A similar statement could be made about the 13 colonies against England. It is too early to state categorically that they will be peaceful if Syria leaves. But by the same token, noting that deep differences exist says little. Until a leadership forms and works towards (or fails) at smoothing over those differences, no one can say how the process will go. It all depends, ultimately, on the will of the Joe Lebanon, and groups that size anbd varied are notoriously difficult to predict.
Still, others have pointed out that Lebanonese have a long history (well, long in sense of being a half-century old) with many reasons to dislike Syria, regardless of their affiliation. And an anti-Syrian identity could easily become the basis for something more.
Lebanon has existed since antiquity, though it only achieved independence in the last century. There is more to the issue of Syria and Lebanon than you might think.
Every country in the ME has existed since antiquity, in the sense of having been continuously inhabited by settled populations since neolithic times. But that is not the same as having a long history of national identity. No currently existing nation-state of the ME between Egypt and Iran existed as a state or as a self-conscious nation prior to WWI; some, such as Israel and Jordan, did not exist before WWII.
Seems to be a bone of contention here, how do they get to create a real sense of Nationalism like we in the West have? Seems to be the basis of a functional and secure state.
Seems to me that the Ottoman and Caliphate Empires forestalled the warfare necessary for the newly independent States. E.G tribalism, actually pretty much died out in Western Europe a thousand years ago, and then came the emergence of stable states without large scale internal (derivative from ethnic rivaly) problems. Something along those lines anyway.
Not parallel . . . the “Palestinian” national identity, which did not exist at all before 1948, was pulled out of nobody’s ass/hat; it was created by the experience of fighting against an alien and oppressing nation, Israel, and by systematic exclusion from the national communities of other Arab nations in which some sought refuge. And now it’s just as real as any other national identity – at least in the sense that Palestinians everywhere, including “diaspora” Palestinians who have never been to Palestine, now think of themselves as Palestinians first and foremost, and not as part of their host countries’ communities, nor as members of a larger Arab community, and certainly not as Israelis.
By the same token, you could say that modern Lebanese national identity has been formed, or is in the process of being formed, by opposition to Syria (and to Israel).
Let me assume for a moment that Israeli has not bent over backwards to accomodate those who want to destroy it, just for the sake of a peacful discussion. Even given my surrendering those points, I think the above still warrants a ::Vomit Smiley::
Don’t even start saying the UK is an artificial construct, the various states at least had some independence and then agreed to unify under the act of Union. Some states in the Middle East however, unified under force, or under pressure, like Iraq for example.
The process in Europe has been unification of ethnic people —> then to war with other nation states.
However, in the Middle East its taken a different turn:
its Enforced unification of people into an artificial state to benefit superpower ----> Independence ---------> large scale internal suppression due to lack of national unity --------> Only workable solution for short term stability = Totalitarianism.
:dubious: I never said all the wrong was on one side. Nevertheless, from the POV of the Palestinians, Israel is an alien and oppressing nation, and the Palestinians’ experience with it is the main reason such thing as a Palestinian national identity exists.* What part of that do you dispute?
*If Israel had never been created, my guess is, Arabs of Palestine today (Muslim and Christian alike) probably would self-identify as Syrians, or simply as Arabs.
Lebanon, Egypt and India have three things in common. They are among the oldest nations on earth, they were once under colonial control, and there is an interesting political movement which is being attempted in those nations.
There is something fundamentally different between the nations of Italy and Greece. Greece is an ancient nation. Italy is a modern nation. But why?
Why would Lebanon be considered an ancient nation?
Ancient nations compared to modern nations - what do you notice?
India compared to Pakistan and Bangladesh
Ireland and Scotland compared to the United Kingdom
India compared to Iraq, Syria, and Jordan
Mexico, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Greece compared to Australia, Canada, and the United States
The fact that it’s bull. Now, I don’t want to fight you on this, but personally, I could never get the hang of sociology.
Professor: “The people of Sometriboranother believe that pregnancy is caused by spirits of their ancestors. To them, it is the truth.”
Me: “I see.”
::Privately, to myself: “But it’s bull!”::
Back on to the subject, I remain unconvinced how much of the claim of ownership of “Palestine”, is believed by the “Palestinians.” That being said, I am sorry for derailing the topic.
You mean the UK?