Saturday, September 02, 2006

RE: Dissapointed

I received an e-mail from a regular visitor to the blog yesterday, that conveyed his dissapointment concerning my recent positions regarding the conflict in Lebanon and the region in general. His e-mail was long and articulate, so I decided to return the favor and explain myself.

The result was a "piece," which after some consideration, I decided to post on this blog. So maybe others who are wondering the same will understand a little more. Anyways, here goes:

Daniel,

Thanks for the long e-mail. I will try to explain to you why I a write the way I do. Before I do, though, I would like to say one thing about myself. At one point of my life (as a child), I admired Saddam Hussein's challenge to the West; I was (and still am) proud of what the Arab armies accomplished in 1973, and I even sided with the Russians during the cold war. I want you to know this about me because I do not wish for you to think that I am not conflicted, and have not really thought about my positions with regards to everything that is transpiring in Lebanon and the Middle East .

Conflicts are always multi-layered, and multi-dimensional. The recent battle in Lebanon is no different [I say battle because it is merely one chapter in a long war that goes back to (in Lebanon at least) the first Palestinian operations launched from the South]. The conflict in Lebanon , today, consists of a local layer, a regional layer and an international one. I don't think I need to explain each one to you because you seem like you're a well-informed individual. As for dimensions, I see a conflict between two visions of how people ought to live their lives, a sectarian conflict, a conflict between established elites and up and coming counter elites, and a conflict between two solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
.
I will delve a little into the dimensions of this conflict:
  1. Visions of how individuals should live their lives:

    Hizballah's vision is clear because the organization is transparent about it. For as long as I can remember, Hizballah has proclaimed its goal of creating what it calls a “culture of resistance.” So what does that mean? Essentially, a “culture of resistance” means a population that, in one way or another, takes part in a military struggle. A culture of resistance, in other words, means: a militarized culture that, in Hizballah’s case, is founded on Islamic Doctrine and the Sharia. You are probably wondering why I am against this since I do not appear to be a Shi’ite myself. Well, my answer to you is that such a vision inherently contradicts the vision (or idea) of Lebanon itself – which is a republic founded on modern principles (albeit, imperfectly translated on the ground). Another reason I am vehemently against a militarized culture is because such a culture needs an enemy, and Hizballah does not rule a Shi’a Lebanon. If Hizballah takes its militarized population to war, it takes the rest of us with it. The Shi’ite population under its influence probably won’t mind so much because they are constantly prepared for war psychologically by their leadership, but the rest of us aren’t, and can never be, since Hizballah’s ideology is limited to and defined by Shi’ism. This reality causes tremendous friction and tension in an already fragile country. It adds one more challenge to a country already fraught with challenges.
    .
  2. Sectarian Conflict:

    Lebanon is almost defined by sectarianism. Its political system is designed to accommodate a sectarian reality. For Lebanon to exist as a stable and viable country, no one sect can dominate. The Christians tried doing so, then the Sunnis and Druze, and now, I guess, you could say the Shi’ite political elite is having a go. Don’t tell me that all they want to do is fight Israel , and all that nonsense. The decision to go to war is the most important decision any polity can make, and by taking it upon itself to decide on behalf of all Lebanese to conduct military operations against Israel, Hizballah (de-facto) utterly dominates its counterparts – it acts as a national leader, whereas it is merely a sectarian one.

    You mention, in your e-mail, how “there is something positive to be said for how much Hizballah and Amal have played within the system to the degree that they have.” Well, in response to that, I say that if Hizballah and Amal gain any more influence, Lebanon will simply become a Shi’ite state!

    The Lebanese state spares no one with its incompetence! All regions of Lebanon were and continue to be subject to the state’s inability to offer services. The reasons for the relative wealth in Mt. Lebanon has nothing to do with state-intervention, and everything to do with immigration patterns (and the consequent remittances), as well as the Beirut-Damascus highway, which makes it a little more convenient for tourists to drop by! Over the past decade and more however, as more expatriate Shi’ites make their fortunes, the situation has changed dramatically, and the overall well-being of the Shi’a population has improved significantly!

