Lebanon Diary

Pladio said:

Well, except for the last part, it seems like a real beautiful place to visit. In some sense it has the same kind of beauty Jerusalem has with all its ancient things to visit and see.

Should go there one day.

Do you think they'd accept people with Israeli stamps on their passport or would I have to get a new passport, if I ever plan a trip to Lebanon?

Click to expand...

You would need a new passport. The countries are technically still at war, so travel between the two is... well, complicated. They also insist on stamping your passport; I hear that Israeli authorities are happy to stamp a separate sheet of paper for this exact reason, but the Lebanese ones don't do that. You might also find yourself being forced to lie to an immigration officer -- sometimes they ask if you've ever been to Israel, and if the answer is 'yes,' they turn you away.

Other than that, I'm sure you'd have no trouble. It's not the most approachable of countries, though -- if you don't have someone there to show you the ropes, as it were, it's not easy to get from place to place, never mind *finding* the places that are worth getting to.

Liban-Trek
It sounds like you had a good trip that day though.

Actually, Liban-Trek also does what they call "cultural travel" -- I've never been on one of those, but I have no doubt they're really well organized. The idea with that is that they take you to see interesting or unusual places that are otherwise very hard to find.

Still, I don't much enjoy group tourism; taking these organized treks once per trip is one thing, but I do much prefer finding my own way around. For that, in Lebanon you need a car, and the traffic is not for the faint of heart. Or, at least, you have to be rather unusual if you're able to hop off the plane, into a car, and drive off without at least first having seen how it works. The first time I went there, I was screaming constantly, and *not* because of Joanna's driving. (She handles the traffic there with a Zen-like calm that I can't hope to approach. She hasn't been driving on our subsequent visits, though, because she's never driven automatic -- which her dad's car has -- and doesn't feel comfortable practicing in the conditions there.)

And yeah, that was a good day.

Trek on the Civil War Anniversary
Nice set of anecdotes. In particular shared your enjoyment of the story of St. Marina. How unusual in anyone to be able to not mount the perfect defense ripe with righteous indignation and shame one's accusers. Truly an act worthy of a saint. And of course, it's as full of questions as answers as to why not--compassion for her accuser, thwarted maternal impulses, an identification with her assumed gender so profound it was no longer discardable, or simple purity of servitude to a spiritual ideal? Part of the mystery of the true religious life is that we can never know.
Thanks for your very vivid word pictures of a most interesting trip.

Resurrecting this thread to (finally) post a few photos. I tried to include some that are not your usual touristy sights, but more like what you see there every day...

A bit ragged around the edges, but still flying high:


Coastal Highway:


Khamsin -- nope, this isn't pollution, it's dust from the Sahara. Read above for more about it:


"Diagonal With Rust"



Joanna posing at Dar-Sur-Mer in Safra (that's where we stayed):


Some local color -- an APC guarding an Ottoman bridge in the strategically important Nahr el-Kalb gorge:

A few more...

Your pictoresque fishing boat in Byblos:



Easter festivities:


Abandoned playground in Safra:


Imprisoned St. Elie:


Chicken processing factory with fairly fresh shrapnel holes in the wall -- near a bridge, you see:

Prime Junta said:

As a teenager she was sunning herself at the Sporting Club with Top of the Pops hits on the boombox

Click to expand...

Funny fact: my aunt and her husband own the Sporting Club. True story lol. I could give you as many details as you want in private message to prove it.
Just noticed this thread today. Always nice to see a different view than the gloomy/constant war zone/third world country that the media convey. Thanks.

I wish I had more free time. If only I could read the entire thread, and post more often.

The fishing boats have got to be my favorite, but the medieval feel to some of the structures and the juxtaposition of the concrete high-rises is also interesting--and a very good shot of your wife, as well.

Thanks for the visuals--I find that they give a very vivid backdrop to your written journal--that stretch of California-like road in particular.

