I does appear that the Lebanonese are considering en masse a move toward an accepting democracy. This isn’t so hard to comprehend. Truth be told, human society can rarely sustain the kind of internal conflict necessary to continue such an external one. Only when the enemy is clearly defined can those sorts of wars be maintained, which is much harder when your “enemy” is the guy demonstrating with you.
Most of those political ties were based on cold, selfish logic, fell away because of cold, selfish logic, and are returning because of cold, selfish logic. Theyw ere never allies in the sense of actually being friends, but simply allies against a third party (the Soviet Union). And France was decidedly mixed in her opposition to the Soviet Union. And the reason for the alliance vanished. These kinds of alliances have no force except wen useful to all sides.
What “external” conflict are you talking about? The Lebanese are divided about everything, including whether they have any external enemies, and, if so, whether their principal external enemy is Israel or Syria.
Seeing as how the civil war went on til 1990 I’m not sure we can ascribe such unselfish motives to their occupation. And it’s been 15 years since then. Supposedly the main reason they are still there is to provide the Syrian leadership with a conduit to a functional economy (and thus the West) they can siphon money through.
How do the Syrians “siphon money” through Lebanon? To where, or from where, do they siphon it? And I haven’t heard Lebanon described as a “functional economy” since – well, I can’t remember when!
How? With militarily occupation and a puppet government, not a problem.
Where? To and from Swiss banks and other financial havens, I imagine, like other kleptocracies.
Functional compared to the Syrian economy of course. The pace of reconstruction in Lebanon since the end of the civial war was comparable to that in western Europe after WWII. That doesn’t happen without a robust economy (and there was no externally-financed Marshall Plan this time).
Some cites:
“We made many, many mistakes in Lebanon. Do you know how much a Lebanese car cost in Syria during the war? 2,500 Syrian pounds at the border. Imagine, 2,500 SYRIAN pounds! (The equivalent of 400 dollars.) And that was a Mercedes. Every officer stole what he wanted. That’s what happens in war. Syria was filled with Lebanese cars. And for every one of those cars, there is a Lebanese family who hates Syria.”
“It wasn’t just cars,” he added. “Soldiers filled trucks with kitchen tiles, faucets, perfume, bathtubs, you name it, and drove them back to Syria. It was easy for them. They had guns. Who was going to say no to them?” It is reported that Syria take out about $5.5 billion a year from Lebanon as an occupying force. Last but not least, Syria must end its occupation of Lebanon, and the Mafia-style milking of that country that has enriched Baathist big shots.
I was wondering why the Syrians have been so stubborn about hanging on to Lebanon (other than as a way to fuck over Israel, which should be enough by itself, in that political climate), and I guess that answers that.
Which raises the question: If the Lebanese occupation is really such a good deal for Syria (or at least, for the Syrian ruling elite), can we really expect them to give it up without a fight?
:dubious: The Syrians haven’t had to resort to “genocide” in Lebanon up to now, and I don’t see how recent events would make it their only option short of withdrawal.
I still don’t understand you. Are you saying the Syrians will leave Lebanon without a fight, because it’s now politically possible for them to stay? I don’t see how conditions on the ground support that conclusion. It might be problematic for them to stay, but not impossible. 40% of Lebanon’s population is Shi’ite, they support Hezbollah as their chief defense against Israel, and they fear if the Syrians leave, Hezbollah will be disarmed. So the Syrian occupation does have some real popular support, and anti-occupation Lebanese aren’t going to start physically attacking Syrian troops any time soon.
I mean they’ll leave, because to remain in Lebanon even though the majority of the country, doesn’t want your presense there, they’d have to declare war on the people of Lebanon to remain, which I see as not politically feasable or even remotely practical.
I think Hezbollah will make assurances they wouldn’t get hurt. Besides, what would the anti occupation Lebanese get out of persecuting the workers, it’d only damage their cause.
I was thinking less of “persecution” than of a nationalistic campaign to send them packing to Syria because they’re taking jobs Lebanese could do. Of course, that could never emerge so long as the Lebanese government is dominated by the Syrian.
So . . . what now? Can the Lebanese put aside their sectarian divisions and govern themselves? What will Hezbollah do? And what (if anything) will Israel do?
I think (and hope) there can be a distiction between Syrian soldiers and civilians. The main issue is that there is military occupation and no country wants that.
The secondary issue of ethnic and sectarian division is albiet a more complicated issue. Depending on who you ask, there is no ethnic difference between Syrians and Lebanese.
Lebanon was part of Syria and if you search on that claim you will find a much larger story.
Well, that’s sort of true, sort of false. Both Lebanon and Syria were part of the Ottoman Empire, and neither were entirely independent. But, there was a seperate province of Lebanon in the Ottoman Empire, consisting of Mt. Lebanon and the Bekka Valley. After a bunch of Christian-Druze fighting, the area was redrawn, and the provence of Lebanon was split up, the area around Mt. Lebanon given autonomy, and then the entire thing put under the authority of the Governor of Syria.
After the First World War, Lebanon and Syria were turned over to France under a League of Nations mandate. Syria was supposed to get independence, and Lebanon was supposed to be self governing under French control, with independence later. So, the French redrew the Lebanese/Syrian border, adding a bunch of former Syrian land (and ultimately causing most of Lebanon’s future sectarian problems, as the new borders put large Muslim populations into what was almost entirely Christian Lebanon.)
So, parts of Lebanon were once Syrian, and under the Ottomans, Lebanon was at one point part of the district of Syria, but independent Lebanon itself was never part of independent Syria.
What “external” conflict are you talking about? The Lebanese are divided about everything, including whether they have any external enemies, and, if so, whether their principal external enemy is Israel or Syria.