Lebanese government collapses

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

source: Al Jazeera

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Walid Jumblatt decided to join the Hezbollah opposition, which could give the the job of Prime Minister to an Hezbollah leaded majority in Lebanon, which would make fall the court for Hariri murder. And in case it would lead other political forces to open a civil war, apparently the force of Hezbollah seems so big that they would win it in the end it could give them still more power and you never know they could call Syrian forces back. Not sure all deputies would follow it so far but according to comments would be quite possible, some American diplomats and some Syrians have been seen lately trying to convince Jumblatt's deputies to one or the other.

And if the next Prime Minister isn't from Hezbollah majority and accepts the international court, then Hezboallah apparently threatened to occupy Beyrouth, then civil war, and then would win too.

In any case:

Hezbollah-Syria-Iran: Win

[Insula Dei]

Walid Jumblatt decided to join the Hezbollah opposition, which could give the the job of Prime Minister to an Hezbollah leaded majority in Lebanon, which would make fall the court for Hariri murder. And in case it would lead other political forces to open a civil war, apparently the force of Hezbollah seems so big that they would win it in the end it could give them still more power and you never know they could call Syrian forces back. Not sure all deputies would follow it so far but according to comments would be quite possible, some American diplomats and some Syrians have been seen lately trying to convince Jumblatt's deputies to one or the other.

And if the next Prime Minister isn't from Hezbollah majority and accepts the international court, then Hezboallah apparently threatened to occupy Beyrouth, then civil war, and then would win too.

In any case:

Hezbollah-Syria-Iran: Win

Isn't talk of a civil war a bit premature?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, I'm not Lebanese, then can't really say, but I heard Hezbollah threatened of it in case the international court was accepted. And for what it seems most likely today, a Prime Minister coming from an Hezbollah majority, then it would depend on Sunni forces to open one or not, I didn't say at all it would happen, was just speaking of it as an hypothesis, I just heard it suddenly became tense in Beirut, the fact that Hezbollah would have large chances to dominate it would make the opponents less inclined to open one. I don't know, in any case seems all would favor Hezbollah so far.

[Hash]

Isn't talk of a civil war a bit premature?

Well, if your only source of news is the media, then you're prone to think that the world is on the verge of nuclear war.

[dead0man]

It may be closer than we think.  link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And to make things even more exciting...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Insula Dei]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/hezbollah-backed-najib-mikati-appointed-new-prime-minister-of-lebanon-1.339124

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/hezbollah-backed-najib-mikati-appointed-new-prime-minister-of-lebanon-1.339124

yep, this coincided with the two days Ali Salehi spent in Damascus, as the Iranians twisted Bashar Assad's arm.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess Obama's version of a full court press couldn't stop Iran getting an easy layup in Lebanon.  Maybe Obama is going to learn that mere photo ops of Clinton and Hariri in New York earlier this month is not enough to stop religious fanatics from encircling Israel.

[seanobr]

yep, this coincided with the two days Ali Salehi spent in Damascus, as the Iranians twisted Bashar Assad's arm.

I guess Obama's version of a full court press couldn't stop Iran getting an easy layup in Lebanon.  Maybe Obama is going to learn that mere photo ops of Clinton and Hariri in New York earlier this month is not enough to stop religious fanatics from encircling Israel.

I invite you to expound.  Is the secular dictatorship in Syria your idea of a fanatical regime? Lebanon, with its ethnic and denominational divide that has twice produced civil war, is now irretrievably in the thrall of Islamic radicalism?  The present Hashemite monarchy in Jordan that is amenable to Western influence, an institution Richard Perle's 'Strategy for Securing the Realm' proposal wanted to migrate to Iraq?  Is totalitarian Egypt contributing to your barrier of enmity encircling Israel, only waiting for the right moment to expunge it from the region once and for all?  