    As for Beirut , what can I say? It is the capital of Lebanon , and welcomes members of all sects. You also have to keep in mind that Lebanon's resources are limited and that investments in infrastructure need to pay off (at least in the long run). Building a university in every region of the country for the sake of satisfying sectarian competition is simply unfeasible! Building a university in Beirut though, where all who wish to attend may do so is, of course, the better , more feasible, alternative.
    .
  3. A conflict between established elites and up and coming counter elites

    In Lebanon the established elites are members of old political families that still retain a traditional base of support. Jumblatt is a perfect example of this club. I am a Druze, and most Druze who support Jumblatt are people I dislike for a myriad of reasons, which can be summed up in one phrase: traditional communitarianism. Their support for the man merely manifests their “Druzeness” and has nothing to do with social, economic or political preferences. Anyways, the same can be said of most of the common Lebanese folk to some degree or another – except with Hizballah, which I will get to in a moment.

    Going back to the elite counter-elite competition though, you could easily place Hizballah as a counter-elite. The traditionally powerful Shi’ite families are the Khalils the Asa’ads, the Hamades and many more. Hizballah has used its religious legitimacy and the endless amount of resources it gets from Iran to undercut the support that these families would otherwise have received from the Shi’a population. The alliance between General Aoun and Hizballah, when seen through this prism, is actually pretty natural. Aoun sees himself as a common man, and despises the traditional Christian elite (including the Maronite Patriarch, who he perceives as a rival). Ever since his return to Lebanon , for example, Aoun has called for an overhaul of the Lebanese political class.

    Where do I see my self in this particular battle? Well, despite his political choices, alliances (at the local and regional levels), and his obvious flaws, I have always had a soft spot for Gen. Aoun. As for Hizballah, I acknowledge their skills and organizational capacity, however, I cannot but stand against them because of their vision.
    .
  4. A conflict between two solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict

    The first option is a diplomatic track suggested by the Saudis where the Israelis would get full recognition by all Arab states in exchange for returning to the 1967 borders. The second track is what I would call the Tehran track… which essentially implies that there will never be peace unless an agreement involves, and is approved by, Tehran . I have personal doubts regarding the rational capacities of Israel ’s leadership. However, their withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, and Gaza just this past year, at least indicates their awareness of the futility of imposing their will militarily.

    Some would argue that these withdrawals as well as the construction of the wall on the West Bank merely conveys that Israel is no longer interested in negotiations, but rather is creating a situation on the ground that it could live with indefinitely. If such were the case, these people argue, then the military activities of Hizballah and the Palestinians would be justifiable because it prevents the Israelis from imposing a settlement as opposed to negotiating a mutually agreeable one.

    You see what’s happening here, don’t you? Each side is preparing for the next round of negotiations by doing their utmost to weaken the other in order to secure a stronger position at the table. The Iranians are basically saying, if you leave it to us, we’ll ensure that the Palestinians get a better deal! REALLY? How much of a better deal? And at what price? Will the “better deal” be worth everything the Palestinians and their neighbor to the North are paying? I doubt it. And all that is happening here is a prolonging of the conflict and a trend towards escalation that may lead us to Armageddon.

    No, in this case, I am with the Saudis.

19 comments:

Lirun said...

Shalom Raja

you dont have to apologise.. we both love our respective countries and we both defend their interests in our own ways.. the world is listening.. this time norway http://www.nytid.no/?sk=7&id=3640

a venezuelan publication was the last that mentioned both our blogs -if im not wrong

we can make a difference and i believe in fact that we and our co-bloggers are..

peace to us all

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

imposing a settlement as opposed to negotiating a mutually agreeable one

Given the explicitly and avowedly genocidal goals of both Hezballah and Hamas, there's considerable question whether such a thing as a mutually-agreeable settlement between them and Israel isn't merely a diplomatic chimera. Not to mention I've yet to see the Palestinians live up to their end of a single negotiated settlement.