After seeing this pictures and reading your diary, I really want to go to Lebanon. I'll add it to my "list of places I want to take trips to", I guess, which looks something like:

1) Antarctica
2) Japan
3) Europe (Anywhere, but specifically WW2 battlefields and the concentration camps)
4) Iran
5) Lebanon
6) North Korea
7) China
8) Iraq
9) Afghanistan
10) Egypt

Hedek said:

Funny fact: my aunt and her husband own the Sporting Club. True story lol. I could give you as many details as you want in private message to prove it.
Just noticed this thread today. Always nice to see a different view than the gloomy/constant war zone/third world country that the media convey. Thanks.

I wish I had more free time. If only I could read the entire thread, and post more often.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'll take your word for it. I've already run across one of the owners of what's perhaps my favorite spot in Beirut -- Café Rawda. What's your connection to Lebanon? Are you or your family from there, or did your aunt get married into the country (like my mother-in-law?)

Yep. She spent a summer, fell in love with the owner's son and with the country. She's been living there ever since. And since I couldn't refuse a free private beach membership in a sunny mediterranean sea country, I spent about 3 or 4 summers there during the past 15 years ;-)

What a waste. Lebanon could have been the closest thing to paradise on Earth. The weather, the food, the music, the beautiful beaches, the ski-able mountains, the rich and fertile soils, the abundant water (compared to the rest of the region), the kindness and hospitality of its people, the Phoenician and Roman history, the historical sites, a place where different religions coexist in harmony.
Instead it's a tiny and weak country stuck in the middle of possibly the worst neighbors in the world who are constantly trying to snatch a piece of it for themselves: Syrians, Palestinians, Israelis, Iranians, etc. Add to the equation French, English, and American strategic and ideological interests and this foretaste of bliss was turned into hell's antechamber.

If you're interested in Lebanon and its cultural diversity, I recommend reading Kirsten E. Schulze 's The Jews of Lebanon. It depicts a prosperous and happy Jewish community in a prosperous eclectic country, which went terribly bad when the situation degraded in Israel and propagated to Lebanon with the massive arrival of armed Palestinian refugees. I wish both Israel and Lebanon today could be what Lebanon used to be until the 60's.

"On the sixth day, God made Lebanon and saw that it was too good. So He made the Lebanese." (Yes, a Lebanese told me that joke.)

Seriously: the Lebanese love to blame anything and everything on their neighbors, or Iran, or America, or France, or anyone else. Yet those 300,000 or so Lebanese dead during the civil wars were almost all killed by other Lebanese. Yes, they're constantly being f-ed over by their neighbors, but that's because they can't manage to get their own act together and instead constantly look for "pull" from outside patrons.

I hate that kind of victim mentality; sure, the place would be different if their neighbors were more civilized, but it would also be different if the Lebanese stood up for Lebanon instead of standing up for Nasrallah, Aoun, Geagea, Hariri, Sa'ad, Gemayel, Jumblatt, Arslan, or whomever. Many if not most of their miseries are self-inflicted, due to their narrow and short-sighted sectarian mindset. There have been a few people there who have attempted to transcend it -- and they've all been killed. Kamal Jumblatt, Gebran Tueni, Samir Kassir, perhaps even Rafic Hariri. It's tragic that their ideas always seem to die with them. Perhaps one day someone will pick up where they left off and succeed where they failed -- until then, Lebanon will continue to be kicked around by everybody else.

Can't agree more. During the so-called "civil" war, each and every Lebanese party to the conflict had a foreign support and/or influence. They would rather ally with a stranger to fuck over their own brethren, rather than stand up against a common foreign enemy.

At the same, even if all the Lebanese sticked together, I'm not certain they would have stood a chance anyway. I mean even after they were crushed and kicked out by Tsahal, the Palestinians were still militarily more powerful than all Lebanon. Same with the Syrian army.
It was in everyone else's interest to destroy Lebanon's economy as well as end a situation that was an insult to fundamentlists (both Israeli and Arab Muslim): different religions can coexist peacefully together in the same state.

You're Finnish right? Imagine if Russia were invaded by Germany, and thousands of armed Russians entered Finland, I'm not sure there's much the Finnish could do to prevent them from reaching Helsinki and living as they please in the country. And don't expect any international help because the world wants the Palestinians to get out of Israel, so wherever else they go it's fine with them.

