New at Reason

January 26, 2007

Michael Young reports from Lebanon on foreign aid and less welcome forms of international influence.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← NIDA-Wiki Meta Moment | Main | Dirigo →

See all 41 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|1.26.07 @ 4:21PM|#

so that their country now stands as a battleground in an American and Arab undertaking to push back Iran

I guess Hezbullah's supporters, Hamas supporters, Syria, Iraq and other gulf majority shiite, and Saudi minority shiite are not Arabs in Mr. Young's mind. Unless by Arab Mr. Young is code word for Arab governments who are loyal to the US.

|1.26.07 @ 4:27PM|#

A cogent and sobering summary of the situation. Kudos Mr. Young.

|1.26.07 @ 4:33PM|#

I lost all faith in Young's analysis during last year's Hizballah Israel clash, and here he demonstrates more of the same. Here is an article that purports to explain the conditions in Lebanon today and it only mentions Israel (you know, Lebanon's neighbor that invaded and occupied it a couple times, once last year?) three times and all were references to pre-1990's times. For shame Mr. Young! I for one was shocked tht Bush had the nerve to even mention Lebanon and the Cedar Revolution, his giving of the green light to Israel's excessively harsh and foolish reaction to Hizballah's raid last year is the most likely culprit for Lebanon's current destablization. Young gets even worse when he suggests: "In an apparent effort to improve its chances for regional hegemony, Iran asserted its power in the Arab world--through its Shiite allies in Iraq, Hamas in the Palestinian areas, and Hezbollah in Lebanon--and it bolstered its military relationship with Syria. " Yep, Hamas' recent activity in the occupied territories is not the result of, well, the fact that they are still occupied, or the recent Israeli embargo since Hamas won the election. No, it's all Iranian nefariousness, spy vs. spy stuff. Young's striving to try to analyze situations in the Middle East without ever mentioning Israel's role and our support for them is like the old saying of going around your elbow to get to you...well you know.

|1.26.07 @ 4:56PM|#

his giving of the green light to Israel's excessively harsh and foolish reaction to Hizballah's raid last year is the most likely culprit for Lebanon's current destablization.

Lebanon's current sorry state wouldn't have anything to do with the neighboring state(s) that actually did occupy it for years and years, continues to run covert ops to project its influence, and sponsors very heavily armed and militant militia, would it.

Nope. Its the Jew's fault. And Bush's, of course (goes without saying).

|1.26.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Grown up.

Grown up.

Grown up.

RC Dean. Yeah, call him an antisemite for saying the war last year was bad for the Lebanese government. Great contribution.

anon, I lost faith in Mr. Young's analysis two years before that, when he wrote that Hezbollah's counter-rally to the Lebanese Intafadeh was the death knell for their status as an imortant force in Lebanese politics.

I don't know if wishful thinking or unabashed propaganda is the problem, but reading Michael Young's analyses is link reading Pravda. I don't know why Hit and Run keeps publishing his stuff.

|1.26.07 @ 5:07PM|#

Thanks for the laughs Dean.
You said:
"Lebanon's current sorry state wouldn't have anything to do with the neighboring state(s) that actually did occupy it for years and years, continues to run covert ops to project its influence, and sponsors very heavily armed and militant militia, would it."

Did you mean Israel, which occupied from 1982-2000, admittedly runs ops there, and sponsored the fascist Phalange milita?

Or did you mean Syria? They were actually invited in. Though, since I, unlike you, play fair and try to call a spade a spade, they obviously overstayed any welcome they may have had and have contintiously meddled in their neighbors affairs. The assasinations are an example of their despicable actions, though I will note that they did not, unlike Israel, kill hundreds of Lebanese and destroy literally millions of dollars of infrastructure...

|1.26.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Sectarian war in the middle east would be a disaster for us, especially after spending 4 years backing the side we'd have to oppose, in Iraq.

On the other hand, there's no other way to rob Hamas and its ilk of support. If they were forced to choose between Iran and the Arab nations, and they chose Iran, that would be the best outcome for peace between the Arabs and Israel--the staunchest anti-Israel people would be revealed as the power-hungry puppets they are, rather than as the authentic political expression of Arab opposition to Israel.

|1.26.07 @ 5:46PM|#

teeheehee

|1.26.07 @ 5:48PM|#

Or did you mean Syria? They were actually invited in.