I disagree with your view that Israel's pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza are indications that they feel unable to impose their will militarily. Gaza is being handled as militarily as ever -- in fact, more so. While it was true of the Lebanon pullout at the time, the actions of Hezballah (and inactions of Lebanon) over the past six years have disabused them of that notion. The utter futility of diplomacy has been illustrated for them in no uncertain terms. As soon as Israel complied with its obligations under 1559, for example, the rest of it was forgotten. The sad fact is the only way Israel gets anywhere is by kicking the sh*t out of somebody, so those within boot range would be best advised to pull in their horns and start working on ensuring actual results from the non-kicking method.

Terry Crane said...

Just to make sure. The Saudi solution presumes surrender of land and withdrawal of troops in return to the promise of peace. Hear comes the true question: do you, and I mean personally you, think that Israelis should believe this promise? That it would be held better, then Arafat promise to Israel?

If you were an Izraeli, with all you know about the history, would YOU trust the promise?

The Saudi "deal" will not stop them from supplying Katjushas to Arab "resistance" 10 miles form Tel-Aviv. It would be the same Hezbollah story.

The solution that can work is the surrender of all post-1967 territorries in exchange for recognition, peace, and 99-year lease on all territories critical for Israeli security.

Think of that: you give signed promise of peace, you receive signed legally-binding promise of territory.

The Saudi deal is about real surrender in return to a promise - a promise from the side (or sides) that so far denied any responsibility for Hezbollah actions, Hamas suicide bombing campaing etc.

R said...

I certainly do not claim to completely understand the history of the Israeli/Palestinian struggle after the Oslo agreement. I am going to go further to doubt that anybody does. Every single event of that era (post Oslo) has different and often opposite interpretations depending on whose version you are listening to.

That said, I want to talk about something more important than the past: the present. I am going to agree that Hamas is not a partner for peace. Their ideology and MO certainly do not indicate that and therefore they and their likes have a responsibility to bear for the sorry state that the region is in.

Now, lets turn to how the Israelis handled this situation. How do you deal with a fundamentalist organization? I guess that there are two philosophies. One preaches that you cannot negotiate or compromise with such a group and therefore must deal with them with the utmost of ruthlesness and destroy them before they grow too strong. To nullify the threats that stem from such groups, it is a must to disengage. Close borders, build walls, destroy the homes of families of suicide bombers and so on. If the result is going to be increasing the fertility of the soil that grows the weed that is fundamentalism, then so be it. We have to protect ourselves. We have seen the effects of such a strategy...

But there is another theory, one that has not been explored yet. How about if the world, and the surrounding arab countries, pump the necessary cash, build the necessary schools and provide the necessary jobs so that the Palestinians do not turn to suicidal tendencies that are usually an indication of desperation. How about if we alleviate this desperation by taking care of palestian kids so that they have the ambition to grow into philosophers, scientists, businessmen, doctors and engineers as opposed to would-be martyrs.

Israel is by far the stronger of the two sides. It has the luxury of deciding on seemingly sanitized military action against the palestinians. On the other hand, the palestinians are weak, they are poor, desperate. They live in city sized prisons and have lost the will to live. Some of them have decided to embrace a culture of death, simply because life has lost its appeal. But that is not the danger. The danger is that they are able to justify their actions to their population. Improve the life of the population and the actions of Hamas will be unjustifiable to their people.

Maybe its worth a shot.

Richard said...

"No, in this case, I am with the Saudis"

As am I. I write coming fr. a diff. perspective as I am an American Jew who writes a blog about Israeli-Arab peace.

With you, I see the only solution as a return to 1967 borders in return for Arab recognition of Israel. That means a return of the Golan to Syria & a return of Shebaa to whichever nation finally gains the right to call it theirs.

Militarily, neither side can destroy the other. Through negoation, all sides can get enough of what they need to find a way to resolve the conflict.

In thinking about yr "culture of resistance" phrase--it brings to mind how Hezbollah and Israel are in so many ways mirrors of ea. other. Israel too has a culture of resistance of sorts. It is essentially a security driven state obssessed with terrorism & threats to its existence. The only sure way it has found to ensure its existence appears to be endless bloodshed & conflict. This means that the IDF & the security mentality (for a U.S. example read the statements of Dick Cheney or George Bush on international terrorism) thrive while peaceful negotiation as a policy option dies aborning.

Let us hope that the Saudi vision prevails on both sides of this conflict.

Lirun said...

hahaha

nice theory

was thinking the same about my friend's sisters baked goods.. but i dar esay bar refaeli would probably make more of an impact..

i think you dont need a vision for peace.. i think you need a desire..

peace is different to war.. because in war you need to strategise your actions to minimise loss whereas in peace you need to maximise your goodwill so create fertile grounds for limitless synergies..

its is such a different approach..

is one always expected to have a detailed vision for every good relationship? i certainly hope not..

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

M. Simon said...

The Israelis have not decided against the military option.

It just will not include occupation.

Just the destruction of bridges, roads, power plants, and housing. Killing is not the main priority. Economic ruin is.

They did it to Lebanon. They are doing it to Gaza.

So you have a choice. Economic ruin or peace.

An early surrender gains better terms.

R said...

dimitry,

I am afraid I am not wrong on that point. I insisted in the beginning that the history of the period between Oslo and the Wall is heavily contested.
But fine, lets say that philosophy number 2 fails. Obviously philosophy number 1 is worse for everyone. M Simon talks of unconditional surrender. How do you justify that to the palestinian people? How did that backfire between WWI and WWII ? National arrogance will lead to hate. Isn't that all too clear ?

Hyderabadi guy said...

INDIAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT ASADUDDIN OWAISI MEEETS HIZBULLAH LEADERS IN LEBANON

HYDERABAD LOK SABHA MP ASADUDDIN OWAISI IS THE FIRST INDIAN DIPLOMAT TO VISIT LEBANON AFTER THE WAR ACCORDING TO THE ETEMAAD URDU DAILY AND DECCANNEWS AND ISLAMIC NEWS OF SYRIA MR ASADUDDIN IS ON A PRIVATE VISIT TO LEBANON AND SYRIA AND NOT REPRESENTING THE UPA GOVERNMENT OVER THERE IT IS SAID TO BE A GOODWILL VISIT AND TO SHOW SUPPORT OF INDIAN MUSLIMS IN THE WAKE OF DEATH AND MASSIVE DESTRUCTION OVER THERE ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS MR OWAISI FLEW FROM DELHI TO DAMASCUAS CAPITAL OF SYRIA AND WAS THERE FOR 3 DAYS AND EVEN VISITED ISLAMIC HOLY SHRINES AND EVEN VISITED THE GRAND UMMAYD MOSQUE AND AFTER THAT HE WENT TO BEIRUT AND ON HIS STAY THERE HE VISITED THE SOUTHEREN PART OF BEIRUT CITY WHICH WAS THE MOST BOMBED AREA IN BEIRUT WHICH WAS REPETADELY STUCK BY ISRAELI WARPLANES AND FROM THERE HE ALONG WITH VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL AND AID ACTVISTS HE WENT TO QANA AND VISITED THE PLACE WHERE A BUILDING WAS COLLAPSED AFTER A ISRAELI AIRSTRIKE IN WHICH 57 CIVILLANNS WERE KILLED AND MR OWAISI HAS EVEN VISITED THE PORT CITY OF TYRE WHICH WAS DESERTED AT THE TIME OF WAR AND BINT JEBIL AN AREA IN SOUTHERN LEBANON WHICH WAS THE MAIN BATTLEFRONT BETWEEN HEZBOLLAH FIGHTERS AND ISRAELI ARMY AND IS SAID THAT THE WHOLE VILLAGES IN THAT AREA HAVE BEEN DEVASTED BY THE FIGHTING WHICH LASTED FOR 34 DAYS AND ON HIS VISIT TO BEIRUT THE HYDERABAD MP GAVE AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW TO THE HEZBOLLAHS RUN TV AL MANAR AND IS SAID THAT HE HAS CAME TO LEBANON TO SHOW HIS SOLADIRTY WITH THE LEBANESE PEOPLE AND SAID HOW INDIAN PARLIAMENT HAS CONDMENNED THE WAR IN LEBANON AND HAS OFFERED AID WORTH 15 CRORES DOLLARS TO LEBANON HE EVEN MET WITH MANY CIVILLANS AND OLD AGE WOMEN WHOSE SONS WERE KILLED WHILE FIGHTING THE ISRAELI ARMY MR OWAISI WILL STAY IN LEBANON AND MEET LEBABNESE MPS AND EVEN WILL VISIT INDIAN EMBASSY IN BEIRUT AND MEET INDIAN EMBASSY STAFF AND AMBASSADOR .THERE ARE SOME REPORTS SUGGESTED BY ISLAMIC WEBSITE THAT HE EVEN MET HEZBOLLAH LEADERS WHILE HIS STAY IN BEIRUT REPORTS SUGGEST HE MET HIZBULLAH COMMANDER IN SOUTH HASAN HUBALLAH IN A SECRET LOCATION AND WHILE COMING OUT OF THERE WAS SURROUNDED BY HIZBULLAH GUNMEN HE EVEN MET HIZBULLAH CHAIRMAN FOR ECONOMIC AND RESARCH DEVELOPMENT DR ALI DIAD AND WITH THE TYRE CITY MAYOR AND EVEN MET WITH VARIOUS OTHER LEBANESE POLTICAL LEADERS AND MPS OF VARIOUS PARTYS SPEAKING OUTSIDE LEBANESE PARLIAMENT AFTER COMING OUT MEETING WITH LEBANESE PARLIAMENT SPEAKER NABIL BERRI THE MAJLIS PARTY LEADER OF HYDERABAD SAID ISRAEL HAS COMMITTED ACTS OF STATE TERRRORISM BY TARGETING INNOCENT CIVILLANS AND DESTROYING ITS INFRASTRUCTURE WORTH BILLIONS AND THIS WILL OR NOT DAMAGE THE HIZBULLAH AND THE LEBANESE PEOPLES WILL TO FIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL OCCUPATION .

debate said...

http://blacksmithsoflebanon.blogspot.com/2006/09/urgent-urgent-coup-plot-is-being.html

R said...

dmitry,

Look its not about contesting all I wish or not, its about a conflict that has outlived any other in recent history. I just want all the bs to end. The palestinians are pissed off, and the israelis are pissed off. Some crazy fanatic from the former goes and bombs some tourist destination or bus in israel, and Israel retaliates by bombing the shit out of some area in Gaza or the west bank and suffocating the economies of those regions. Consequently more people on both sides get pissed off, and more violence ensues.
Look, I am not claiming to have a solution, but I am neither blind nor stupid to think that the approach being tried now are gonna ever work.
As for the references you made to points I didn't answer, I will be happy to if you reiterate them. Also if you clarify your point about the other WWII mistakes, I will gladly answer. Our objective here should not be to "win" a debate, as the objective in the middle east should not be to "win", but to achieve a fair, viable, and lasting peace with the least amount of violence possible.

M. Simon said...

The time to go back to the '67 borders was '68.

Gaza is a done deal. Nothing can be done about the west bank for at least 5 or 10 years. Assuming the attacks from Gaza stop tomorrow. You know, for some strange reason the Israelis don't trust the Palestinians. Or the Lebanese or Hizballah, or the Egyptians or the Jordanians or the Saudis or ? The Arabs are always clinging to the last deal well after its expiration date due to weakened Arab bargaining position.

If they were really smart they would ask Israel what was on offer and take it. Had they done that in '68 they would be way ahead of where they are now.

The Golan? Not a chance.

M. Simon said...

r,

Do you know what Palestinians teach their children about Jews? About becoming martyrs?

And you think there can be any kind of peace with that going on? I'm reminded of the song from South Pacific about hate. You know the bit "you must be carefully taught".

There seem to be a lot of folks preaching hate. Then there arises a counter hatred.

The Vigilantes Arrive

It won't stop until we have had our fill.

Lirun said...

i miss the bubbly momentum this blog used to have..

it was fun and fascinating..

Snow said...

Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people
General Assembly resolution 3236 (XXIX)

"the right to self-determination without external interference; the right to national independence and sovereignty; the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they had been displaced and uprooted"

I'm sorry if I make people sad, but besides non jews, if one make that as a case -- there are Jews themselves protesting against Zionism. Many Jews, some Israelis too, are against zionism. I think people should understand that the issue is not racism against Israelis. but it is the illegal occupation. the Israeli siege is illegal under international law, & it is actually, the palestinians, who are living under brutal occupation. Israelis have a declared state, the mightiest military maybe. but the palestinians have none of Israeli blessings.

Their democratic government is denied, even officials captured. strikes & siege is on-going. Aid is barred. video They have the right to exist, will Israel say that to them too.

honestly, it's weird why people even fight. if one knows that your plastic pen probably exist longer than your own bodily existence, one will be more worried with something more important. I seek refuge in Allah from errors. I hope God guides me. Also I seek forgiveness if I hurt anybody.

again, may God bring truth. God Bless.

turtlecurls said...

Hi, its' my first time commenting here.

There is a third solution to the PA problem and it comes out of a similiar situation in erie ways. I'd like to hear what's thought of it...

Post WWII, the U.S. & world fixed the problem of Nazism & the Japanese. The problem was a country of people who had bought into a miltary solution of aggression & expansion to solve their humiliation & poverty from WWI. (A simplified summary of it all.)

First, in secret, the US killed the worst, those trained in the SS that were dehumanized completely by brainwashing. Then they took over the area, and educated, while buiding up the area. They didn't just send in money to the local government. That's much of what we did with the Palestinians and the result was a very rich Arafat & chronies. My going in personally, & militarily & essentially recreating a culture through take over, we transformed the brainwashed into a people again. And those who in Germany were already on the side of peace & hiding from Nazism got to come out from under the cover. Exactly the same thing was done in Japan with their sense of superiority & need to take over the world.

The approach kind of combines military which allows for the other part, cultural re-creation. I don't know how this could be implemented in the terroritories. But it seems like one tried & worked solution. It just has such a ring of reducing freedoms especially of thought in order to teach ideas of freedom that it's scary. However I'd rather try it first than wait until enough hate-based extremists have gathered strength together that it's post WWIII.

The Palestinians, AS lead by Arafat, have been problems in Jordan, Lebanon & Israel, so it doesn't seem a simple solution of give them something good to live for will work. Most bombers aren't poor. Those in Israel who support these views have lived with freedoms & opportunities, so it's more than that which needs to be addressed. There's been an ongoing choice to stay in the crisis by the Palestinian leadership.

turtlecurls said...

Sherri,
Please research the Deir Yassin story a little further. You'll find the www.deiryassin.org version is accepted generally.

In general, I've found anything that makes my heart pound & it sound like Israel did terrible things, when researched much further, turns out to be propoganda. By researched further, I mean more than reading Israeli views, but also reading Arab views & writing from those of other nationalities. In the end, a much milder version is always the one that "hangs together" the best, sounding the most pausible, & possible.

In general, truth rarely gives you that instant heart-pounding feeling that strong emotions do, such as hate-based messages. Even the twin towers here took several hours for the emotions to set in & it wasn't heart-pounding, it was just nausea (& sadness & helplessness, at least amoungst those I spoke with).

turtlecurls said...

Big ops, I meant to say:
You'll find the www.deiryassin.org version is NOT (at all) accepted generally.

turtlecurls said...

I posted after the discussion had really ended, but in case someone comes by, I'd better clarify -- that I am not advocating killing Palestinians who's views we deem extreme. I was only noting it as a first action used in another situation.