If you have unconditional fealty for Israel because of its historical plight and strategic value, I can respect that, but not if you are going to make an argument by so flagrantly distorting and misrepresenting the situation facing it and us in the Middle East.  If you are trying to conflate the War on Terror with Israel's own security requirements, which are shaped by mutual and intractable animosity with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the only common element between the two is the presence of Islam.  The terrorism targeting Europe and America is not emanating from the Levant, but Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the northwest territory in Pakistan and its nebulous border with Afghanistan; the type of Islam that is so repellent to Western society is most virulent in that same area.  Iran is abetting the insurgency in Afghanistan, but as a means of force projection rather than because of ideological expression, and Bruce Reidel in The National Interest was unequivocal in noting that Iran will only broach an alliance of convenience with al Qaeda if we force them to.

I think the grim drama unfolding in Lebanon is illustrative of two points: the failure of America's original evaluation of the Middle East in the aftermath of September Eleventh; and a phenomenon we have encountered with Burma, which is that furthering the isolation of an irredeemably hostile state, in this instance Syria, is never successful at overcoming a diplomatic stalemate.  It is centered on the optimistic assumption that the legitimacy stemming from Western recognition is the only inducement such a country would require in order to mitigate its objectionable behavior. In practice, however, being seen as countering Western influence can be empowering, and an obliging guardian willing to associate with anyone who can advance their self-interest is not particularly difficult to obtain.  Russia only terminated its arms agreements with Iran last year in response to U.N. sanctions, and China and India both have substantial investments in Burma, which is something of a strategic conundrum.  As Aluf Benn so vividly detailed in Haaretz earlier this month, Syria is reveling in its current role and has no dearth of prospective consorts; Iran, China, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even individuals as diverse as Malcolm Hoenlein have all been willing to attend al-Assad, and he has parlayed America's unrelenting scorn into tangible regional influence.  

I support the Obama administration exploring, gingerly, whether a dialogue with Syria is plausible, because I recognize our lack of a feasible alternative and that we are otherwise an observer in Lebanon.  We cannot contemplate regime change while entangled in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Recalling our Ambassador and shunning al-Assad brought nothing to fruition except precluding any form of future engagement, and there is evidence to suggest it has been counterproductive.  This idea is neither innovative or drastic; the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton recommended reaching out to both Iran and Syria to help stabilize the fractured Iraq five years ago, a conclusion that was excoriated by neoconservative foreign policy analysts and never implemented. At the same time, Obama has had ample time to advance our non-existent relationship while complying with the 2003 Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and could not, so we are right to be circumspect about any movement on this front; there is also the Israeli interest, which I am inclined to discount or ignore altogether if it is an obstruction and Syria is ever willing to proceed. 

As you recognize, the thread running from Iran to Lebanon is evident for all to see, and I do think it's interesting to postulate how a more discerning policy after September Eleventh could have changed the entire complexion of the Middle East in our favor.  We repudiated Iran's overture after they helped solidify the Bonn agreement in Afghanistan. After denouncing it as a malignant actor, we eliminated Iran's implacable enemy, the largely secular, totalitarian dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, removing an automatic check on its ambitions; furthermore, our attempt to impose liberal democracy in Shiite-majority Iraq has created a government that may be suppliant to Iran.  If we hadn't been so impulsive and negligent in our assessment of the region, America could have embraced Iran, with its Persian culture, educated populace and lingering Jewish minority, as crucial to containing the actual epicenter of Islamic fundamentalism.  Zbigniew Brzezinski has opined that Iran is a natural ally of Israel if the two could ever surmount their antipathy for one another; he also compared aspects of it to the more moderate (although falling prey to harder line elements) Turkey, which is apt given Erdogan's continued reorientation toward Tehran and al-Assad's championing of their comity to balance out American influence.  

If your overriding concern is the danger of Islamic fundamentalism, then you need to conceptualize a bifurcated Middle East: identifying where sympathy for it is highest, such as throughout the Arabian peninsula, and ingratiating us with those governments that have a reason to oppose it.  If we want to wean Syria off of Iranian influence, then some type of summitry is required, as undertaken by Saudi Arabia until its abrupt conclusion last week.  If you are content with our current policy, then the only recourse is for Israel to depose the Hezbollah government in Lebanon on its own and hope the conflict doesn't escalate.  While I regarded the Second Lebanon War as incomplete and thought a resumption was inevitable, I don't believe Israel or Hezbollah are prepared for that now.