By one faction, yes. Glad to see you admit they, ahem, "overstayed their welcome." As pretty a euphemism as I have seen for what the Syrians were up to in Lebanon.

Anyone not blinded by hatred would say that instability in Lebanon is due primarily if not entirely because it is infested with Hez, which is sponsored by Syria and Iran.

Little thought experiment - you can surgically remove Israel from the Middle East, but leave Hamas in Lebanon in its current form, or you can remove Hez from Lebanon, but leave Israel alone.

Which is likely to lead to a stable Lebanon?

Israel's "occupation" of Lebanon was, unlike Syria's "overstayed welcome" never an attempt to control the entire state of Lebanon. Rather, it occupied only a zone in southern Lebanon sufficient in an attempt to keep the its enemies at bay. Treating them both as substantially equal, or even, as you imply, that Israel's intervention in Lebanon was greater than Syria's is delusional at best.

|1.26.07 @ 6:00PM|#

Robert Fisk has a similar article in the Independent and reaches many of the same conclusions, but from a different direction. Bottom line: Lebanon is screwed. Like Iraq, they live on the fault line and the earthquake is starting.

Mr Young downplays it, and seems to accept Bush's version of events, but the fact is that revenge for two kidnapped soldiers wasn't worth the current chaos. Lebanon was reasonably stable and had a reasonably pro-US government, but was subjected to a broad and devastating air campaign that crippled its economy.

Why? It's almost as if they are being punished for trusting the US. They did everything they were supposed to, to the best of their ability, and then got pummelled over a couple of border skirmishes by America's favorite client (or patron, depending on one's point of view).

The argument that the Lebanese government was supposed to "do something about Hezbollah" is absurd. Are they more able to do something about Hezbollah now that they've been emasculated by the Israelis? Doesn't the chaos prove that the whole situation was too delicate for the government to stray from cautious, pro forma disapproval of Hezbollah's belligerence? The acid test of sensible strategy: is Israel and the US better off for having crushed Lebanon?

Blaming Syria and Iran is running from the truth. Syria and Iran meddled in their politics; the US and Israel destroyed their economy. As Young himself admits, an economic meltdown will sweep away the government far more quickly than sectarian sniping.

|1.26.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Anybody not blinded by hatred would realize that the blame lies entirely with whomever RC Dean dislikes the most at the moment.

Lord knows the Phalange never did anything wrong.

If you eliminate Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other named bad guy from the Middle East, the structural problems behind the conflict - the existence of coloninzing nation that has turned millions of people into wretched refugees - would cause more bad guys to spring up in their place.

And no, talking about how much more moral Israeli people are than everybody else does not elimiate that underlying structural reality.

|1.26.07 @ 6:09PM|#

James,

Israel didn't invade Lebanon to save two soldiers, or to get revenge for their capture. Nor was it an attempt to cajole Beirut to crack down on Hezbollah. It was a pretext for a long-planned operation aimed at degrading Hezbollah's military capabilities, based on the theory that shooting enough people will make terrorism go away.

I've got nothing against Israel hitting targets of opportunity when they pop up, but the idea that doing so on a sufficiently large scale is an effective long-term strategy to end or contain the problem is foolish.

edna|1.26.07 @ 6:30PM|#

"the existence of coloninzing nation that has turned millions of people into wretched refugees"

oh, you mean jordan? seems that in the 20 years they occupied the west bank, they could have taken care of the refugee situation. or do you mean egypt, on a smaller scale, with gaza?

or were you talking about england, who held jordan/palestine as a colony? or turkey?

no, i suspect that you're denying demographic reality and simultaneously redefining the word "colony" so that the jews can get the blame. bad, bad jews, creating a liberal democracy with the refugees from iraq, libya, morocco, iran, russia, syria, yemen, egypt...

|1.26.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Try harder, edna.

Think really hard about the word "colonization," and see if you can think of a situation in the region in which a bunch of people from another part of the world moved in, and the people living there at the time ended up as refugees.

Jordan didn't send people to take over and occupy the land and cities the Palestinians were living on. Nor did Egypt.

Why should Jordan have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of Israeli colonization of Palestine? Why should Egypt? I certainly don't hold those countries wholly blameless, but let's maintain some connection to reality here.

"bad, bad jews, creating a liberal democracy with the refugees from iraq, libya, morocco, iran, russia, syria, yemen, egypt..." on other people's land. What we've got here are two competing, legitimate interests. In such a situation, each side has a responsibility to work out a deal.

