New at Reason

David Weigel | May 24, 2006

Lebanese presidential candidate Chibli Mallat gives an update on the state of the democratic revolution.

Comments

|5.24.06 @ 5:45PM|#

Hmm, quiet. So I'll speak first. I take exception to Mallat's characterization of Israel being a 'brutal' regime not wishing to have any partner in dialogue. I don't see this as true. They found a way to dialogue even with that notorious lying sack of shit, Arafat. No, they may not be keen on having a dialogue with Hamas, who has in article 7 of their covenant:

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: "O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."'"

Now, I'm tryin', Ringo... I'm tryin' real hard, but I'm imagining me living next door to a neighbor, who had pasted on his window facing mine:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until [the Wilsons] fight [Paul] and kill [him]. Then, [Paul] will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: "O [Wilsons], there is [Paul] hiding behind me, come and kill him."'"

Meanwhile, the city government keeps wagging its finger at me, demanding that I take on this neighbor as a partner in dialogue. Mmmmno. I'd simply have the family firearms at the ready.

|5.24.06 @ 6:16PM|#

some schmuck who isn't going to win in some country few people care about gets that much space? -- how many op-eds did you give harry browne?

|5.24.06 @ 6:27PM|#

I found this diatribe to be incoherent and self-serving. Mr. Mallat is running for president of an embattled country such as Lebanon, purportedly with a reformist platform to undo the rampant corruption, murder, and mayhem that is the status quo. Nevertheless, I see nothing in his submittal that indicates a plan to coalesce the population and steer the country in a new direction.

In order to accomplish his dream of a new, independent Lebanon, a leader must step up to the plate to champion a platform of fresh ideas, recognizing that this may incur great risk. Yet, his case is based upon a salvo of old finger-pointing bromides, blaming unsavory neighboring countries and internal forces.

As an example, it is notable that among the instigating players mentioned here, only Israel gets an adjective, namely "brutal", "that refuses to acknowledge any partner for dialogue". In fact, since Hamas was elected handily, with a platform to destroy Israel, his assertion more appropriately describes the Palestinian side. Such jingoism, which certainly does not distinguish him from many others with similar ambitions to Mr. Mallat's, blindsides him in writing off the one neighboring country that could serve as an ally and supporter of democratic reform.

However, what really disappoints me in this political campaign piece is the dearth of self-examination regarding Lebanon's own culpability in allowing this situation to have festered to this state of affairs. Although a ray of hope shone through at the February 14, 2006 rally after Mr. Hariri's assasination, there is no mention of how the "Lebanon Spring" has sustained itself afterwards, albeit in the face of hostility and corruption. From then on, based upon this article, other bogeymen came in and the movement seemed to have languished.

If this groundswell had any significant momentum, I would have expected it to sustain itself in some underground apparatus that would somehow get its message out to the world beyond the Middle East, as has been done with other insurgent movements (e.g., East Timor and Basque independence movements). No evidence of such outreach is presented here, nor of any other significant accomplishments or leaders manifested by this movement.

However, in this article, the "Lebanon Spring" conceit is used to cynically tug on the heartstrings of the international community for yet more handouts in the region. Lots of abstract verbiage is expended regarding "bravery" and "future of world peace", but no specifics are provided as to where such assistance is to be directed. The history of such assistance in Lebanon is dismal; it would require a lot more evidence of purpose, vision, and oversight to convince this reader of the effectiveness of granting such largesse to, and confidence in, such leadership. I recommend that Mr. Mallat go back to the drawing board of political thought and come up with a weltanschauung that distinguishes him from the rest of the pack if he truly wants to lead Lebanon to a brighter future.

|5.24.06 @ 8:12PM|#

So this is what it takes to get Hit & Run Commenters to call out Michael-Youngish Cedar Revolution baloney: criticism of Israel. Too funny.

|5.24.06 @ 9:04PM|#

So this is what it takes to get Hit & Run Commenters to call out Michael-Youngish Cedar Revolution baloney: criticism of Israel. Too funny.

I don't know about the rest of it, but I too find it "funny" that in a piece like this, the one thing people seem to notice is a disparaging remark about Israel's behavior.

I read the piece as being, centrally, a rallying cry against Hezbollah and Syria, which were enemies of Israel the last time I looked.

The enemies of peace must know the dire consequences of keeping to violence, including travel bans, freezing the assets of individuals and close kin, and even the threat of UN troops if they choose to escalate.

I'm afraid that appeal won't find many sympathetic ears in America. I'm trying to imagine the Bush Administration spearheading a drive to bring a UN force to bear in Lebanon. I'm trying to imagine the Administration's anti-Iraq War opponents calling for intervention. I'm having a hard time imagining either one.