[Hash]

A well-informed and intelligent overview of the situation, which is far better than the crap which passes for journalism in the western media: http://whoruleswhere.com/2011/01/25/lebanon-and-on-and-on-and-on/

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yep, this coincided with the two days Ali Salehi spent in Damascus, as the Iranians twisted Bashar Assad's arm.

I guess Obama's version of a full court press couldn't stop Iran getting an easy layup in Lebanon.  Maybe Obama is going to learn that mere photo ops of Clinton and Hariri in New York earlier this month is not enough to stop religious fanatics from encircling Israel.

I invite you to expound.  Is the secular dictatorship in Syria your idea of a fanatical regime?

you mean the Syria that is suppying Hezbollah with chemical weapons?  Nope, I've never heard of that country. But you better look into the background of Ali Salehi, for he just spent several days in Damascus.

---

Lebanon, with its ethnic and denominational divide that has twice produced civil war, is now irretrievably in the thrall of Islamic radicalism?

nah, Hezbollah (literally "Party of God") is as secular as it gets.

---

The present Hashemite monarchy in Jordan that is amenable to Western influence, an institution Richard Perle's 'Strategy for Securing the Realm' proposal wanted to migrate to Iraq?

ummm, as you were journying east, you skipped the West Bank.  And you failed to go west and mention the Hamas and the Gaza strip.

---

Is totalitarian Egypt contributing to your barrier of enmity encircling Israel, only waiting for the right moment to expunge it from the region once and for all?  

you need to read up on the Muslim Brotherhood and what they've been doing on the Sinai border with Israel.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I think you will find he meant the secular and authoritarian regime of the Baath party. Also, while Syria does certainly provide certain groups in Lebanon with support (mainly in the form of cash, I believe), I have a hard time believing a claim of them delivering chemical weapons to Hezbollah, if the only indicator in that direction I've seen is one unbased claim by you and some suspicious report on the internet that says Syria might consider providing Hezbollah with chemical weapons in the event of a third Lebanon war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, yes, evil Hezbollah with its autoritarian control of the Lebanese state apparatus. Who can forget the horrors they caused in Sabra and Shatilla? Oh wait,...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The evil islamist regime of Fatah (if I'm not mistaken a member of the SI) will never compromise with Israel's reasonable demands as was once more demonstrated when the Guardian and Haaretz published leaked memo's of the negotiations between the PA and Israel earlier this week.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Muslim brotherhood has how many MP's in the Egyptian parliament?

[seanobr]

you mean the Syria that is suppying Hezbollah with chemical weapons?  Nope, I've never heard of that country. But you better look into the background of Ali Salehi, for he just spent several days in Damascus.

In the first instance, you have made the assertion that Israel is being enveloped by a barrier of Islamic fanaticism.  But as I explained regarding Iran's assistance of the insurgents in Afghanistan, we can distinguish between a state supporting terrorism to enhance its force projection capability, and doing so out of sympathy for it as religious expression.  Syria is a Ba'athist dictatorship with a historical tradition of secularism, which is why the government elected to prohibit the wearing of the niqab in all of its universities last year.  No one is disputing Syria's enabling of Hezbollah, but it is not actually relevant to this discussion, because the complexion of al-Assad's state is simply not compatible with your characterization.  You are trying to divert this component of our conversation away from both your initial statement and my counterargument.

As to your other point, I shall direct you to the relevant portion of my post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nah, Hezbollah (literally "Party of God") is as secular as it gets.

Thank you for being pedantic, but there is no need.  The only difference between Lebanon under its new government and Hariri's coalition is that Israel, if it should be drawn into a reprisal of the 2006 war, has no reason to confine its campaign to only attempting to neutralize Hezbollah's assets.  Lebanon's Christian and Sunni population, despite having to accept the supremacy of the Shiite demographic and Hezbollah's sagacity in deposing Hariri without resorting to violence, have not been evicted from government; the Future Movement has not folded, and the Day of Rage protest yesterday certainly indicated that there is tangible anguish at what has taken place. Lebanon is not a monolith, or else America and the United Arab Emirates would not have been directing armaments and support to the country since 2006 in an unsuccessful attempt to establish parity between its army -- whatever uncertainties over allegiance may have existed -- and Hezbollah.

