Biden in Beirut

Let's hope for an honest election if there is such a thing...

Just as a side note, yesterday night at about 11pm, I was on my way to the liquor store not too far from Hamra street when I hear yelling coming from about 30 feet from where I was. Two men were yelling about "I am not allowing Shiite scum to win" on one side and "your government hasn't done anything to help us" from the other side. 20 seconds and a gunshot later (as I was hastily scampering away) a swarm of bystanders were carrying the injured away while the man ran away. Funny how in most countries, the sound of gunshots is enough to get any being with survival instincts dashing home, but here all we do is cluster around the scene of the (recent) crime. In any case I'm hiding away in my basement on election day with provisions for a week.

Very good article Andrew. I think the Lebanese found out in the aftermath of the 2006 war that the U.S' support is worth nothing. As you said, the U.S gave Israel the green light to attack Hizbollah and the U.S certainly did not restraint Israel from bombing civilians and Lebanon's infrastructure. Further, the U.S' military aid is a joke really. It would be VERY interesting to see what happens in Lebanon and in the region if Hizbollah wins the elections! What would Obama do? Would he engage in diplomatic talk with Nasrallah, or would he cut off U.S' aide to Lebanon completely? interesting...

Is Hizbollah going to send a team of terrorists to Pakistan to help the Taliban ??? After all, at last count 1,300 have been killed in less than three weeks......and who knows how many innocent civilians.

[...] from Angry_Arab and Abu_Muqawama.  The most comprehensively insightful analysis can be found here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Department of Unexpected Questions, please!I love [...]

Politics of new or same old foreign policy?
Hillary Clinton beseeches Iran to let Roxana Saberi when news breaks out that she has been on a dangerous hunger strike,
She is freed even after admitting HERSELF via her lawyer that she had contact with the CIA, possession of classified National Security documents which she copied to be distributed to unprivileged eyes, Israeli stamps in her passport, dual nationality, a vaguely foreign look as far as Persians go, and American citizenship (as well as being a former Miss North Dakota).
Then we see the pictures of her smiling. Does she look like she was on several danger hunger strikes? Oh and guess what, a movie she suddenly co-wrote (vis a vis her boyfriend, a director) won at Cannes!!! OH LA LA
....
How does this relate to Joe Biden in Lebanon posing for pictures prior to elections? Oh I dunno...I wonder who the people are gonna hate when the government he supports deals with them brutally?

You don't see Hezbollah supporters from other nations heading down to Lebanon to interfere in Lebanon internal affair, Biden visit just reinforce a notion that US care about democracy as long as outcomes are in her favor.

p.s., Roxana Saberi release due to successful campaign in part by mass media should encourage mass medias to keep the momentum going and free other fellow journalists, person bellow don't have access to any help and being held since last year without access to any kind of judicial facilities which Saberi fortunately had, I'm sure he's reciting national anthem as well as being pretty!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-journalist24-2009may24,0,2581320.story?track=rss

That's a thoroughly 'native' perspective by Mr Butters that misses a few trenchant points of history. While Hizbullah came into itself during Israel's prolonged stay in the south Lebanon, it was born before that as as a tool of Khomeneist Iran after the revolution. Iran's goals after the Shah has always been to extend its influence beyond its own borders and subvert the local power balances. Referring to the "green light" by the Bush administration for Israel's half-hearted invasion in 2006, I ask Mr Butters, who gave Hizbullah the 'green light' to abduct Israeli soldiers across an international border that started all this? And who but Shi'ites benefitted from the toppling of Saddam in Iraq, so why must he repeat the mantra that the Iraq undertaking 'inflamed' matters in Lebanon? As for "reassuring" the locals who still see Israel as a "threat"; lets get real. The last thing Israel wants, unless pressed, is to again intervene in Lebanon. Highlighting that Hizbullah, with its collaboration with Syria in the assassinations of Lebanese officials (recent news), its 'ethnic cleansing' of Christian villages in the south my means of coercion and cash is the greatest threat to a multi-religious, peaceful Lebanon. But I guess if he said this from his perch in Beirut, I doubt Mr Butters' stay would that comfortable.

