At some point in 2006, I recall asking a friend of mine what he thought of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had recently been elected President of Iran. This friend (known to readers of this blog as “Abbas“) is a Lebanese Shiite living in Beirut, and a devoted partisan of Hizbullah. The conversation went something like this:
QN: So what do you think of this new Iranian president? Ahmadinejad?
Abbas: Fantastic. I love him.
QN: You like him better than Khatami?
Abbas: Definitely.
QN: How do you think Hizbullah feels about him? Will he serve the party’s interests?
Abbas: Of course he will. Who do you think brought him to power?
That’s right. Such is the mystique of Hizbullah in Lebanon that it wouldn’t be completely outlandish for someone to claim that the Iranian president’s rise was facilitated by the influence of his Lebanese allies. Nasrallah, after all, was a regional rock star while Ahmadinejad was revoking parking tickets as mayor of Tehran. (This was the gist of the discussion that followed, between me and Abbas).
Obviously, Abbas’s point was just another silly conspiracy theory (which we absolutely never tolerate on this blog), but it raises an interesting question. For the past few years, Iran’s reputation in Lebanon seems to have been tied to the fortunes of Hizbullah. Nasrallah was the public face of Iranian ambitions in the Levant, enjoying a 10% lead in popularity across the region over Ahmadinejad (according to the University of Maryland and Zogby International’s Arab Public Opinion Poll). This meant that more Arabs admired Nasrallah than they did Ahmadinejad, and anecdotally this struck one as true: Nasrallah’s popularity across the region was untouchable from the end of the July War through at least March 2008, and both Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad seemed to be riding on Nasrallah’s coattails.
In 2009, something happened. Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad took a major beating in the regional popularity polls (conducted in April-May 2009), while Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shot from 9th place to 1st. How to explain this reversal of fortunes? Here’s my highly unscientific hypothesis:
- After the May 2008 events in Lebanon (which occurred after the 2008 poll was conducted), Hizbullah’s reputation among Sunnis across the region was (temporarily) tarnished.
- In early 2009, the region watched Israel attack Gaza as Hizbullah sat on its hands, unwilling to provoke another confrontation in Lebanon.
- Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez accused Israel of committing genocide and expelled the Israeli ambassador from Caracas. Presto: instant celebrity.
Now, Chavez’s resistance credentials in the Arab-Israeli conflict are nothing compared to Hizbullah’s and Iran’s. But the fact of his turnaround seemed to count for something. Iran couldn’t dismiss its Israeli ambassador because it doesn’t have one. And if Ahmadinejad blamed Israel for committing genocide, no one would notice because he does this on his way to work each day. Meanwhile, the Chavez effect repeated itself this year. Who was the most admired leader in the Arab world in 2010? Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Where was he in the polls in 2008 and 2009? Last place and second-to-last, respectively. While he also criticized the Gaza assault, his real surge in popularity was almost certainly tied to the flotilla incident.
This is a very circuitous way of saying that I found myself wondering today, as I listened to Nasrallah’s speech welcoming Ahmadinejad to Beirut, whether Iran is trying to step out of Hizbullah’s shadow in Lebanon. That sounds odd to hear, given the nature of their relationship. But I think that it’s not that far-fetched to imagine that Iran’s ambitions include winning over non-Shi’a Lebanese through a mixture of investment projects, military aid, assistance in energy exploration and infrastructure development.
After all, as we’ve seen, even Hizbullah’s popularity can take a hit. The party cannot keep Lebanon in Iran’s orbit all by itself. Thoughts?
Qifa Nabki 
It sounds like the polls are a better measurement as a “snapshot” rather than a trend. Whoever is most recently and most prominently in the media making real and actual gestures that are anti-Israeli will be the most popular at the time the poll is taken.
I also have never put much trust in polls in the Arab world. There are too many factors skewing results to get anything more than a general idea out of them.
Posted by Mehdi2 | October 13, 2010, 5:26 pmThe moral here is this: Arabs are fickle people, not unlike Americans. We like to think we’ve got a bit more substance, but these polls seem to indicate that we’re just as prone to swap out or favorites du jour as your typical teenage American does with his celebrity du jour.
Nassrallah = Britney Spears…Big news in 2008.
Chavez = Miley Cyrus?
This means Erdogan is undoubtedly Justin Beiber.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 13, 2010, 5:26 pmYa QN-
Don’t these polls say more about the political (im)maturity of the Arab public, which seems to be cheering the next-best person who “stands up to Israel/Zionist entitiy/America/the West”, regardless of any practical steps that politician is actually doing, or whether or not that person is implementing any measurable good deeds towards the Arab world?
–MSK*
Posted by MSK* | October 13, 2010, 5:35 pmInteresting thoughts. But could the opposite maybe be true at the same time?
Ahmadinejad seems to be doing what he can to reach out to the non-shia population in Lebanon. But at the same time he’s never been as unpopular in Iran as he is now. By going to the one place in the Middle East, where he can be sure to get the welcome of a superstar, he might be trying to send a signal to his home base that there are still people who like him.
So while he’s trying to step out of Hizballahs shadow from a Lebanese point of view, he might be trying to step further into the shadow from an Iranian point of view.
Just a thought.
Posted by Helen H | October 13, 2010, 5:36 pmMSK.
You’re exactly right. That’s what I was trying to convey in my rather tongue in cheek comment above.
The Arab “public” continues to show, time and again, complete immaturity.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 13, 2010, 5:42 pm“Iran’s ambitions include winning over non-Shi’a Lebanese”
To what end? If not to take the heat of the whole simmering pot and allow Hizballah to do its Resistance thing?
How does Iran win over the Sunni’s without making Hizballah look good?
I think you are looking for something that isn’t there. The point of all these offers of aid is that you can’t keep accusing a party of taking orders from Tehran if you are accepting the same or greater help.
But hey, if this aid doesn’t come in cold hard cash, I doubt many of our political leaders will be interested anyway – You cant bank expertise in Switzerland the way you can IMF loans…
Talking of stepping out of Hizballahs shadow, aren’t you going to alienate your loyal readers with statements like that? After all the logical conclusion of such a statement is that Hizballah are not, after all, puppets of the Iranians…:)
Posted by usedtopost | October 13, 2010, 5:46 pmYa QN —
Interesting thoughts, but I think we also have to grapple with the possibility that the UMD polls aren’t always as reliable as they claim to be. Nasrallah sounds like a plausible choice as the most popular leader in the Arab world, but I’m not sure Chavez passes the smell test.
Posted by dbk | October 13, 2010, 6:48 pmQN,
Very unlikely that Iran is trying to court the Sunnis and the Christians. It is a complete waste of time. In the Sunni community they cannot compete with the Hariri and KSA largess and the Christians are by and large not the right people to find the Iranian message credible or welcome.
I see the visit differently. Iran is sending the message that unlike the fickle West, they stand 100% behind their clients so you better not mess with them because it is like messing with Iran.
Posted by AIG | October 13, 2010, 8:08 pmAhmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon is intended to illustrate in a less technical manner the Möbius strip: start with HA and go around the strip and emerge as Iran; continue along and re-emerge as HA, and so on.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 13, 2010, 8:09 pmI wonder who the message of “better not mess with them because it is like messing with Iran” would be intended for. If it’s for local consumption there is no need for it; it is understood only too well. If it’s for Israel, it’s completely irrelevant; Israel is ready to attack Iran yesterday if it were not for the brakes applied by the U.S.
No one else matters. So, if that’s really what is intended it hardly requires a visit from his excellency.
I am more inclined to find the plausibility in Helen’s interpretation #4. That duality in fact makes a lot of sense. Kill 2 birds with one stone. (no pun intended!)
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 13, 2010, 8:18 pmOn your previous thread Qifa, you whined about the topic of Israel occupying your Lebanese blog, and you sent your loyal readership to the cold and desolate wasteland (humanprovince wordpress com).
Yet 2 days later, you bring Israel again to your center stage…
What would you do without Israel in your ME?
What would the ME be without Israel? Hmm…?
======
I agree with Mehdi2, BV and MSK*.
I think that AlJezeera has alot to do with it. This is a result of AlJezeera’s huge popularity among Arabs, and it’s consistent ‘Bash Israel’ agenda. AJ is the Star Academy and the Arab Idol in the ME politics.
.
Posted by Amir in Tel Aviv | October 13, 2010, 8:28 pmAmir, are you familiar with the Amir fast food chain in Montreal? Really tasty.
I think you’ve overlooked the deeper analysis of Helen, endorsed by HP. Bashing Arab superficiality is easy. I wouldn’t be so naive in relation to Iran and HA.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 13, 2010, 8:45 pmYou’re citing some poll taken months ago, when the action is taking place right NOW in Lebanon.
You see those tens of thousands of enthusiastic well wishers cheering Ahmadinejad as he drives by in- get this- an open topped vehicle?!
You think your Hariri could pull that off? Or your Mubarak? Your Abdullahs?
Yeah, go back and find consolation in some sterile poll. Meanwhile, Mahmoud will be in Bint Jbeil tomorrow…
Posted by Pirouz | October 13, 2010, 8:47 pmYou think your Hariri could pull that off?
No but Saddam Hussein did!
http://www.saddamhusseinworld.com/Home_Page.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | October 13, 2010, 9:12 pmSomething you’ll never hear from Shai or S & M:
Nothing appears unusual with the officer seated in the car on the way to Sakhnin. No one would guess that the redheaded man, a second lieutenant, is not your average soldier. Nothing can disclose the fact that Hisham Abu Varia is a Muslim and that we’re driving to his hometown.
“Isn’t it a problem for you to enter the city with your uniform?,” I ask him, as we near the city’s entrance.
On the last Land Day, 60,000 people attended a mass rally here and waved flags of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and assassinated commaner Imad Mughniyeh.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3968706,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhnin
Posted by Akbar Palace | October 13, 2010, 9:19 pmPirouz, what is your point? You fail to understand the analysis in the article, you assume it is somehow derogatory towards HA (which it is not). Then you boast about the ability of HA to lead its followers like a herd of sheep to behave uniformly a certain way while challenging others to do the same? You see, the others don’t need indoctrination and orders to display independent opinions, like they did on March 14, 2005 when a mass of people never matched gathered spontaneously to display true Lebanese unity. No indoctrination, no Persian money, and no fundamentalist fanaticism is required for true patriotism. How about you first start by achieving a modicum of understanding of the message before blasting both message and messenger?
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 13, 2010, 9:36 pmI would say without a doubt that Ahmadinejad is getting more good PR out of this visit at home than Hizballah benefits in Lebanon. For sure, they get to bring out their supporters, show some positive energy, etc. But his visit doesn’t do much for them with the other side. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad gets to appear in some photos with thousands upon thousands of people cheering him on like a hero.
So in PR terms, Ahmadinejad gets some much needed positivity to change the tone of his coverage. I don’t think there’s much more to it than that, to be honest. It’s kind of amazing how much of a non-issue this appears to be, when Lebanon is so tense and fragile at the moment. Maybe we Lebanese just love the member’s only jacket?
Posted by Mehdi2 | October 13, 2010, 10:06 pmMehdi,
Good point.
Ahmadinejad to Green movement: “I’m huge in Beirut”
😉
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 13, 2010, 10:15 pmAnecdotal evidence that I may be on to something: today’s Daily Star editorial… 😉 see below:
Is Iran Changing Its Approach?”
After weeks of mounting hype, unrelenting public debates, and extensive speculation in the run-up of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s trip to Lebanon, the Iranian president’s motorcade finally rolled through Beirut on Wednesday, bringing an end to the sense of anticipation for the visit that has recently almost taken over the Lebanese people’s lives.
Pundits and commentators have overwhelmingly attempted to portray Ahmadinejad’s visit as an affirmation of Iran’s unexpected increasing influence over Lebanon. In truth, however, the visit of an Iranian president to this country – or indeed Iran’s influence here – should not come as a surprise. The nexus between communities in Lebanon and Iran goes back centuries, and Iran’s role today in funding the country’s resistance, Hizbullah, and in assisting in its reconstruction has only deepened long-existing ties.
There is one sentiment, however, that Ahmadinejad has not often expressed when speaking of his country’s relationship with Lebanon: his support for the Lebanese national project.
Yet, at a joint press conference with President Michel Sleiman Wednesday, Ahmadinejad conveyed a very different message than usual, highlighting the country’s unity and, by the same token, igniting a sense of expectation that our diplomatic relationship with Tehran may be reaching a new, constructive, plateau.
Lebanese should rejoice at Ahmadinejad’s words: His newly expressed posture – if it is translated into an actual foreign policy – could go a long way toward stabilizing our country. To begin with, Ahmadinejad’s call for the resurrection of the Lebanese state could signal the beginning of a new age for Hizbullah’s role in this country. The party has been an essential contributor to Lebanon’s wellbeing, but Lebanese are eager to see Hizbullah become a full signatory of the national project of building a strong state.
As a politician the caliber of Ahmadinejad knows well, a strong state cannot come to life unless it is well-rooted in the rule of law. The Iranian president’s support of the Lebanese state, we hope, will pave the way toward an official endorsement of this principle.
Most importantly, Ahmadinejad’s words hint of a shift in political thinking that – if developed further – could herald an era of lasting peace in Lebanon. Too often, our weak sense of unity has made Lebanon into a battleground for competing regional powers. A strong Lebanese state would imply that it is the Lebanese authorities alone who choose the struggles we wage.
We have long anticipated Ahmadinejad’s visit. But nothing compares to our eagerness to see the Iranian president confirm and reiterate his support for the bedrock of our national unity – the Lebanese state – during the rest of his stay, and after.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 13, 2010, 10:17 pmAhmedinejad has never been the devil he has been portrayed as being. For example, your Daily Star editorial is really the product of someone who is wholly unfamiliar with Ahmedinejad. References like, “that Ahmadinejad has not often expressed” and “Ahmadinejad conveyed a very different message than usual” and “Ahmadinejad’s words hint of a shift in political thinking” are just proof that this author has never listened to anything Ahmadinejad has ever said that wasn’t then rebroadcast on CNN. He is seldom an inflammatory speaker, and often talks about unity and justice and things of that nature. the portrayal of him as speaking otherwise is damning of the writer’s ignorance.
With that in mind, I think Ahmadinejad is attempting to bridge gaps with this visit, just as Michel Sleiman was trying to do by inviting him. I would be pretty surprised if either was expecting any transformation of the opposition into dedicated supporters. It was a diplomatic mission in the most basic sense. And made significant because Lebanon is polarized. He also wanted to show support and respect for Hizbullah (and who wouldn’t). He knows he’s generally popular in the Arab world. He’s willing to exploit that to a degree, but it’s silly to see how much hot air is expended on this visit as if he’s going to part the red sea or start spitting fire (like a zionist).
Posted by joe m. | October 13, 2010, 10:53 pmIf it wasnt for all that hair we could have safely assumed that it was the Mahatma Gandhi who visited Beirut yesterday!
Posted by V | October 14, 2010, 12:16 amNo one liked my Justin Bieber joke? Geez! Tough crowd!
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 12:39 amQN,
“… it’s not that far-fetched to imagine that Iran’s ambitions include winning over non-Shi’a Lebanese through a mixture of investment projects, military aid, assistance in energy exploration and infrastructure development.”
Funny that no one mentioned Syria. Iran’s involvement in Syria is a prime example of what you proposed above. Its investments in the country are such, that it would be practically impossible for Syria to “dump” Iran. It is so heavily invested in Syria, that it literally owns parts of Syria (parts of its infrastructure, energy projects, etc.)
I would not be surprised if, in order to establish such a near-permanent foothold, such a dependency on its money and its experts, Iran will attempt to copy the Syria-model in Lebanon.
What do you think?
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 1:45 amLest we forget the silent majority going about its daily life in Lebanon, here’s (really!) an anecdotal comment from a local:
“now could the iranian dude get out of here coz ur closing all the roads!”