An interesting, and relevant passage from a Haaretz article on Lebanon this morning:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ummm, as you were journying east, you skipped the West Bank.  And you failed to go west and mention the Hamas and the Gaza strip.

I think it's important to point out that an unwritten cease fire between the Hamas leadership and Israel has been in effect since Operation Cast Lead; there is very much the feeling that Hamas is unwilling to repeat that experience unless there is an Israeli provocation of such magnitude that they cannot ignore it without eroding their political support.  Earlier this month, Egypt cautioned Hamas that its inability to halt sporadic rocket fire on the border being perpetrated by other militants was only daring Israel to escalate the situation.  There was an immediate intercession. The blockade implemented by both Egypt and Israel had been uncompromising in its effect on Gaza, although it was mitigated in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara incident when the outpouring of international condemnation became too vehement for Israel to resist.  We also cannot overlook that successful rocket attacks from Gaza into Israeli territory were reduced by almost 400 percent, to just over 150 last year.  

As long as the general situation in Gaza persists, it will always represent a threat to Israel's security, one manifesting because of nationalism, acrimony, disaffection, self-respect, and religion, including fundamentalism, and I agree that for some nothing short of the elimination of Israel will suffice.  At the same time, animosity against Israel does not require a religious motivation.  I don't believe it's unreasonable to suggest that the situation has reached an equilibrium, because action is simply not in either party's interest, particularly as sympathy for the Palestinian cause has never been higher and any initiation on Gaza's part could impair that powerful force.

In the West Bank, Fayyadism is proceeding, though woefully behind any type of constructive timetable, and the leadership has been far more obliging to Israel than your description would indicate.  Fatah tacitly lent its support to the blockade of Gaza, has expanded security cooperation with Israel as a way of ensuring stability, and was willing to cooperate on reaching a permanent settlement to the Palestinian question in the past, which cannot be said of Hamas.  The major complications are the receptivity of the West Bank's population to their effort, the stain of antisemitism present throughout their society that they may never be able to entirely excise, and what I believe is the perpetuating of a false hope.  The situation in the West Bank is certainly preferable to that of Gaza, which is why Dmitry Medvedev made a personal visit to Jericho last week while affirming his commitment to assisting in the formation of a Palestinian state.

you need to read up on the Muslim Brotherhood and what they've been doing on the Sinai border with Israel.

Until the Muslim Brotherhood is able to evolve from an ideological movement within Egypt to an organization possessing substantial authority in governance, then its activity will be hindered and otherwise negated by the presence of the Mubarak regime, which is why I'm circumspect regarding the protest that took place in Tahrir Square yesterday.  I am aware that Iran and the Brotherhood have been able to take advantage of the Sinai Beduin as a way of delivering armaments to Gaza; if that is the extent of their activity in your circle of fanaticism, however, then it leaves much to be desired.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Israel didn't really try to minimalize the impact of the 2006 offfensive on Sunnites and Maronites either?

[seanobr]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Israel didn't really try to minimalize the impact of the 2006 offfensive on Sunnites and Maronites either?

Michael Totten for Commentary Magazine called Israel's campaign in the summer of 2006 'devastating' for Lebanon.  I believe one could equally criticize Israel for the indiscriminate nature of its response and Hezbollah for deliberately submerging into Lebanon's civilian population to increase the lethality of its efforts.  As you might remember, the U.N. condemned Israel for not insulating Lebanon's civilian population from its offensive, because the government had formally denounced the Hezbollah rocket fire that prompted Israel to act; Human Rights Watch and the usual array of organizations all claimed that Israel's campaign had eventually been in contravention of international law, and they did employ cluster bombs and white phosphorous shells, as we allegedly have in Iraq.  But I don't want anyone to construe this as absolving Hezbollah of culpability, because it was their provocation that instigated the entire conflict and they were willing to utilize their rockets in close proximity to the country's population centers.  The entire affair turned out to be inimical to their self-interest, forcing Hassan Nasrallah to apologize on state television after it concluded, and had a definite impact on his prestige and stature internally.  For Israel, the situation was probably not at all dissimilar from what we have encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as trying to distinguish Hezbollah actors from innocuous Lebanese nationals.

