Lebanon on the brink

[magerette]

Yes, still here, also and that's a very helpful article. It may take a while for me to decipher the Byzantine labyrinth of parties, ethnic/religious groups and shifting positions. Makes our political infighting here look like a food fight in the kindergarten lunchroom afa relative complexity.

 

[zahratustra]

Polygon, could you possibly tell me what (if any) faction you consider yourself a part of and what are your thoughts on Hizbollah? Its a rare chance to hear insights of an insider in those matters!

 

[Prime Junta]

Hey, since two of my favorite imperialist running-dogs are reading, I can't resist going into professor mode a bit. 'Cuz this mess illustrates pretty well why I feel quite strongly about a number of things.

First, Lebanon is sort of like the Middle East in microcosm. You've got all of the groups, all of the political tensions, and all of the regional tensions, except concentrated in an area about three times the size of Rhode Island. In other words, anything you see happening in Lebanon is happening in the Middle East at large. For example, the picture you see here is very much like what your guys have to deal with in Iraq, only Iraq is on a far bigger scale. So, now do you see why I've found the concept of "winning in Iraq" kinda problematic to start with?

Second, do you see why I get so irked when someone pops up to conflate "the Arabs" or "the Muslims" into some unified bloc (usually out to destroy Western civilization?)

Third, this sort of thing is why I don't buy the argument that private ownership of guns is an effective safeguard of democracy. Lebanon is a (near) universally armed society, with every group or neighborhood running, or at least capable of raising, a "well-regulated militia." You see the result: the army outgunned by a private militia, political crises turning deadly at the drop of a hat, and a democratic government in genuine and immediate danger of being overthrown by force. If there were a few less guns around, things would only get seriously violent if the army split down the middle, and the risk of that happening would be a great deal smaller than now, with the potential for escalation that all these private armies have.

And fourth, do you see the problems I have with the idea of exporting democracy in general? This is the social substrate you're dealing with. Slapping Western-style democratic institutions on top of it won't help, and if you simultaneously dismantle the existing institutions -- even if they're rather nasty ones -- you'll get chaos and civil war. If the Middle East is to evolve an open society or open societies, it'll have to do it in its own way, on its own schedule, and according to its own logic; the institutions it will evolve will look rather different from the ones we're used to too.

 

[Prime Junta]

Another update: pardon my French, but I really wish Bush would STFU. He's not helping.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7397400.stm ]

(Specifically, the Lebanese army's problem isn't that it doesn't have enough guns; it's that it's composed of (gasp!) Lebanese! That means it's about half Shi'ite, which means that if you (a) arm with with the latest and greatest stuff and (b) send it against the Hezbollah, you'll end up with two armies, one fighting with Hezbollah and the other one digging in their strongholds, only *better armed*. Wouldn't *that* be an improvement!)

Edit: I *cannot* understand how the president of a major if declining power can be so completely clueless about a region he's directly involved in that he and his advisers would draw such a totally moronic conclusion from these events. Perhaps someone should point them at this thread; the information here is clearly way better than what the White House staff can provide him. GAH!

Another edit: Unless... this is pure great-power calculation. Flood Lebanon with arms, increase the pressure until full-scale civil war erupts. This will keep Hezbollah occupied and off Israel's case. Then continue supplying arms and money to whichever faction is willing to fight the Hezb. Continue until (a) everybody's dead or (b) Hezbollah cries uncle.

Third edit: this is what the Brits would have done back in the day, but the Americans never were much good at it. Not cynical enough, and care too much about who the "good guys" are.

By the way, whichever interpretation is correct, you wanna take a wild guess as to which one's going to be the default in that part of the world?

 

[Corwin]

Good Grief, I totally agree with everything you said!!

 

[GothicGothicness]

When will people ever stop fighting. I am really proud to be a swede these days, not only haven't we been in war for a very long time, we also take care of more victims than any other none neighbouring country.

What does it mater what religious branch I am in??? or if I am a hotu or a totu like in Africe. If they could just get a long and help each other to get a better life instead of figthing, how hard could it be?