And just to clarify the list you've provided, no one gets murdered in Lebanon without an outside power giving its support/demanding it. And anyone who's still alive is because he serves or at least doesn't disturb outside interests (and yes that means I believe Nasrallah is still alive because Israel finds him convenient).

Why do you think small and large states coexist? It's because the smaller ones are useful to the larger one. Do you honestly believe Switzerland, Monaco, or Luxembourg would still exist if they hadn't been serving the interests of their neighbors? They'll never let Lebanon be independent and pursue its own interests: it's too rich and too small.

Hedek said:

You're Finnish right? Imagine if Russia were invaded by Germany, and thousands of armed Russians entered Finland, I'm not sure there's much the Finnish could do to prevent them from reaching Helsinki and living as they please in the country. Add don't expect any international help because the world wants the Palestinians to get out of Israel, so wherever else they go it's fine with them.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, they did, and we did manage to stop them from reaching Helsinki or occupying the country. Stalin was rather upset.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Winter_War ]

Hedek said:

Why do you think small and large states coexist? It's because the smaller ones are useful to the larger one. Do you honestly believe Switzerland, Monaco, or Luxembourg would still exist if they hadn't been serving the interests of their neighbors? They'll never let Lebanon be independent and pursue its own interests: it's too rich and too small.

Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. Occupying and repressing even small countries is a lot of trouble, and they tend not to stay repressed. When the USSR started to crumble, all the old nationalisms suppressed during its heyday popped up, and lots of countries along its edges (re)gained their independence. Russia would very much like to re-incorporate the Baltic states, for example, but that's not going to happen.

Finland retained its independence despite suffering a defeat in WW2 mainly for two reasons: first, Stalin figured that it would take several divisions and several years to subjugate the country (given the tough fight the Finns had put up during the war), and he was getting concerned about the American threat and didn't want to get distracted, and second, there were a few political leaders in Finland that the USSR trusted not to do anything rash or stupid such as apply for NATO membership.

IOW, it's more of a cost/benefit equation -- while great powers are unquestionably powerful, they're not all-powerful. France could not annex Luxemburg just because it wants to, any more than Russia could annex Estonia, or India could annex Nepal. Conversely, weak and fractious countries where the factions rely on outside patrons are easy to manipulate, and suffer for it. If the Lebanese factions didn't do that -- and this applies just as much to March 14 as March 8 -- they would be much harder to manipulate. It's not a matter of someone outside "allowing" Lebanon to become peaceful and prosperous -- it's a matter of the Lebanese allowing outside interests to set them against each other.

Prime Junta said:

Well, actually, they did, and we did manage to stop them from reaching Helsinki or occupying the country. Stalin was rather upset.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Winter_War ]

Click to expand...

Congratulations to the Finnish. But as they say we can't remake History, perhaps united Lebanese would have failed where the Finnish succeeded, perhaps not. We'll never know.
My example was hypothetic. Russians weren't victims themselves fleeing their country. They were aggressors and invaders. Most Lebanese were sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and even though they foresaw the economic and security disaster of this mass migration, they couldn't be unanimous about whether to unite and kick out a population which had just fled its land already.
In a similar situation, outside of any religious or cultural division, I'm certain some Finnish would have been in support of welcoming fleeing Russians, while others would have been in support of repelling them.

Your second reply: can you really compare 1 larger country (Russia) trying to control tens of smaller countries with 4 or more larger countries trying to control a single tiny country in the middle of them? I don't think it's much more complicated than that. Lebanon was and probably always will be used as the remote battleground for countries who can't/don't want to confront each others directly.
And I'm not talking about annexing. I'm talking about economic control. Luxembourg is economically controlled by its larger neighbors. Just as Syrians and Palestinian want a share of the Lebanese economy, and Israel wants a share of its water resources.

PS: it doesn't mean I disagree with you. Lebanese have their share of responsibility. But even had their been no sectarianism, I believe the situation isn't as easy as France having to stand up against Germany or Finland against Russia.