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 4:33 amShai’s reference to Iran’s investments in Syria is apt, but he draws the wrong conclusion. After 30 years of a strategic alliance, Syria has little to show from Iran’s investments. The biggest benefit was in the early years when Iran supplied cut-price oil to make up for Saddam’s closure of the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline. Iran later tried to get the Syrians to pay the bills for this oil, but to no avail. Other highlights have included a cement plant rehab (financed by Kuwait) that an Iranian company started work on more than ten years ago and has not yet finished. Iran has talked about investing in power and refining, but as yet that is just talk. There are two part-Iranian owned car assembly plants in Syria, but their main purpose was to get around the prohibitively high tariffs on imports of finished vehicles, a strategy that has been undermined by the subsequent lowering of those tariffs and the signing of a free-trade deal with Turkey. Syria has enlisted Western, Russian and Asian companies to develop its oil and gas fields; if Lebanon is serious about exploring for gas offshore, it would get much better technical and financial terms by following Syria’s example and not giving special treatment to Iran.
Posted by Zubaida | October 14, 2010, 5:15 amZubaida,
I’m not speaking about Lebanon’s point of view, but rather about Iran’s. It seems to me that Iran is trying to establish a strong foothold in the region not only with words, but also with very real investment, be it financial, military support, large projects, joint-ventures, etc.
Even military support alone could form a type of dependency that can’t be replaced overnight. Imagine the plant at Deir Ez-Zur was a joint Syrian-Iranian-N.Korean project, designed to enrich Uranium (or Plutonium) for Syria and Iran. Could such a relationship end quickly (if it were successful)? Not so easily, I think. So when Iranian military experts are sent to S. Lebanon to train and build Hezbollah’s army, I don’t think they’re doing it with intent to destroy the IDF, as much as with the idea of creating a dependency (and appreciation, etc.) on Iran.
Where Iranian money and know-how is spent, there too grows its influence. To us in Israel, this is deemed a threat. Iran, in more ways than one, is no longer a thousand kilometers away from us, but is also on our borders.
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 8:31 amApart from a soft loan of $450 million for the energy sector, has there been anything else Ahmedin offered ?
Was the word “free” mentioned in regards to armaments ?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 9:03 amThis is Barak’s take on the visit:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3969145,00.html
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 9:12 amHere is a photo of the Iranian President speaking (top photo on page):
http://topics.npr.org/photo/077U2JO4uW3XU
Please notice the container filled with Israeli helmets that Hezbollah put in front of him. I am sure that the free Lebanese press will criticize this “humane” gesture.
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 9:30 amWhy was Wiam Wahab invited to the lunch hosted by Hariri today?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 9:43 amGot him! The Wiam Wahab move was nothing but a distracting maneuver!Look at THIS!
“Baroud meets Iranian minister”
“Interior Minister Ziad Baroud met Iranian Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi on Thursday to discuss bilateral cooperation, according to a statement issued by Baroud’s press office.
“Moslehi also invited Baroud to visit Iran, the statement reported, adding that they discussed the possibility of signing a Memorandum of Understanding between the two ministries”.
A MOU with Baroud was the real aim of all this display of niceties! Qifa, they want to discover the secret formula of your Super Zyad’s powers!
Posted by mj | October 14, 2010, 10:36 amIf true ( and I don’t doubt mj), the MOU between Baroud and his Iranian counterpart is a dangerous Iranian seed in a Lebanese institution that could sprout HA roots. We should be careful about Iranian or HA MOUs. We have an example of the Aoun MOU that indeed germinated roots, stems and trees (but no flowers).
Posted by EV | October 14, 2010, 11:44 amMaster and pupil… What about el isteeth?
Posted by IHTDA | October 14, 2010, 12:05 pmI guess the next step, following the indictment fiasco, will be economic sanctions on Lebanon, followed by mass exodus and the remaining Lebanese signing the Anschluss with Syria.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 12:14 pmThereafter, Syria will sit down with Israel and negotiate peace in which all likelihood Hizballah will get butchered.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 12:19 pmMeanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf pump money into the Syrian economy to empower the Sunnis to the point where they will stage a coup against the Assads.
Lebanon, de facto, then returns into their orbit and we can live happily ever after.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 12:41 pmIf only it was that simple, Peter.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 12:58 pmAIG
Are the Jews a tribe like the Romas of Europe are a tribe ?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 1:04 pmPeter,
I don’t know enough about the Romas to say.
We are a tribe like the Native American tribes in the US with our peculiar religion and customs.
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 1:20 pmWhat do you guys think about Hezbollah using a container full of Israeli helmets (presumably collected from dead soldiers) as part of the set for Jad’s speech? Nice touch, no?
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 1:23 pmThe you and the Iranians shouldn’t be at loggerheads with one another.
You have a common enemy.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 1:28 pmAIG #41
I didn’t think HA killed enough Israeli soldiers to fill a containerfull of helmets.
At least based on known casualties of 2006.
I wouldn’t presume what you presumed. Who knows where the helmets came from.
Not that it has any bearing on the bigger picture anyway.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 1:39 pmAIG
With all due respect … and in reply to your linking Jews to Native Americans … I guess we’d have to liken the helmets to the scalps the native Indians admirably collected as trophies … no?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 14, 2010, 1:44 pmNow that’s just silly.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 1:54 pmBV,
I agree that the vast majority of the helmets do not come from dead soldiers. My presumption was about what they were meant to signify.
These symbolic actions make a large difference. The fact that no Lebanese party finds this offensive is even more significant than the fact that Hizballah did this. Do you really want Israeli public opinion to be swayed to the position that “all Lebanese want us dead and it is us or them” or do you want the Israeli view to be more nuanced?
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 2:13 pmHelen makes a great point but I question the hypothesis. Granted this is anecdotal but lots of Iranians don’t like Hizballah because much Iranian wealth that could otherwise be spent in Iran is sent to Lebanon instead. I’ve heard this from a few Iranian friends, and some Lebanese that work in Iran. Now granted my Iranian friends are more likely to be Green… but that’s 2 cents worth.
Now for my 2 dollar’s worth… 🙂 with regard to Iranian technical assistance. The way I understand it is that Iran can barely exploit the reserves it has, and it has fuel shortages that cause long queues at filling stations. Not to discredit the significant scientific achievements Iranians have made, but why not go directly to the source for technical assistance related to oil & gas exploration. I’d rather they teach us to build a nuclear power plant than exploit O&G reserves.
Posted by Johnny | October 14, 2010, 2:31 pmAIG,
You’re always ranting about how we fail to understand Israelis, and the thinking in Israel. You’re probably correct.
However, you show time and again that you fail to understand the Lebanese thinking/mood/ethos as well.
While I, in my ivory towers, may care about “Israeli public opinion” and what it thinks of Lebanon, I’d say that’s not how it works in Lebanon. You have to understand that to the majority of Lebanese (and by this I’m talking about the regular Joes), Israel is a taboo/untouchable/unknowable entity with which they have had zero contact. It is about as dehumanized as you can get. It is also a source of complete evil (again, i’m not passing my own judgement here) for what its inflicted on Lebanon. It doesn’t matter if that world view is completely ridiculous, that’s just how it is.
So, bearing this in mind, do you really think impressing Israeli public opinion comes into their thinking in any kind of way? We’re talking about a primal taboo mentality here. I would liken it (forgive the comparison) to the way Jews might think of the Nazis, or post 9/11 Americans might think of Al Qaeda.
Do you imagine Jews saying “That anti-Nazi symbolism may offend the public perception of us amongst the SS”? Or American saying “These ‘Kill Osama’ t-shirts may offend the public opinion of us amongst the Al-Qaeda rank and file”?
Israel, regardless of what you or I think, represents untold evil, to most Lebanese, and is officially an enemy in the most primal of senses (meaning, not the kind of enemy you humanize or talk about brdiging your differences with). At least, in public.
Are there some Lebanese who take a more pragmatic, realist, or humane view on the subject? Sure. But you’d be hard pressed to find them expressing these views in public, or even worse, criticizing the public sentiment.
Think of it, in many ways, as an equivalent to your blood libel comments in the other thread.
Expressing some kind of sympathetic view (even if justified) is not unlike what you would consider “self-hating” Jews denouncing Israel’s treatment of Gaza, or expressing some kind of sympathy to Hamas.
I don’t know if I’m doing a good job explaining this. Perhaps it sounds like we’re all Israeli-hating rabid extremists. That’s not what I mean at all. But when you talk about “how it looks to Israeli public opinion”, it makes me think you’re way off the mark. Lebanese don’t think in terms of Israeli public opinion. Lebanese pretty much think of Israel as the IDF (as this is all they’ve known of Israel).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 2:50 pmJohnny,
From what I read in our Israeli papers today, this is precisely what Ahmadinejad is saying on his Tour – that Lebanon should have a few nuclear power plants – and, presumably, that Iran will be there to help… It’s just a little bit too “natural”, all this tremendous support Iran is offering Arab states in this part of the Middle East.
Funny that he’s being received as such a hero. Course, the majority of Lebanese are still at home, not out in the streets.
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 2:52 pmBad Vilbel,
It’s funny AIG is suggesting the Lebanese should think of how they look to Israelis, if they ever want our view to be “more nuanced”. What about Israelis thinking of how WE look to All Arabs, if we want their view to be “more nuanced”?
How many Israelis think of how “we look” to the Arabs, when we go on killing rampages in Lebanon 2006 (1,500 dead Lebanese), and Gaza 2008/9 (1,300 dead Palestinians)? Or how “we look” to the Arabs, when we occupy, suffocate, and subjugate 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and another 1.5 million in Gaza, for over 40 years! Sure, we Israelis are already used to it. To us, it’s just a territorial compromise we have to reach. It’ll all be worked out one day. But we don’t have to be on the other-side. The side that stands for hours in road-blocks, just to get permission to enter Israel for a day, to earn 1/10th of what the average Israeli earns, doing the dirtiest and hardest work that few Jews would “rather do”.
When is it, AIG., that Israelis will start considering how WE look, to the Arabs in all the countries around us, so that maybe their view will become less hateful (as BV clearly demonstrates), and “more nuanced” towards us?
But let’s be honest, do most of us really care? I can tell you from most people I know. We don’t.
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 3:03 pmNasrullah in an interesting statement from 20 years ago (min 1:22)
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=751839
.
Posted by Amir in Tel Aviv | October 14, 2010, 3:13 pmAmir, thank you for the link.
QN, how do the Lebanese view Nasrallah’s dream of a “grand Islamic state”, of which Lebanon is only one part? Are most Lebanese suspicious of Nasrallah? Do they view his leadership as threatening their balance between Shia and Sunni in Lebanon?
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 3:20 pmShai,
In the next Lebanon war, is it the interest of the Lebanese people that Israel view Hezbollah and the state as different entities? If yes, they should care about Israeli public opinion, if not they shouldn’t bother.
If you want to make an argument, that Israel should care about its image in the Arab world, be my guest, but why is that relevant to this blog?
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 3:21 pmBV #48, you did an excellent job. I join you in the ivory towers but I know only full well that “on campus” in Lebanon itself, the only thing folks know about Israel are the illegal overflights, the bombing raids that destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure, and the little Israeli girls signing wishes on missiles before they get launched to heap destruction on the country. And if anyone dared suggest that there’s more to the story, HA is quick to accuse them of treason and promise to cut off their hands and heads.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 3:22 pmAIG, knowing what’s in their interest and being able to do something about it are two different things.
“When you’re up to your eyeballs in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your objective is to drain the swamp!”
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 3:26 pmAIG,
It is somewhat hypocritical of an Israeli to suggest to Arabs that they should care about how they look, don’t you think? Especially to Arabs that lost 1,500 of their citizens to our “most humane army in the world” just 4 years ago.
Put yourself in their shoes, and I think the last thing you’d think about is… “How do I look to the Israelis?!?”
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 3:31 pmShai,
Your argument makes no sense. Do you support Lieberman’s view that the Europeans cannot say anything to Israel because of their history with the Jewish people?
In fact if the tables were turned, you would be saying that we need to understand why the Lebanese killed 1400 of us and try to remedy the underlying cause. So, I will save you the effort. Wouldn’t it be smart of the Lebanese to understand Israelis and perhaps mitigate future disasters?
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 3:44 pmAIG,
I don’t want to get into another internal-Israeli conversation. But if you want a “rude” comparison, I think Lieberman would be justified to ask Germany to butt-out, if 4 years earlier it killed 1,500 Jews. 65 years from now, if we stop killing Lebanese citizens in adventurous operations, we can also voice our opinion on what’s smart for them to do, if they want us to “be nice”.
Your “suggestion to the Lebanese”, even to me as an Israeli, sounds quite arrogant. If you, the Lebanese, don’t behave and make sure we, the powerful Israelis, understand the difference between you and Hezbollah (by let’s say voicing your disdain publicly), we might not be able to “tell you apart” come next Summer 2006… (hint hint) Almost like the neighborhood bully is in a good-mood, and politely offers the kids around him to behave, and make sure he likes them, or else…
But back to Lebanon and Iran. More interesting for me to know how the Lebanese view Nasrallah – is he a threat to them? Is he a threat to the fine balance in Lebanon? Is he a stabilizing, or a destabilizing factor, as viewed by the Sunnis, Christians, and Shia.
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 3:59 pmNo matter how you dice it or slice it Iran is and will always be in wearing the pants in this relationship. Hezbollah is dispensable and they know it. It is not realistic to imply any causality in the reverse. The funding, training and materiel flows in one direction only, from those in control to their helpers/aids.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 14, 2010, 4:02 pmShai,
Adventurous operations? You have an organization vowed to your destruction and you call fighting them adventurous? Whatever. And your answer also implies that all the blame is on Israel’s side. I guess you really believe that and that is why you cannot convince a minyan in Israel of your position.
Any argument that implies that Israel is strong is arrogant? Any argument that implies that it is bad for Lebanon to go to war because it will suffer is arrogant? Yeah, right.
We are the neighborhood bully? It seems that the people threatening and advocating our destruction constantly are in Lebanon led by one Nasrallah. But for you, we are the bully. Oh, right, we need to understand them and solve the underlying cause of their anger, but of course they do not need to understand us or accommodate us in any manner. Good luck with you inconsistent platform Shai.
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 4:13 pm1) To answer a question above (Amir, I think): I can guarantee you that 99.9% of Lebanese do not support an Islamic State in Lebanon. A much larger number trusts Nassrallah because they are not aware of forget such statements as the above in light of what is considered more “pressing alligators” (to use the alligator/swamp allegory above). Right now, Nassrallah is the populist leader who “kicked out Israel” and stands against the imperialist designs of the enemy and its collaborators in Lebanon (M14). Not to mention someone for the Shia community to lead them against what they still perceive as an unjust system, etc.
2) AIG and the ensuing discussion about public opinion:
Don’t get me wrong. I personally think it is important to understand the other side and to view it as a human side, with families, children, loved ones, etc. And there is the key to making some kind of peace. It is also important to be able to let bygones be bygones at some point. Or else, you’d still be bombing the Germans, and every conflict that ever was would still be going on. That’s what “making peace” means.
Having said that, very few people think this way or are able to. Specially when the wounds are fairly recent, and when contact with the other side has been minimal for over 2-3 generations.
Arabs, and Lebanese in particular, as i said before, do not really conceive of an Israeli society. All we know is the IDF. The IDF IS Israel. Try getting a holocaust survivor, fresh out of the camps, to fathom Germans in a non-Nazi way. It’s really that simple.
I hate to be dragging out the Nazi comparisons. Those are always quite cliche. And I do not do so in order to make any kind of equivalency. But I think it is something you guys (Israelis) can probably relate to best.
It’s really not a question of public opinion on anyone’s side. It just doesn’t work like that in people’s minds.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 4:35 pm@AIG 60:
It’s a matter of perspective. To many, you ARE the neighborhood bully. Yes. I know YOU don’t think so. But again, it’s important to understand what some people’s narrative looks like. What they truly believe (rightly or wrongly).