What is interesting and was it completely missing from any analysis of Lebanon is the shifting of alliances. There was a time when Syrians backed the Sunnis against the Christians who were backed by the U.S. and Israel and the Shiites, who were receiving arms from the Israelis. Ironically, the biggest critic of the U.S. role was Wali Jimblat of the Druze community.

Fast forward about 25 or 30 years, the U.S. is supporting a moderate Sunni faction currently only the tenuous reins of power. The Shiites have radicalized turning towards Iran and clashing with Israel. The Syrians, who used to support the Sunnis has allied with Shiites, and the Christians have split into two factions, one supporting the Sunnis and one supporting Hizbollah.

Someone pointed out that Hizbollah instigated the Israeli invasion of 2006 by kidnapping some Israeli soldiers. This was precipated by the Israeli policy of trading hundreds of Hizbollah prisoners for a few bodies of Israeli soldiers and an Israeli drug dealer caught in Lebanon. All the while, Israel has been very reluctant to release Palestinian prisoners to President Abbas, who has done nothing but protect Israeli interests while he is being undermined by increasing Israeli settlement expansion.

Israel seems on teaching the Arab world that the only way to get anything from Israel is by use of forced to create a bargaining position. Israel sat on the Occupied territories for 20 years and it took the first Intifada to get them to seriously negotiate with the Palestinians. It took the second Intifada for then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak to make a fair offer for peace. Sharon withdrew from Gaza in a way that made Hamas look like the "victor" instead of negotiating with Abbas.

Is it any wonder that those who confront Israel look "potent" in the Arab world, while those who negotiate look weak and ineffective. What has Abbas to show for his talks with Israel? A prisoner here and there, but otherwise nothing!!

Negotiate with Abbas in return for what? It was Fatah's allied forces who initiated an endless series of attacks at the behest of Arafat despite all efforts to convince him otherwise. If as "fhmadvocat" posits that the release of hundreds of Hizbollah prisoners did nothing to placate them, the release of hundreds of Fatah loyalists as a goodwill gesture toward Arafat in the 90's had the same utterly meaningless effect on him or his successors. As far as Israel "sitting" on the territories, while I cannot find much to redeem the effort it is not as if the 2 decades that preceded the Six Day War was a period of golden calm; the world seems to care little for the fact that the Arabs were in full possession of the entire West Bank and Gaza, (with the former formally annexed to jordan) and no effort to establish a Palestinian state was ever contemplated all the while attacks from these territories were conducted on almost a daily basis.

So what is your argument Eddie? Israeli rule of the West Bank and Gaza is bad but the Arab rule was worse?

Everything must be taken in its context. Of Israel's neighbors, what do we have? Egypt has lived inder the misery of one-party kleptocrats since before the end of the English protecterate. It jails pro-democracy bloggers, discriminates against its sizeable Coptic Christian population, quashes industry with government controls and has driven droves, fed up with misrule, into the arms of Islamist radicals. Syria, as the NY Times once noted in a moment of rare lucidity, is governed less by a government than by an organized crime syndicate. It spent 30 years occupying Lebanon and still pulls the strings there, having busily assasinated many of the Lebanese leadership opposed to its continued meddling. Lebanon itself was borne of an idea that in the vast Muslim realm of the Middle East, one island of Christian self-rule should endure. This idea was efficiently smothered. Saudi Arabia, to the southeast of Israel, is the epitomy of mysogyny and hatred of all non-believers, spreading its venom far and wide. Jordan, perhaps the "least worst" of the lot is paradoxically ruled by a monarch whose forbears hailed from elsewhere (Arabia) and were given the sparsely peopled desert as a consolation prize. Israel's control of both Gaza and the West Bank was ill advised but had they merely returned these posessions after the Six Day War, it is doubtful that the Palestinians lot would have been seriously better, just imposed upon it in Arabic instead of Hebrew. Recall, if you will, the fate of those Palestinians who rose against King Hussein in 1970. It wasn't a pretty ending and only resulted in the transfer of the combatants to Lebanon where relative stability was shattered as the PLO wrested South Lebanon and used it as its new base of operation.