Hedek said:

Your second reply: can you really compare 1 larger country (Russia) trying to control tens of smaller countries with 4 or more larger countries trying to control a single tiny country in the middle of them? I don't think it's much more complicated than that. Lebanon was and probably always will be used as the remote battleground for countries who can't/don't want to confront each others directly.

Click to expand...

True, but they couldn't do it without the active cooperation of large sections of the Lebanese population. The Kataeb jumped at the chance of throwing out the Palestinians with Israeli support; the Hezb jumped at the chance of running their own affairs with Iranian support; the Mustaqbal jumped at the chance of getting lots of money with Saudi and Western support, and so on and so forth until it makes your head spin.

And I'm not talking about annexing. I'm talking about economic control. Luxembourg is economically controlled by its larger neighbors. Just as Syrians and Palestinian want a share of the Lebanese economy, and Israel wants a share of its water resources.

Click to expand...

True, true -- but then again, Luxemburg is doing rather better economically than its bigger neighbors. Lebanon could too.

PS: it doesn't mean I disagree with you. Lebanese have their share of responsibility. But even had their been no sectarianism, I believe the situation isn't as easy as France having to stand up against Germany or Finland against Russia.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Israel doesn't want to control Lebanon; it just wants to stop the Palestinians and the Hezb from using it as a launchpad for attacks -- in fact, Israel could profit greatly from free trade with it. Syria is bigger and stronger militarily than Lebanon, but compared to the difference between Finland and Russia (in 1939, about 3.5 million Finns and about 200 million Russians; compare to about 4 million Lebanese and about 20 million Syrians today) it looks like the Lebanese should have an easier time of it.

Prime Junta said:

in fact, Israel could profit greatly from free trade with it.

Click to expand...

So true, and I've always advocated for it. But pride and emotions are too strong on both sides to see this.

Prime Junta said:

Syria is bigger and stronger militarily than Lebanon, but compared to the difference between Finland and Russia (in 1939, about 3.5 million Finns and about 200 million Russians; compare to about 4 million Lebanese and about 20 million Syrians today) it looks like the Lebanese should have an easier time of it.

Click to expand...

Well in absolute terms yes. But as you've explained yourself, Finland didn't face all Russia, they faced only whatever the USSR could devote to the Finnish campaign that wasn't needed elsewhere.
Lebanon always had to deal with 100% of Syria's military capabilities, and after the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the Lebanese border was the only border which Tsahal had to focus on.

Hedek said:

Well in absolute terms yes. But as you've explained yourself, Finland didn't face all Russia, they faced only whatever the USSR could devote to the Finnish campaign that wasn't needed elsewhere.
Lebanon always had to deal with 100% of Syria's military capabilities, and after the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, the Lebanese border was the only border which Tsahal had to focus on.

Click to expand...

OTOH Lebanon proper and Syria have never actually gone to war. Syria occupied Lebanon because it was invited in by the parties it was supporting -- and its troops left when the power relations shifted (even if it retains an enormous amount of influence there). Similarly, Israel has never occupied the entire country, its deep incursion in 1982 didn't last all that long, and I very much doubt it's at all interested in a re-run of the wonderful time it had south of the Litani.

IOW, Lebanon's weakness is political, not military or economic. Its tragedy is that the various groups in the country can't seem to figure out what Lebanon really should be: the Maronites dream of a Maronite version of Israel, the Sunnis would like to go back to the Ottoman empire, the Shi'ites look to Iran, the Druze just want to be left alone, the Palestinians would like to go back to Palestine, or, failing that, turn Lebanon into another Palestine, and the rest somehow muddle along between them. Until they find some idea of Lebanon that transcends all that, they'll never be able to make anything of the country. What that something is, I don't know -- "the only Arab democracy," "the mountain refuge for all persecuted sects," "the gateway between East and West," "Phoenicia" -- there are certainly options.

To take another parallel from Finnish history, our national identity sort of crystallized in the mid-1800's -- "we're not Swedes, we won't become Russians, so let us be Finns," as one luminary put it. If someone in Lebanon could sell that sort of idea to everyone there -- "we're not Syrians, we won't become French, so let us be Lebanese (and then let's figure out how to make a buck out of it)" -- good things could happen.

I'll be waiting. And hoping.