I am currently reading “Beware of Small States”. Interesting read.
The author is clearly what you would call “pro-Palestinian”. That’s neither here nor there.
But I recommend reading it. The point is: To the person who holds that narrative as their truth, Israeli clearly is the bully.
Anyway. moving on.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 4:39 pmWhen will the hardline Zionist Bullying™ end?
“The world should know that Zionists will perish,” he said at a rally in the border village of Bint Jbeil, which was one of the hardest-hit areas in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war. It has since been rebuilt with the help of heavy investments from Iran.
“Occupied Palestine will be liberated from the filth of occupation by the strength of resistance and through the faith of the resistance,” Ahmandinejad said to the crowd waving a sea of Lebanese, Iranian and Hezbollah flags.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_lebanon_iran;_ylt=AmbgDOSsh.IQnq4OcIAhQohvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJnamxpb2ljBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMDE0L21sX2xlYmFub25faXJhbgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYWhtYWRpbmVqYWR0
Posted by Akbar Palace | October 14, 2010, 5:42 pmAsk a Bully if he’s a Bully, and you’re likely to hear: “I, am the neighborhood bully?!? These guys are just waiting for me to disappear… They all want me dead!”
There is an important distinction between Sympathy and Empathy. The latter, in our context, is the ability to put yourself inside your enemy, and to look at yourself through HIS eyes (not yours), and to understand the reasons for his actions and his motives.
If we had the ability to Empathize (not Sympathize), we wouldn’t wonder how it is possible that our enemies see us as the Neighborhood Bully. We wouldn’t wonder a lot of other things too.
If America had empathized with its enemy in Vietnam, it would have realized that the N. Vietnamese weren’t pawns of the Communists (China or Russia). And that their goal was to fight for their independence.
By empathizing with its enemy, the Soviet Union, America was able to divert nuclear catastrophe during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. It understood Khrushchev, and his reasoning for sending the missiles to Cuba. Instead of going to war against Cuba (as his entire Cabinet and EXCOM recommended), Kennedy chose another way. A way that enabled Khrushchev to say to his people “I saved Cuba”.
We in our region have a lot to learn from those rare cases in History, where Empathy won (again, not Sympathy). The first Israeli leader that will empathize with the Arabs, will be the one to bring lasting Peace and an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Posted by Shai | October 14, 2010, 5:47 pmhttp://www.iloubnan.info/politique/actualite/id/51247/titre/Ahmadinehad-au-Liban:-Israël-entre-inquiétude-et-curiosité
“Du côté israélien de la frontière, seul un groupe hétéroclite d’une dizaine de manifestants ultra-orthodoxes et druzes arabes conduits par un député du Likoud (droite), le parti du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu, manifestait. Ils ont tenté de lâcher des ballons aux couleurs bleues et blanches
d’Israël en direction du Liban mais les vents les ont repoussés vers Israël.” (Gavin Rabinowitz | AFP – Le 14 octobre 2010)
The winds will be soon accused of being anti-semite !
Posted by quelqu'une | October 14, 2010, 6:16 pmShai,
Very good point about empathy vs. sympthay.
I guess that’s what I was trying to get across in my rather less succint post above.
Again. Not asking AIG to sympathsize. Or to agree. Clearly wishing the destruction of any people is unconscionable, and ultimately that is what Ahmadinejad preaches. But again, if you want to understand why the Lebanese people dont’ boo such pronouncements, you have to be able to understand their point of view and their narrative to all of this (even if you don’t agree with it in the least).
The same goes the other way, btw.
Arabs can sit around all day saying “How can we possibly be sorry for the Jews? They came here and kicked everyone out!” (That’s their narrative). How on earth do you expect them to understand your actions when seen from that point of view? They won’t.
The only Arabs who understand your point of view are those who put themselves in your shoes and understand YOUR narrative of needing a home, wanting to be left in peace, etc…(whether they agree with it or not).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 6:28 pmThat’s funny, quelqu’une. On the other hand, now that some new feature has been turned on, either in my browser or in WordPress, I see that what I had assumed was an enchanted choice of a cartoon of a scene from the sound of music is in fact desecrated to show guns and sunglasses! I also see “islamogauchiste” as your self-characterization. I’m disappointed, having found that you were willing to engage in reasonable discussions and maybe even be persuaded on some points. My disappointment is because people with intellect who feel so strongly about the Palestinian cause should know better to put their skills to effective use in the debates in countries where fair debate can sway public opinion. Self-epithets with negative connotation and the kind of symbol putting 2 guns in Julie Andrew’s hands (despite the tongue-in-cheek effect) do nothing to the Cause.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 6:38 pmIns’t it ironic that Ahmadinejad – who has nothing to do with Palestine – makes himself the self-appointed spokesperson and leader to liberate it?
Where was he in the summer of 2006? Where was Syria?
How far does dementia go?
He will likely not be able to sustain this craziness for too much longer as the winds of democracy have been seeded in Iran and it will only be a matter of time before things change there to a more rational behavior. Either that, or, with escalation will come some devastating military blow by the Israeli formidable military machine. I guess Ahmadinejad figures he’ll win either way since martyrdom has so many juicy rewards.
Now, for AIG, how come Lebanese in Lebanon cannot say what I say here? Hmm… BV to the rescue.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 6:49 pmShai,
Yes, all we need to solve our problems is empathy. Why didn’t we think of this before?
By the way, it sounds to me like a great solution for Lebanon also. Nasrallah or M14 should show empathy towards one another and voila, problem solved! It is great that you have started posting here. How else could we have seen that Lebanon’s problems can be solved so easily!
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 6:49 pmActually, I agree AIG.
EVERYONE should learn how to empathize with the other side.
For those still not clear on the semantics. Empathize is not the same as sympathize. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with the other’s logic, or beliefs.
It means you have to understand them as a purely detached scientific observation where cause leads to effect and things flow in a logical sense.
Let’s say I’m observing a Lion. I am not required to sympathize with him when he’s killing a gazelle. In fact, as a vegetarian, I might find this horribly offensive. I might hate the lion for killing the beautiful gazelle.
But if I observe the Lion from a purely emphathic point of view, I can understand that the Lion needs to kill the gazelle to eat, as he’s a carnivore. I don’t have to like it. But the Lion’s behavior makes sense. I understand WHY he does what he does.
To me, it seems that Israelis do not understand why Lebanese do what they do. Much like the Lion above.
It also seems to me that Arabs, overall, do not understand why Israelis do what they do either.
It’s really that simple.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 14, 2010, 7:22 pmHonest Patriot # 67,
La vie est vraiment cruelle et pleine de désillusions : comment peut-on encore croire en la weltanschauung béate et verdoyante de Julie Andrews après ça ?
More seriously, if I lived in the 30’s, I would probably have chosen to bear witness to the “judéobolchevique” stigma – instead of its remastered version : the “islamogauchiste”.
Those two “negative epithets” have a common racist background and their political use must be deconstructed.
(Le soi-disant péril a changé avec le temps mais pas les structures de pensée calamiteuses sous-jacentes à certaines dénominations politiques qui justifient la destruction d’un peuple)
In any case, be reassured, the fact I dislike Julie Andrews’ songs (sad but true) and enjoy the situationist’s “tongue-in-cheek” tactic of détournement (also quite sad but true) doesn’t make me less interested in “reasonable discussions”.
Posted by quelqu'une | October 14, 2010, 7:38 pmQuelqu’une, I’m afraid I don’t measure up to the degree of erudition required to engage in a more persuasive manner in arguments related to these terms, particularly their historical context and the necessity of their deconstruction for political use. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the vicissitudes of life that lead to a level of disillusionment. Far from advocating a Leibniz view that “tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles,” I nevertheless believe in the necessity and the ability of humans to see through, the suffering, the oases of joy on the painful journey of life and to carry out their obligation to create cities of happiness as soon as they find the necessary water. I’ll move beyond what perhaps is a superficial inference on my part from the symbolism of your avatar and its associated “epithet.” Onwards to “reasonable discussions” when the topic is relevant and of interest.
Salutations amicales.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 8:26 pm… and as proof of my not measuring up to the required erudition (at blog speed) I inadvertently massacred the punctuation above. I’m sure the remarkably intelligent readers of this blog will, in real reading time, put the commas where they belong.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 14, 2010, 8:28 pmI just got back from a very interesting panel on the Arab-Israeli conflict at Tufts University. Speakers included Rami Khouri and Shai Feldman, both of whom were excellent. If they upload a webcast I’ll link to it.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 14, 2010, 8:58 pmAIG
Shai is right. When the Israeli press publishes pictures of little girls writing messages on IDF missiles destined for Lebanese villages, did we hear any Israeli political parties rushing to condemn such practices, so that we in Lebanon would feel that there was more “nuance” in Israeli political culture?
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 14, 2010, 9:01 pmQN,
In fact there was an uproar in Israel about this and the publications themselves were to highlight the negativity of the action. Thanks for this example. It just proves how anybody can fall for propaganda.
By the way, what is Shai right about?
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 9:25 pmQN,
By the way, the kids were not organized to draw on the shells by an Israeli political party or movement. Hezbollah on the other hand is a prominent member of the Lebanese government.
If we are to discuss how to improve the situation, I would be first to agree that pictures of Israeli children drawing on shells is bad. Why though does that make the HA helmet display and its lack of condemnation ok? I am not talking from a moral sense, but from the sense of potentially making the relations between Israel and Lebanon a little better. When you are on the brink, every centimeter you move back from it is good.
Posted by AIG | October 14, 2010, 10:12 pmSeriously QN, given the standard of education you are exposed to and transmitting on your blog, do illiterates like AIG with their Zionist rubbish need to be accommodated?
Posted by SydneySider | October 14, 2010, 10:39 pmSyd, try FLC. Sharper than QN, and with less patience (if that’s the word)
http://friday-lunch-club.blogspot.com/
Posted by bored and disgusted | October 15, 2010, 12:23 amThanks b&d. I don’t have much patience for ignorance, clearly. a bad trait of mine i know, but who has time to argue with such pedestrian ‘intelligence’?? QN’s posts are always insightful, thoughtful and display degrees of academic/intellectual rigour (even in a blog post) and then i look to the comments and see such drivel. QN that PhD of yours is going to be stellar. You’re a star.
Posted by SydneySider | October 15, 2010, 12:48 amIt would be nice that you people come back to earth when you wake up…
“Many politicians and commentators evoke the possibility of an impending coup d’état or even a new civil war. But the more probable short-term scenario is repetition of a recurring Lebanese cycle: a political stalemate that triggers popular tensions which, in turn, political actors manipulate in order to bolster their leverage. As a result, instability is most likely to occur in Lebanon’s under-developed peripheral areas, whose populations are deeply divided by current events, harbour painful memories of the civil war and are largely left to their own devices until escalating violence brings them into the political game. Such is the case of the Bab-Tebbaneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods of Tripoli, which recently have witnessed both verbal and military escalation, including the firing into the latter neighborhood of a rocket that injured two.”
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-syria-lebanon/lebanon/B29-new-crisis-old-demons-in-lebanon-the-forgotten-lessons-of-bab-tebbaneh-jabal-mohsen.aspx
Posted by mj | October 15, 2010, 3:04 amAIG
I don’t get it. The Israeli press published the pictures in order to provoke a negative reaction from the political parties? That doesn’t make sense.
You are a realist. Israel is the most unpopular country among a majority of Lebanese, no matter how they feel about Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabia or the US. Israel trumps all. And those who feel otherwise about Israel would never dare voice their opinion because they’d be tarred as a collaborator. So stop holding out hope for some kind of grand gesture criticizing Lebanese antipathy toward Israel. It’s not going to happen until after a peace agreement is signed, and it may take a generation after that.
SydneySider: I talk to AIG because I think he represents a dominant current of Israeli opinion. If we were only to talk to those who agreed with us, we’d all be pretty bored and disgusted (not to mention boring). But thank you for the kudos.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 15, 2010, 8:19 amDidn’t Lebanon and Jordan and Syria shell Israel for years between 1948 and 1967? All this talk about how the 2006 war or Cast Lead makes the Israelis (sorry, I meant “Israelis”) look bad to the Lebanese seems silly. If its neighbors were willing to shell it indiscriminately, i.e., kill citizens as best they could, back then, it seems to me that “Israel” doesn’t really harm its standing among its friendly neighbors no matter what it does. Its neighbors hate it because it exists.
That’s why the phrase “resistance” is used even though “Israel” has no manifest desire to expand (you all can read its free press and know exactly what it does and doesn’t want). Resistance means resisting “Israel’s” existence; despite the name, it is not a defensive posture.
Why should they worry about what people who hate them think about them? There is no down from the bottom.
As a practical matter, Lebanon has let itself be taken hostage by Hezbollah. The consequences of that is that many Lebanese will die, as they did before, on behalf of “resistance”. “Israel” can feel bad about it, but if the Lebanese are unwilling or unable to act in their own self-interest, it is hard to see how their enemy should worry about their safety.
Posted by dontgetit | October 15, 2010, 9:08 amQN,
The Israeli press published the pictures because they thought this was news or that it could help sell papers. They did not care what the political parties would or would not say. But the reactions to the pictures were negative in Israel and everybody agreed that they would be used to soil Israel’s reputation (which is the usual shtick, a few idiot girls writing on shells means immediately that all Israelis write on shells).
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 9:53 amQN,
I wasn’t looking for a grand gesture, just a very small one.
I am asking the following question to get an answer and understand, not to make a point:
Why is it that Asad is not considered a traitor for seeking peace with Israel and why can’t any Lebanese adopt the same strategy?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 9:59 amAIG,
Let me give this a try.
Let’s divide Lebanon into two camps as far as Israel is concerned.
a. Shiite camp. Although I am not generalizing it but the facts as is now would confirm that what HA says so will the followers (maybe around 90%). I will not get into details of why the Shiites seem more comfortable being with HA now.
HA has a different agenda; as it follows the directives of Iran as it was so evident in their worship of Amjad.
HA says anyone who talks to Israel is a traitor and voila so do the followers.
b. The rest of Lebanese. They want peace on equal basis with all the neighbors and want to live like decent human beings. Israel is not hated but despised for its collective punishment! Israel has issues with PLO; it levels Beirut. It can not handle HA it levels Lebanon! Go figure why you don’t receive any Xmas cards Hanukkah cards.
HA considers Asad as their friend. Most Lebanese think of Asad as a butcher not a traitor.
Posted by danny | October 15, 2010, 10:31 amBecause most Lebanese know very well that the ASSADS have SOLD the Golan heights long ago…and that the rhetoric of peace is just that…empty talk. Israeli leaders already meet with ASSAD through the Golan heights passageways…and Syrian Alawites and Jewish Israeli Leaders from all political parties are two faces of the same coin….Most Lebanese do know that much to talk about Peace…it ain’t coming anytime soon for sure.
Posted by Jhon | October 15, 2010, 10:37 amAs I said I am here to learn about Modern Lebanon, about old days I learned at home.
As for Shai and B&D I read Haaretz daily, from cover to cover,and I have been reading Uri Avenery (Helmut Ostermann) since about 1950. Also beside learning here about Lebanon & Lebanese I am learning about some people in the USA cooking a dish that they will never eat. In short, Ulmart plan suit me just fine. As for a binational state, if needed, and only then, deadly experiments are done on mice not on living people.
