Fast Forward in the East
U.S. coverage of Iranian president Muhammad Khatami's visit to Beirut last week was pretty thin. But as reason contributing editor Michael Young observed Friday, Khatami, in the course of his visit: "made it clear that Iran's ties to Lebanon would mainly be funneled, henceforth, through the Lebanese government, not Hizbullah"; carried a pro-reform message to Iran's Shi'ite brethren in the Arab world ("Religion and belief should not come at the expense of freedom."); and praised the fall of Saddam to finesse Iran's relationship with the new Iraq. Khatami "knows that a majority of Iranians would welcome the removal of the conservative mullahs in Tehran and look towards Iraq as a possible source of domestic transformation."
By the way, on Tuesday, Young was among the few to note that Syrian President Bashar Assad, in a May 11 Washington Post interview, appears to have made a major concession about the basis for future Syrian-Israeli talks.
The Mideast is in an extraordinary hurry. It may not be altogether clear just where it's going, but things are moving fast enough that potentially significant events are getting lost in mainstream coverage that is confused, calamity-driven, and often useless.
Speaking of momentous Mideast events, the Young-Freund exchange on the prospects for Arab liberalism continued this weekend, addressing what liberalism might do to -- and for -- Arabism.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lots of hot air here. Nobody seems able or inclined to remember accounts of Arab leaders in 20th century histories. All is just rhetoric and jockeying for position in the changed order. Palestinian-Israeli dialogue is not where anything will happen.
All this crazy talk of Palestinanians and Isrealis, but no one seems to remember too many decades ago.
The area known as Palestine now is known as Jordan and Isreal. Jordan was called "Trans-Jordan", Isreal was everything in that area west of the Jordan river. The Arabs were supposed to get Jordan and the Jews were supposed to get Isreal. The jews even invited the Arabs who had settled land (as the majority of the jews developed their own land, from swamp) in that area to stay and become an Isreali citizen. But, that wasn't good enough. The many armies attacked, and told the resident arabs to get the hell out of the way. Many did. Those who did not were kicked out by Isreal (busy kicking the ass of the many Arab armies).
Trans-Jordan (later known as Jordan once they made a grab for the west bank) was supposed to be the area for the Arab Palestinians. Isreal was supposed to be the area for the Jewish Palestinians (who later invited tons of Jews the world over to immigrate).
But now, people want to make yet another Arab state?
It makes no sense to me...
Biblical borders would solve alot of our problems. Plain and simple. Think, no Iraq, part of Syria, Iran, Jordan. Egypt can have Eilat. And Nabors is right they could have had their country but they didn't want it.
What "Biblical borders" are those, by the way? Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall Abraham receiving a survey. Do you mean Solomon's borders, which were in place for a few decades a couple thousand years ago? Do you mean post-Solomonic Judea or Israel (separatae countries)? Assyria, Babylon, Alexander, Rome and everyone else has been rearranging Israel's borders on a fairly regular basis since then. If there are any actual "Biblical borders" that one could refer to, it escapes me what they would be.
Robert,
Why should the crackpot line drawing of European colonial powers be the paragon of reason and virtue?
Domino teeters...
Hey Joe! Then let's go back to the Bilical borders of Israel....whaddayathink....or do ya.
Robert,
Your history is incorrect. Trans-Jordan was indeed split off from the rest of the Mandate, but the remaining part was not intended to become Israel. In fact, it was determined (by UN vote in 1947) that it would be partitioned into a jewish and an arab state.
In the event, the partition failed in that the arab states invaded, the jews fought back, and "Israel" was formed in the area which remained under jewish control after the final cease-fire (this area was somewhat larger that that decreed by the partition, but was much more defensible). The parts left under arab control did not become a state, but remained under Egyptian (Gaza) and Jordanian (West Bank) administration.
There things remained, more or less, until 1967.
joe,
Which side did you take in the big Reason.com civil war debate last week? Remind me.
Here's a crazy idea, Steve. How about borders based on the negotiated consent of the people who have to live with them?
In the conservative mind, consent is as irrelevant to issues of sovereignty as it is to issues of sexual morality.