Without these religions the world would certainly be a better place.

 

[POLYGON]

Polygon, could you possibly tell me what (if any) faction you consider yourself a part of and what are your thoughts on Hizbollah? Its a rare chance to hear insights of an insider in those matters!

5 days ago, I sympathised with Hizbullah.But now, I hate them the most.

I always thought of Hizbullah as heroes. They fought and died for Lebanon and its liberty and for the honour of its people.Yet, since 1993, they've been saying that their arms won't be raised ever against Lebanese or inside Lebanon and they kept repeating this over and over. However, in these last events, they forgot all their promises and did horrible actions against their own people.

Now, I am convinced that they are pretty much like the rest of political parties in Lebanon.
I discovered(by research) that they didn't allow anyone to fight in the south or offer them any help.Why? simply to take all the credit and owe us something.
OTOH, I won't stand with those civil war butchers like Geagea, Junblatt, Birri, and Aoun.
Simply, everybody is bad and no one is after the good of their country.

 

[POLYGON]

When will people ever stop fighting. I am really proud to be a swede these days, not only haven't we been in war for a very long time, we also take care of more victims than any other none neighbouring country.

What does it mater what religious branch I am in??? or if I am a hotu or a totu like in Africe. If they could just get a long and help each other to get a better life instead of figthing, how hard could it be?

Without these religions the world would certainly be a better place.

The problem is and was never about relegions. It's how people decipher relegions what's causing the problem.
I challenge anyone if any relegion urge its followers to kill anyone else.

 

[GothicGothicness]

The problem is and was never about relegions.
I challenge anyone if any relegion urge its followers to kill anyone else.

As far as I know in the muslim religion Jihad is a part of the religion?

I also think the death punishment is a part of the koran ?

 

[POLYGON]

As far as I know in the muslim religion Jihad is a part of the religion?

I also think the death punishment is a part of the koran ?

It is a part.
However, it has lots of conditions to be applied.
People tend to miss those conditions and kill in the name of Jihad.
As a Muslim you can't kill any non-muslim and say it's Jihad. It's forbidden to kill a cat in Islam let alone a human. These people have given a bad image of Islam while in reality it's a relegion of amnesty and forgiveness not of violence and killing.
Death Punishment is a part of the koran. A killer must be killed. However, there's also conditions to that. I, as a muslim, can't kill a killer because I don't represent the ruler.

 

[Prime Junta]

As far as I know in the muslim religion Jihad is a part of the religion?

As much as holy war is part of Christianity.

"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!"

What jihad really means in various branches and interpretations of Islam would be a very long trek to get into, so at this point I'll just assure you that, in general and by and large, it doesn't have a great deal to do with what you have in mind (i.e., attacking infidels and converting them by force).

I also think the death punishment is a part of the koran ?

The Bible too.

Edit: Oh, and... I agree with POLYGON that religion isn't the issue in the current Lebanese crisis. It's about politics and group identity, which overlap and cross in a number of complex ways. The closest we've come to pure sectarian conflict this time around was in Tripoli, and there the Sunnis didn't attack the Alawites because they think the Alawites worship in a wrong way, follow wrong dietary rules, or celebrate the wrong festivals; they attacked them because over there the Sunnis are pro-government and they believed the Alawites, being Alawites like the Syrian president, are pro-opposition. Politics and group identity, not religion.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever once heard a Lebanese use a religious argument when explaining exactly why group X should be run out of the country; OTOH various class, race, and clan arguments are common, and most common is a very long-winded discussion of the wrongs suffered at the hands of group X. This applies even to overtly religious groups like Hezbollah.

Edit: scratch that, I remember a party with some Christians, most of the Aounists, where they eventually started drinking toasts to Slobodan Milosevic for having killed so many Muslims, and Adolf Hitler for having killed so many Jews. I still think even that was more about group identity (racism) than religion, though.