Few observations:
It is clear from People who know about Lebanon and write here that in Lebanon Israel is by far the most hated thing on earth. Also in any political change it will take generations for that situation to change. In other Lebanese blogs, which I read, that picture is clearer. By the so called, very selective, facts cited by most Lebanese not all ! not here! it is obvious that the Lebanese demonization machine is working over time all the time. Clearly, because of the total ethnic cleaning excuted in Lebanon no Lebanese there has a chance to meet Jews as I meet Arbas here, daily. At work and in their homes. In the past they also visited my late parents house, but I moved away since and I work far from my present house. I wonder how often other non Israeli Arabs meet Jews at a friends wedding or just eating together or casually at work cussing together at a cop who gave my friend yeasterday a ticket for talking on the mobile. That obviously can not happen in Lebanon, talking about understanding each other, thinking like the other, empathy, sympathy and other inflated words written here. In fact the only place in the Levant were thusands of Jews and Arabs are inteacting daily is Israel from the washing room and the toilet to the army to the bank to the hospital operating room. In any and all of these places at time Arabs are bossing Jews and vice versa. Do they tell this to the people in Lebanon? How many Jewish MD were in Lebanon in 1950 and 2010 and how many Arabs in Israel. Think about that when, so lightly, you use the word aparthide.
Shai Said:
“The first Israeli leader that will empathize with the Arabs, will be the one to bring lasting Peace and an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict”.
Assuming that such leader will be about 40 years old by then it does not fit at all with any thing that I know about the world and the Levant also from this blog. I do not know enough English to say my opinion on that exclamtion by Shai only to ask what was he smoking or drinking just before he wrote that, because otherwise he make much sense. Or is Shai reading a different blog.
As for the Picture of the little Israeli girl writting on the bomb. I can give you 100 pictures of Palestinian children with weapons, mascarading as Shaids, parading as killer of Jews etc. It is extreme hypocritical to bring such subject here. As said, the Lebanese demonizing machine is working over time all the time.
Bully and such, so much talk about that. When I am hated so much I remember what was done to the Jews in Lebanon and nobody, even those who honestly tried, could have told me why. Who in Lebanon is putting that ethnic cleaning story into the hate mongering machine?. Most Jews in Israel know about the Palestinian Nakhba, it is even tought in high-schools, who in Lebanon is teacing about the Lebanese Jews Nakhba?.
Please remember when talkig about bully, empathy, sympathy etc. that I am told clearly by the Iranian behind the stronger politician in Lebanon that if he was not afraid of Israel, the bully, then the fine, gentle, God fearing Lebanese will do to me what they did to the Jews of their country.
When we sit to discuss these things on this Blogs or in other places I have noticed that some people are nice and understanding etc. perhaps in time Israel and Lebanon could make peace with their like. Others, as can be seen here, want me dead or in the sea, even if not explicitly saying so. Judging by the experience of Jews in the Islamic countries I have to believe them, it is as real as 2+2 = 4 . The Magen Avraham building in Beiruth is always empty, more than a 1000 mosques in Israel are full every friday, the same is with the churches on Sunday.
All Lebanese must realise that the solution offred by Iran and HA or anything remotly like it about the sea and Jews and such is out. I was listening here to all kind of things, now some people here should also listen, call me bully, call me Nazi, call me murderer, illiterated, any thing. If they and their leaders so desire the people of Lebanon can go on hating me even million times more then now, till ski resorts will open in hell. For the benfit of all of us Israeli & Lebanese men, women, children, exclude from any sane discussion the things that the murderous, monsterous evil Persian was talking about, even dont look as if you are acting toward such aim, please. I am not planing to be ethnically cleaned, to vanish or to jump into the sea.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 10:44 amAIG said:
Actually this is a very reasonable question. The short answer is that some Lebanese politicians have adopted this strategy. Before Jumblatt switched sides, he often raised this question rhetorically in interviews. Others have done the same thing (like Geagea and the Gemayels). Uqab Saqr has as well, but I can’t really think of any Sunnis who have.
The lack of a “constituency for peace” in Lebanon is quite interesting from a structural perspective. Those who would be most disposed (based on their history, i.e. the right-wing Christian parties) to argue publicly in favor of a peace deal are terrified of the prospect of naturalizing the Palestinians. And those who are not all that bothered about the prospect of naturalization have historically been the most pro-resistance.
One would imagine that in the menagerie of ideologies that co-exist in Lebanese politics, there would be someone who was pro-peace and pro-naturalization (with international aid commitments), but I have yet to meet this person. They couldn’t frame their positions as crassly as I have, but the arguments are there to be made:
(1) Israel is a fact on the ground. We may not like it, but Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO have recognized Israel, and Syria has come close to a peace agreement on two occasions. Why shouldn’t we do what is in our own interests?
(2) The longer we wait, the more chance there is that we’ll get screwed. We need to be proactive rather than reactionary in developing a strategy about solving the refugee problem.
(3) The refugees have been in Lebanon for almost two thirds of a century. While we defend their inalienable right to return to their homeland and demand the recognition of their suffering and loss, we will not compound the tragedy by turning away those individuals (and their parents and grandparents) who have never known any place besides Lebanon.
Etc. etc. etc.
Again, there are ways to frame the argument. But it remains very sensitive for the structural reasons I mentioned above.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 15, 2010, 10:49 amAIG
Lebanon can only sign a peace treaty if Syria so desires it to.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 10:56 am“because of the total ethnic cleaning excuted in Lebanon”
You keep refering to this. Can you enlighten us on the actual events you are talking about
Dany,
If you think its only the Shia that oppose peace with Israel in Lebanon then you live in an even smaller bubble of ignorance than I thought you did
Posted by usedtopost | October 15, 2010, 11:23 amEthnic cleaning of Jews in Lebanon, What a question? Just show you what people know.
Jews lived in Lebanon since there is a written History of Lebanon. As for the present visit of the great Iranian leader, to villages in South Lebanon remember that Jesus preached to Jews and ate in Jewish houses, only.
Under Turkey Jews in Trabalus, Beiruth, Sur, Saida and several vilages in the south. You can find remains of their family names even after many changes in Israeli phone directories. Also Apparently in Baal bek. My family went south from Hazbaya,starting about 1860 or so. There were few Jewish families there till the early 20th century.
During the French mandate Jewish communities
in the main cities. Numbers not clear 20.000 to 30.000. Jews in army and government. Little or no Zionist activity.
1948 24.000 about
1950 30.000 about
1980 practically none, few Jews here and there. Between 1975-1981 leaders systemtically exterminated. Poperty stolen. Community building taken or destroyed. Jews were forced to leave or else…
Few Jew in Lebanon now are living secret lives as hidden individuals. Please google “Jews Lebanon” and read carefully also between the lines.
Not all that happened is told. The subject was discussed here on this blog.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 12:19 pmWhat are your thoughts on the Syrian dictatorship’s stance in regards to Iran’s parade in Lebanon?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 12:20 pmQN,
Are we really then moving towards an existential “fight to the death” between Lebanon and Israel? Because clearly if it is going to take “generations” to accept a peaceful solution it is clear that we are not going to be lucky forever. At some point in time, war will break out like it did in 2006. I think that war is in no one’s interest but having read Cambanis’ book he has convinced me that war is a must for Hezbollah at some point because of their ideology and ethos. The ideology is not a method to get power, political or otherwise, like it was used by communists in the Soviet Union or by Nasser, Assad and other “Arab nationalists”. I have to start accepting that the power is a way to implement the ideology, like the case with the Nazis.
I believed that the Lebanese state and people could be a brake in this process and in some sense could “moderate” Hezbollah by co-opting it into the power hierarchy. I am beginning to think that this thinking is naive.
And I know I will not be popular for saying this, but I am starting to think that if war is inevitable anyway, why not fight it when it is convenient for Israel and not when Hezbollah instigates it?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 12:20 pmAIG
Now Israel needs Syria.
Assad must be smiling?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 12:25 pmPeter,
I am not following you. Why do we need Syria? In fact, it is becoming clearer to me that at most Syria can weaken HA a little but it cannot mitigate or moderate its aims or change significantly its “raison d’etre”.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 12:41 pmI wanted to quit but then:
dontgetit Says: October 15, 2010 at 9:08 am
Didn’t Lebanon and Jordan and Syria shell Israel for years between 1948 and 1967?
NO NO NO NO No. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, the brain washing machine at work.
Between 1949 and 1970 practically not one shell and very few bullets came from Lebanon to Israel and back. Thousands of Israelies, Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordenians, Syrian and some Iraqies died, prperty worth millions was destroyed. BUT !!! in these 20 years NOTHING BUT NOTHING HAPPENED TO LEBANON !
For some stupid reasons since then Lebanon became the single tip of the only sword against Israel of the Arab people and recently of the whole Islamic world, More than 500.000.000 people. A heavy burden to bare. It is Lebanon not Israel that entered that stupid game. First Lebanon called it Palestinians. To make things crude and simple and half true, then Israel chased with much blood Arafat and his fighting Palestinians, from Lebanon all the way to Tunis. Now Lebanon is calling it HA. Few Israelis care if the people of Lebanon love us or not. Listening to every body in Lebanon that talk I conclude that for me as an Israeli HA = Lebanon, Lebanon= HA. worse, HA=Iran Iran=HA. I can not hear people that dont talk. By simple math, what does this make Lebanon? Try Israel, by not shooting and not calling for killing and death and extermintion, it can be another good 20 years.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 12:48 pmThats what I thought Rani, not exactly the ethnic cleansing you keep saying it is.
And Jews living in secret today in Beirut? I don’t think so.
Posted by usedtopost | October 15, 2010, 12:55 pmThe only formula that is in the best interest of the Lebanese people and of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, should they be naturalized, is a non-aligned state with strict separation of church/mosque/temple and state, with non-alignment built into its constitution and changeable only by a 2/3 majority in a national referendum. That, along with strict term limits for every elected political office, tightly controlled bank secrecy and freedom of movement of funds with the continued conditions preventing high-risk investments by Lebanese banks. That, along with one person one vote.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one!
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 15, 2010, 1:26 pmAIG,
You keep trying to project Israeli or Western mentalities on the Lebanese in your questions. You ask why we don’t criticize HA’s display of helmets, or why it’s ok for Assad to talk peace with Israel, etc.
All valid questions. And as a western-minded person myself, living in the US, and steeped in things like “Freedom of speech” and “Democracy”, i ask them as well.
However, once again, you are projecting the wrong mentality and mores (your own) on the Lebanese, and Arabs at large.
Lebanon is a complicated, small, weak, tribal and sectarian place. It has also NEVER held the values and mentalities you are attempting to project on it (nor have any of the other Arab countries). Generations upon generations of Arabs have lived under oppressive regimes (even before the current states existed). The people have absolutely NO concept of “democracy” and “freedom of speech” (contrary to what they may claim). I have stated this time and again in the past, in other contexts.
Your “average Joe Lebanese” civilian (the ones that have never taken up arms for any militia, etc) have, for the most part, been bullied into silence over generations. I am not only speaking of today, and HA, or even the civil war days. Lebanon is not a country where “civil society” exists in the commonly understood sense of the term. The things you take for granted like “being critical of your own government” (that Americans take great pride in, for example) do not exist in Lebanon. There is no accountability to our “elected leaders” (elected my ass!)
Threats and intimidation have always been the way to go. There is no real “discourse” in the fully open sense of the word. We may pretend to have “debate and discourse” as a society, but it is always kept within the bounds dictated by certain quasi-religion taboos (Israel being one of those).
Here’s a simple observation, that’s very telling: We don’t have “Scandals”.
Most western, open, democracies, have scandals.
Some person of power commits something unsavory, is exposed by a “critical” press, and public opinion gets whipped into a frenzy, often demanding accountability, or the person to resign, etc.
I cannot, for the life of me, rememeber one such instance in Lebanon. What does that tell you about the dynamics of the place?
There is essentially no such thing as “the court of public opinion” in Lebanon.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 1:28 pmAIG
Leave it to the Syrians to deal with the Lebanese. They’ve mastered that art a long time ago.
War casualties for the Assads is a fact of life.
Without doubt Assad made a deal with the US in 2008 in regards to Lebanon and the STL and renewed its indirect talks with Israel through Turkey as a surprising 180 degree result. That while Hizbullah was facing March 14th wrath on the private telecom and camera issue at the airport.
That was what made Nasrallah realize he was sold out by the Syrians and caused his show of strength in May 2008.
This is what caused the whole politicization issue of the STL by them and March 8 and even Syria.
This is why there was absolutely no mention of Syria by Nasrallah during Ahmedin’s visit to Lebanon.
This was a giant middle thumb by Nasrallah to Assad.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 1:35 pmsorry finger !
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 1:36 pmmo,
Please relax. You seem the only one (along with the Persian mullahs…alright; let’s add Bed Laden’s fanatic group as well ) who is hateful and racist enough not to want peace with another nation.
I guess you are in Amjad’s bubble.
Posted by danny | October 15, 2010, 1:39 pmI think Hizballah and Iran have made it clear enough these past two days that they want to eradicate the state of Israel.
Syria has made clear it is willing to negotiate with it.
Now you need Syria to solve the problem on your Northern border jointly with Syria. Unless off course, you seem to think the IDF can handle it on its own.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 1:46 pmBV,
Thanks for the helpful reply. First off, I must admit that my understanding is limited by my background as you say. I do not deny that. Having said that, I have talked to many Arabs in my life from different countries and different social classes, I have been to many Arab towns and villages in Israel and I have seen how Arab political consciousness has changed in Israel over the decades. There are certainly parts of Arab Israeli society that are very conservative, but all in all there is a clear movement towards liberalism and more importantly tolerance for different opinions within the Arab Israeli community (I can’t in fact remember when was the last act of violence between Arabs over political opinions; putting aside the occasional brawl between hamulas over local power).
And let me stress that this process has nothing to do with the state of Israel. The state or the Jewish community did not help the process along in any way. This is NOT a plug for Israel. It was an internal process.
I was under the impression that this was happening in Lebanon also, but somehow it seems the tide is turning the other way.
I remain bewildered as usual.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 1:46 pmIran will never go to war against Israel and Syria in defense of Hizballah.
That is a delusion the Lebanese Shi’tes are currently heavily under.
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 1:49 pmAIG said:
I think you are either misunderstanding what I said or drawing the wrong conclusion from it. Israel itself is unpopular in Lebanon, but that doesn’t mean that a peace agreement is unpopular. Talk to 100 Lebanese from different sects, regions, classes, and age groups and ask them what they think of Israel, and you’ll probably get at least 90-95 negative reactions. But ask those same 100 people what they would think of a cessation of hostilities in the context of a broder regional peace agreement, then I think the majority would support it, and only a small minority would advocate resisting Israel until it vanished (i.e. the Iranian proposal).
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 15, 2010, 2:20 pmAIG,
I think your latest response is kind of on the right track. Not quite exactly there yet, but you’re starting to get it.
I actually was thinking about this last night, and was wondering, when i said “Arabs” in my ramblings, whether I should exclude the Palestinians, and the Israeli-Arabs. The dynamics for those 2 groups have been VERY different than the rest of the Arab world. But that is neither here nor there.
To some extent, what you describe MAY be happening in Lebanon. But I would say it’s still in a very minor way. You have to remember that Lebanon, unlike the Arab-Israelis you mention, have a sectarian system that’s made it near impossible to break the feudal mentality. And on top of that, they’ve been bullied by everyone for the past 50+ years and have learned in many ways to “keep their heads down”. Not so with your Arab compatriots. The environment you’re in generation after generation, makes a big difference.
One clarification I wanna add. You paint this as a “conservative” vs. “liberalism” issue. Your words. I don’t think that’s the right framing for this at all. This has nothing to do with how liberal Lebanese are. It’s an entirely different paradigm that has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. Really. We don’t think of ourselves in that way. It’s a lot less ideological than that. It’s simply a matter of survival, in many ways. You keep your head down, avoid “taboo subjects” unless you’re some anonymous guy on the internet, or you live abroad. That sorta mentality has been ingrained in us from years of bullying by our own militias, Syria, Israeli bombs, HA, Iran, and everyone else.
When Lebanese claim to be “liberal”, they’re really restricting that stuff to non-taboo subjects that are “safe”.
No.1 Taboo = Israel.
No.2 Taboo = Anything to do with sectarianism / naturalizing Palestinians.
We’ve BARELY touched on #2 a few times in public discourse. And i mean BARELY. #1 is still a ways off.
There is something irrational that clicks into people when things are demonized for them to this extent. Take the US. The word “socialism” is a dirty word here. Like an insult. No candidate, no matter how left-leaning, will be caught dead saying “I am a socialist”. There’s some kind of primal fear of the word in the public psyche.
And conversely, it’s very easy to say “I hate socialists” or “I hate Al Qaeda” even if you don’t mean it. It’s what the public EXPECTS of you.
Replace those words with “Israel” when you’re in Lebanon. And you’ll get an accurate picture.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 2:20 pmQN 107, AIG
Good reply by QN.
I think that’s exactly right. The average Lebanese has no interest in destroying Israel or fighting it for the sake of it. Contrary to what you may think. Doesn’t mean we “LIKE” or “SUPPORT” Israel.
QN is exactly right. the same 100 people will probably have no issue with a peace agreement, but will also say they “hate Israel”. It’s weird. I know. LOL.
I’ll add another 2 cents of mine (i’ve been very verbose lately).
I don’t think there will be a fight to death.
I do think that the only way things will get resolved, is if peace is imposed.
I think there are too many spoilers in the region (Iran, Syria) and in Lebanon (HA) for a peace to come of our own accord, no matter how many of us want that peace.
It’s not the ideal solution, but i think something akin to what Sadat did for Egypt (and Mubarak enforces to this day) will be the way to go for Lebanon.
What I mean is, it will take a strongman of sorts to make that peace, and then forcefeed it to the Lebanese people. And it will take a generation or two of actual peace (no bombs, no deaths, etc) for the people to get over their animosity of Israel.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 2:26 pmQN,
I don’t doubt that what you say is true, but I don’t understand why it is relevant since it is HA calling the shots and all the while they are not shy about expounding their ideology without any effective counter efforts from the “silent majority”. The lesson from Cambanis’ book is that war with Israel is part and parcel of what HA is and so far they have been very good at dragging the rest of the Lebanese with them.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 2:42 pmBV,
Perhaps, but the point is that you already have a strongman, Nasrallah.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 2:49 pmQN a3107 says:
“I think you are either misunderstanding what I said or drawing the wrong conclusion from it. Israel itself is unpopular in Lebanon, but that doesn’t mean that a peace agreement is unpopular. Talk to 100 Lebanese from different sects, regions, classes, and age groups and ask them what they think of Israel, and you’ll probably get at least 90-95 negative reactions. But ask those same 100 people what they would think of a cessation of hostilities in the context of a broder regional peace agreement, then I think the majority would support it, and only a small minority would advocate resisting Israel until it vanished (i.e. the Iranian proposal).”
I do not need to remind you that all of the above paragraph revolves around the figure 90-95% and then assumes a great majority would take a certain position is pure speculation. This does not mean that it is not true but that might not be the case and so the conclusion of the argument is based on the presumption that the 95% figure is accurate. That makes the argument circular, no?
But more importantly if it is true that the major concern is the cessation of hostilities then I can think of a dozen different arrangements that would assure that and that are less disruptive and less costly and less contentious than to have the HA resistance.
Obviously the conclusion to draw from this is either your assumption isregarding the cessation of hostilities is wrng or if it is true that HA uses intimidation and threats in order to prevent the majority from taking the more rational and less costly path.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 15, 2010, 2:57 pmGhassan
I’ve read your comment three times now, and I still don’t understand how my argument is circular. (It’s not an argument… it’s just a speculation).
My point is that 90-95% of Lebanese “probably” have negative feelings toward Israel, but that at least 50% of Lebanese would be in favor of a peace agreement. You can dispute the figures I present, but there’s no real argument that is being advanced, so it’s hard for it to be circular. 🙂
Posted by Qifa Nabki | October 15, 2010, 3:03 pmGhassan,
You’ve lived in Lebanon, I assume.
You know full well how these taboo subjects work.
There is no circular logic here. I can assure you that if some kind of peace agreement was signed TODAY with Israel (let’s hypothesize), a vast majority of the Lebanese population (civilian) would have ZERO interest in invading Israel to free Palestine or anything of the sort.
The problem is that we have a “strongman”, as AIG rightly called Nassrallah, who is hellbent on avoiding such a peace agreement. Had we had the opposite kind of strongman. If Nassrallah was the new Sadat and used his “enforcer” approach to push through a peace agreement, there wouldn’t be ANYTHING to discuss here vis-a-vis hostilities with the Jewish state. It’s that simple.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 3:05 pmRani:
The “ethnic cleansing” of Lebanese Jews you keep talking about just didn’t happen. In fact, Lebanon was the only Arab country in which the Jewish population increased after 1948. It wasn’t until 1967-1969 that Jews started to leave Lebanon because of the ’67 war and rising tensions in Lebanon. And then when the civil war, like so many Lebanese of all sects with the means to do so, Lebanese Jews started to leave en masse.
The main attacks on Jews in Lebanon were kidnappings perpetrated by shady Islamist groups in the 1980s that went by names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth that many have speculated (I think with reason) were at least affiliated with the early manifestations of Hezbollah if not just a pseudonym.
In any case, anyone seriously interested in the history of Lebanon’s Jewish population should read Kirsten Schulze’s excellent book on the subject. I recently watched Nada Abdelsamad’s documentary on Lebanese Jews and was kind of disappointed, although I haven’t read her book yet.
Posted by sean | October 15, 2010, 3:44 pmSean,
Let’s look at the facts:
1) Over a few year starting in the late sixties the Lebanese Jewish community disappeared
2) No other Lebanese community disappeared
3) There was no official government activity of deporting or exiling the Jews
4) It is not clear that there even was a government
I call the totality of the facts ethnic cleansing. Why? Because even if there was no official government policy in Israel to deport or exile Arabs, if the Israeli Arabs would leave because they started feeling unsafe, and if in fact a large percentage of them left, you would be the first in line to call this ethnic cleansing. Therefore, what happened to the Lebanese Jews is ethnic cleansing.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 4:27 pmGhassan @112: “… or (…) HA uses intimidation and threats in order to prevent the majority from taking the more rational and less costly path.”
Uh, well, yeah. That’s what happened and continues to happen. I would change it to add to the arsenal of methods used, in addition to intimidation and threats, propaganda, brainwashing, carrots and sticks.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 15, 2010, 4:45 pmAIG,
By your definition, one could say Israeli ethnically cleansed countless Palestinian villages in 48, no?
Strictly speaking, I mean. If you’re trying to be technical about your definition.
No one’s disputing that Lebanon’s Jews fled due to unsafe conditions. So did many others.
And no one’s disputing that Jews, more than Christians or Muslims, might have felt unsafe and thus fled in larger numbers (and there were far less of them to begin with than the other 2 groups). But I think “ethnic cleansing” has far more sinister connotations than you guys are using a bit loosely on these words.
There were no massacres of Jews in Lebanon. Not one.
Whereas the Christians had Karantina, Tal Zaatar, not to mention Sabra and Chatila, etc. where entire civilian populations were executed, raped, hacked to pieces and then bulldozed by the hundreds or thousands into the ground.
The muslims did a number on Damour and many other villages. Not to mention the Druze in the Shouf. Causing entire populations to leave their areas based on ethnic and religious lines. That’s ethnic cleansing.
The Jewish community of Lebanon was certainly “harassed” over the years, no doubt, and slowly chose to emigrate (and I’m talking about over a period spanning the 1960s to the 1980s, at least 30 years). It’s deplorable, sure. But it’s not “ethnic cleansing” by definition.
Or if you so choose to define ethnic cleansing, then I’m pretty sure one could use the same words to describe Israel’s expansion at the Palestinians expense between 1948 and today and still continues to this day (if your criteria is simply that of harassing people into leaving).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 4:45 pmAIG, Rani, have you read the book that Sean refers to in #115? Let’s have you get the facts first before you engage in what has to be the absolute weakest argument and claim you have ever made on these blogs. It’s just not true and I can only think of the paranoia and complex of perpetual persecution that drives such superficial statement when you otherwise often show some pretty deep thinking.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 15, 2010, 4:49 pmTo sean
I read several times what you wrote. Gladly it fits with the facts used by me to
substentiate and use the terms “ethnic cleaning” and “extermination” and the reasons why Israel and Lebanon should believe the HA when it talk about Israel and Jews.
I am in a way, a very long way, a Lebanese Jew.
The numbers I gave fit what you say. so thank you. They say that in the 50’s Jews wanted to stay in Lebanon and Israel did not attract them.
The rest are explantions.
I Hate to do so but I will copy your material.
“It wasn’t until 1967-1969 that Jews started to leave Lebanon because of the ’67 war and rising tensions in Lebanon. And then when the civil war, like so many Lebanese of all sects with the means to do so, Lebanese Jews started to leave en masse.”
Lebanon was not involved at all in the 1967 war. Not one Lebanese was killed in that war. That is one of my questions, why is Lebanon becoming the sword of the Arabs. And if it does why play the innocent victim.
You say: Many sects migrated, true.
BUT THE JEWS ARE THE ONLY SECT THAT VANISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. That to me mean that they were not protected at all and were especially picked upon. That is called ethnic extermination or ethnic cleaning.
You go on:
“The main attacks on Jews in Lebanon were kidnappings perpetrated by shady Islamist groups in the 1980s that went by names like the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth that many have speculated (I think with reason) were at least affiliated with the early manifestations of Hezbollah if not just a pseudonym. ALL THE KIDNEPPED VANISHED OR WERE RETURNED IN SMALL PIECES. The rest got letters or were told to leave, by friends and by not so friends. As you rightly said IT WAS THE HA. So when an Israeli and or just a Jew is saying that Iran and the HA want to exterminate the Jews in Israel, if they can, he is not crazy.
There are NOW Jews in Iran, Yemen, Tunisia, Morroco. I hate to add Turkey to such list.
As you can see in this blog not all Jews are in great love or just love with Israel, it is OK by me. So were the Jews living in Lebanon. They wanted to stay and were ethnically cleanout by force. That fact in the history of Lebanon should be known to all Lebanese before I am told to think, to have sympathy, empathy and such clean nice words. About 600.000 to 800.000 Jews from other arab countries were trated the same way.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 4:55 pmBV, AIG has already admitted in a previous exchange that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed as part of the creation of the state of Israel (will have to research the exact post, but it was within the past 2 months or so, here on QN). At the time he did say it was regrettable but the outcome was a nice country that was good for him and his family.
I can only assume that he might be searching for an equivalency to say, hey, you too did it!
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 15, 2010, 4:56 pmI wonder. Was there a Lebanese community in present day Israel, prior to 1948? I would imagine so. Merchants doing business in Haifa or Tel Aviv, or wherever.
Do you figure them and their descendants are still in Israel today? Or would you figure most of them left over the years?
(It’s an honest question, brought to mind by the ethnic cleansing discussion).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 4:57 pmBV,
Of course there was ethnic cleansing in 1948. I do not deny that.
But after 1948? Check the population growth. Ethnic cleansing results in population reduction, not growth.
Let’s say the Israeli Arabs are harassed by Jewish vigilantes despite government interventions and start leaving in huge numbers, would you call it ethnic cleansing? Of course you would, and if you wouldn’t then Sean would.
The Lebanese Jews were the victims of ethnic cleansing. You can call it whatever you want and make as many excuses as you want, but what happened to the Lebanese Jews is clear cut.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 4:58 pmAIG:
No other Lebanese community dwindled to the same extent as the Jewish community, because no other community was as small to begin with and unaffiliated with any militia. Even the Armenians, who remained neutral for the most part, had their own fighters.
I don’t know what the numbers are, but there are a very, very few Kurds in Lebanon, so by your logic if those few Kurds were to leave during a war, they would have been ethnically cleansed. That’s patently ridiculous. To put it in even starker terms, by your definition, the disappearance of white communities in large swaths of, say, Detroit during the white flight could be fairly called ethnic cleansing. But that’s obviously not the case.
Ethnic cleansing is not a result but rather an action, and as such it has to have an actor. Simply put, there has to be an ethnic cleanser for ethnic cleansing to occur. The Druze “cleansed” the Maronites from the Shouf, and the Maronites cleansed the Shi’a from the suburbs of East Beirut. The Maronites (with Israeli help) did their best to cleanse Sabra and Chatilla. And they also cleansed Karantina and Tal al-Zaatar.
But no one cleansed the Lebanese Jews, and to suggest otherwise is to blatantly misuse the term. Lebanese Jews, like countless other Lebanese of all sects with the means to flee, left a terrible situation.
Posted by sean | October 15, 2010, 5:04 pmBV,
I’m sure Rani knows more than me about the Lebanese community in Israel.
HP,
No, I need no excuses. In 1948, because of Arab belligerence, the only option for a viable Jewish state was ethnic cleansing. What is regrettable is that the Arabs for whatever reason chose war over the UN Partition Plan. In any case, neither you nor I were around in 1948. The results of the ethnic cleansing should have been solved after the war by negotiation. But again, the Arab states refused to negotiate.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:05 pmQN #113,
There is no need to read my post a fourth time 🙂 I was taking a break from preparing a lecture on Inferences and Hypothesis testing when I saw your post #107. I still stand by what I said: Your statement , like all other statemnts arrive at a conclusion. In this particular case, however, your starting point was an assertion that was used to justify the conclusion. What is wrong in this case is that the assertion is a pure speculation that was presented as a true statement. That is why that argument assumes what it is trying to prove. Anyway, it is no big deal. There are much bigger fish to fry:-)
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 15, 2010, 5:08 pmSean,
The actor in the ethnic cleansing of the Lebanese Jews was the Lebanese society. Is it really the Lebanese Jews fault that they had to leave because they had no militia? They were offered no protection neither by the state nor by any other sect. Everybody understood that by not providing protection to the Jews, they would be put in a precarious situation. But everyone was comfortable with it and did nothing. The ethnic cleansing was done in a disorganized and opportunistic way, but hey, isn’t that how most things are done in Lebanon?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:10 pmI think there is disagreement on the terminology. Semantics to matter, in legal terms.
But to us non-legal folks. It really doesn’t matter. Clearly, AIG and co. feel a “wrong” was done to the Lebanese Jews (Call it what you will). And I agree.
If you wanna talk legal definitions. I think Ethnic Cleansing implies deliberate and systemic INTENT accompanied by violent means.
When Hitler set out to get rid of the Jews, he had intent, and he systematically implemented a plan to accomplish his goal.
The same can be said of the Rawandan Genocide, or Armenian Genocide.
As deplorable as it may be, when people leave more on their own accord (No Jews were ever marched out of Beirut or anywhere else. This is a fact!), because of generally bad climate (not just for them , but for everyone else too). It’s still a tragedy. But I wouldn’t use those specific words to describe it. Sorry.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:13 pmAig,
Armenians left as well…Were they ethnically cleansed? They had almost 300,000 Lebanese of Armenian origin. Now i would guess only 10% are left. Should they gripe that no one protected them? Rather they all blamed them for not joining their side.
It was more a factor of people leaving to safer countries in this ever shrinking and mobile world.
In a few years there will be a few Maronite left as well. It is a matter of demographics and emigration.
Posted by danny | October 15, 2010, 5:17 pmAnd if we want to apply “Ethnic Cleansing” this liberally…
What do you call it when Israel builds in East Jerusalem (as was announced today), over the green line?
I am fairly certain over the years, way after 1948 and 1967, Palestinians have lost their homes in occupied lands (using the UN accepted green line as our legal boundary) and forced to go elsewhere. I guess Israel is still performing ethnic cleansing, eh?
Listen, it’s easy to bandy insults or insulting terminology around. Don’t throw it around when you’re loosely interpreting the wording, unless you expect the other side to loosely interpret the same wording and throw it back at you.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:19 pmBV,
According to wikipedia:
The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”
Since the Jews were intimidated into leaving, there was ethnic cleansing at least according to this definition.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:20 pmAccording to Britannica:
Ethnic cleansing: the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.
I’m sorry, but this clearly does not describe what happened to the Jews of Lebanon. Israelis are rightfully upset when people misuse terms like “genocide” to describe the situation in Israel/Palestine. I don’t know why you insist on similarly misusing politically charged terms.
The disappearance of what was a tiny minority in Lebanon is a tragedy, and the country is poorer for the loss of one of its sects. But to move from there to using language that distorts the situation does no good at all.
Posted by sean | October 15, 2010, 5:25 pmThanks for digging up the UN definition. I guess that’s a good place to start.
Let’s be clear. By that definiton. There is intent, and there is then intimidation (doesn’t even have to be actual violence).
I’m fine accepting that definition if you do too.
By that definition: France is ethnically cleansing the Roma as we speak. Israel is ethncially cleansing parts of the West Bank. Lebanon has done plenty of ethnic cleansing. And apparently, so has pretty much every country in the world.
Like I said. I’m willing to accept that definition if you do too.
I still think there is a big difference between bulldozing people’s homes over their heads to make them leave, and “attrition” (Look up that word).
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:27 pmDanny,
In my book, when 90% of the population leaves over a relatively short period of time, that is ethnic cleansing. The Maronites have been leaving for centuries, so it is not ethnic cleansing. Over how long a period did 90% of the Armenian population leave?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:28 pmTo others.
Read what you write ! Christians and others were ethnically cleaned but Jews were only
certainly “harassed”. BUT THERE ARE NO JEWS ANY MORE, as far as Lebanon is concerned it is “clean” totally clean. The Jews as a group are completely gone. Look at “clean” in any dictionary. These are facts, not one of you say that the fact are wrong. You have your explantions and terminology I have mine. Yes, as in 1948 in Israel, in Lebanon then villages were destroyed and population exiled but in Lebanon only the Jews vanished. More over, if as you said, such terrible things happened in Lebanon should not Lebanon take care of its own deep bad problems before messing with the problems of Israel-Palestine. People who can not solve their problems, very similar to those you blame Israel for, do they have the right to preach to others.
Arabs as a whole ethnic group were not cleaned from Israel, again you are playing with words. The Greeks in North Cyprus were totally clean out, like the Jews from Lebanon. The Turks from Cyprus were clean just like that too. When you talk to people there some of them, like some of the people here, can not accept that this coin has two sides, but it does.
Yes, there was a Nakhba; yes there was terrible suffering of the Palestinian Arabs; yes all Israelis and all Jews should recognize that. However please notice what I am saying:
1. NOT ALL JEWS in Israel CAME FROM EUROPE as some or many of you write here. Part of them were sent from Lebanon, please tell it to the HA who, as told above not by me, sent them away from Lebanon.
2. Arabs, Muslims and christians, are a minority in Israel, are they treated completely fairly NO. should Israel do a lot about it yes yes yes. But these of you critizing Israel on that account should look at their country, past and present.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 5:31 pmDefine “relatively short period of time”.
The Jews of Lebanon left over a period of 60 years. That’s not “short”.
The Arabs of pre-1948 had to leave within a couple of years. That’s short.
The maronites have not been “leaving for centuries”. They’ve mostly been leaving over the past 30 years. That’s attrition, my friend.
It’s still a tragedy. I do not excuse it. NOT ONE BIT.
But let’s not play fast and loose with terminology. Really.
SPECIALLY not you guys, who can easily (and still do to this day) have words like “Genocide” thrown at your treatment of the Palestinians.
I can’t believe you don’t SEE this. Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, etc. are very heavily loaded words. “90% of the population left” is not enough, in my book to call it “Genocide” or “Ethnic Cleansing”.
A lot of Jews are moving to Israel from Russia these days, no? I guess the Russians are ethnically cleansing too? To this day?
Or do you not take into account that these are simply people who are offered a better life in Israel and certain incentives by the Israeli government, to make aliyah?
Come on, man! You have to be disingenuous here. I can’t believe you don’t see this.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:35 pmSean,
The Britannica definition does not pass the common sense test that intimidation that leads to “voluntary” relocation is also ethnic cleansing and this is captured by the UN definition.
BV,
Humor me again, when was the last time Israel bulldozed people’s homes to make room for settlements? Why don’t you look up the status of the land Israel builds on in East Jerusalem?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:37 pmRani. That they’re all gone is not the sticking point. We all agree on that.
I think the MANNER in which they all come to leave is what is the sticking point here.
Again, when someone says “ethnic cleansing” i picture in my head, pogroms, i picture armed men marching women and children out of town. Or worse, massacres, bulldozers tearing down homes over their inhabitants. That sort of thing.
In 1948, both Jews and Arabs were marched out of towns and villages in respective parts of the land. That’s ethnic cleansing.
The Lebanese civil war had its share of that. In the 80s, Christians were marched out of the mountain. I don’t even need to explain Sabra/Chatila. etc.
Name ONE massacre of Lebanese Jews. Name one convoy of Lebanese Jews leaving the country at gunpoint. There is NO SUCH THING.
Like I said. Russian Jews weren’t exactly well treated in Russia, and were enticed by Israel to migrate. So they did. Call that what you will. It’s not “Ethnic Cleansing”.
Also, let’s not forget that the Lebanese Jews were also enticed by Israel to migrate, btw. Coupled with the fact that Lebanon wasn’t safe. And that their community was viewed with suspicion, most chose to leave. Sure. It’s terrible. But please call it something else.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:40 pmBV,
The Jews disappeared in Lebanon over a period of several years after 1967. It did not take 60 years. By your own admission, the Jews left because they were intimidated, not because they were given financial incentives to do so.
As for the Russian Jews, they are economic and ideological migrants, unlike the Lebanese Jews that left out of fear.
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:43 pmSorry guys, but there is no UN definition of “ethnic cleansing” since — unlike genocide, which was codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — it is not a legal term. It was a term coined during the Balkan wars that was popularized by the media.
If you’re interested in a history of its genesis and uses, you can check out the work of Alice Krieg-Planque. I’ve spent years working on genocide, mostly in Rwanda, Europe and Burundi, and I’m afraid that this sort of abuse of language is unfortunately commonplace. But in the end, it cheapens the true meaning of the term and can generally be chalked up to either ignorance or the cynical manipulation of language.
Posted by sean | October 15, 2010, 5:46 pmBV,
Granted, the Lebanese Jews were not deported at gunpoint, but neither were most of the Palestinians. They left because they were afraid that what happened in Deir Yassin may happen to them, especially after the Deir Yassin false rape stories were disseminated. Nevertheless, this is considered ethnic cleansing. Don’t you see the parallels?
Posted by AIG | October 15, 2010, 5:51 pmAIG,
So says you. I happen to know (since my father grew up in Wadi Abu Jamil) that the Lebanese Jews started leaving due to “ideological reasons” long before 1967. This is fact. Starting in 48, the community viewed itself as mistrusted. Sad. But true. Doesn’t mean anyone was actively harming them.
Add to that the ideological impulse for Israel. And the incentives and encouragement givem by Israel, and many started leaving or thinking about leaving. The civil war simply exacerbated that by adding an element of “safety” to the equation.
You’re correct in that the migration accelerated later on. Specially after 1982 (invasion by Israel and the ascendancy of the Shiite sentiment being two prime components to this).
But again. This is attrition. Very similar to the maronite attrition that’s been ongoing.
The difference is the maronite had a heartland to which to retreat, whereas the Jews didn’t.
Not to mention that the Jewish community was tiny to begin with.
And speaking of your ethnic cleansing: I also happen to be someone who had to leave their home in East Beirut, in 1978 because my father’s ID card said “Sunni” (my mom’s Armenian, fyi). So I know a thing or two about Ethnic Cleansing.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:54 pmOops. AIG. My 142 reply was at your previous post 139.
And I agree with your post 141. I said as much. You agreed with me. by YOUR definition of ethnic cleansing (the one where intimidation is enough), then the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed (as you said, after Deir Yasin).
If we, on the other hand, restrict the definition to “at gunpoint” or something along those lines (the way I’m defining it), and add in the “short duration of time” factor. Then the label differs immensely.
It’s all semantics anyway. Really.
The result is the same in the end. And we all admit to that.
I just hate to hear Rani use that word which, to most readers, brings about the image of massacres, bulldozers, gunpoint marches, and all that. That simply never happened to the Jews of Lebanon. That’s all I’m saying.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 5:57 pmLastly. I would like to apologize to QN and to whoever else about my rather passionate ramblings.
I get a bit carried away with such things, specially having lived through them (and those of you here who HAVE actually lived through this stuff will understand).
I’m gonna leave the conversation at this. Cheers.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 6:00 pmAIG, I left because I was intimidated. Was I ethnically cleansed?
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 15, 2010, 6:16 pmDanny #129 and many of BV’s latest posts,
“Danny says:Armenians left as well…Were they ethnically cleansed? They had almost 300,000 Lebanese of Armenian origin. Now i would guess only 10% are left. Should they gripe that no one protected them? Rather they all blamed them for not joining their side.
It was more a factor of people leaving to safer countries in this ever shrinking and mobile world.
In a few years there will be a few Maronite left as well. It is a matter of demographics and emigration.”
It is absolutely absurd to claim that the Lebanese Jews; 50,000 of them; decided to leave a countryand a place that they identified with and prospered for no reason. Yes , you are right, there were no major masacres and they were not put in trucks and driven to cattle ship at the harbour . But the fact of the matter is that something just as sinister took place, they were made unwelcome, they were not treated as equal and no one and I mean no one in Lebanon dared voice any sympathies for their special case or offered them any moral support. The message in the media and the politicians was clear: Jews are the enemy and they are vile. They had no option but to leave.Even as they were leaving; 50,000 do not just pack up and go in one day, not a single effort was made by anyone either from within the government or civil society to dissuade them from moving.
And yes some and maybe all did get some help from Jewish organizations overseas. I know that for a fact. I have seen it in my own eyes.
BTW, I don’t know why we keep revisiting the same topics and the exact same arguments over and over again. This same thread was dealt with extensivley only a few months ago.
Since then i have contacted the Jewish Lebanese Synagogue in Montreal and I did get a number of responses that corroborate what I have been saying on this issue for a long time. Maybe in the eyes of some, Lebanon cannot be accused of ethnic cleansing since there never was an agreed upon official policy to harras the Jews but the moral and ethical failures to assuage the Jewish community in Lebanon is a fatal mistake that would be silly to deny.
If there are any young political science majors out there I have a suggestion for a PhD dissertation: an oral history of the Jews exodus from Lebanon. Most of those that left are still alive and a good start would be the Brooklyn Synagogue whose congregation is over 500 strong members. Then next would be the Montreal Synagogue.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 15, 2010, 6:19 pmHP #145,
If the reason for leaving Lebanon was intimidation then of course you were cleansed. What counts in such efforts is the result. I can make you move either by intimidating you or killing many of your relatives and clan members. If intimidation will do the job then so be it.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 15, 2010, 6:25 pmSean brought a UN definition
“Ethnic cleansing: the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.”
In my Book that is what happened to the Jews in Lebanon. Except it was not an attempt it was done.
Lebanon is totally clean from Jews. It is Homogenous in that aspect, no Jews. Force was used, as I know and as all the books you sent me to say. Any body can say that I am wrong, but that will be about semantics, not the deed it self.
“The disappearance of what was a tiny minority in Lebanon is a tragedy, and the country is poorer for the loss of one of its sects. But to move from there to using language that distorts the situation does no good at all.”
Could you please define “tiny minority” that can be exterminated with impunity or a saying that it was a tradegy and a lose? 100 10.000, how much? some People in Lebanon and Iran are waiting for your decision, ax and knife in hand.
So it is the problem of the use of language?
If that was “no good at all” what is good? even not at all?
Please Do not send me to France or to any other place. It is between me and you. Lebanon and Israel. As can be seen from the responses here of some very mild people I have hit a sore point. Good, that is what I wanted. Notice that we argue and discuss not facts, but world views, historical lessons, explanations and opinions. As I have said up to this exchange and a previous one few of you ever gave much attention to that aspect of your history, my personal history and the history of Israel. some of you knew it or about it but not from my point of view. Getting your relative in pieces is not “harrasing”. When you or a friend will critisize Israel, as you should and will, think about the 20.000 vanishing Jews of Lebanon and the 600.000 at least other Jews of the Arab countries.
BV are sure that bulldozers were never used in Lebanon by Lebanese against Lebanese. And please, I have respect for you, why bulldozers yes and one or five ton of Dynamit no? please let us not get into that.
And BV about accepting definitions, yes I do, that is my whole point Israel is no better or worth than any other nation on the face of the earth. But many people on this blog and others think that Israel is the devil incarnated.
In a few years there will be a few Maronite left as well. It is a matter of demographics and emigration.
Just see what linguistics is doing to facts.
If and when no Maronite will be left in Lebanon, God forbid, It will be said in History books, Alla yustur, that it was a slow ethnic cleanic executed by demograpphics and emigrations.
As for Armenians? that time I am not interested in Lebanon. Any how the French who did so little to help ( read 40 days of Musa Dag) tried to bring them to Lebanon, after 1920. What about the Armenians and Turkey?
BV said:
If you wanna talk legal definitions. I think Ethnic Cleansing implies deliberate and systemic INTENT accompanied by violent means.When Hitler set out to get rid of the Jews, he had intent, and he systematically implemented a plan to accomplish his goal.
As told in the books you told me to read that is about what the Proto-HA did in Lebanon, in a smaller scale. And not very orderly, Lebanese are not Germans. The plan and intent was secret then as it was in Nazi Germany, no body ever found such explicit Nazi order. Now you can hear it loud and clear from HA and the Iranian pupet master.
“As deplorable as it may be, when people leave more on their own accord (No Jews were ever marched out of Beirut or anywhere else. This is a fact!),”
They got their relatives in pieces, or not at all,their properties bombed, people telling them to go. Like you said no marching, Lebanese are no germans, but the results were OK.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 6:30 pmI guess I was cleansed too. Twice, actually. Once from East Beirut, and then from Lebanon entirely…
I get what you’re saying Ghassan. We all agreed what befell the Jews of Lebanon is a tragedy. But it’s no different than what befell the rest of the Lebanese.
Oh, and let’s not forget the million or so Shia who left the south and moved to Dahieyh thanks to the 1978, and 1982 Israeli invasions. More ethnic cleansing…
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 15, 2010, 6:31 pmBV #149 says:
” We all agreed what befell the Jews of Lebanon is a tragedy. But it’s no different than what befell the rest of the Lebanese.”
But tragedies do not occur in a vaccum. People are responsible for them We the Lebanese have not , yet, admitted that this is one tragedy that did not have to take place. It did because we wanted it to.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 15, 2010, 6:58 pmHow can an Iran under heavy sanctions offer Lebanon anything these days?
How does Lebanon’s Energy Minister expect Iran can come up with the $450 million in a soft loan it has pledged Lebanon to rehabilitate the energy sector?
Through which institutions?
If there is a black market, who is greasing and guaranteeing it?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 15, 2010, 7:10 pmAIG,
In 1976 the Lebanese of Armenian origin was estimated at 300,000…I would say by early 1990’s it had dropped to under 50,000.
I would say that is a quick and forceful exit.
Gus,
I am not disputing the fact that the Lebanese Jews could have been “harassed” at times. But growing up I never felt they were driven out but decided to leave. We had family friends who were Jewish and that did not REALLY look out of place to a kid growing up in Beirut. Maybe the media’s bark was louder than any organized harassment or campaign against them.
Posted by danny | October 15, 2010, 7:13 pmI wonder. Was there a Lebanese community in present day Israel, prior to 1948? I would imagine so. Merchants doing business in Haifa or Tel Aviv, or wherever.