In hindsight, I think the most controversial and deplorable of all the acts committed was Israel's decision to target the Beirut International Airport simply because it might have facilitated a shipment of arms to Hezbollah.  The offensive also created two important revelations: while Israel publicly proclaimed victory and then accepted the effrontery of U.N. Resolution 1701, their military was frustrated, which actually engendered strong debate within the American establishment over our future force composition and evolution.  Secondly, I believe the campaign was successful in accomplishing its strategic objective, which was to dissuade Hezbollah from persisting with its hostilities.

[seanobr]

As I referenced yesterday, a crucial development regarding the turmoil in Lebanon occurred last week but went unmentioned here.  Saudi Arabia abruptly concluded its attempt at mediation with Syria, declaring its support for 'Lebanese legitimacy' (which we can infer to be the Future Movement) and cautioning that the diverse fabric of the country could be unwound under another administration.  In an attempt to maintain stability, King Abdullah and al-Assad had made a joint visit to Beirut in the summer of last year, when Hezbollah had first begun evincing discord at the prospect of an indictment from the Special Tribunal; Abdullah also undertook another personal sojourn to Syria in October.  It's reasonable to conclude that Saudi Arabia was trying to lure Syria away from Iran's web and back into the traditional Arab fold, which would've curtailed Tehran's influence in Lebanon.  Al-Assad was outwardly receptive to such an initiative, but remained committed to his Iranian benefactor.  Saudi Arabia was never inclined to denounce the Special Tribunal, which is what Hassan Nasrallah wanted to extract from Saad Hariri in order to resolve the coalition, and that might have proven the intractable difference between the two. 

According to Haaretz's Zvi Bar'el, the fact that Saudi Arabia has not objected to the nomination of Najib Mikati is tantamount to an implicit endorsement; I would disagree, primarily because of the finality of the Saudi foreign minister's pronouncement that they were withdrawing from all involvement in reaching an acceptable Lebanese settlement and would continue supporting the Future Movement.  He might not be as polarizing a figure as could have been put forth, but the damage to our interest had already been completed with the deposing of the far more pliable Hariri.  Bar'el was qualifying Mikati's intimacy with Syria by prevaricating, alleging it is not pro-Iranian as such, but until there is an irrefutable policy shift from al-Assad, we have no reason to doubt the conventional wisdom on the interaction between the three.  He also reported that Mikati's name had been submitted by France as a compromise candidate, which may be true, but I don't find it particularly relevant.  We can't object to the end result of a credible democratic process, whatever its instigation, but that doesn't mean we have to respect the result it has produced.

In my opinion, the more pertinent concern is what the end of Saudi Arabia's mediation with Syria will do to their mutual effort at reconciliation, because an active Saudi attempt at attracting Syria is better than the alternative.  I imagine that Syrian intransigence and Iran prevented their reaching an accord regarding Lebanon, and if this will augur its demise, it would only complicate any hypothetical American engagement with Syria.  At the same time, the Obama administration had great difficulty in simply nominating an Ambassador to Syria, eventually having to rely on a recess appointment, and I don't believe there is any support for an alteration in our approach.  Syria has to first convince us that they genuinely desire a warming with America; until then, while I support any overture in the absence of an alternative, no one is, rightly, going to take Syria at face value.

Commentary Magazine's contentions was reporting yesterday afternoon on a rumor aflutter in Lebanon that America had urgently routed an aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean as a show of force in the region -- which was complete fiction, of course.  Aside from the potential for renewed internal violence or Israeli intervention, do we have any recommendations for what America or France, the two most relevant Western governments, should do, or are we in agreement that the supplanting of Saad Hariri is point to Iran and we can only observe?  Commentary, as you might anticipate, was demanding some type of response, but aside from State Department rhetoric about the political resolution that has occurred, I'm rather unconvinced that the potential for one exists. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you mean the Syria that is supplying Hezbollah with chemical weapons?  Nope, I've never heard of that country. But you better look into the background of Ali Salehi, for he just spent several days in Damascus.

In the first instance, you have made the assertion that Israel is being enveloped by a barrier of Islamic fanaticism.  But as I explained regarding Iran's assistance of the insurgents in Afghanistan, we can distinguish between a state supporting terrorism to enhance its force projection capability, and doing so out of sympathy for it as religious expression.  Syria is a Ba'athist dictatorship with a historical tradition of secularism, which is why the government elected to prohibit the wearing of the niqab in all of its universities last year.  No one is disputing Syria's enabling of Hezbollah, but it is not actually relevant to this discussion, because the complexion of al-Assad's state is simply not compatible with your characterization.  You are trying to divert this component of our conversation away from both your initial statement and my counterargument.

As to your other point, I shall direct you to the relevant portion of my post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nah, Hezbollah (literally "Party of God") is as secular as it gets.

Thank you for being pedantic, but there is no need.  The only difference between Lebanon under its new government and Hariri's coalition is that Israel, if it should be drawn into a reprisal of the 2006 war, has no reason to confine its campaign to only attempting to neutralize Hezbollah's assets.  Lebanon's Christian and Sunni population, despite having to accept the supremacy of the Shiite demographic and Hezbollah's sagacity in deposing Hariri without resorting to violence, have not been evicted from government; the Future Movement has not folded, and the Day of Rage protest yesterday certainly indicated that there is tangible anguish at what has taken place. Lebanon is not a monolith...

blah, blah, blah, all the same noise about "but, it isn't being done with unanimous consent..."

regardless if its 0.01% doing it, or 99.99% doing it, the fact remains that the END RESULT is that those with the willingness to destroy Israel are growing in war-making power and are surrounding Israel with the means to make good on their promises.  And it doesn't matter if the individual pieces of the puzzle are main players or mere proxies, the fact is that they are all accomplices.  

It's no different than the fact that each member of a gang of five bank robbers may have had different reasons for agreeing to coordinate with the other accomplices, it doesn't change the fact that a bank robbery took place.

Likewise, if you want to continue to bury your head in the sand by the false comfort that "PlayerX does not have the monolith agreement and support of the populous", then be my guest in continuing to be self-deceived.  But your self-deceptive long-winded rants are not going to stop the non-monoliths from starting a wide-scale war.

[seanobr]

blah, blah, blah, all the same noise about "but, it isn't being done with unanimous consent..."

regardless if its 0.01% doing it, or 99.99% doing it, the fact remains that the END RESULT is that those with the willingness to destroy Israel are growing in war-making power and are surrounding Israel with the means to make good on their promises.  And it doesn't matter if the individual pieces of the puzzle are main players or mere proxies, the fact is that they are all accomplices.  

It's no different than the fact that each member of a gang of five bank robbers may have had different reasons for agreeing to coordinate with the other accomplices, it doesn't change the fact that a bank robbery took place.

Likewise, if you want to continue to bury your head in the sand by the false comfort that "PlayerX does not have the monolith agreement and support of the populous", then be my guest in continuing to be self-deceived.  But your self-deceptive long-winded rants are not going to stop the non-monoliths from starting a wide-scale war.

With respect, the only individual being deceptive here is you.  This began as a debate over whether or not an impenetrable screen of Islamic fundamentalism was being erected around Israel and has now degenerated into your accusing me of effectively being naive -- the same allegation you levied against me over the Korean peninsula last year.  You are not refuting anything I have written.  You have not chosen to examine my evaluation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Egypt, just like you failed to account for the majority of my original submission, which I will accept as you conceding on each point.  You came into this discussion only to offer a rather provocative and facile comment and are now irritated that someone wasn't willing to let such an interpretation go unchallenged.  I wanted you to expand upon your position, because I am hardly ignorant regarding the threat of extremism; I simply believe there is a genuine difference between a state that is enraptured by fundamentalism, turning to terrorism as a form of ideological expression, and a government supporting terrorism for the advancement of its own interest.   It is impossible to discredit a manifestation of faith, but a rational actor can be dealt with as such.