 

[Corwin]

I tend to agree. I remember for years never having a clear understanding of the troubles in Ireland because I tried to see it as a religious conflict. True Christianity doesn't preach war and killing either, just some people's interpretation of it. Christ said Love your enemies and Forgive those who persecute you. To me that's rather a clear statement from the Boss!!

 

[Prime Junta]

There's a danger of this discussing veering seriously off topic, but what the hey.

In my view, religions give expression and meaning to a wide range of more or less fundamental human experiences. We don't need religions to give us excuses to fight wars; we can do that just fine even without them. However, religions do define what war is, when it is permissible to fight one, and how to behave when you're doing it. Jihad in Islam is one such definition; "Just War" in Christianity is another, and the completely non-religious Geneva conventions are a third. So war is a part of Islam or Christianity the same way war is a part of enlightenment secularism -- all of these systems define what it is and express rules about it.

 

[GothicGothicness]

I also think the death punishment is a part of the koran ?
The Bible too.

Yeah, confirming in that case that religions does preach killing. I happen to not be against death penalties though, but adultery certainly shouldn't result in death in my opinion. But that is another discussion.

. A killer must be killed. However, there's also conditions to that. I, as a muslim, can't kill a killer because I don't represent the ruler.

Who is the ruler in that case?

 

[zahratustra]

Thanks Polygon! That's just what I wanted to know!

 

[dteowner]

Re: Dubya's comments

If you really want a tinfoil hat justification, PJ, I offer you this. The one election issue where the Elephants trounce the Asses is national security, particularly as it relates to BMwB. National security isn't terribly important if there isn't a good bruhaha going. As we've seen, Lebanon seems to be a powderkeg full of all different sorts of BMwB, so what could be easier than throwing a match in the room and spotlight the resulting fireworks? It's a natural extension of my contention that political misdirection was a major player in the decision to go to Iraq.

And while we're at it, what could help our Israeli ally, Mr. Olmert, downplay his current corruption problems more than a whole lotta unrest a few miles up the road?

I suppose conspiracy theories are pretty easy to generate, but it's just too darn easy to connect these same dots over and over and over.

 

[zahratustra]

Edit: scratch that, I remember a party with some Christians, most of the Aounists, where they eventually started drinking toasts to Slobodan Milosevic for having killed so many Muslims, and Adolf Hitler for having killed so many Jews. I still think even that was more about group identity (racism) than religion, though.

Now, I mean it more as a general comment than a direct reply to you PJ but religion (or interpretation of a religion) IS a part of group identity. And, while religion might not always be a preeminent factor, it is always there as a part of the equation.

 

[POLYGON]

Yeah, confirming in that case that religions does preach killing. I happen to not be against death penalties though, but adultery certainly shouldn't result in death in my opinion. But that is another discussion.

Just like relegions ask for capital punishment, there are a lot of non rlegious people who do too. Death penalty is more of a controvertial issue. It may seem wrong to you but others think it's right just like abortion or euthanasia.

Who is the ruler in that case?

That's a very complex issue, back in the day when there was an islamic kingdom the ruler was the Khalifa. Only he can give such orders(Jihad and death penalties). But now, with no islamic kingdom or no country that rules with islamic laws there is no ruler.

 

[V7]

No need for tinfoil hats, its policy based on one page executive summaries.

 

[GothicGothicness]

no islamic kingdom or no country that rules with islamic laws there is no ruler.

In that case it means they shouldn't be able to give any death penalties am I right? Anyway, in Europe most people think death penalties is barbaric. I am not one of those, if someone raped a child, or killed someone in cold blood, I think death penalty is the only solution. As long as there is no doubt of guilt.

Just like relegions ask for capital punishment, there are a lot of non rlegious people who do too. Death penalty is more of a controvertial issue. It may seem wrong to you but others think it's right just like abortion or euthanasia.

The problem I have is just that a book tells people who should die, it is very dangerous. We have also concluded that christianity has sometimes preached in bilbe according to PJ's post, and there are several other religions with also preach bad things I hope it didn't sound like I was just against islam POLYGON , I am against all religion.