LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteActually the Lebanese public gave the leaving Syrian Army a standing ovation too, for their "good" service. My guess is, they both don't want the US to look like the hero in all this, so they're going to try and make it their show.
Pro-Syrian Lebanese Premier Reappointed
36 minutes ago Middle East - AP
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Lebanon's president reappointed Omar Karami as the nation's prime minister on Thursday, 10 days after the staunchly pro-Syrian Karami stepped down amid street protests and international pressure.
Karami immediately called for a national unity government, which he invited the opposition to join.
"The difficulties we all know cannot be confronted without a government of national unity and salvation," he said.
The decision by pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud came after legislators, ignoring weeks of popular anti-government protests, advised the president to rename Karami. He was virtually assured nomination after 71 of 78 legislators put forward his name, more than half of the votes required in the 128-member legislature.
Under the constitution, the president is obliged to comply with the choice of the majority of legislators.
Karami will have the difficult task of forming the next government after consulting with parliamentary blocs. He and the pro-Syrian camp have been calling for a national unity government but opposition politicians have said that was a trap to bring opposition members into Cabinet without giving them any say in policy making. The opposition wants a neutral government.
The opposition has criticized Karami's reappointment.
The pro-Syrian parliament members apparently were emboldened in their choice by a thundering protest in Beirut on Tuesday that showed loyalty to Syria, countering weeks of anti-government and anti-Syrian demonstrations.
Bringing Karami back ensures Damascus' continued dominance. Syria is keen to keep its hold on Lebanese decision-making as it pulls its forces back to the Bekaa Valley and negotiates with the government in Beirut on the troops' full removal at a later date.
Opposition member Samir Franjieh on Wednesday described a reappointment of Karami as an escalation by the government aimed at scuttling any attempts at dialogue.
"It is a step that greatly challenges the opposition and the people's feelings," said Franjieh. He did not say how the opposition plans to react.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../lebanon_syria
"They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."
Protester
Actually the Lebanese public gave the leaving Syrian Army a standing ovation too, for their "good" service. My guess is, they both don't want the US to look like the hero in all this, so they're going to try and make it their show.
In any state with government controlled media you see about a third of the population believes whatever the state tells them. We see this universally when former totalitarian states collapse. If you assume in general a third of the people anywhere will support such governments it doesn't surprise me that in Lebanon large crowds can be generated by the people who control the media and citizens in their areas. Like all those parades in Havanna I am willing to bet most are there playing a role while a third really believe the crap they say.
We should not assume everyone supports "liberation" and "freedom" but we should also not assume any anti-democracy rallies really represent the people either. If you live in a Hezbollah controlled area and your livlihood depends on their business or benevolence attending a rally, waving a flag, and chanting when asked is a smart thing to do. When you can't openly express your true thoughts many may come to the conclusion most people agree with the way things are.
I think that Lebanon is as divided politically as it is religiously. It is very nearly impossible to govern such a country over the long term when each of the factions view violence as an acceptable resort, and with each side possessing considerable popular support it would appear that another civil war is in the offing.
No county is appreciative of a 'foreign driven' revolution.
The Cedar Revolution had the trappings of a foreign inspired one.
The media is always govt inspired in all countries. Note, I have not stated controlled. Yet, I wonder how far were either of the demonstrations inspired by the media. It obviously can't be that the same 'state controlled' media inspiring both the demonstrations.
The average man has no time for politics. He is inspired to act only when his beliefs and daily norms are affected.
As the Cedar Revolution was inspired by vested interests, so was the Hezbollah one. The only issue is that the Hezbollah one was way more massive in strength than the Cedar Revolution one.
My take on the situation in Lebanon is that it is not that easy an explanation as is believed.
The reason is not that it was State inspired or media inspired. The reason which is more plausible is that Lebanon had relative peace post the civil war. Therefore, with the Druze, Maronite Christians and Sunnis coming out in strength in support of the Cedar Revolution, there came a great whiff of returning to the civil war days. Hence, a bigger demonstration to negate the Cedar demonstration to ensure status quo remains. It had others in the demonstration than just Shias.
The Shias having tasted victory in Iraq and with Iran sabre rattling and having a stand off with the US, it has given a new life to the Shias who have been subjugated historically by the Sunnis. They wanted to demonstrate this new found 'courage'.
It is a matter of time to see if this was merely Dutch Courage.
Even the demonstrations in Havana in support of Castro need not be state inspired. It is not that they don't support Castro. Obviously, they do. Had it been otherwise, given the encouragement for the Cubans to revolt in form of military and financial support, they should have. Had there been dissensions, then there would have been some riots and some police killings. I am sure the media would have highlight his with equal fervour as the Cedar Revolution. This has not been the case.