Syria is a secular dictatorship with a Sunni majority that only a half a century ago was in a union with Egypt.  Its government has endured internal strife brought on by exactly the type of radicalism you find so frightening, violently suppressing an uprising from its chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's, as Saddam Hussein similarly fended off an intifada during the denouement of the first Gulf War.  That any evaluation of the situation in the Middle East would ignore these aspects and conflate it with the encroachment of extremism is irresponsible and superficial, because Syria must be handled differently from the characterization you are attempting to project onto it.  You're disparaging my 'rants' because they are verbose and complex; your inability or refusal to account for this substance is why your argument is completely without merit.  I think you desperately want something to be true, namely that Israel's existence and legitimacy is eroding every day under the tide of Islamic extremism, and are not prepared to accept that the reality is far more multi-faceted and ambiguous than that.  Fayyadism in the West Bank, which even Jonathan Tobin at Commentary is tepidly optimistic about; the unwritten cease fire over Gaza; totalitarianism in Syria; Lebanon's now Christian and Sunni parliamentary minority; the autocracy in Egypt; these are incongruities within your portrayal that cannot simply be ignored because they are inconvenient.

You've managed to change the argument to the destruction of Israel appeal, which may be true, but that has been the one constant facing Israel since its very founding.  Is the West Bank an existential threat to Israel?  As long as the monarchy in Jordan and dictatorship in Egypt remain aloft, do you still project a return to the regional unity of another era, coalescing over mutual antipathy for Israel?  Until that moment, your entire narrative is flawed.  The greatest danger facing Israel today is the Lebanon to Syria to Iran triumvirate, and that's why it's so important to be quite specific and accurate in what we are having to ameliorate.  You have no desire for that, which is your right.  As a result, I believe your position is farcical.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

blah, blah, blah, all the same noise about "but, it isn't being done with unanimous consent..."

regardless if its 0.01% doing it, or 99.99% doing it, the fact remains that the END RESULT is that those with the willingness to destroy Israel are growing in war-making power and are surrounding Israel with the means to make good on their promises.  And it doesn't matter if the individual pieces of the puzzle are main players or mere proxies, the fact is that they are all accomplices.  

It's no different than the fact that each member of a gang of five bank robbers may have had different reasons for agreeing to coordinate with the other accomplices, it doesn't change the fact that a bank robbery took place.

Likewise, if you want to continue to bury your head in the sand by the false comfort that "PlayerX does not have the monolith agreement and support of the populous", then be my guest in continuing to be self-deceived.  But your self-deceptive long-winded rants are not going to stop the non-monoliths from starting a wide-scale war.

With respect, the only individual being deceptive here is you.  This began as a debate over whether or not an impenetrable screen of Islamic fundamentalism was being erected around Israel and has now degenerated into your accusing me of effectively being naive -- the same allegation you levied against me over the Korean peninsula last year.  You are not refuting anything I have written.  You have not chosen to examine my evaluation of Gaza, the West Bank, or Egypt, just like you failed to account for the majority of my original submission, which I will accept as you conceding on each point.  You came into this discussion only to offer a rather provocative and facile comment and are now irritated that someone wasn't willing to let such an interpretation go unchallenged.  I wanted you to expand upon your position, because I am hardly ignorant regarding the threat of extremism; I simply believe there is a genuine difference between a state that is enraptured by fundamentalism, turning to terrorism as a form of ideological expression, and a government supporting terrorism for the advancement of its own interest.   It is impossible to discredit a manifestation of faith, but a rational actor can be dealt with as such.

Syria is a secular dictatorship with a Sunni majority that only a half a century ago was in a union with Egypt.  Its government has endured internal strife brought on by exactly the type of radicalism you find so frightening, violently suppressing an uprising from its chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's, as Saddam Hussein similarly fended off an intifada during the denouement of the first Gulf War.  That any evaluation of the situation in the Middle East would ignore these aspects and conflate it with the encroachment of extremism is irresponsible and superficial, because Syria must be handled differently from the characterization you are attempting to project onto it.  You're disparaging my 'rants' because they are verbose and complex; your inability or refusal to account for this substance is why your argument is completely without merit.  I think you desperately want something to be true, namely that Israel's existence and legitimacy is eroding every day under the tide of Islamic extremism, and are not prepared to accept that the reality is far more multi-faceted and ambiguous than that.  Fayyadism in the West Bank, which even Jonathan Tobin at Commentary is tepidly optimistic about; the unwritten cease fire over Gaza; totalitarianism in Syria; Lebanon's now Christian and Sunni parliamentary minority; the autocracy in Egypt; these are incongruities within your portrayal that cannot simply be ignored because they are inconvenient.

You've managed to change the argument to the destruction of Israel appeal, which may be true, but that has been the one constant facing Israel since its very founding.  Is the West Bank an existential threat to Israel?  As long as the monarchy in Jordan and dictatorship in Egypt remain aloft, do you still project a return to the regional unity of another era, coalescing over mutual antipathy for Israel?  Until that moment, your entire narrative is flawed.  The greatest danger facing Israel today is the Lebanon to Syria to Iran triumvirate, and that's why it's so important to be quite specific and accurate in what we are having to ameliorate.  You have no desire for that, which is your right.  As a result, I believe your position is farcical.  

Sorry, didn't read your post, I was too busy contemplating whether Egypt will fall into the hands of Iran’s puppet and the Islamic-Brotherhood-backed Mohammed ElBaradei, or whether it will fall into the hands of the Kifaya movement that wants to tear up the Camp David Accords.  Either way, the peace treaty is dead, regardless if Mubarak holds on five more days or five more years.  Of course, the different between 1978 and now is that Egypt has the Sinai Peninsula back, along with 1000 M1 Abrams tanks, 1400 M60 tanks, and 220 F-16 jets.

What was it you were saying?

[seanobr]

What was it you were saying?

Since you deliberately evaded countering anything I wrote on Wednesday, I invite you to join the discussion in the two topics we have open on this developing situation, where you can find several postings in which I have enunciated my opinion on the recent turmoil in Egypt.

EDIT: The personal nature of this back and forth has led me to believe that it would be better for it to transition to private message rather than belabored in the open for all to see.  This is clearly no longer about Lebanon, if it ever was, and there is no reason to blight what is otherwise a still relevant and informative thread with diatribe.  In any event, my original posting was, in my judgment, inappropriate and out of court, not something I would want reflected on my account.

[Insula Dei]

Sorry, didn't read your post, I was too busy contemplating whether Egypt will fall into the hands of Iran’s puppet and the Islamic-Brotherhood-backed Mohammed ElBaradei, or whether it will fall into the hands of the Kifaya movement that wants to tear up the Camp David Accords.  Either way, the peace treaty is dead, regardless if Mubarak holds on five more days or five more years.  Of course, the different between 1978 and now is that Egypt has the Sinai Peninsula back, along with 1000 M1 Abrams tanks, 1400 M60 tanks, and 220 F-16 jets.

What was it you were saying?

Yeah, this definitely means the next Egyptian government is going to go to war with Israel. Especially under Muslim Brotherhood-backed El-Barradei.

jmcfst, where do you get these funny ideas about the middle east from?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sorry, didn't read your post, I was too busy contemplating whether Egypt will fall into the hands of Iran’s puppet and the Islamic-Brotherhood-backed Mohammed ElBaradei, or whether it will fall into the hands of the Kifaya movement that wants to tear up the Camp David Accords.  Either way, the peace treaty is dead, regardless if Mubarak holds on five more days or five more years.  Of course, the different between 1978 and now is that Egypt has the Sinai Peninsula back, along with 1000 M1 Abrams tanks, 1400 M60 tanks, and 220 F-16 jets.

What was it you were saying?

Yeah, this definitely means the next Egyptian government is going to go to war with Israel. Especially under Muslim Brotherhood-backed El-Barradei.

jmcfst, where do you get these funny ideas about the middle east from?

"We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood...they have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them."  Mohamed ElBaradei 25-Jan-2011

"Muslim Brotherhood says it will back ElBaradei campaign" BBC 3-June-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10224274


"Mohammed el Baradei visit Muslim Brotherhood office in Cairo" 5-June-2010