The answer is regretably yes. In Egypt's 20 year occupation of the Gaza Strip, nothing was done to relieve the misery of the displaced, just as Egypt itself began a sytematic property seizure and expuslsion of its considerable Jewish population, numbering 100,000 by the mid-40's and dating beck to pre-Islamic times. The same thing happened in Iraq where 250,000 were stripped of possessions and sent on their way. This was repeated all across the Muslim world in varying degrees to nearly 1 million people. The Press, forever consumed with the cause of the Palestinians never mentions this because the story for Mr Butters and his ilk, isn't romantic enough.

The press is more concerned with current events, and not history. The fact of the matter is, Egypt does not currently occupy Palestinian territory, Israel does. Whether or not Egyptian and Jordanian ruled Gaza and the West Bank of the 60's was a paradise or a hellhole is completely irrelevant, because it's now 2009, and these same lands are currently under Israeli control and the living conditions are abysmal, with zero hope for the future. It's been 42 years already...

What does the expulsion of the Jewish population have to do with anything currently being discussed? It's a tangent, that's like myself brining up the expulsion of the Palestinians during the Naqba to talk about conditions in Southern Lebanon.

What exactly is your argument? Is Israel a moral beacon of democracy and goodness in the Middle East? Or is Israel, simply better than Egypt?

That reminds me of the Bush years argument about all the crappy things going on in Iraq at the time. Hey, we're not Saddam. Gee... Bravo....

My argument? What happened in the 60's is not "irrelevant" just as what happens today is. Events have long histories and intertwined ones that need to be understood. If you want 'moral beacons' then read Greek philosophers. nations act in their self-interest and rarely opurely out of moral imperetive alone. And yes, with all its faults, Israel's representative democracy that includes a voting Arab electorate is still preferable to Lebanon's "democracy" founded on religious proportional representation based on a 1943 census. Or Egypt. Or Syria.
If you've been in the West Bank, as I have, the situation is unpalatable, destructive and dehumanizing for all concerned but hardly 'abysmal'. It is not hopeless and neither are the living conditions. Contruction cranes were everywhere to be seen last year when I visited and places like Ramallah had vibrant local commerce. Gaza's plight is as much the result of bad choices by Palestinians as it is bad judgement on the part of Israel. You cannot demand 'open borders' for commerce while you lob rockets at civilians and declare tht any accord is temporary (a "Hudna") and must end in 10 years time because that's what Muhammed proscribed for the Infidel. The Palestinians have wanted it both ways for too long. You want War? Fine, then don't whine when your targets shoot back. You want Peace? Fine as well but the status quo has to change and you can't hold on to irredentist hopes forever.

I agree it's important to understand histories, but you cannot let them dictate your decision making process today.

I guess you and I have different views on what the word abysmal means. To me, an upalatable, destructive, and dehumanizing existence is abysmal.

While I'm no fan of Hamas, they stuck to the ceasefire until Israel broke it, so for all their faults, they were willing to negotiate.

I agree with you that Israel's political system is the most advanced in the Middle East by a long shot. Israel is the most powerful state in the Middle East, and currenty holds all the cards, and that's what makes this even more heartbreaking. I don't think Israelis today are serious about peace. If they are, why elect a leader who doesn't even believe in a Palestinian state?

Couple of points I really need to take issue with. First of, Hamas 'stuck to a ceasefire' is wholly inaccurate. The incessant barrage of rockets reached into the hundreds in the weeks prior the end of the 'ceasefire' (not sure what a ceasefire means when only one side holds to it). Hamas has made it crystal clear than any agreement they would enter into amounts to a 'hudna'; a temporary cessation of fighting, proscribed by the Quran for believers and intended as a lull until Muslim forces re-arm. Why should Israel pass on the misery to the next generation? I suggest you read the Hamas charter for all the unbendable points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas). Netanyahu's opening position that he does not 'believe' in a Palestinian state is, I suspect, a useful bargaining position to trade in exchange for a real end to the war. Not even Abbas is willing to state publicly that he accepts Israel as a Jewish state, and does this in the hopes that without a fixed secure border between the two, demographics will overwhelm Israel.
As far as Israel not being 'serious about peace', try to remember that the past several governments were committed to a Palestinian state; also recall how many Israelis (and others) perished in the waves of homicide bombing launched after Israel offered Palestinians nearly all their stated territorial goals. The election of Netanyahu was clearly a reaction to the seemingly futile accetance of that concept that I still believe, if polls are accurate, most Israelis think is at least inevitable. Palestinians' devotion to homicide bombers as a tool of state, kind of states that your not interested in peace. Don't you think?