Do you figure them and their descendants are still in Israel today? Or would you figure most of them left over the years?
(It’s an honest question, brought to mind by the ethnic cleansing discussion
Well, a good question. As people here play with language, notice that you do not mention Jews. Before 1919 It was all one country. So people, Jews, all kind of Christians and Muslims moved all over. Rich Lebanese owned much land in Palestine, Sursuk etc, land was bought from them after 1947. Also Jews from Palestine, as others, went to AUB. In the summer many families, who had the money, went to the Lebanese mountains. Most Jewish fracophils in Israel-Palestine up to 1947 felt better in Lebanon than under England. All kinds of relations were kept by many families, Jews and others till 1948. Some of my Arab friends in North Israel, Christians and Muslims, have very long family connections in Lebanon and probably some Jews in Haifa have had such relations but I do not know about them personally. All that time Lebanese Jews that came to Palestine were being integrated as individuals into the Jewish society that was formed here. Probably there were few Synagouegs of Lebanese Jews in Haifa. There is one now in Or Yehuda near Tel-Aviv. I think that goods from Palestine were sold in Lebanon and vice versa between 1920 and 1948 not only by Jews but there were complex trade barriers and customs. There was a regular bas and taxi service between Haifa and Lebanon. It seems that most Jews who came before 1947 integrated as my family did, but I may be wrong and it is possible that few small communities existed in Haifa, Tel-Aviv-Jafa, Tiberia and Sfaed, also in a smaller site called Rosh Pina. I think that most Jews who left Lebanon after 1960 went to Europe, Canada and the USA though some came here. I used to look in the phone directories for Beiruthi, Trabelsi, Suri, Zidoni, Hasbani, Ball-Beki, Khmari (from deir Khamer, I think) but they are vanishing. My name is now not Hazbani. Some of my larger family left Israel for the USA and one to France but there is nothing special in that.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 7:24 pmGk said it better than I will ever be able to do. I rest my case. I think that even those of you who do not agree [suddenly few visitors have vanished, but by their own will] may have a point or two. Any way, please remember that story and tell others about it. that is all. May all of us never experience such things. Thank you all and good night, it is morning here already.
Posted by Rani | October 15, 2010, 7:39 pmWell said, Rani.
FYI, I was asking about non-Jewish Lebanese in pre-1948 Palestine. But I think you answered that regardless.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 16, 2010, 12:29 amRani,
The tragedy is not that lebanese Jews are not anymore existing in Lebanon but rather that most Lebanese that had the means to leave did (Jews, Christians and Muslims as well). Jewish exodus (not cleansing) came earlier than other Lebanese because the means to do that was facilitated by supportive communities in Europe and the US.
Some tried to support the argument of ethnic cleansing by using statistical data; one has to be careful with statistics when handling small sample (in this case 50,000).
Again, the mass exodus of the Lebanese is the problem and not that of Jews from Lebanon. A good support for this argument would be many of the participants on this blog.
Posted by IHTDA | October 16, 2010, 10:29 amYup, yours truly is one. Couldn’t do it early on, specifically because of family constraints and financial means. Educational merit was the ticket, in the end. The straw that broke the camel’s back in pushing me out of the country was a carjacking by imposters posing as Syrian soldiers (or maybe, perhaps even probably, criminal elements that were also Syrian soliders). On my way to work as a teacher, they hitchhiked their way to get into my car (in full uniform and with weapons – not much chance to say no), forced me to drive to the airport area took everything from me and gave me back my id card and asked me to walk away on the sand. The only hope I had was not to get shot in the back. I didn’t. I went to the closest police station and since that episode did everything possible to get out.
AIG, Rani, is that ethnic cleansing? I bet most Lebanese Jews did not have even close to this experience (but some probably had worse). Get real. This was the chaos of civil war in a country with no real government order or authority. You may have lots of decent arguments in favor of Israel or in defense of “the Jews.” This ethnic cleansing story is a non-story. Period.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 10:40 amIHTDA
If “exodus” ,as you call it, was a phenomenon that affected the whole population then its effects would have been equally shared by all. Obviously this was not the case. One subgroup chose a 100% participation rate while another say 10% and still others a much lower rate. The only explanation is that this phenomenon was not as you claim universal.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 16, 2010, 10:51 amAs someone said:”there are three kinds of lies, small lies, big lies … and statistics.” 🙂
I mentioned that the sample size is too small to use statistical means. My point is that it’s a tragedy. Part of a bigger tragedy that is the exodus of most Lebanese who have the means to do so. Myself included.
On the other hand, if some argue that it was ethnic cleansing that implies that some party did it. I haven’t seen in the posts above anyone pointing to any party. Can you name them? Also, ethnic cleansing is part of a bigger plot (mostly to gain territory and/or political space), can you highlight how does that apply to 50000 Lebanese?
Posted by IHTDA | October 16, 2010, 11:15 amIt’s incredible that there has been almost no official public condemnation by the West on the content of Ahmedin’s speeches in Lebanon.
Is it a sign of the times that the West is pretty fed up with Israel?
Posted by PeterinDubai | October 16, 2010, 11:31 amPetrinDubai,
There is a better explanation…politics.
The west have called for talks to be held mid of next month and Iran anxiously requested to fix a date. Speech in Lebanon??? Lebanon???
Posted by IHTDA | October 16, 2010, 11:42 amIHTDA,
How is 50,000 a small sample? It is a huge sample. If the chances are .2 that a person will anyway leave and .8 that he will leave only if harassed or intimidated, what hypothesis is more probable given that no Jews were left:
1) Most Jews left because they were intimidated
2) Most Jews left voluntarily
I’ll leave it to GK to compute, but believe me hypothesis 1 is favored by many orders of magnitude. If there were 10 Jews you would be right. But already with 100 Jews the sample is big enough to come to a clear conclusion. I’ll leave it to the readers to compute the smallest number of Jews that allows to favor hypothesis 1 with certainty of 95%.
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 12:01 pm(1) is fine but the question is intimidated by what or by who?
As I said before, it was circumstances that intimidated a whole bunch of people across religious and social boundaries. There was no specific selection of Jews to be the target of what you would consider “ethnic cleansing.”
I was intimidated. Christian, Muslim, Druze, and Jewish friends were intimidated and left. Intimidation did not discriminate along religious cleavages. There was random violence. As ITHDA said, those who had the means or who developed ways to do it, left.
Regrettably, this continues to happen now. Also regrettably, it is happening a lot more dominantly to Christians than any other segment of the Lebanese population. Please stop this subject, you are rubbing and hurting deep wounds that the Lebanese have suffered, all Lebanese, including the Jews among them. Our suffering in this is together. There is no argument to be made here. There are strong arguments to be made, on both sides of the issue, elsewhere, in regards to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 12:15 pmSpeaking of intimidation, a little over a century ago, sidewalks in Damascus had 2 parts, one lower and one higher. The Christians (or non-muslims) had to walk the lower sidewalk. If one was found walking the higher sidewalk, he/she would be insulted by a muslim by passer and told “tawriq ya khanzi” (Unroad yourself you pig). That was discrimination and intimidation against the Christians. No one is using it now to cry foul. People evolved and are trying to get along.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 12:17 pmAIG
The hypothesis could be stated as:
1- “Lebanese” were fed up, afraid, don’t care anymore.
20% of them had the drive and means to leave 19.9% left, out of those:
50k Jews (100% of them)
500k Christians
500k Muslims
Again, my point is that there is a huge problem in the Exodus of Lebanese (I don’t really care which religion they belong to). To label this as Jewish ethnic cleansing, you have to answer: by whom? And why?
Posted by IHTDA | October 16, 2010, 12:37 pmI had a similar experience to that of HP, btw. On my way to AUB, a couple of Syrian soldiers forced their way into my car and asked me to drive them to Hadeth (other side of town, basically). Luckily, they didn’t take the car. I did get brutalized though.
But yeah, after that, I pretty much set myself on leaving and I haven’t been back since.
I’m switching my position to “ambivalent” on this whole ethnic cleansing business. Ghassan and AIG’s points are well taken. Whether it was specific harassment of Jews with the intent of making them leave, or whether they just left like the rest of us, due to general harassement is really immaterial at this point. Lebanon was (and still is) a cesspool which offered no kind of protection to its citizens. The mass exodus of Lebanese (of all sects) was systematic and tragic. End of story. In a sense we were all “cleansed”.
In my case, I’ve never looked back. I did and still do what is good for me and my family. I have no sense of loyalty towards a state that failed miserably at earning said loyalty.
One is not loyal to a state just for the heck of it, or just by being born somewhere. One is loyal and patriotic to a state one can be proud of. The state and its people, imo, have to earn such loyalty by providing what we consider today, the basic minimum of human dignity: Personal safety, and some services. Would be loyal to the jungle if one was born in one? Doubtful. That’s how I feel.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 16, 2010, 12:50 pmAnother note:
Currently reading “Beware of Small States”. Great book.
One thing I read last night, regarding the Jews of Lebanon was that they were considered “westerners” by the Islamic Jihad guys who were kidnapping westerners in the 80s. 11 Jews were in fact kidnapped (and some murdered) alongside the more known “western hostages” of the time. Jewish exodus accelerated quite a bit in the 80s.
I suppose this qualifies as “ethnic cleansing” in the strict sense of the term.
Sidenote: Another thing I learned: 6 Jewish women married to Palestinians (pre-1948) were among the few thousands of victims of the Sabra and Chatila massacres (courtesy of the Christian Phalange, and under “supervision” by the IDF) in 82.
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 16, 2010, 12:54 pmI did not want to come back. But I failed, please forgive me. So here I am to correct what I can. Bad Vilbel very gently repremended me: I was asking about non-Jewish Lebanese in pre-1948 Palestine.
A lot of connections, where did Azmi Bishara family came from? Most Christians in the North have connections. I think that the Mandatorial borders between the French and the British Areas did not fit the old religious zones, it is possible the some Churches in Palestine belonged to Lebanese Bishops, Bassa ? perhaps?. A late publication, I think in “Palestinian Studies”, about the Shia families in North Israel show strong connection to Lebanon. I think that at least once Nasralla reffered to Shia villages in North Israel that were “cleaned” at 1947 as an unfinished business of his. In the vernacular Arabic language of the Galili the names of fish, animals, plants is practically Lebanese.
As for some “political” things written here: I once saw a sign “If you love the cats do them justice, go and kick a dog”. Please contemplate this saying for a minute.
Posted by Rani | October 16, 2010, 1:08 pmRani, sorry if you told us before and I missed it, but can you tell us why you or your family left Lebanon?
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 1:28 pmAIG/IHTDA,
Just like Rani I thought that I will not comment on this thread again but here I am.
Obviously AIG knows his quantitative analysis while IHTDA has no clue what he/she is talking about.
There is a commentator on a TV network who has popularized the phrase: “You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts”. You can rationalize and spin all you want but the fact remains that every single Lebanese Jew decided to pack up and leave not after 1948, not after 1958, not even after 1967. There is only one simple explanation: they were made to feel as outsiders as unwanted. They could not publicly say who they are. This was not the case for any of the Lebanese who decided to immigrate and to visit whenever they have they chance. The Lebanese Jews did not leave in anticipation of coming back. They uprooted themselves and left knowing well that there is nothing to come back to. No one missed them, no one spoke for them and no one wanted them back.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 16, 2010, 2:08 pmHP,
Why are you taking this discussion personally? You are obviously not responsible on a personal basis having had no power to change the situation.
From a practical point of view, I hope you realize that the issue of the Palestinian refugees will only be solved together with the issue of the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Jews from Arab countries. If one group gets compensation, the other group is just as much entitled to compensation also.
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 3:11 pm1) Structural conditions, and not just direct intimidation, should count as “coercion” and are definitely related to what people are calling here “ethnic cleansing.”
Coercion is not just direct force or systematic violence; coercion is also the “manipulation of cirumstances” and the “limiting of options.” ( as per feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye)
This debate applies to various international legal standards/definitions, for example “crimes against humanity”, “genocide”, etc.(e.g., consult the ICC deliberations on embargoes, and some recent books about the subject) but no major change has been implemented yet in our legal approaches to “non-direct” forms of violence and coercion.
2) Anybody knows if the scheduling order extending until Nov 5 the deadline for filing observations on the UN Amicus Curiae Brief (on the jurisdiction of the tribunal to rule on, and on the standing before the tribunal of, El Sayed) will inevitably delay the publication of indictments? The confirmation of the 5 judges seem to imply that there will be no delays (Cassese presiding, Riachy, Baragwanath, Chamseddine, and Bjornberg).
Posted by Parrhesia | October 16, 2010, 4:45 pmGoing back to more current events.
Remember when I mentioned the other day, how it seemed Netanyahu wasn’t really interested in the peace talks succeeding? (We were talking about the Jordan valley).
Well, what do you guys (AIG et al.) make of the Israeli govt’s decision to greenlight new construction in East Jerusalem? Knowing full well that it would cause Abbas to withdraw from the barely-restarted talks?
I mean, really, what benefit does this construction bring besides torpedoing the talks? Israel can’t keep construction stopped while they talk?
If you have any other interpretations, I’d like to hear them. But I fail to come up with anything other than “Israel’s govt. is not interested in these talks succeeding.”
It used to be that Israel tied resumption of talks with an end to rockets falling on Israeli territory, and terrorist attacks. Those have all but stopped.
Why is it that Bibi expects the Palestinians to hold to their end (stopping attacks)?
Posted by Bad Vilbel | October 16, 2010, 5:05 pmGood question. I don’t presume to speak for anyone, let alone AIG et al. but, to avoid a repetition of the standard answers, I’ll recite those that have been cited:
– construction was stopped for 10 months, why didn’t the Palestinians talk peace during that time; we can’t wait forever
– the government coalition will fall if Netanyahu doesn’t fulfill his promise to resume construction (because of the rightwing and religious elements in it)
– hence, Netanyahu has no other choice but to continue limited construction and/or try to get some other compromise (like the one about acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state).
In my opinion, this is all shenanigans and the hidden agenda and arrogance are both obvious. Arabs and Palestinians are considered an inferior class that has to be dealt with using strength, power, and violence. For ever. There is no “empathy” to put it that way, for any human suffering endured by the Arabs. They are like dogs. I know we’re going to get a lot of protests and objections here about these statements, but sadly, facts speak for themselves. It is these facts that make folks like quelqu’une, Mo, Joe m., etc., so bitter and negative. It is obvious that not all Israelis nor all Jews think or believe in this line of thinking, but the government’s behavior reflects such. Regrettably. And when a courageous leader like Rabin pushed peace forward, he was assassinated and Netanyahu came to power. And you ask why the Lebanese don’t like Israel?
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 5:20 pm… and just to be clear about my earlier statements, the Palestinian activists and their supporters who have committed in the past acts of terrorism against innocent civilians are no better. They are the ones who have perpetuated the conflict through their stupid and savage behavior. A Ghandi-like protest coupled with intelligent and articulate arguments in the world press and in all the Western countries would have long ago solved the problem. To some extent, the extremists and rightwingers on both sides deserve each other. The tragedy is that the ordinary people in the middle on both sides are the ones who pay the price.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 5:23 pmHP,
Yes, building 230 apartments in an area that is clearly going to be part of Israel in a peace treaty is treating Arabs like sub-humans and dogs. All the while, making Lebanon Judenfrei is a regrettable consequence of the huge respect of Lebanese to their fellow Jewish Lebanese and thus wanting to make sure that the Lebanese Jews were safe elsewhere and not in any way shape or form related to the fact that Lebanese considered Jewish blood cheaper than their own.
And again the naive platitudes. All that is required is a “Ghandi-like protest coupled with intelligent and articulate arguments in the world press”. Tell me HP, why don’t you take your own illuminating advice and solve the problems of Lebanon? It is always those problems not in your own backyard that look so simple to solve, while your own problems are “complex”.
