before when the wounds were fresh and the blood hot? When others made peace Lebanon made war. There are more Palestinians, % wise, in Jordan than in Lebanon, so that is a bad excuse. The reasons?, one among many, Lebanon was chosen to be a cannon fodder by the others for various reasons+ intensive brain washing + intensively generated hate. Also the reactions of Israel did not help, but again what about the 20 “good” years, please explain.
Nationalism in the ME with the involved hate of others did not start in 1947 with Israel. The people in the Lebanon, walking some squares in Beirut, should know it better than others. Jews were persecuted and killed in the ME long before 1947.
It is sad when you tell me about the suffering of Christians and others in Lebanon, It did not start in 1947. My forefathers left South Lebanon, Hazbaia, in about 1880 and 1920 beacuse in such wars they were killed by both Chrisians, Metualies, and Suna, Durzi were a little bit better to them, not to the christians. In a situation like that Christians help Christian and Jews help Jews, France Russia and others helped, only the Jews helped the Jews,.
Jews left Lebanon, after and befor 1970, not to only to Israel, but Israel was and is their insurance. It is the only place in the world where they can protect themselves by themselves from those who want to kill them or enslave them dehimi like, are there such enslavers acting now in Lebanon? is Lebanon doing anything about that? the truth please. Jews left Lebanon because they were forced to leave and nobody helped them. Where they were or are protected: Tunisia, Moroco, they do not leave.
I stopped my lurking just to put few facts in the very deterministic world pictures that some of you paint. The Israelis are not saints, far from it, and are not becomming more saintly with time. But what about Lebanon?
And another question, just one. Imperialism is bad very bad, but France & USA left you a culture, a language and to many an occasional or permanent shelter. How many of you are studying the Persian language those days ?
Also genes RNA & DNA are not made of amino acids.
Posted by Rani | August 21, 2010, 3:41 amRani,
To your questions:
“What happened before when the wounds were fresh and the blood hot?”
“Also the reactions of Israel did not help, but again what about the 20 “good” years, please explain.”
I think I can provide the explanation. It is called the Cairo agreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_agreement
To the outrage of many Lebanese Christians, many of whom started emigrating “en masse” after this, this agreement is what created the “state within the state” and the beginning of military operations by Palestinians, some of which were terrorist attacks against civilians, against Israel. It’s that simple.
Christians in Lebanon have had their good days and bad days. Some of them were, in my opinion, the ultimate in stupidity for joining the movements to chase the French out back in the late 30’s and early 40’s. Some of them of course committed heinous crimes — probably under the influence of drugs — in Sabra and Shatila. Others of course were and continue to be victim. It’s a polychromatic portrait as or every group and every nation.
Not sure if you were including me in the reference of “I had a Jewish friend.” I certainly mentioned something along those lines. What I did not mention is that I have now many Jewish friends, spanning the gamut from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, religiously and politically. In old posts on SyriaComment I mentioned more about my experience with colleagues, doctors, scientists, and others who happened to be Jews. I also have similarly muslim friends and colleagues, some of whom are at the peak of scientific achievements and whom I have promoted and helped tremendously. So… not be defensive and certainly the joke is understood and regrettably many say things like that, but wanted to take exception in case you were lumping me with the group.
Objective statements intended in this post. No value judgment.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 4:48 amThe military operations by Palestinians I’m referring to above are, obviously, those from Lebanese soil.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 4:49 amRani, it’s also a matter of record that the 1970 transition to violence emanating from Lebanon against Israel (by Palestinian) also was triggered by the “black September” events in Jordan when then king Hussein violently put down what he perceived (and likely was) an attempt as usurping Jordanian state power by the Palestinian refugees there.
Clearly there’s much blame to put on how the Palestinians chose to fight back their exodus from their native land. Nevertheless, what caused this exodus, regardless of the mechanisms, details, and rationale, is indeed the creation of the state of Israel in such a way that it included massacres of Palestinian villages that spread terror in the hearts of many and made them pick up and leave. Like it or not, this is also a matter of record.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 5:48 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Inconvenient facts!
Much is there is a lot to blame on Arabs and Palestinians and Lebanese and some folks here clearly admit it, it would be refreshing to read admissions of blame and terror by Israelis when these happened.
Facts matter, of course, and often speak for themselves. Fact that speaks of the 2006 war between HA and Israel:
Ratio of 10 to 1 victims in Lebanon vs. Israel with mostly civilian victims for Lebanon and mostly military victims for Israel. No commentary needed. And puhleez don’t start blaming the civilians for allowing the HA fighters to hide between them. Two wrongs don’t make a right!
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 5:53 amI think “quelqu’une” may disagree with me here — in a friendly way nonetheless
En effet : well spotted, HP! 😉
I share the opinion of the regretted Edward Said who called Arafat “the Pétain of the Palestinians”.
Even worse, both Abbas – that i would compare to Laval – and his authority lack of constitutional legitimacy. And the experience proves that the guarantees given to the Arabs on halting the settlement activity in occupied Jerusalem are not respected.
As I once read on the apartheid wall built by the champions of negotiations : “the only peace Israel wants is a piece of the land” – and time to prepare the colonial wars to come.
—
“Do not forget that there are 144 settlements [in 2007], including twenty or so settlements in the heart of Gaza where they control all the best land, so Gaza is divided in the middle. There is no way of getting from Gaza to the West Bank because Israel is in between them.
Now Barak has said he is going to build a thirty mile causeway connecting the West Bank to Gaza.1 How many years is that going to take? That is number one. Number two is all those settlements are connected in the West Bank by what they call by-passing roads that go around the Arab concentration. All of them. We have no continuous territory. They are all Israeli roads controlled by the Israelis—most of them built by the military since Oslo. They are for the settlers, so that the settlers can go from one area to another. South Africa operated on the same principle. So what kind of state would it be if you do not have contiguity? The Israelis will give back only 40%—that’s the dream, that Barak will “give” 40% back. They will still control the Jordan valley. They will control Jerusalem and its environs. Jerusalem is like a megalopolis occupying 25% of the West Bank. All of this has happened since ’67. They have continued adding to Jerusalem. You read about it in the paper everyday. They are building new settlements in Jerusalem; they just keep expanding the city limits, and building new settlements on Arab land.”
source : Interview with Edward W. Said – Postcolonial Text Vol 3 No 3 (2007)
Posted by quelqu'une | August 21, 2010, 6:35 amquelqu’une habibti, je comprend ton point de vue. The question remains as I asked you before. What (practical) solution do you then suggest? Eternal war?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 7:54 amI tried but failed.
War is war is war. The ratio numbers of 2006 will be much more terrible in the next war, and more so in the next and even more in the next. Seems that Lebanon has decided willingly to be the tip of the sword of the war against Israel. It is a heavy burden carried previously by Syria, Jordan, Irak, Egypt and others. This decision was made freely, proudly and loudly, what are you complaining about? You all read books, think about other nations who made that decision. Lebanon made other decisions between 1950 – 1970. There are million excuses for bad decisions. I am sure Lebanon could have made a better decision, without learning Persian. I hope for all of us that Lebanon will find ways to change that bad decision.
What I wanted to make clear, and failed, was: As long as the choise given to Israel by Lebanon is the choise given to the Jews of Lebanon – Fight for your survival or vanish that is what is going to happen.
No body in Lebanon have Jewish friends that speak Heberew in the street dress as a Jew and sending kids to a Jewish eduction system. I, with a PhD, work under a proud Arab PhD, in an Israeli Government office. He is better than me in all and any ways, and I stand up when he enter my office. His wife dress like an Arab and his kids go to an Arabic school and can live from age zero to 18 in Arabic only. Compare: Jews in Leb, Palestinian in Israel, Who was etnically and culturally cleaned. P.S. I hear you have problems with Arabic in Lebanon. In Israel more and more people are speaking Arabic.
Eduard Said was living like a prince in USA and sentding other to die for his ideas. Many Jews act similarily but he made a very good business out of it. THE FACT is that Israel left Gaza willingly. Gaza could have beome Hongkong or Singapoor and that with out making peace with Israel or giving away one Palestinian right. See what have become of it? Better being a Christian Arab in Haifa than in Gaza. Thank E. Said for that, partly anyhow.
Last week Israel broke down the wall between Jerusalem and Beit Galla – Beit Lehem. You do not see that on El Gazira, I wonder why?. In a process of peace more walls will be broken. There was no wall at all only rotten wire fence between Israel and Lebanon between 1950-1970, no shooting or cutting trees also.
In peace Egypt and Jordan got every single shiber of land that belonged to them. Let Lebanon and the Palestinians and Syria try Israel.
End for today. For the Muslims among you in the Levant. It is the hottest Ramadan in generations, hope you have an easy day.
Posted by Rani | August 21, 2010, 8:18 amHmm, Rani, that’s quite a bit of rambling and jumping across topics and misconceptionss. I believe you are sincer but perhaps too entrenched in mis/pre/conceptions.
Lebanon does not speak with one voice. numbers and percentages matter. you are right on many points but do not offer a solution. same question to you as to quelqu’une: what is the solution besides eternal war and tit for tat?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 9:26 am@ HP :
Oslo was a mirage. It’s my turn to ask a practical question : have mirages ever solved any sort of conflict ?
@ Rani :
Indeed Edward Said was a real prince.
Posted by quelqu'une | August 21, 2010, 11:52 amRani, I agree with most everything you say; but, I feel that I should point out that Lebanese Jews were never persecuted beyond what is expected for a minority in any country. There were no witch hunts and no slayings. No inquisitions and from what I understand, they were treated quite fairly within the confessional system (not really surprising if you understand the Lebanese gov’t). They were an ancient part of the community and all Lebanese knew it. Everything I’ve read on the subject says the Lebanese Jews felt they could no longer live in Lebanon, as Israel waged war upon it. It was a voluntary EXODUS, a far cry from an ‘extermination.’ Ya betta check ya tone, son.
Posted by Nasser V | August 21, 2010, 12:44 pmThank you NV. It’s about time someone helped me make the point in a logical manner (vs. ranting back which doesn’t help).
Ya quelqu’une, you are being evasive. you’re answering my questio with a questio. For the third time, what solution do YOU propose?
Chou, criticism is easy. Get in the ring, feel the constraints and pressure, and then tell us. S’il te plait mon amie.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 1:30 pmRani, here’s why I characterize parts of your posts as rambling. I dont see a consistency in principles but rather an adaptation of whichever principle helps you make a preconceived notion Case in point. You say “war is war is war.” Are we to then explain the holocaust as “war is war is war”?
We join you in recognizing this as a crime against humanity. You better understand the implications of the statistics of the 2006 war. The world does.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 1:46 pmHP,
What is the logic in what Nasser is saying? If you make a community scared enough and they leave then you can call it VOLUNTARY EXODUS and say that it was not ethnic cleansing? Don’t make me laugh. If there were no “witch hunts” against the Jews, why are the Jews in Lebanon afraid to identify themselves as Jews? Rani is absolutely right. The Lebanese Jewish community was systematically annihilated. Not one person in Lebanon stood up to help them. Please point me to a source which shows that there was any group that tried to explain to the Lebanese public that there is a difference between the Lebanese Jewish community and Israel.
As for the statistics of the 2006 war, you are wrong also. Are the “statistics” different in Afghanistan? There are many fold times more Taliban and Afghan civilians killed than Nato soldiers.
Posted by AIG | August 21, 2010, 4:41 pmAIG, what has befallen the Jews of Lebanon is wrong. No one is defending it. The points made earlier, including the comment from Nasser V and my earlier comments, relate to the scale in percentage of the Lebanese population, and, importantly, that suffering and displacement happened to many Lebanese of all sects, including massacres and crime, against each sect in fact, and also including the crime against Palestinian Civilians perpetrated by Christians in Sabra and Shatila. It was all wrong. It was all bad. Yet, I don’t think there is any equivalency between the horrors of this civil war and what befell the Palestinians in 1948. The percentages are different and the context is different.
For the 2006 war, you’re wanting to compare the statistics of casualties between the 2 sides and the nature of casualties (civilians vs. military) with Afghanistan. Even if the ratios are the same, two wrongs don’t make a right and one cannot justify one wrong with another. On the other hand, here also the context is different and I’d like to see what these statistics are. The U.S. has a lot of supporters within Afghanistan, and some of those are fighting alongside the U.S. against the Taliban and others. Israel has no supporters in Lebanon, not when you have innocent Israeli girls write wishful messages on Israeli rockets destined to create destruction in the country without regards to civilian casualties. This is not a record you want to defend.
We can really go on for ever in such analyses and arguments and points, etc. It is the past and the challenge here is how to move forward in a way that serves the best interest of the future generations.
So, on the one hand, I have “quelqu’une” who appears to be of the front of “say no to any settlement and accuse its champions of being sell-outs and ‘Marechal Petain’ etc.” — similar to what used to be called “jabhat-el-rafd” (the front of refusal) whose motto was “no, no, no,… (to any settlement)” and who does not answer the question I pose as to what her proposal for peace or for the future and settlement is.
On the other hand, I have AIG who smartly quibbles with many of the points but who similarly stays short of identifying a way forward other than one that has the whole Arab world go through a phase of muslim fundamentalism (and who knows how long that might last) to then realize it’s of no use and move towards settlement accommodation with Israel.
I see neither positions as tenable, smart, logical, humane, or practical. Sorry, but I certainly respect both of your intellects and opinions and certainly your rights to have such opinions. I just don’t see your positions as being constructive. And I’ll spare you a post by answering both of your expected retort that I am naive. I am not. I admire the “man in the ring” who happens now to be George Mitchell and believe, with the right cooperation from both sides, he will crack this problem. Time will tell of course and we’ll all stay tuned.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 11:33 pmMy reference to “the man in the ring” or “the man in the arena” above is of course to the famous speech by Ted Roosevelt. You can Google it but here’s the famous quote:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 11:40 pmI see and read a lot of critics of the men (and women) in the arena, but precious few who are supporting them nor jumping in the arena to help.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 21, 2010, 11:41 pmHP,
Of course the percentages are different. There is NO Lebanese community in Lebanon. And there are over 1 million Arab Israelis in Israel, in the Knesset, in the supreme court, in government, in high positions in the army and police.
As for the context, the Palestinians were attempting to throw the Jews into the sea. The Lebanese Jews were not harming or threatening ANY sect in Lebanon. Clearly, the fact that there is no Lebanese community left indicates that what happened to the Lebanese Jews is much worse than what happened to the Palestinians.
As for 2006, the casualties are what is to be expected when a Western style army fights a guerrilla group. As for Israel not having supporters in Lebanon, that is clear from the fact that not one Lebanese demanded that the Red Cross be allowed to visit the Israeli prisoners in Lebanon. If you want to demand from others to wage war by some rules, why don’t you begin by following the rules yourself? Your demand that we Israelis care about Lebanese casualties at a risk to our soldiers is a joke given the fact that no Lebanese whatsoever showed a basic compassion to the Israeli prisoners. In fact, they died of their wounds in captivity because of course you didn’t put them in a proper hospital so that they could be treated. And then, you continued lying to the families of the wounded about their fate and of course denied the Red Cross any ability to visit. In fact, I don’t even recall ONE Lebanese blogger demanding visitation rights to the prisoners. In short, you are in no position to preach to anybody. And we still don’t forget how you guys murdered Ron Arad and won’t even provide information about him.
And why are you misrepresenting my views about the peace process? I clearly said that I support a peace agreement based on the Clinton Parameters and this is what Mitchell is proposing. What I said was that even though such an agreement may be signed, it will not bring real peace.
As for being in the ring, excuse me, but you have left the ring many years ago. Do you have any close relative in the Lebanese Army? Are you living in the South of Lebanon? The people in the ring are the people that will have to live with the consequences of any agreement, not some kibitzers from the USA.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 12:39 am“What preoccupies [Mr. Young] in Lebanon above all is liberty, and the ability of the society to block or avert the rise of a single party or coalition of forces that may seek to impose its will on all.” I think the political “gridlock” mentioned later in the article is cogent proof that such party is not feasible in Lebanon (it did not happen during 30 years of Syrian hegemony and won’t.) What Lebanon needs is a two-party system where one controls the other in an out-of-control nation. March 14 needs enlist more Shiites and March 8 more Christians and Sunnis for a successful launch.
Posted by noble | August 22, 2010, 7:32 amAIG, you are an excellent debater. You made your views and arguments very clear. I tried to do the same. We can leave it at that.
Yes I left the ring. Actually I never was in the ring. I won’t have to “live with” the consequences of an agreement. I guess I am a kibitzer from the USA. I don’t think I’m alone. There’s a strong interest in this region by many in the USA and whereas some folks are attached to anachronistic principles and beliefs, many others, like me, want to see it become truly peaceful and prosperous, and go back to participate in helping it become even more prosperous.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 7:48 amHP said “We can leave it at that,” while advising interested folks in taking the totality of the statements, arguments, and facts, into consideration as they form, modulate, or remain entrenched in their opinions. Note in particular the principles (if they exist) of the contributors and the efforts (where applied) to be conciliatory or the complete absence of such efforts.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 8:30 amOK, one more: not that “kibitzers from the USA” include President Truman who was the first to provide a “timely” recognition of Israel, members of Congress and US politicians who are diehard supporters of Israel. “Kibitzers from the USA” should be taken in their totality – accepting praise as well as criticism – instead of picking and choosing and trying to defend untenable equivalencies (or worse) of the fate of Palestinians in their native land and the Lebanese Jews who, as Nasser V. said, suffered (albeit very wrongly – no one is quibbling with that) no more than what has historically happened to minorities (remember what happened to the Japanese Americans?). Re-visit the sequence of events.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 8:40 amI clearly said that I support a peace agreement based on the Clinton Parameters and this is what Mitchell is proposing. What I said was that even though such an agreement may be signed, it will not bring real peace.
AIG,
Let’s reach this stage if at all possible, and then have the whole world truly see why peace could not be achieved.
Posted by Badr | August 22, 2010, 11:43 amHP,
By saying:
“instead of picking and choosing and trying to defend untenable equivalencies (or worse) of the fate of Palestinians in their native land and the Lebanese Jews who, as Nasser V. said, suffered (albeit very wrongly – no one is quibbling with that) no more than what has historically happened to minorities (remember what happened to the Japanese Americans?)”
Are you implying that the Lebanese Jews were not on their native land? So you see them as foreigners and not as Lebanese? And if they are on their native land, what is the difference then from the Palestinians? You are trying to invent a difference where there isn’t.
As for the Japanese in the US. Yes, they were interned in camps during WWII. But did they all leave after? Did they remain scared after WWII? Was the Japanese US community annihilated liked the Lebanese Jews? Of course not. In fact, what the US did to the Japanese shows how much better Israel is. Do we intern the Israeli Arabs because we are at war with Hamas? Did we put military rule on them during the second intifada when many of them were supporting the suicide bombers? No. Democracy proves its worth in difficult times, and Israeli democracy stood up to the challenge.
And if you claim that total obliteration of a community is something that “historically happened to minorities” I could easily counter that ethnic cleansing often happens to the losers of war. But that is a stupid argument. Again, you are trying to excuse what you did to the Lebanese Jews as “normal”. Why don’t you give us examples from recent history in which whole communities vanished, and then let us compare. In fact you will find that what happened to the Lebanese Jews is very far from normal. Very rarely are such communities systematically annihilated. The Lebanese have set the ultimate standard in ethnic cleansing. You just are not able to face this fact.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 12:28 pmAgain I failed. I wanted to show people in Lebanon, who read books, that Lebanon is very similar to Israel in deed and misdeed.
I wanted to show that selective history and erasing of history like the Jews of Lebanon and the “good” years 1950 to 1970 is not a good practice. Demonization of both sides may bring us both to terrible destruction and then the evil sidelooker will dine on our flesh.
Seems they have a diffeent dictionary in Lebanon. As for “Honest”, for every picture of Jewish-Israeli girl writing on a missiles I will give you ten pictures of Palestinian and/or Hizb. childeren marching with weapons or dressing like Shaids calling for the extermination of Israel and the Jews. Am I not telling the truth? What do you think and say IN LEBANON NOT THE USA when you see these marching children calling for the death of others and some times their death?
The extermination of the Jews of Lebanon was evil, total and exeptional. As I told you my fore fathers were from Hazbaia. Again, contrary to what you say and print in Lebanon, like about half of the Israely Jews, I am as native here as any Lebanese. By any measure what happened to the Lebanese Jews is more extreme than what was caused by Israel to the Palestinans in 1946-1949. Most of you did not like to hear it and responded as expected. Lebanese are not used to hear that story while every Israeli knows about the Palestinan tragedy. Could I expect that from now on you will remember that evil and when Israel is demonized in your presence will you think obout it, some times? Or you will play with numbers and %. Is it OK to exterminate a small minority, 50.000 is OK. 100.000 ? 5OO.000? who draws the line? The Syriac-Arameic speaking Christians in Syria, the oldest native community there after the Jews, [ yes it is true! and I will say it again and again] should they be sent to Sweden, because of their low numbers? And who is next? Is that is why the Armenian & Tashnak joined Hizb. so early, even befor Jumblat?
Some of you read Haaretz, so do many Israelis, anybody who read it knows about the Pal. tragedy. As for the Jews of Lebanon every excuse and comparison given by some people here, like Japanese in the USA or “normal” fate of minorities just strengthen the total evil and the total uniquness of that deed. If these are your excuses you have no excuse.
Israel is very far from pefect, very far; but so is Lebanon. We should try and find ways to live beside each other. I am not talking about peace or love, I am talking about life.
As for the famous speech by Ted Roosevelt. I was smiling. He is talking about Eduard Said on one side, the real evil side; and on the “good” side he is talking about the the Isreali Palestinan who are working with me for the good of the whole Israeli people, for their families and for their future, these are the people that according to Ted Roosevelt realy count.
For the Muslims among you, in the Levant, the terrible heat is comming down, have an easy Ramadan.
Posted by Rani | August 22, 2010, 2:20 pmAmen Rani.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 2:42 pmBadr,
What happens if we reach a peace agreement along the Clinton Parameters and Iran funds a Palestinian Hizballah that starts shooting rockets at Israel? How do you make sure such a scenario does not materialize since if it does, both Israelis and Palestinians will be worse of. In fact, the Iranians already have many Hamas supporters in the West Bank that would be happy to get funded and shot missiles at Israel. So, what do you propose?
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 3:03 pmThis summarizes well Israeli views on the peace process:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 3:05 pmWorrying trend in Lebanon looking and more like Syria in its treatment of its citizens. Not a good sign:
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=195490
Posted by The Medlar | August 22, 2010, 3:12 pmAIG #148,
If that is the best that the Israeli government is willing to offer then the negotiations might as well be called off. It isn’t even old wine in new bottles. The best that can be said is that it is the same old wine, that has gone bad, in the same bottles with a slightly modified label 🙂
Legitimize the apartheid, what a way to go!!! A swiss cheese of a west bank,Israeli army on the Jordan borders, the whole of Jerusalem and no sovereignty. Is this much better than the right to elect and run municipal councils in ghettoes?
I sure hope that the Obama administration will act to save Israel from itself.
Posted by ghassan karam | August 22, 2010, 6:19 pmRani, AIG, what happened to the Jews of Lebanon was wrong. Do you think what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 was wrong?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 7:10 pmand in fact, a more general question, would you admit that anything Israel has done is wrong?
You are communicating here with folks who consider a lot of what the Palestinian did, what the Arabs in general have done, was and is very wrong, some of it criminal, some of it inhumane, etc. Yet, a common sense approach requiring the necessity to move beyond the eternal conflict that seems to simmer and find common grounds for a peaceful resolution leading to a better life and to prosperity for the future generations.
In all the back and forth I have yet to see a single admission of something wrong that Israel has done. Is Israel infallible?
I could even understand your taking a rather strongly belligerent position against extremists on the Arab side, partly as defense, and partly out of necessity to buck extremism.
But here, when tested on some pretty simple and obvious facts, you want to keep making outrageous points, like for example Rani making the statement:
“The extermination of the Jews of Lebanon was evil, total and exceptional.”
Really? Do you even know what you’re saying?
We’re not arguing that what happened to the Jews of Lebanon was wrong (as was what happened to thousands of Christians, and as was what happened to the poor innocent victims of Sabra and Shatila). It was all wrong. But is your phrasing of what happened correct? Do you actually believe it?
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 7:21 pmHP,
I honestly hope that you will not misunderstand the spirit of this post. You are obviously entitled to understand issues and historical cevelopments any way that you choose. I am not trying to dictate a point of view but I will however express some very serious misgivings at the implied moral equivalance that your post assigns to the two acts.
I have always been of the opinion that the Lebanese have failed to assure their Jewish compatriots that they have nothing to fear and that they enjoy the same rights as any other Lebanese. Lebanon failed to do that and thus we all became complicit in the act of injustice against our fellow citizens. I am sure that there are many Lebanese who share my feeling that we have committed an egregious crime , as Elie Weisel articulates so beatifullyin his masterpiece Night. To know evil and do nothing about is to become complicit in the act. But as bad and wrong and as immoral as the act might be it does not rise to the standard of the widescale premeditated atrocities committed in Dair Yaseen. Scale matters.
There is no moral equivalence between the two acts although both are wrong as you suggest.
Posted by ghassan karam | August 22, 2010, 7:35 pmGK, I fully agree with what you wrote and I have to attribute any impression that I created that I imply equivalence as due only to my poor articulation of the points I was trying to make. To some extent, it was my severe irritation at my inability to extract any admission from Rani or AIG regarding crimes on their side that kept leading to long posts and attempts at getting such admissions, which may have led to poor expression of opinions on my part.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 7:49 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/08/22/gps.last.look.synagogue.cnn
Lebanon has had a long struggle with many difficulties and of course interference from many outside forces exploiting the weakness of the state, and compounded by mistakes and crimes of its own people. But Lebanon endures, strives for the better incessantly, continues to make progress (even if sometimes a forward step is followed by two backwards step).
The report above is a good example.
I believe Lebanon will indeed one day become the true symbol of coexistence among different religions in a harmonious and prosperous manner. You can see the evolution happening if you take a long term historical perspective. This is despite many problems, not the least of which is what seems to be an intrinsic lack of civic sense. It’s all fixable. It’s all being fixed. When fully successful, it will be the best message to send to the world that one need not create theocracies, or ethnically defined countries to protect any community. The 15-Million strong Lebanese diaspora will then take pride in its country of origin or of the origins of its parents and ancestors. Patience. Positive Thinking.
Maybe even we can talk QN in becoming the first President of such a new Lebanon.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 7:56 pmAIG, in the link you posted about the Israeli position going into the new negotiations, there are 2 comments by the same contributor, a certain “JSD” which I copy below. Care to comment on them?
=============
By “JSD”
Most Jewish persons are against a Zionist State for the JEwish people. Zionism made the holocaust.
On December 7, 1938, Ben Gurion, the first head of the Zionist ‘state of Israel’ declared “If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.”
On August 31, 1949, Ben Gurion stated: “Although we have realized our dream of creating a Jewish State, we are only at the beginning. There are still only 900,000 Jews in Israel, whereas the majority of the Jewish people still remains abroad. Our future task is to bring all the Jews to Israel.”
Of the two and a half million Jews seeking refuge from the Nazis between 1935 and 1943, less than 9% went to settle in Palestine. The vast majority, 75%, went to the Soviet Union. In the mid-70’s, more people emigrated out of ‘Israel’ than came in. The only surges of immigration to the Zionist state have occurred during anti-Semitic threats and persecution in foreign countries.
===========================================
==================================
JSD:
1947, March 1 17 British officers killed, during raid and explosion.
1947, March 12 1 British soldier killed during the attack on Schneller Camp.
1947, July 29 2 kidnapped British sergeants hanged.
1947, September 26 4 British policemen killed in Irgun bank robbery.
1947, September 29 13 killed, 53 wounded in attack on British police station.
1947, December 11 13 killed in attack on Tireh, near Haifa
1947, December 12 20 killed, 5 wounded by barrel bomb at Damascus Gate.
1947, December 13 6 killed, 25 wounded by bombs outside Alhambra Cinema.
1947, December 13 5 killed, 47 wounded by two bombs at Damascus Gate.
1947, December 13 7 killed, 10 seriously injured in attack on Yehudieh.
1947, December 16(ca) 10 killed by bomb at Noga Cinema in Jaffa.
1947, December 20 6 Arabs killed, dozens wounded by bomb at Haifa refinery, precipitating the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre.
1947, December 29 14 Arabs killed by bomb in Jerusalem.
1948, January 1 2 Arabs killed and 9 injured by shooting attack on cafe in Jaffa.
1948, January 5 14 Arabs killed and 19 injured by truck bomb outside the 3-storey ‘Serrani’, Jaffa’s built Ottoman Town Hall
1948, January 7 20 Arabs killed by bomb at Jaffa Gate.
1948, February 10 7 Arabs killed near Ras el Ain after selling cows in Tel Aviv
1948, April 9-April 11 107-120 Palestinians killed and massacred (the estimate generally accepted by scholars, instead the first announced number of 254) during and after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, by 132 Irgun and 60 Lehi fighters.
Between 1937-1948 During 11 years of attacks, Hundreds of Arab civilians, over 20 British officers and over 20 Jewish civilians were killed in total by the Irgun
===================================
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 22, 2010, 8:45 pmHP and GK,
Dir Yassin was a heinous crime.
“The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community’s main paramilitary force—and by the area’s two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for Israel sent Jordan’s King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed”.
“Pa’il writes that the Haredi people of Givat Shaul came to help the villagers at around 2 p.m., and were able to stop the killing”
The quotes are from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Which Lebanese politician has ever apologized for what was done to the Lebanese Jews?
And yes, I agree with Rani that:
“The extermination of the Jews of Lebanon was evil, total and exceptional.”
How is it possible that an ENTIRE community disappeared without anything being done by ANY Lebanese politician or public figure? How come there were NO Lebanese that stood up to stop the ethnic cleansing?
Yes, GK scale matters. I do not know how to compare the death of 107 innocent people to the ethnic cleansing of 50,000.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 8:53 pmAIG,
Your spinning will not ring true to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the history of what has happened over the past sixty odd years. deir Yaseen was just one example and the scale as you well know is that of over a million intentional and premeditated eviction to possibly 50,000 who were not offered enough assurances of safety but were never subjected to the horors that occured in Palestine.
Usually you will never find me going back in history to 1948. It has happened, it is behind us and it was a great injustice to the Palestinians in which the silly idea of a “land with no people to a people with no land”.
I suggest that we do not keep going back to that period of land theft, discrimination and exploitation if we are to ever find a workable solution based on accepting the new realities that have been imposed at the point of a gun. If I were you I would not go back to the history of land theft and ethnic cleansing that were the bases of the establishment of the state of Israel. That was a sorry period that is best remembered with sorrow and not with pride.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 22, 2010, 9:13 pmGK,
Yes, many Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 by Israel. I am not proud of that. But I do know that if they were not ethnically cleansed, there would not be a stable Jewish state. It is sad that justice for Jews came at the expense of injustice for Arabs. But the blame is not with Israel and the Jews. It is the intolerance of Europe to its Jewish people that led to the events of 1948. Both the Jews and the Arabs were a victim of these circumstances.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 9:29 pmAIG, your claim that Lebanese Jews were exterminated in Lebanon is just a pure propaganda. Lebanese Jews enjoyed full legal rights under the Lebanese Constitution. Many led prosperous lives in Lebanon. Jews enjoyed relative toleration. In the mid-50’s, approximately 7,000 Jews lived in Beirut.
Fighting in the 1975-76 Muslim-Christian civil wars swirled around the Jewish Quarter in Beirut, damaging many Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues. Other Lebanese, Muslims and Christians living in Beirut suffered as much as the Jews. Churches,and mosque alike were being damaged. Most of Beirut was destroyed. Jews as well as other Lebanese started emigrating. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese left Lebanon during that period. The Jews were not any different. The remaining Lebanese Jews emigrated around that period .Most Jews went to Europe (particularly France), the United States and Canada. Unlike Jews in many Arab countries, Lebanese Jews were allowed to freely leave the country with their possessions.
Before the break out of the civil war, the Lebanese Government assigned guards to Beirut’s Jewish quarter to protect them from any hostilities.
As recent as 2008,the leader of Lebanon’s Jewish Community Council announced that he planned to rebuild the Meghan Abraham synagogue in Beirut and that additional plans were underway to restore Beirut’s Jewish cemetery, which is home to some 4,500 graves.
Renovation work began in August 2009, with approval from the Lebanese government, planning authorities, and Hezbollah. Reconstruction was funded by donations from private donors and a donation from Solider, a construction company privately owned by the family of the Late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This is happening at a time Israel is restricting access to mosques Al Quds .
If any of the Lebanese Jews were harmed during that time, it didn’t happen because He or She was a Jew. There was no functioning Government to protect any Lebanese, a Jew or non Jew. All Lebanese were being harmed. Your claim is nonsense. It can’t be used as an excuse to Dar Yassin massacre. I’m not sure an apology would be comforting to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians murdered by Israel.
Posted by prophet | August 22, 2010, 10:15 pmProphet,
The usual Lebanese excuses, there was no government etc. etc.
Well Dir Yassin happened before there was even a Jewish state. Israel did not even exist yet and the British were in charge of Palestine. It was done by militias over which the large majority of the Jews had no control. So, why do you blame Israel for Dir Yassin but excuse Lebanon for the extermination of its Jewish community?
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 10:55 pmOh, and as for Palestinians killed, the Lebanese have killed more Palestinians than Israel ever did. A sad but true fact. They also killed many more Lebanese than Israel ever did. And, they also killed many more Arabs than Israel ever did. So, in all 3 categories you win.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 11:00 pm@AIG 11:00 pm,
That may be true overall, but since 1990, Israel is the undisputed winner. Congrats :)!
Posted by :) | August 22, 2010, 11:18 pmHow can you blame Lebanon for something that didn’t happen? There was no extermination of Jews of Lebanon. The Jews of Lebanon left because of the civil war and the instability at the time. If any Lebanese Jew lost his/her life during that time, it would have happened as a random event, or isolated incidents like the incidents that may take place in any American or European city.
Just repeating the claim/lie that Extermination of Jews in Lebanon happened will not make it true. A lie will always be a lie.
While Dir yassin did happen. If you want me to blame the Jews or the Jewish terrorist militias at the time,instead of Israel, than you will find a way of turning this into a anti-Semitic issue. The fact that many massacre were committed by either Israel or the terrorist Jewish militias that were operating at the time, does not excuse either.
As for what the Syrian did or didn’t do, I won’t excuse them of any crime they committed. I won’t excuse any state, organization, or individual for committing crimes or massacre against innocent civilians regardless of what faith they follow… A crime is a crime. If you want to turn this debate into a contest of who killed more, then you will be evaluating the los of human life by numbers.
It would make no difference if Israel Killed one more or one less civilian than any other Arab state would have killed. Nonetheless, I think Israel would come on top.
Would it make a difference if The Nazi murdered 5 million Jews instead of 6million? Would that make them less criminal? I don’t think so, nor should you.
Posted by prophet | August 22, 2010, 11:44 pmAre you serious? There is NO Jewish community in Lebanon. Jews are afraid to say they are Jews in Lebanon. The Jewish community was exterminated. No, the Lebanese Jews were not killed, but they were made to feel so unsafe that all left. Not ONE significant organization in Lebanon stood up to help them. And you still deny responsibility and think it was all random. Plenty of people had plenty of opportunities to reassure the Lebanese Jews. But nothing was done because most Lebanese wanted the Jews out.
As for my reminder to you about who killed more, it was because you wrote about the “hundreds of thousands” of Lebanese and Palestinians Israel killed. This is of course false. And it is a fact that Lebanese killed more Palestinians than Israel ever did.
Posted by AIG | August 22, 2010, 11:59 pmHP and GK,
This is what Hamas think about negotiations:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2568.htm
That is why even an agreement will not bring peace.
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 12:22 amAIG’s legends and usual propaganda prove that there’s unfortunately no other way than speaking against normalization : the more he argues, the more the colonial state of Israel seems to be a political monstrosity..
For example, he observes – with a glimpse of lucidity – “Jews came at the expense of injustice for Arabs” but immediately draws this strange conclusion : “Both the Jews and the Arabs were a victim of these circumstances”.
Would he say such things as : Both the nazis and the Jews were a victim of WWII circumstances? Hopefully not – and even if he said so, it would be factually untrue and morally disgusting.
Those who dream of the birth pangs of a new Middle-East (either through wars or so-called negotiations with Arab collaborationists) are the real enemy of a peaceful coexistence. Remember Hannah Arendt :
“Nationalism is bad enough when it trusts in nothing but the rude force of the nation. A nationalism that necessarily and admittedly depends upon the force of a foreign nation is certainly worse. This is the threatened state of Jewish nationalism and of the proposed Jewish state, surrounded inevitably by Arab states and Arab people. Even a Jewish majority in Palestine–nay even a transfer of all Palestine’s Arabs, which is openly demanded by the revisionists–would not substantially change a situation in which Jews must either ask protection from an outside power against their neighbors or come to a working agreement with their neighbors.
If such an agreement is not brought about, there is the imminent danger that, through their need and willingness to accept any power in the Mediterranean basin which might assure its existence, Jewish interest will clash with those of all other Mediterranean people; so that, instead of one “tragic conflict” we shall face tomorrow as many insoluble conflicts as there are Mediterranean nations. for these nations, bound to demand a mare nostrum shared only by those who have settled territories along its shores, must in the long run oppose any outside–that is, interefering–power creating or holding a sphere of interest. These outside power, however powerful at the moment, certainly cannot afford to antagonize the Arabs, one of the most numerous peoples of the Mediterranean basin. If, in the present situation, the powers should be willing to help the establishment of a Jewish homestead, they could do so only on the basis of a broad understanding that takes into account the whole region and the needs of all its people. On the other hand, the Zionists, if they continue to ignore the Mediterranean people and watch out only for the big faraway powers, will appear only as their tools, the agents of foreign and hostile interests. Jews who know their own history should be aware that such a state of affairs will inevitably lead to a new wave of Jew-hatred; the antisemitism of tomorrow will assert that Jews not only profiteered from the presence of foreign big powers in that region but had actually plotted it and hence are guilty of the consequences.”
source : Hannah Arendt, Zionism revisited, 1944, in Kohn, Feldman (eds.) The Jewish Writings, 2007
Posted by quelqu'une | August 23, 2010, 12:28 amquelqu’une,
How low can you go? You cannot even bring yourself to quote me correctly.
Both the Jews and the Arabs were victims of European policies that culminated in both peoples fighting for the same land. You seem to think that Jews had any other options where they could control their own destiny. Palestine was the only realistic option. The more you try to portray my refugee grandparents as “colonialists” the more I understand that you intentionally do not want to understand the complexity of the Israeli-Arab conflict.
And by the way, you still haven’t told us what your solution for the conflict is. Let me guess, Israel as a state has to be abolished. Right?
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 12:41 amAIG,
The fact (not a proven fact though) that there is no Jewish community in Lebanon does not prove your claim that it was exterminated. Last time Lebanon had an election, the census showed few hundreds Lebanese Jews anyway. LBC even interviewed few of them on the day of the election.
Why would you expect any organization ,during a civil war in a crowded city, to stand up for one group of Lebanese who follow a certain faith and not stand up for another? What makes you think that it is possible for anyone to stand up for anyone else while the whole city is being destroyed? Why would you consider a group of people of one faith more important than the other when entire neighborhoods were being looted and destroyed by a civil war?
Would you have been less offended if I had said tens of thousands? Would that have made Israel less guilty? Maybe I should say that all Palestinians who die in Palestine just decided to commit suicide. Would that make you feel better? OH, Now I remember, was it Golda Meir who said: I won’t forgive Palestinians because they force us to kill them. That makes them suicide –by-police.
A country that won’t admit its mistakes will always repeat them. Israel keeps repeating its mistake because it never admitted any.
I don’t want to run in circle with you. You can claim anything you want. You have yet to prove your case, and you can never prove it because it didn’t happen.
Posted by prophet | August 23, 2010, 12:43 am@ HP – désolée pour la réponse tardive à ta question – & AIG :
I’m neither arrogant or naive enough to say i have THE solution for any conflict.
Not always expecting the Arabs to crawl and sell off their land is maybe a first step if one truly believes in peace.
I think Hannah Arendt’s argument is essential : Zionism is the real enemy of Jews.
The “agreement” she speaks about is between equals and without any foreign interference : as a consequence, it has nothing to do with the current domination pathetically named “peace negotiations”.
Posted by quelqu'une | August 23, 2010, 1:34 amI salute your patience and ability to put up with these hypocrites who would shamelessly blame the whole world for their ills but never their societies and governments. How transparent and evidently rotten they are, one just needs to take a look at the utter failure of their countries and nation and make the proper conclusion
Now, let’s blame the Zionists for lack of electricity in Lebanon in the 21st century
TFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Posted by V | August 23, 2010, 2:10 amDeir Yassin myth – It is known that most of the people killed there died because of the lovely practice of Brave Arab worriors to fight behind civilian population. A practice Hamas perpetuate to this day.
The Arab leadership inflated the incident to motivate the arab side to fight. Alas,it backfired. Ben-Gurion also used this myth to settle a score against his political rivals.
I found it enlighting that some of the posters here know about Deir yassin “massacre” but don’t Acknowledge the atrocities committed against the jews during 1948 war.
How about the fact that the Arabs refused to accept the partition plan starting a war?
What about the massacres and attacks against the jews?
Why is it that everywhere the Arab side had the upper hand jews were killed or ethnically cleansed? (the old city for example)
Why treat the Palerstinians as victims when in fact they were active participants?
Until The Arabs take full Responsibility for their part, their actions and yes, their crimes this whole discussion is pointless.
Posted by i | August 23, 2010, 3:12 am“Without the freedom to criticize, there is no true praise”.
So tfoo 3lik ya V. and 3la those real hypocrites (and fake advocates of democracy) who can’t stand the slightest critic against the colonial state of Israel – while Palestine has been turned into an archipelago and south Lebanon covered by up to a million bomblets packed into cluster bombs prohibited under international law.
Posted by quelqu'une | August 23, 2010, 3:42 amAIG,
When was the last time a missile was fired from an area under the control of the PA in the West Bank?
Now where I’m coming from is the following: I want you to prove to the Palestinians that the insistence on the right of return, and not your unwillingness to accept a two state solution based on Clinton Parameters, is the real reason for failing to reach a peace agreement.
Posted by Badr | August 23, 2010, 5:28 amquelqu’une #172,
You must admit though that it would be helpful if those who are providing the critique are applying the same standard to both sides. Edward Said , whom you have made references to, has always opposed blowing up Israeli children in school buses by simply saying that if it is wrong in Beirut then it is also wrong in Tel Aviv.
I do not like repeating what has already been stated but I imagine this is the nature of the internet beast . Different people join the discussion at different stages and miss what has already been said. I agree with V’s basic point, Lebanon did not do anything to make its Jewish citizens feel safe and welcome during the civil war and after the 1982 Israeli invasion. But then the Lebanese government failed to take any measures that would make any Lebanese safe. That might not be discrimination per se but it is an acquiescence to evil as Eli Weissel among others have constantly reminded us. Yet you are right that there is no moral equivalence between the inability of civil society to prevent the exodus of Lebanese Jewery and the injustice and horror to which the Palestinians have been subjected.
So voila, one can voice strong disapproval of an outcome and yet be critical of another one on the other side. I see no contradictions in such positions. Just the opposite I think being able to apply the same standard to both sides is a prerequisite to a resolution of the conflict.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 23, 2010, 7:08 amGhassan,
I never ever supported the blowing of anyone’s children in school buses.
Though I disagree with you about “applying the same standards to both sides”. It sounds like an unjust conception of justice. Justice is not about treating equally the equals and unequally the unequals, it’s about treating equally both the equals and the unequals. It might seem a bit abstract, but here’s a concrete example : in the context of Apartheid in South Africa, would you have said that it’s necessary to “apply the same standards to both sides”?
About Elie Wiesel, I have no respect for the way he uses the survivors narratives and his blind support of zionism.
You should read this letter published in the New York Review of Books :
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/open-letter-elie-wiesel/
And this is another interesting article about Elie Wiesel
http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Weisel.htm
Pierre Vidal-Naquet – a French historian whose father dies in Auschwitz – wrote of Wiesel : “For example, you have Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish extremist, who is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says anything that comes to mind (…) You just have to read parts of Night to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is essentially a Shoah merchant (…) who has done harm, enormous harm, to historical truth.”
source : Zero [monthly magazine], avril 1987, 57.
“Par exemple, vous avez le rabbin Kahane, cet extrémiste juif, qui est moins dangereux qu’un homme comme Elie Wiesel qui raconte N’IMPORTE QUOI… Il suffit de lire certaine description de La Nuit pour savoir que certaines de ses descriptions ne sont pas exactes et qu’il finit par se transformer en marchand de Shoah… Eh bien, lui aussi, porte un tort, un tort immense, à la vérité historique.”
Posted by quelqu'une | August 23, 2010, 8:25 amIntellectual honesty vs. gibberish:
Intellectual honesty, and individual honesty, are in AIG’s post #159:
“Yes, many Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 by Israel. I am not proud of that. But I do know that if they were not ethnically cleansed, there would not be a stable Jewish state. It is sad that justice for Jews came at the expense of injustice for Arabs. But the blame is not with Israel and the Jews. It is the intolerance of Europe to its Jewish people that led to the events of 1948. Both the Jews and the Arabs were a victim of these circumstances.”
Note in particular:
“But I do know that if they were not ethnically cleansed, there would not be a stable Jewish state.”
We don’t have to agree on everything but we have to recognize honesty when we read it. A good number of folks on the opposite side of AIG have also been intellectually honest about negative occurrences, including horrors, from the Arab side.
The key continues to be how to put all this in the annals of history that cannot be changed and move forward from the current facts on the ground to a workable solution that constitutes the best compromise and the best chance for future generations. The Clinton parameters are an excellent starting point. George Mitchell is an outstanding choice to play an effective catalyst role.
I can understand some people being pessimists, particularly given the length of this conflict and the failure of so many previous attempts at achieving peace. However, self-fulfilling prophecies play some role usually and if somehow the folks “in the ring” begin to think positively well, maybe this will be “it” for the lasting peace.
@quelqu’une: I won’t let you off so easily. I understand your critiques of the offered solutions and I don’t expect a detailed fully-developed plan for peace in my question to you. Yet, you should really give us a glimpse of what your thoughts are on the principles that will guide a lasting peace. Because c’est pas possible that you shoot down all our pronouncements on how it could be and not offer some alternative. C’est bon?
OK, so, diligent readers, if you’ve made this far you’re wondering, where’s the gibberish? I’ll tell you one place there’s gibberish, it’s the posting by “i” #171, referring to what he called “Deir Yassin myth.” These opinions are the real detractors of peace. They are similar to those full page ads denying the existence of a Palestinian people. They are no better than the opinions denying the holocaust. Shame on all. These opinions are the equivalent of parasites. Actually they’re not even worth debating or responding to. Their madness speaks for itself. That’s why I call such statements gibberish.
Note in all this that I haven’t fallen in the trap of creating generalization (which I always criticize and condemn – for example when folks start lumping all Arabs together in the guilt of the horrors of the few, or similarly, lump all Jews together in the guilt of horrors of the few) nor engaged in personal attacks. I criticize and condemn positions and statements and similarly praise positions and statements.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 10:10 amquelqu’une,
Thank you for the NY review of books link regarding the recent letter by Weissel about Jerusalem. I had missed this development. I was on the other hand familiar with the point of view by Chris Hitchens and I agree with it.
I still believe that at least two ideas in Night are simply superb irrespective of whether Mr. Weissel lives up to these or not. The idea that when you know that evil is being committed then you have the obligation to do something about it and then the idea that no matter what is done to an individual the solution is not through revenge.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 23, 2010, 10:18 amYa QN, as much as I disagree with “quelqu’une” on many topics, I am intrigued by her intellect, almost as much (but no one can rise – yet – to your level) as I was intrigued by yours in the early days of SyriaComment. Kudos for getting such distinguished commentators on your blog. You have already said as much (I think) in that interview with Daily Star where (giggles, giggles) they implied that your real name was actually Qifa Nabki. See what happens when you adopt a “nom de plume!” You just wait, and know everyone who knows you is going to conspire to call you Qifa. Ya hala ya Qifa, ya hala, ya hala.
It’s still early enough for “quelqu’une” who I suspect is of similar caliber as you (in my humble opinion) although unclear where in her career she is. Judging from the quotes and books, it seems that, unlike me, she is no amateur in humanities and social sciences. Please forward to her my email address.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 10:26 amHP,
Nice to see that you are attempting to interact with extremists on your side. That is the only way forward.
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 11:14 amHabibi, AIG, I wish I really had any influence on all this so that I could say I could actually make some difference in the way forward. As most expatriates we have an emotional attachment to the native land and really and genuinely want to see peace there but are usually so absorbed by the vicissitudes of ordinary life – especially those of us whose professions are far from politics or journalism or even any field of humanities – that they really don’t have much chance to develop or exert influence other than whatever doubtful impact comes from small communications via email or on blogs. But thanks for your positive comment. I appreciate it. And hey, I invite you to do the same on your side!
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 11:36 am[Comment removed]
Posted by V | August 23, 2010, 12:03 pmQN — Please please. I know your forum is open and you don’t censor opinions but a despicable offensive and street-language set of insults such as “V” is spewing (a) do not belong here and (b) should be grounds for immediate disqualification and banning from this blog.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 12:08 pmHP you remind me of the Church Lady from SNL 🙂
bann away QN am gonna lose alot of sleep over this
Posted by V | August 23, 2010, 12:12 pmHP,
Why have you ignored post 173 but not post 182?
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 12:12 pmQN – Please remove all V’s posts. They are degrading to anyone who participates in this blog.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 12:14 pmAIG, #173? The only thing there that is not an opinion or a statement of fact is a one-word response to V, saying essentially “back-at-you” for the earlier “Tfoo” he said. Not sure if you know Arabic — or I should say colloquial Lebanese but “Tfoo” is basically spitting. It’s bad, I agree, undignified, but a far cry from the abject obscenities that V spewed. Come on, AIG, we need all to be on the same side here to keep the exchange civil and logical. Insults and obscenities add nothing — utterly nothing — to the debate.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 12:18 pm[Comment removed]
Posted by V | August 23, 2010, 12:40 pmHP,
In 167 Quel’qun wrote:
“Those who dream of the birth pangs of a new Middle-East (either through wars or so-called negotiations with Arab collaborationists) are the real enemy of a peaceful coexistence.”
She is calling you two things:
1) A real enemy of peaceful existence
2) A collaborator (which means traitor)
What say you?
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 1:04 pmAIG, I know. I’m intrigued to learn more because I have a sense there’s more to “quelqu’une” than meets the eye. Of course I don’t agree with those statements. I said so and all my postings reflect that. What I’m curious to learn is how this conclusion is reached by “quelqu’une” and what are the facts, what is the logic, what are the alternatives available that lead her to such statements. I’d much rather learn this from someone who seems quite cultured and erudite as “quelqu’une” than from those who translate such positions into subversive actions that torpedo peace efforts or go after the moderates in the Arab world who try to engage in them.
Let’s wait and see, as you like to say… Let’s reserve judgment for a bit at least.
I’ve never held back when things became clear to me from arguing vociferously and dismissing extremists, including on the Arab side (you’ll need to go back and research the records on SyriaComment).
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 1:39 pmAs the one who raised the issue of Jews in Lebanon. I did not want to blame anybody. I just wanted people, Lebanese people, to stop preaching about Israel and demonizing it. No body is above the other, moraly, first stone etc. No I am not Christian, but as you know Jesus was a good Jew. He consumed only Kosher food and wine when, for example, as a Jew, he went to Lebanon to visit Jews in Lebanon. Now if and when he comes back will he find Kosher bread and oil and milk and wine in Lebanon? No mezuza on the door either. No proper shelter for him in the whole Lebanon, think about that.
This issue exposed some deep evils in some Lebanese, as the tale of the Palestine calamity in some Jews. Some one said that Jews were killed radomly, just like that, killed randomly by Lebanese in Lebanon, so it was realy OK. What right do you have then to complain about radom killing?. In all that killing and killing and Killing that you find excusses tell me please: DID THE LEBANESE JEWS IN LEBANON KILLED LEBANESE PEOPLE RANDOMLY, OR ANY other way. You explain in many words why Pal. killed Christian etc. etc. and then because they killed each other it was OK to kill Jews?. Does that sound logical or moral to you? The more you excuse yourselves the more stories people tell the more terrible it sound. I did not wanted it. Let us try and see about the future.
So many untruths. Some body, when writting about the one Syngoge in Bairut, talked about curtailed entery to some mosques in Jerusalem. About 10 – 15 new mosques, beautiful ones, are being built in Israel yearly, what do you know about that?
Some body quote a certain JSD about 2 million Jews who went to the Soviet Union between 1935-1943. NO ! these were Jews in areas occupied by the USSR. A different story all together. The same JSR reported that not one Jewish soldier or irregular was killed between March 1947 to April 1948. In that war out of 600.000 Jewish inhabitants in Palestine 6000 were killed. The Palestinians did fight. Also in that war all the Jews that lived out of the green line in area occupied by Syria, Jordan and Egypt were totally 100% ethnically cleaned, just as later in Lebanon, did some body tell you about that?
Last thing, I hear about a boat leaving Beirut to Gaza to bring what the UN said is not needed at all. Hi there why dont you take them to Nahar El Bared and then build some more humane houses there.
Let us all wish for good things to come from the peace talks. The life of many people, some probably better than me, depend on these talks. I also think that my government should stop for the next 6 months all non exceedingly essential building out side the green line. I also think that Eli Wizel should speak less.
Posted by Rani | August 23, 2010, 1:57 pmHP,
Frankly, quelqu’une is spewing the regular Palestinian/Arab leftist propaganda. It was already boring in 1949.
Here it is in unfiltered form:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2570.htm
There is not much hope for these people as they are completely detached from reality.
Posted by AIG | August 23, 2010, 2:10 pmThere is no need to edit any comment – as one spits in the air, it hits them on their face. Morality meets Gravity 😉
“The birth pangs of a new Middle-East” is not my own expression and refers to that : http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1219325,00.html
And one of the most efficient analysis of this expression could be found here :
http://ism-france.org/news/article.php?id=14257&type=analyse&lesujet=Interviews
« L’axe américano-israélien est la source de toutes les déstabilisations » by Georges Corm
Excerpt :
“Il faut une dose de myopie et de manque de bon sens politique (ou de cynisme) très considérable pour ne pas voir que le comportement de l’axe américano-israélien — et accessoirement l’appui des gouvernements européens à cet axe — est la source de toutes les déstabilisations non seulement du Liban, mais de l’ensemble de la région qui, depuis l’attaque franco-britannique et israélienne sur l’Egypte en 1956, n’a jamais connu de stabilité. Depuis 1990, date de la fin de la guerre froide, le colonialisme occidental le plus cru est revenu dans cette région du monde. Ne pas s’y opposer, ou pire ne pas en prendre conscience, c’est contribuer à maintenir les conditions de la déstabilisation.”
Posted by quelqu'une | August 23, 2010, 2:13 pmRani, we can agree on this “Let us all wish for good things to come from the peace talks.”
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 2:21 pmQuelqu’une, QN and everyone,
Please accept my sincere apologies for the vile and uncalled for language I used.
Quelqu’une, please do not let my words hurt or affect you. I am very sorry.
V
Posted by V | August 23, 2010, 2:22 pmA person redeems and distinguishes him/herself by admitting error and apologizing.
A person displays dignity and magnanimity by accepting another person’s apology.
QN brings us all together and deserves our respect and admiration and thanks.
It would still be better to bleep-out just the words, say, like they bleep-out such on TV or radio, with blank brackets or something. It’s not of the standard or dignity of this blog to have such words remain in the permanent record.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 2:48 pmAIG, #192, many of us grew up hearing these rants and considering them on the fringe of society. Sadly they managed to sabotage a lot of otherwise good efforts and inspire a lot of hatred. I personally believe they are still a fringe. A dangerous fringe, but a fringe. Their rants are rejected completely and utterly, and in fact simply ridiculed, by a silent (and regrettably fearful) majority.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 2:51 pmquelqu’une,
Initially I felt like asking you if you can guess without looking it up who is the author of the following:
“Yes, it is possible to defile life and creation and feel no remorse. To tend one’s garden and water one’s flowers but two steps away from barbed wire… To go on vacation, be enthralled by the beauty of a landscape, make children laugh – and still fulfil regularly, day in and day out, the duties of [a] killer.”
It is not Hannah Arendt speaking about the banality of evil but it is Elis Weissel echoing the same thought .
My point is that, at least in my case, the only person that I agree with 100% is myself 🙂
Posted by Ghassan Karam | August 23, 2010, 4:23 pmDear all
I’ve stayed out of this discussion because I’m trying to enjoy some time with my family before the fall semester begins next week.
Please: no cursing or nastiness of any kind, or else I really will have to start banning people.
Thanks.
PS: Yes, HP, it seems that QN has taken over my identity, at least as far as the Daily Star is concerned!
Posted by Qifa Nabki | August 23, 2010, 4:26 pmQuelqu’une, the excerpt you quote from Georges Corm seems to make declarative statements without referring to facts (other than the 1956 Suez crisis). I went to the article/interview itself and I am not impressed. I detect the brainwashing effect of the local media reports and the incredible spin that HA masterfully uses. Do you really think that the U.S. is plotting how to assert colonial power? I can’t help but lament this incessantly adversarial attitude towards a country proves by example how democracy should be implemented, how separation of church and state is the key to a stable state, and how continuous efforts breakdown one after the other walls of discrimination and bigotry. I may have been born in Lebanon but the U.S. is my country and one that I take pride in. Corm has to do a lot better than regurgitate populist messages to convince any of us of the validity of any of his points.
Posted by Honest Patriot | August 23, 2010, 4:52 pm