Eddie, regarding your points:

- Hamas breaking the ceasefire: It is widely accepted that the ceasefire's breaking point occured on November 4th when Israeli forces raided Gaza and killed 6 Hamas operatives. While that was the breaking point, both sides did not 100% implement the ceasefire. Between June and November, 37 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza. While this was from rival groups, the responsibility rests with Hamas. Conversely, Israel never lifted it's blockade of Gaza, so both sides share blame. All in all, I think it's fair to say that before November 4th, the ceasefire was working adequately.

- Hudna and Hamas Charter: I have read the Hamas charter. I'll be frank with you, I think that Hamas as an organization are seriously deluded, and I personally refuse to follow any political organization that has a heavy emphasis on religion. To me that's not the point, the point is that they are willing to agree to a long term agreement. Baby steps... nothing will change overnight, but extremist groups, once elected and having to cater to their constituents have historically moderated and become far more rational.

- Netanyahu's position: Based on his beliefs, and his father's works, I honestly don't believe that he would ever like to see a Palestinian state. If he ever does recognize it, it would be because he is forced to politically.

- Abbas and the Jewish state: In this issue, I think that Abbas is 100% correct. He says it's not for me to say whether Israel is Jewish or not, and I agree, since 20% of the population isn't. I'm Canadian, and I refuse to recognize Canada as a Christian state, even though it is the most common religion here.

-Israel being serious about peace: The peace process died with Rabin. The suicide bombings were intended to derail the peace process, and that they succeeded. Once Netanyahu was elected the first time around, it was all over. You cannot say you are serious about peace and continue the land grab with the new and growing settlements. That's a perfect example of saying one thing and doing another.

- The term homicide bomber: The term homicide bomber does not take into account the level of despair necessary to knowingly kill yourself to murder a few people. Don't get me wrong, the result is still the same... people die... mostly innocent people, which is downright shitty. But the term homicide bomber takes away the "why" of the issue, which is also important. Whether it's by bomb vest, stone, bulldozer, DIME munition, cluster bomb, or whatever, the result is still the same, people die because their leaders and societies are too zealous, stubborn and can't rid themselves of their victim mentality to move on towards peace.

As for your last sentence, you could easily substitute Palestinians' with Israelis' and homicide bombers for "military action" and it would be the same thing. There's plenty of blame for everyone, we really need to move past it. Easier said than done, I know, but I hope I see it in my lifetime.

Eddie,
I think you're prone to believing what you want to believe. To say Israel's past governments have been serious about peace is laughable given the consistent settlement building, land grab efforts and leaks about Israeli intentions to create a facade of "peace making" while pursuing colonialist policies. Israel is not interested in peace. Not while threatening to attack Iran consistently based on falsified or non-existing evidence, not while killing several thousand innocents during its invasions of sovereign neighbors or in-border terrorities, and definitely not when pretending to "compromise" on an issue while, in reality, only strengthening the malfeasance already being committed underneath a charade of hollow words.

Bah, I typed out a great comment yesterday and it says it's still awaiting moderation...

Here's the same comment I typed out yesterday, minus the one word that might have set off the profanity filter:

Eddie, regarding your points:

- Hamas breaking the ceasefire: It is widely accepted that the ceasefire's breaking point occured on November 4th when Israeli forces raided Gaza and killed 6 Hamas operatives. While that was the breaking point, both sides did not 100% implement the ceasefire. Between June and November, 37 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza. While this was from rival groups, the responsibility rests with Hamas. Conversely, Israel never lifted it's blockade of Gaza, so both sides share blame. All in all, I think it's fair to say that before November 4th, the ceasefire was working adequately.