It is all politics and less of actual ground discontent, everywhere in the world.
Last edited by Ray; 11 Mar 05, at 04:57.
Forget about the Lebanese making up their mind. The article written by an Israeli in Outlook India confuses me more. I can't make up mind!
The wrong guys calling up the wrong chaps for help.
So confusing.
Christians want Syrian help and Shias want Isreali help! That is, if I have understood correctly. Remember, I am confused!
The Next Crusades
URI AVNRY
Many years ago, I read a book called The Quiet American by Graham Greene. Its central character is a high-minded, naive young American operative in Vietnam. He has no idea about the complexities of that country but is determined to right its wrongs and create order. The results are disastrous.
I have the feeling that this is happening now in Lebanon. The Americans are not so high-minded and no so naive. Far from it. But they are quite prepared to go into a foreign country, disregard its complexities, and use force to impose on it order, democracy and freedom.
Civil war: Lebanon. Lebanon is a country with a peculiar topography: a small country of high mountain ranges and isolated valleys. As a result, it has attracted throughout the centuries communities of persecuted minorities, who found refuge there. Today there are, side by side and one against the other, four ethno-religious communities: Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druse. Within the Christian community, there are several sub-communities, such as Maronites and other ancient sects, mostly hostile to each other. The history of Lebanon abounds in mutual massacres.
Such a situation invites, of course, interference by neighbors and foreign powers, each wanting to stir the pot for its own advantage. Syria, Israel, the United States and France, the former colonial master, are all involved.
Exactly 50 years ago a secret, heated debate took place among the leaders of Israel. David Ben-Gurion (then Minister of Defense) and Moshe Dayan (the army Chief-of-Staff) had a brilliant idea: to invade Lebanon, impose on it a "Christian major" as dictator and turn it into an Israeli protectorate. Moshe Sharett, the then Prime Minister, attacked this idea fervently. In a lengthy, closely argued letter, which has been preserved for history, he ridiculed the total ignorance of the proponents of this idea in face of the incredibly fragile complexity of the Lebanese social structure. Any adventure, he warned, would end in disaster.
At the time, Sharett won. But 27 years later, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon did exactly what Ben-Gurion and Dayan had proposed. The result was exactly as foreseen by Sharett.
Anyone who follows the American and Israeli (there is no difference) media, gets the impression that the present situation in Lebanon is simple: there are two camps, "the supporters of Syria" on the one side, the "opposition" on the other. There is a "Beirut Spring". The opposition is a twin sister of yesterday's Ukrainian opposition, and loyally imitates all its methods: demonstrations opposite the government building, a sea of waving flags, colorful shawls, and, most importantly, beautiful girls in the front row.
But between the Ukraine and Lebanon there exists not the slightest similarity. The Ukraine is a "simple" country: the east tends towards Russia, the west towards Europe. With American help, the west won.
In Lebanon, all the diverse communities are in action. Each for its own interest, each plotting to outfox the others, perhaps to attack them at a given opportunity. Some of the leaders are connected with Syria, some with Israel, all are trying to use the Americans for their ends. The jolly pictures of young demonstrators, so prominent in the media, have no meaning if one does not know the community which stands behind them.
Only thirty years ago these communities started a terrible civil war and all of them massacred each other. The Christian Maronites wanted to take over the country with the help of Israel, but were defeated by a coalition of the Sunnis and Druze (the Shiites played no significant role at that time). The Palestinian refugees, led by the PLO, who formed a kind of fifth "community", joined the battle. When the Christians were in danger of being overrun, they called on the Syrians for help.
Six years later, Israel invaded, with the aim of evicting both the Syrians and the Palestinians and imposing a Christian strongman (Basheer Jumail).
It took us 18 years to get out of that morass. Our only achievement was to turn the Shiites into a dominant force. When we entered Lebanon, the Shiites received us with showers of rice and candies, hoping that we would throw out the Palestinians, who had been lording it over them. A few months later, when they realized that we did not intend to leave, they started to shoot at us. Sharon is the midwife of Hizbullah.
It is difficult to foresee what will happen if the Syrians accede to the American ultimatum and leave Lebanon. There is no indication that the Americans are concerned with the creation of a new fabric of life for the Lebanese communities. They are satisfied with babbling about "freedom" and "democracy", as if a majority vote could create a regime acceptable to all. They do not understand that "Lebanon" is an abstract notion, since for almost all Lebanese, belonging to their own community is vastly more important than loyalty to the state. In such a situation, even an international force will be of no help.
The re-ignition of the bloody civil war is a distinct possibility.
Civil war: Iraq. If a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, it will not be the only one in the region. In Iraq, such a war if almost secret - is already in full swing.