Oh, and fuck you for calling me racist. That was uncalled for, and just draws attention to your inability to argue on the facts.

|1.26.07 @ 6:43PM|#

And you what, edna? Whether you think they have a right, or not, people living in an untenable situation are going to do something about it. Even if you think they've got it coming. Evenn if you have an emotional attachment to the people who put them in that situation. Even if you'd prefer they all just go away. They won't, for as long as they are compelled to live in such unacceptable conditions.

You can keep beating your chest, proclaiming your supiority, and pointing the finger at everyone else if you want, but until the underlying problem is solved, the Israelis are going to be living under seige.

What's more important to you - feeling good about yourself, or finding a solution to that problem?

VM|1.26.07 @ 6:55PM|#

oh great. Another uncalled for pile on joe.

"Thanks" guys for elevating the discourse.

Edna - I'm glad they transported you on the roof of the car.

"What's more important to you - feeling good about yourself, or finding a solution to that problem?"

four points for the "duh question of the week"!

This is yet another extension of biologist's comments:
http://reason.com/blog/show/118344.html#630991

|1.26.07 @ 7:12PM|#

VM,

I almost went into permanent hysteria when I saw Aunt Edna on the roof.

|1.26.07 @ 9:48PM|#

There's no reason this has to turn into another boring argument about whether or not Israelis are morally superior to Palestinians.

The point here is that RC Dean put forward the argument that the instability in the Middle East is based on the fact that the movements aligned against Israel are uniquely evil and barbarous.

I don't buy it. No question, I'd rather have Olmert or Barak or even Sharon over to my house for dinner than Arafat or Nasrallah, but that's not the root of the problem.

There isn't an intractable state of hostilities between Israel and its neighbors because violent anti-Semites are in positions of prominenct in surrounding states. Violent anti-Semites have come to power in surrounding states because the intractable hostilities between Israel and its neighbors opened the door for them, and those conflicts are caused by the fights over land, water, power, and freedom resulting from the displacement of the Palestinians.

edna|1.26.07 @ 10:46PM|#

joe, how could israel have colonized anything? it didn't exist prior to the late 1940s. what was the thing that inigo montoya said to the sicilian? "i do not think that word means what you think it means," or something like that.

in any case, the contrast between israel's treatment of jewish refugees and egypt & jordan's treatment of the palestinian refugees is striking and instructive. you did note the number of jewish refugees from various places in the ummah, right?

|1.26.07 @ 11:46PM|#

Oh bah. The palestinians were tenant farmers under rich landlords from Damascus in Ottoman times. The rich landlords sold their land to Jews, who, not needing tenant farmers, sent them away. The evicted tenant farmers went to Damascus, where the landlords who'd sold them out whipped them up into an anti-Jewish frenzy, causing the riots of the late '20s and early '30s.

After that, the 1948 war was inevitable, and the fact that the Jews won didn't make Israel a colony or the situation their fault.

|1.27.07 @ 9:38AM|#

Jb and edna are talking about the original creation of Israel, but the issue in front of much of the world, in talking about the "occupied territories", is that Israel should not keep the land they took in the 1967 war. Keeping land obtained through was considered immoral (the UN declared such, with even the US voting aye in this one).
Now we can discuss the more muddled originalk creation of Israel. One would think that on a libtertarian blog one would find more sympathy for the idea that if you live on land (and had for generations), and the conquering government that "owned" your land (Ottomans) lost to antoher power (WWI Allies), who then sold chunks of it to others (the Jews) who then "ordered you off it" (nice way of putting what some of these militias did), that this series of events does not morally entitle you to be forced off this land. But off course all of the land was not "sold", in fact England "gave" the land to the UN which came up with a plan to split it in a way that neither side liked, so war broke out, one side one and "declared" their borders.
One thing has always struck me in the debates concerning Israel. Many supporters of Israel are so overboard: they cannot admit ANY moral failings or mistakes by them. Not even a little one. They engage in mental gymnastics, doing intellectual cartwheels and flips in what appears to be baldly apologetics. This overdone defensiveness is not just obviously dishonest to anyone not also zealotically inclined, but it also brings out the devil's advocate in folks like me, and on this issue it seems joe for example, who obviously support Israel but are also able to hold them accountable for their failings (no one's perfect, except in these fanatics eyes).

|1.27.07 @ 9:57AM|#

Anybody not blinded by hatred would realize that the blame lies entirely with whomever RC Dean dislikes the most at the moment.

RC Dean is a moron who does not know anything about Lebanon. But, is always ready to parrot right-wing ignoramos. Neither Hamas nor Hezbullah existed when the Lebanese civil war broke out in 1975. Oh, and by the way, Hamas is not in a Lebanese group. Their main supporters are Palestinians in Gaza.

Also, Syria was not invited by one side as you claim. Syria was invited by the international community (read France and the US). Guess which Lebanese group opposed the syrian presence the most at the time? that is right, it was Oun, one of the current oppositions leaders. Which Mr. Young conveniently ignores.

|1.27.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Good points anon, but certainly you realize that folks like RC Dean are limited to what Fox news or Limbaugh will tell them, and they never seem to remember to mention certain things, like Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon on several occasions. My favorite is when they trumpet Syria, Iraq, etc., being in "violation of UN treaties" (which I am more than willing to point our is true) while always failing to note that this applies to Israel in spades...Or Reagans support of Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran...I can't believe anyone would want to be such a partisan, beholden to such myopic sources for information on the world.

|1.27.07 @ 10:15AM|#

Oh bah. The palestinians were tenant farmers under rich landlords from Damascus in Ottoman times. The rich landlords sold their land to Jews, who, not needing tenant farmers, sent them away. The evicted tenant farmers went to Damascus, where the landlords who'd sold them out whipped them up into an anti-Jewish frenzy, causing the riots of the late '20s and early '30s.

I don't think it is productive to go back to the 1940's. But, the Jews owned only 7% of mandate Palestine at the time of the UN's 1947 partition plan, but they were given 55% of the land. You might want to read Benny Morris's interview to get a glimpse of how Israel was really founded instead of the "we made the dessert bloom" nonsense.

paul|1.27.07 @ 11:11AM|#

some people sure are obsessed with jews. they and everyone around them know who they are too.

|1.27.07 @ 11:40AM|#

"joe, how could israel have colonized anything? it didn't exist prior to the late 1940s."

Meaningless word games only draw attention to your inability to respond with a substantive point, edna. You'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

"in any case, the contrast between israel's treatment of jewish refugees and egypt & jordan's treatment of the palestinian refugees is striking and instructive." And also irrelevant.

You can't even begin to formulate an argument on the issue at hand, so you wail "look over there" and "yeah, but they're worse."

Sad, and typical.

|1.27.07 @ 11:45AM|#

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/57896

|1.27.07 @ 1:10PM|#

joe: "What's more important to you - feeling good about yourself, or finding a solution to that problem?"

edna: "in any case, the contrast between israel's treatment of jewish refugees and egypt & jordan's treatment of the palestinian refugees is striking and instructive. you did note the number of jewish refugees from various places in the ummah, right?"

You'll excuse me while I slip into my flight suit and hang up this banner.

edna|1.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#

joe, i'm still waiting for your definition of "colony." i can't talk about it with you if i don't know what you mean when you use that term in a non-standard way.

since the palestinians who lived in the british mandate and ottoman outpost were not indigenous, could you give me the magic date at which peoples and boundaries should have been fixed?

and getting back on topic, since the lebanese are not indigenous, either (they're mostly arabs), how about we send them back to arabia and figure out how to repatriate the phoenicians?

|1.27.07 @ 3:07PM|#

You can play dumb if you wish, edna, but don't expect me to play along. People from a different part of the world moved in and took over. It's such a simple concept, I'm sure even you understand it.

This isn't about magic dates. And where the hell did you get the idea that the people living there pre-Zionism had recently moved from Arabia?

Phoenicians. LOL. Project much.

|1.27.07 @ 3:34PM|#

And I'll note, you're still trying to argue that the Israelis are morally pure, and the Arabs grievances are illegitimate.

That and half a dozen surgeries will get the shrapnel out of a bombing victim. But it sure does make you feel good, doesn't it?

edna|1.27.07 @ 3:56PM|#

People from a different part of the world moved in and took over. It's such a simple concept, I'm sure even you understand it.

not so simple. please name any country (outside of a few pacific islands) where this is not the case. migrations and population shifts/replacements are universal. better pack up most of great britain, joe is offended by all those vikings, normans, and bretagnes. a few hours spent with the fine book "migrations and cultures" might make that point more clearly than i can.

btw, your definition of colony is not exactly (or even vaguely) the standard one and, word to the wise, is bound to cause great confusion in the future when you discuss things with people fluent in english. for example (to stay on topic) lebanon was a colony of france at some point after the arabs displaced the guys who were there before them. far as i'm aware, the french didn't replace the arabs. so i guess they weren't a colony in joe-ese?

|1.27.07 @ 8:51PM|#

"better pack up most of great britain, joe is offended by all those vikings, normans, and bretagnes."

Somebody not so in the thrall of ideology might have noticed that I have never written a single word objecting to the presence of Israelis in Israel, or claiming that they shouldn't have a nation.

It's sad - you see the argument "The Palestinians have legitimate grievances," and read it as "He's saying the Israelis have no legitimate rights." People like you, on both sides, are why Israel/Palestine is so soaked in blood.

"btw," from Webster's dictionary,

"colony, 1. a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation"

No, a country full of its local inhabitants that comes under the jurisdiction of another country is not a colony.

A few moments spent with a standard English dictionary would do wonders for you.

edna|1.28.07 @ 10:54AM|#

who's the parent nation?

edna|1.28.07 @ 10:59AM|#

colony:

"In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state." consistent with the definition you cite, but unrelated to israel. unless you consider the un (who founded the country) a state, and believe that they have "control" or are somehow "subject to" the un.

edna|1.28.07 @ 11:00AM|#

sorry for the grammatical soup at the end. let me rewrite:

...unless you consider the un (who founded the country) a state, and believe that they have "control" or that israel is somehow "subject to" the un.

|1.28.07 @ 11:44AM|#

unless you consider the un (who founded the country) a state,
Edna-but the boundaries today are not what the UN set up, in fact Israel has much more land than intitially. The worlds problem (and it is the world, do you think the whole world sans the US and Israel are just raging anti-semites?) is that Israel occupied certain areas via war and won't give them back. Heck, at one time even Israel admitted they should give back such lands. Their refusal to give back such lands means they are, well, occupied. Everything after the UN partition plan is illegitmate, boundaries created by shooting folks (whoever was "at fault" for all the shooting).

|1.28.07 @ 8:43PM|#

At the time the settlement of Israeil by non-locals occured, it was under the direct political control of one foreign power which sponsored the settlement, and the settlers closely connected to other foreign communities which sponsored that settlement.

Not to mention, pace Ken, that colonial settlement and occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are ongoing.

|1.28.07 @ 8:58PM|#

...and as much fun as it is *yaaawwwwwwn* to chase you down these semantic rabbit holes, your inattention to the important point here is rather glaring.

There is an entire nation living more or less behind barbed wire, a situation created and enforced by the Zionist project. I don't point this out in order to claim that the state of Israel or the presence of its citizens in illegitimate, but to make the point that such a situation in inherently unsustainable. It will always create war, it will always create instability, and it will always call out for a an equitable, humane solution for as long as the problem the project created remains unsolved.

The unending state of war created by the displacement and occupation of the Palestinians is the bread and butter that allows terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah to grow fat.

|1.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#

So, have you got a solution, Joe? I'm always curious about peoples' solutions to the Israel/Palestine problem.

I am also curious as to how far you think solving that problem by your suggested method would go towards solving the problem of hostile groups and governments in other countries, especially the ones that have expelled Palestinians or make noises about destroying Israel.

|1.29.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Eric,

The funny thing is, the actual final status solutions aren't that complicated. Everyone knows roughly what the final border will look like, and finessing the Jerusalmen-Al Quds-Old City-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock issues would be pretty easy to do, as long as both sides are actually making a good-faith effort.

The reason this hasn't happened yet isn't because the - let's call it "ultimate solution" and try not to wince too much about the unfortunate historical analogy - is too difficult to work out, but because there hasn't been the desire on both sides to achieve a good-faith solution. Arafat didn't squeal at Camp David because the offer was so horrible. It wasn't that horrible, and there was probably plenty of "give" if he'd had a particular stumbling block. Arafat squealed because he, personally, wanted the state of war to continue. War been belly belly good to him.

The solution is to encourage people of good will on both sides to reject the maximalists and ideologues, and let the eggheads get down to business. Israel is pretty much there - Likudnik armchair heros like edna, posting safely from the Eastern Seaboard are an isolated minority. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are a tougher nut to crack, which is to be expected. The conditions they're living under don't lend themselves to generating support for moderates and incrementalists.

As for your second question, I can only answer "some."