- Hudna and Hamas Charter: I have read the Hamas charter. I'll be frank with you, I think that Hamas as an organization are seriously deluded, and I personally refuse to follow any political organization that has a heavy emphasis on religion. To me that's not the point, the point is that they are willing to agree to a long term agreement. Baby steps... nothing will change overnight, but extremist groups, once elected and having to cater to their constituents have historically moderated and become far more rational.

- Netanyahu's position: Based on his beliefs, and his father's works, I honestly don't believe that he would ever like to see a Palestinian state. If he ever does recognize it, it would be because he is forced to politically.

- Abbas and the Jewish state: In this issue, I think that Abbas is 100% correct. He says it's not for me to say whether Israel is Jewish or not, and I agree, since 20% of the population isn't. I'm Canadian, and I refuse to recognize Canada as a Christian state, even though it is the most common religion here.

-Israel being serious about peace: The peace process died with Rabin. The suicide bombings were intended to derail the peace process, and that they succeeded. Once Netanyahu was elected the first time around, it was all over. You cannot say you are serious about peace and continue the land grab with the new and growing settlements. That's a perfect example of saying one thing and doing another.

- The term homicide bomber: The term homicide bomber does not take into account the level of despair necessary to knowingly kill yourself to murder a few people. Don't get me wrong, the result is still the same... people die... mostly innocent people, which is downright horrible. But the term homicide bomber takes away the "why" of the issue, which is also important. Whether it's by bomb vest, stone, bulldozer, DIME munition, cluster bomb, or whatever, the result is still the same, people die because their leaders and societies are too zealous, stubborn and can't rid themselves of their victim mentality to move on towards peace.

As for your last sentence, you could easily substitute Palestinians' with Israelis' and homicide bombers for "military action" and it would be the same thing. There's plenty of blame for everyone, we really need to move past it. Easier said than done, I know, but I hope I see it in my lifetime.

Speaking of believing what "you want to believe", I suggest that "Persian advocate" read the vile transcripts of Ahmadinejad and crew. you would have to have been vacationing on Mars not to have read the crap that regularly comes out of his mouth. Talking about '"hreatening Iran" is laughable when all that Iran does is threaten Israel and Jews in general. I guess a friendly Persian overture was the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, whose authors were Iran and Hizbullah. Instead, the usual PC stuff about 'colonialist policies'. Very nice.

Re; aaai: Then I guess America's bombing of Hiroshima (yo end a war started by Japan) has the moral equivalence of Japan's attack on Pearl harbor. Moral equivalence is a dangerous exercise. There are things that may be wrong, even morally wrong and other things, like detonating oneself in a crowd of innocents that falls beyond the pale. As far as Abbas, being "100%" right, you come from a post-Christian West where identity is local; what is a "Canadian" other than a modern construct? The entire Arab world carefully defines itself by religion and yet you are most comfortable chastising israel for identifying itself as jewish, something that has historical implications far deeper than a mere religion. It was a national identity and remained so for 2 millenia; it is not to others to decide that it isn't for their own convenience.

Eddie,
I suspect you are new to these blogs as you would know that I am quite fond of going to the ORIGINAL transcripts in Farsi and reading them for myself. I have already pointed out that Ahmadinejad's quotes were taken completely out of context (delete the intro part and the sentences after and you have 1 controversial line) and, additionally, mistranslated in a complete and absurd way (one obvious to even an elementary speaker of the Farsi language). Ahmadinejad has further rebuked any calls to attack Israelis or Israel here when asked about the wrongful allegations that he called for a second Holocaust, specifically in his 2005 speech. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=62989&sectionid=351020101
.
Also, you seem to conclude, as fact, that the Iranian regime had any hand in the Buenos Aires bombing when it has never been conclusively proven. I suppose you have better evidence than the accusers in Buenos Aires (meaning, at least 1 piece of evidence)?