By the way, brush up on your history. It was Peres who was PM after Rabin, and he was even more left leaning than Rabin. The reason that Netanyahu got elected is that following Rabin’s murder, Araft and Hamas unleashed a unprecedented wave of suicide bombings that moved the Israeli population to the right, including me.
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 6:06 pmHere is a solution to disarming Hezbollah. Organize a group of 1000 people and march to the well know Hezbollah warehouses in south lebanon in order to take the weapons and give them to the Lebanese army. Make sure there are many reporters there and promise to employ only non-violence (“Gandhi style”).
In the context of Lebanon this would sound ultra silly to you, yet you keep expounding these kind of solutions in the Israeli/Palestinian context. You should employ a little self reflection.
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 6:36 pmI starting to get flashbacks from Syria Comment. When Asad or any other Arab leader employs tough negotiation tactics it is because he is a great negotiator and a wise leader. When an Israeli leader does it, it is because he thinks Arabs are dogs. Yallah, grow up.
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 6:44 pmAIG,
I am in total agreement with you on this point. The Lebanese public has never shown any outrage except when asked to do so by its bankrupt and reactionary leaders. Of course we need to demonstrate to these neanderthals that we are fed up and that we won’t take it any more.
One of my biggest , maybe biggest, regrets in life is that I have failed to lead such a March against all sorts of misdeeds in the Lebanese society including Hezbollah arms.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 16, 2010, 6:48 pmGK,
It is never too late. I am sure you and HP can round up 1000 Lebanese from the diaspora to do this… 🙂
Posted by AIG | October 16, 2010, 7:03 pmLebanon should learn from Syria how to use Iran and KSA and the US to get what she wants from them , Let them fight over her approval thinking that they have a chance ,
FOOLS,FOOLS,FOOLS,
The Lebanese will play them all ,
Posted by Norman | October 16, 2010, 7:58 pmSorry to bud in on this topic, being neither Jewish nor Lebanese, but….
At least as far as Egypt is concerned to the best of my knowledge there is no law forbidding the return of Egyptian Jews. I suspect no law prevents the return of Lebanon’s former Jewish population.
It is hard to claim ethnic cleansing when the alleged victims can return anytime they want.
Posted by Lysander | October 16, 2010, 8:42 pmAIG, you’re mixing things together. I have no more respect or admiration for Arab leaders – with the exception of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein and his son – than for any right wing Israeli leader displaying intransigence. The issue of the Jews of Lebanon is not really personal for me; it’s just that I believe, objectively, that the use of “ethnic cleansing” here does not apply, given the circumstances and the lack of any concerted action to cause the gradual exodus. We can let history rule on that, but, even though I of course have no personal responsibility of all this, having been similarly subjected to inevitable exile, I have respect for the land I came from and the people – no matter how imperfect and often misguided – who reside there. I happen to know a lot of good people who came from there, and many who are still there, and hold the hope that some day an equilibrium of sorts enabling the true blossoming of the potential of the people and the land there. The last thing the Lebanese people need is an accusation that they are, as Lebanese, responsible for the “ethnic cleansing” of the Jews of Lebanon. First, it is not true; second, it is a horrible accusation that brings connotation of what the Nazis did. As a result, you will see the strong reaction from many Lebanese. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between what befell the Palestinians in 1948, what befell the Jews in Germany, what befell the Armenians in Turkey, what befell the muslim Bosnians in Serbia, and what befell the Jews of Lebanon. Any claim to the contrary is either severely misguided, at best, or, is an evil manipulation of opinions and fact to create diversion and distraction, at worst. It’s that simple!
And I do concur with GK’s desire to have someone take that on as a project, including interviews with a representative sample of the Jews who left Lebanon. I’ll be willing to concede to anything that such a study reveals, and expect nothing less from those who are crying “ethnic cleansing” now.
As far as the burst of anger about how Arabs are sometimes perceived, I think I’m entitled to such sentiment from many situations where an entirely disproportionate number of civilian casualties result in the conflicts with Israel. Just go back to the summer 2006 war, the 10-to-1 ratio of casualties with the ones on the Lebanese side being predominantly civilian and those on the Israeli side predominantly military. I’ll spare this blog the links to the horror images of dismembered children and the various massacres resulting from huge bombs falling on shelters. Sure, the accusation will be that the “other side” is hiding behind civilians but somehow the results is the same, regardless.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 16, 2010, 9:51 pmHP,
There is a movement in Israel to equate the forced displacement of the Palestinians with the immigration of the Jews from Arab countries including Lebanon to Israel and the West , many of this Jewish immigration came after the mossad committed terrorist acts in these countries against the Jews to convince them to leave , AIG is just trying to settle the Palestinians in Lebanon as a replacement for the immigrant Jews ,
Posted by Norman | October 16, 2010, 10:50 pmAny reason why some comments are reviewed and held for moderator approval and others are not?
Posted by Parrhesia | October 16, 2010, 11:15 pmThis was a well thought, and calculated visit by Iran’s president.
Whether one thinks it was a PR campaign, or a politically ambitious visit, the trip accomplished both.
It served him well in Iran, it served HA well. It puts pressure on “moderate Arab”, and the west, especially when Netanyahu is toying with the Palestinians at the negotiating table.
He is the most “distinguished” guest ever to visit Lebanon. He visited the land his country helped liberate. He visitited the hills and valleys, that had witnessed the most vicious battles against the Israeli. None of the Arab leader (except for Emir of Qatar) has ever touched the soil of south Lebanon, and very few Lebanese leaders have traveled that far south.
His visit to Lebanon and to the south, in particular, makes all Arab leaders and some Lebanese very uncomfortable.
A Persian president visiting a battlefield where Israel lost a war to an Arab side, supported by a “Persian country”, must be nerve touching for many “moderate Arab leaders”.
He did what they could never do in 64 years of “struggle” against Israel. How many Arab leaders could say that they are visiting a land they helped liberate? None.
His well received welcome must have gotten under their skins .None of the Arab leaders dare travel through the streets of Beirut, or any street, in their own capitals in an open- roof car, like Najad did in Beirut.
Though, the sunni shiia tensions are high, but Naiad’s pictures , a mile away from Israel’s border , won’t go unnoticed by the average Arab, Sunni or shiia .
By all means, His visit was a success. He expressed his support to the Lebanese state, government, and institutions at the time when many people ,in Lebanon and around the world , were questioning HA’s support and loyalty to the sate of Lebanon. He offered to arm the Lebanese forces (knowing that Lebanon won’t dare accept the offer) when the US was putting conditions on the use of its M-16 by the Lebanese army. That means HA will remain the only powerful armed force.
His visit offers HA support, while everyone is waiting for the STL indictments against HA. It put more pressure on Hariri, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to find a “compromise”, so stability is maintained, and Hariri stays PM.
I’m not saying this will or should work, but that was one the purposes of his trip, I already see Hariri flying to Saudi Arabia for consultations. President Suleiman is heading to Syria tomorrow. France’s ambassador to Lebanon snubbed by NasrAllah, agreed to meet his deputy. The least one can say; is that Najad’s visit is steering lots of diplomatic activates.
Posted by Prophet | October 16, 2010, 11:27 pmOn the jews leaving Beirut, IHTDA summed it up good in #158. During the early years of the civil war anybody who’s not participating in the fighting and has the means to leave, left. The luckiest ones were the ones who had sponsors in the US/Canada/Australia/Europe/Africa/or S America were able to do it quick. Lots and lots of people were trying to get out and escape the fighting, and either couldn’t get visas or the paperwork took way too long.
No internet back then, no electricity, sporadic phone service, embassies working on and off, depending on the latest of hundreds of cease-fires, snipers at work day & night, Te3teer, I tell you.
Plus, Wadi El jamil was very near to the Green Line (I knew the area pretty well, my friends went to the french lycee in that neighborbood). It was ground zero for sniper activity, indiscriminate mortar/rpg night shelling, road blocks (hawajeez) you name it. It was insanity on steroid.
If they were living in some other part of Beirut or the country they wouldn’t have had such urgency to leave in my opinion. Heck, the snipers were even shooting cats at night. Anything that moves. That area was in the line of fire.
So they left like the rest of us.
I left in 75 to europe to study. Came back in 77 for few months as it calmed a bit, then left again to the US in 77 after I got my paperwork done.
Here’s a conversation I had with the taxi guy when I left to the US, to give you an idea of the people’s mood/mind back then.
The taxi guy from Hamra asked me: where are you going son?
I said Amerka.
He asked what time is your flight and I told him the time.
He said plenty of time kid. Look we won’t go the shortest way, instead we’ll go the scenic route Ba7reh/Ba7reh for no extra charge, because I have the feeling you won’t be back for a long long time (He was right).
So we drove from Hamra to Manara, up to Raouche, on to Ramlet El Baida and then to the airport. That was the beginning of the journey!
Posted by Ras Beirut | October 17, 2010, 12:11 amGK 172
I’m not going to keep this argument going on and on. You have your views which I respect and I have mine.
However, in your reply you have stated:
“The Lebanese Jews did not leave in anticipation of coming back. They uprooted themselves and left knowing well that there is nothing to come back to. No one missed them, no one spoke for them and no one wanted them back.”
The fact is that the above statement is not accurate. As recent as 2008, “the Jewish expatriates expressed their desire to renovate the synagogue along with the cemetery in Sodeco…managed to raise 40k$, even Solidere has contributed…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Lebanon
Posted by IHTIDA | October 17, 2010, 12:31 amHP,
Oh, it is so convenient, unlike Israel, there are no mandated national archives in Lebanon that have to be opened after a while. Who kept records during the war? And if they did, is there any one that will force them to open them?
So we will never really know about the efforts the Jewish community made to remain safe. We will never know about the zaims they talked to or their pleading to the Lebanese “government”. But maybe you think the Jews did not make an effort to stabilize their situation, but I am sure they did, because any reasonable and entrepreneurial people would do so. But of course, I know, and you will deny, that their efforts were to no avail. Nobody would help them.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Not one other community completely disappeared. This is the clear result of ethnic cleansing by doing nothing by the Lebanese while the Jewish community was intimidated.
Is there anything you think the Lebanese should take responsibility for? Probably not. Hezbollah? Created by Israel. The Palestinians? Created by Israel. War? It is the responsibility of Israel to be able to tell the difference between a fighter and a civilian and make sure that no more Lebanese civilians die than Israeli. The Jews leaving? It is the “situation” that was responsible.
In my book you have nothing to complain about. The Arabs humiliated, subjugated and intimidated the Jews for centuries. Now you are angry that Jews respond when attacked and think you have the “right” to complain. There is a simple way to make sure that no Lebanese dies civilian or other. Make sure no one from Lebanon attacks Israel.
Posted by AIG | October 17, 2010, 1:03 amOne must be blind not to see the difference between those that left seeking more “comfort”
and higher education and those that had to leave. They had no options.One group maintains its connections to the country, revisits and has parents and friends behind while the other was forced to uproot itself and seek a new beginning. The analogy is actually insulting. It reminds me of those that don’t acknowledge discrimination except when it is overt. Institutional and behavioural discrimination is just as harmful and may be more pernicious because it gives some the excuse to practice it but yet deny it at the same time.
Posted by Ghassan Karam | October 17, 2010, 1:24 amAIG,
Here’s a good one for you. The synagogue in Beirut is being restored right now (btw it was an IDF shell that crashed its roof), and since there is no rule or law against the departed lebanese jews from coming back, they can legally come back if they wish.
Now if you can return the favor in the name of fairness/reciprocity and allow the palestinian refugees to return to their home towns.
What’s fair is fair afterall.
Posted by Ras Beirut | October 17, 2010, 1:33 am“So we will never really know about the efforts the Jewish community made to remain safe.”
So let’s just assume they were ethnically cleansed and call it even! After all, since there are no records, it could have gone either way.
Really, AIG. Is it that hard to believe that Lebanese Jews left because Israel was richer, more stable and more westernized? And they shared bonds of religious kinship? And that Israel was practically begging Arab Jews to emigrate?
At any rate, as I and others have mentioned before, nothing is stopping Lebanese Jews from returning to their homes. It’s hard to call it ethnic cleansing if they can go back whenever they want.
“In my book you have nothing to complain about. The Arabs humiliated, subjugated and intimidated the Jews for centuries.”
For centuries? Are you going to go back to medieval times and argue that since Arab lands didn’t have harmonious relations between all the races, it’s ok for European Jews to forcibly expel Palestinians into Lebanon and announce that it is henceforth Lebanon’s responsibility to make sure those expelled Palestinians never cause Israel any inconvenience?
Posted by Lysander | October 17, 2010, 2:24 am3ammo Norman @158, thank you; this explains a lot the seeming fascination here with making a case for “ethnic cleansing” for the Jews of Lebanon. I rest my case on this one since others with similar experience who were on the premises (AIG was not!) and know better have expressed similar views and take it from here. As mentioned before, a documentary research, objectively done, with feedback specifically from the Jews of Lebanon who left, would shed real light on all this, but it’s still bewildering how something so obvious is being touted as “ethnic cleansing.” What a diversionary tactic at best.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 17, 2010, 2:25 amsorry, that would be 3ammo Norman @185. Temporary dyslexia!
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 17, 2010, 2:26 amLebanese people are perfect they have no faults they are Gods, Lebanon is the center of the Universe. The years of Slaughter and War were the Wars of the “others” on our beloved Lebanon.
let’s not forget the “Ta3ayosh” the Lebanese are a model of tolerance and acceptance of others. they never discriminate, the Christians (especially the Maronites) they just adore their Muslim brethren and oh the Sunni they love those Shia peasants and if you only know how much we all love our Palestinian brothers I can’t begin to describe our love for Palestinians from Tal el Zaatar to Sabra and Shatila to Nabih Berri’s Amal War on the Refugee Camps to 50 years of flourishing camps a model of development and human rights.
And our Love for the Jews? Where do I begin?!
I am telling you people Lebanon is not just a country, Lebanon is a “Message to the World” 🙂
Posted by V | October 17, 2010, 2:35 amAIG, @188, you have extrapolated to positions you assume I take — that the Lebanese are not responsible for anything — which are not true. In addition to opinions I hold there that I may not have written about I have explicitly indicated a lot of self-criticism of mentality and patterns of behavior of Lebanese people. They (we) are not perfect and have not yet evolved in our social order discipline and understanding to enable the internal forces for the good of society to overcome the negative elements. And of course, it is a simple matter of fact, that interference by many foreign countries (not just Israel but our friendly neighbors as well) each seeking its own interests and exploiting the internal divisions, compounds the internal problem.
I hope you will not argue that 400,000 Palestinian refugees in a country, at the time, of less than 3 Million people, is not a destabilizing addition given that many of those came with intentions to carry out an armed struggle from the Lebanese border, intentions which were realized when pressure was put on the Lebanese government – successfully – in the Cairo agreement, to allow these elements such freedom of movement and the formation of a state-within-a-sate. So, yes, foreign interference compounded problems and caused others for Lebanon. Not just from Israel. And this does not mean that the Lebanese themselves, or their leaders, were not also responsible and could not have averted all these problems if they had put the interest of the country above other interests. Rehashing old stuff here, only because of the side arguments in your post. On the topic of Jews of Lebanon I’ve rested my case.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 17, 2010, 2:40 amAIG @188 “There is a simple way to make sure that no Lebanese dies civilian or other. Make sure no one from Lebanon attacks Israel.” I think you know my position on this, so no need to lecture me on it. At the same time, overt overflights and mock raids over Lebanon by Israel, all violations of UN security council 1701, are not exactly confidence building measures that help the case.
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 17, 2010, 2:46 amAIG, going back to the topic of the post, what is, in your opinion, the likelihood, or the circumstances that can lead to, Israel launching a military attack against Iran?
Also, is there any probabilistic expectation that, in such a case, HA would do some kind of foolish attack of its own in support of Iran?
Posted by Honest Patriot | October 17, 2010, 2:49 am