The only effective military forces in Iraq, apart from the occupation army, are the Kurdish "Peshmerga" ("Those who face death"). The Americans use them whenever they are fighting the Sunnis. They played an important role in the battle of Faluja, a big town that was totally destroyed, its inhabitants killed or driven out.
Now the Kurdish forces are waging a war against the Sunnis and Turkmens in the north of the country, in order to take hold of the oil-rich areas and the town of Kirkuk, and also to drive out the Sunni settlers who were implanted there by Saddam Hussein.
How can such a war be practically ignored by the media? Simple: everything is swept under the carpet of the "war against terrorism".
But this small war is nothing compared to what may happen in Iraq, once the time comes for deciding the future of the country. The Kurds want complete autonomy, or independence by another name. The Sunni would not dream of accepting the rule of the Shiite majority, which they despise, even if came about in the name of "democracy". The outbreak of a full-fledged civil war may only be a question of time.
Civil war: Syria. If the Americans succeed, with Israel's discreet help, in breaking the ruling Syrian dictatorship, there is no assurance at all that it will be replaced by "freedom" and "democracy".
Syria is almost as splintered as Lebanon. There is a strong Druze community in the south, a rebellious Kurdish community in the north, an Alawite community (to which the Assad family belongs) in the west. The Sunni majority is traditionally divided between Damascus in the south and Aleppo in the north. The people have resigned themselves to the Assad dictatorship out of fear of what may happen if the regime collapses.
It is not likely that a full-scale civil war will break out there. But a prolonged situation of total chaos is quite likely. Sharon would be happy, though I am not sure that it would be good for Israel.
Religious fervor: Iran. The main American objective is, of course, the overthrow of the Ayatollahs in Iran. (It is a little bit ironic that at the same time the Americans are helping to install the Shiites in power in neighboring Iraq, where they insist on introducing Islamic law.)
Iran is a much harder nut to crack. Unlike to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, this is a homogenous society.
Israel is now openly threatening to bomb the Iranian nuclear installations. Every few days we see on our TV screens the digitally blurred faces of pilots boasting of their readiness to do this at a moment's notice.
The religious fervor of the Ayatollahs has been flagging lately, as happens with every victorious revolution after some time. But a military attack by the "Big Satan" (the US) or the "Little Satan" (us) may set fire to the whole Shiite crescent: Iran, South Iraq and South Lebanon.
And here, too. Israel, too, has recently witnessed a tiny civil war.
In the Galilean village Marrar, where a Druze and an Arab Christian community have been living side by side for generations, a bloody incident suddenly erupted. It was a full-fledged pogrom: the Druze fell upon the Christians, attacking, burning and destroying. By a miracle, nobody was killed. The Christians say that the Israeli police (many of whose members are Druze) stood aside. The immediate reason for the outbreak: some doctored nude pictures on the Internet.)
It is easy to ignite a civil war, whether out of fanaticism or out of intolerable naivete. George Bush, the (not-so-) Quiet American, runs around the world hawking his patent medicines, "freedom" and "democracy", in total ignorance of hundreds of years of history. Hard to believe, but he draws his inspiration from a book by our own Nathan Sharansky, a very small genius, to say the least.
Every human being and every people has a right to freedom. Many of us have shed their blood for this aim. Democracy is an ideal that every people has to realize for itself. But when the banners of "freedom" and "democracy" are hoisted over a crusade by an avaricious and irresponsible super-power, the results can be catastrophic.
Last edited by Ray; 11 Mar 05, at 07:10.
So in reality the Syrians have been providing the glue that has held the Lebanon in peace, a sort of 'Mexican standoff' where nobody has been willing to make a power play, much the way the Soviets did in Yugoslavia. With their removal the country simply degenerates back to 'clan' warfare.
That's wishful thinking but almost all Arabs are convinced, that the US will in the end screw them over. Not the poor illiterate ones only. I used to have several political debates with fellow programmers at this training center here. Egyptians, Iranians, Syrians, Yemenis, etc. Worst thing was, they were all working for Microsoft, Oracle, Novell :D and getting big fat salaries.Originally Posted by antelope
You see thats the thing. They like the money, they like the freedom, but hate it all at the expense of losing their identity, to be colonoized, etc. Religion has little to do with it.
If they're free, they'll never have to make up their minds...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
So when are you guys coming to the Emirates?
I wish I had the time and money to go everywhere, at least once. Maybe someday...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Asim, can you tell me what this means?
Aankh say tapka jo ab yeh lahooo
Zakham bharnay laga
Sar-ba-sajood hoon uss ke hazoor
Gunah dhalnay lagay
Darguzar aaj us maan nay kiya
Faslay simatnay lagay
Wahdahoo! Uss kee kokh say hoon
Aik hee nabz, Aik wajood
Just really really curious, and you know what they say about curiousity!
It's amazing. Huge crowds of pro-Syria Lebanese march in support of...realistically, Syria. The al-Assads are among the more notoriously brutal regimes in the Middle East. They've (father and, now, son) murdered thousands of their own citizens to maintain an iron grip on their country--to say nothing of those murdered in foreign countries because of direct military action or through the support of terrorist attacks. And into the equation add torture and wrongful imprisonment.
Despite all of this, you have a sizeable portion of the Lebanese population who would rather support Assad and, in effect, his way of doing things--instead of opting for a path towards greater freedom and perhaps greater justice in their society.
How idiotic is that?
Granted, I'm certain there are a great many political, cultural, and religious issues at play. But still, if you ever want to be regarded as a civilized person (and society), you have to be able to reject barbarism uncategorically as evil.
And now look at the opposition...crumbled.
This is why we need to steer clear of the Middle East as much as possible. Let them sort this garbage out. They obviously need to do some individual/cultural growing up. And, like freedom, you can't give people maturity or wisdom. It, like freedom, has to be earned.
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."
--Sir Isaac Newton
An interesting statement that could be more applicable to Saudi Arabia.The al-Assads are among the more notoriously brutal regimes in the Middle East.
If indeed there is a huge groundswell of popular demonstration for Syria, then the statement is rather difficult to understand as also there would not have been any barbarism or uncultured behaviour at play.
In so far as religion is concerned, Lebanon defies the stereotyping since the Christians wanted the Syrians, while the Shias initially welcomed the Israelis!
I am not too sure that Freedom prompts the US attention in the Middle East.
No country would spend its fortune and have its soldiers die for such abstract idea as Freedom and Democracy.
In fact, Freedom and Democracy is so immaculate a concept, that none can claim that they emulate the same without flaw!
Last edited by Ray; 13 Mar 05, at 08:24.
That last sentence you wrote...you sure you don't want to re-analyze, and edit that post in light of recent events, bubba?
I'd say they ARE earning it. If your position is that our helping them invalidates whatever they're doing to bring themselves along, I suppose that the USA should go ahead and rejoin the British, then delare independence AGAIN, and this time fight our war without French help (you know, so that we've really EARNED it this time).
Steer clear of the Middle East? That's what got us here in the first place: a neglectful and amoral policy of dealing with corrupt regimes that oppressed their own peoples. Look what it got us.
You're wrong. We've got no choice but to carry on, and I am amazed that anybody would council differently, as we can watch events unfolding so rapidly before our eyes. If this were some vague promise of fruit borne later out of the nebulous guidance built on mere hope and wishes, then intelligent people of good will could debate whether we're doing the Right Thing.
But we can SEE it. Can you not perceive what is so obvious? Would you REALLY un-do everything that has been accomplished? At this time of day, you would abandon those peoples that have stuck their necks all the way out on the faith that we WILL NOT leave them in the lurch to face whatever is to be done to them?
Look back on the 'Seventies. There used to be a phrase that diplomats - allied and enemy - used to make policy by: "It is dangerous to be America's enemy; it is FATAL to be their friend." As we ran out on one ally after another, and Soviet power everywhere around the world was nascent, we were in a time of global retreat. We are paying for it even now.
And when Bush I did not fulfill his promise to support the Iraqi people's popular uprising after Operation: DESERT STORM, it made what we're doing RIGHT NOW extremely risky indeed. Because when we told the Iraqis we intended to stick it out and stand by them THIS time, few believed us, and we couldn't get any help in fighting the insurgency. Why should they? If they informed on the Bad Guys, they and their families would be killed, and for WHAT? Nothing, because we weren't going to honor our commitments to them. It took our own election and theirs to convince them that this President MEANS WHAT HE SAYS.
And now you want out. You want to make the same mistake again, on a vastly bigger scale. Jesus.
And you claim that they show no wisdom, no maturity. Please tell me what you call it when the Shi'a refuse to take Zarqawi's bait, and they don't start killing Sunnis after every outrage that is committed against them? Zarqawi and the radical Sunnis tried every trick they could think of to get a civil war started; Iran and Syria did, too. And what do call an almost error-free election and a pledge by all participants to respect the results?
You give them no credit for what they've done, the courage they've shown and the patience they display EVERY DAM' DAY of their country's long ascent out of the hole that our past neglect has put them in.
Furthermore, you undervalue the Iraqi people themselves, and believe our sacrifice - which I admit is enormous - is not wisely given for people that just aren't worth it. Even if you're right (and I concede no such thing), it is in our interest to see this all the way through to a successful end, for our own interests.
When will that be? We'll know when we get there.
But we've GOT TO GET THERE, and you're pointing to the road that takes us in the wrong direction entirely.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: