Arab Spring!

Look, ma, freedom is on the march:

Fires at scores of barricades sent billowing black smoke against a pale blue sky. Across the capital, only mopeds, some carrying Hezbollah cadres with walkie talkies, navigated the roadblocks along usually clogged streets that were empty. On the airport highway, a half-dozen barricades blocked traffic, forcing some travelers to drag their luggage by foot. Government supporters and foes squared off across the barricades, hurling rocks, sticks and insults in clashes that sometimes lasted hours.

GatewayPundit rounds up right blogistan's reactions -- shockingly this wave of protests isn't being wildly celebrated by hawks and civil disobedience is no longer equivalent to the dawning of democracy. Hezbollah's protest babes aren't hot enough I guess?

Comments

I wouldn't underplay the significance of the "protest babes". That they are Western-looking means that they are, in fact, more Western -- indeed, Christian (though rightwingers will never complain when the Israelis bomb Lebanese or Palestinian Christians) -- than the poorer, Shiite constituency of Hezbollah.

The protests described here also include violence. What was really ignored was the massive counterprotest Hezbollah staged against the government months back.

Posted by brendan | January 23, 2007 3:30 PM

MY,

I know you're having some fun and taking digs at people who probably deserve it.

But is it necessarily a bad or "right wing" position to support the various Lebanese sects when they protested against Syrian occupation but not support Hezbollah and the Aounists (now, somewhat violently) protesting against the Lebanese government?

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2007 3:46 PM

I know you're having some fun and taking digs at people who probably deserve it

"Probably"? Cripes, they deserve a hell of lot more than that, but that's likely the worst that will happen to them.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 23, 2007 3:50 PM

SCMT,

Do you think it's a bad position to have supported the Lebanese protests against Syrian occupation but to oppose what Hezbollah and the Aounists are doing today?

I just think there are better ways to call NRO and Glenn Reynolds (or whoever) hypocrites than try to taint past and current support for the March 14 coaltion, which does seem to represent a majority of the Lebanese population - although clearly Hezbollah has sizeable support as well.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2007 4:01 PM

BTW, I do agree that the cynical use of the "Democrats and anti-war types don't think Arabs are capable of Democracy" argument by the Bush administration and its supporters is/was absolutely despicable.

And if that's all MY's post is about, I totally apologize.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2007 4:04 PM

How many more days is Ygelsias going to say nothing about Israel's siege of Gaza?

Posted by david mizner | January 23, 2007 4:14 PM

Apropos of nothing in either the post or its comments, it's kind of effed up that you don't have Spackerman's THFTNR blog in your blogroll. What gives?

Posted by jw | January 23, 2007 4:25 PM

You got a problem with "birth pangs"?

Posted by North Bay | January 23, 2007 4:26 PM

shockingly this wave of protests isn't being wildly celebrated by hawks and civil disobedience is no longer equivalent to the dawning of democracy

I don't get Matthew's snark. The right celebrates protests and civil disobedience against despots and their puppet regimes; those protests and civil disobedience are pro-democracy. The right does not celebrate protests and civil disobedience against relatively democratic regimes, because those protests and civil disobedience are anti-democratic.

How hard is that to understand?

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 4:27 PM

There's nothing wrong with supporting the prior protests against the Syrian regime - the problem was that the rightwing pundits tried to use these protests as vindication for their blow shit up and freedom on the march domino Middle East foreign policy.

Posted by Tim | January 23, 2007 4:58 PM

So, Al, the American civil rights protests were "anti-democratic," because they were against "relatively democratic" regimes? In fact, by your formulation, any protest or civil disobedience in this country would be anti-democratic.

That's about the level of reasoning and discourse that we've come to know and expect from you.

Posted by mrgumby2u | January 23, 2007 5:04 PM

Right on Tim. For the neocons, Arabs and Arab society are just tools used to further ideological and domestic political goals. Check out the racist and poorly-sourced book "The Arab Mind" - one of the main books neocons have used to formulate their vision of the Arab world - to see how they think. If neocons really cared about Lebanese democracy, they would have poored a lot more than $50 million or whatever to rebuild a country that had to deal with decades-long occupations by both Israel and Syria in recent years, a civil war that it has never recovered from, and the fact that Hezbollah created a de facto state in the South complicated by the fact that an attack on Hezbollah is also an attack on Amal and the entire security apparatus for the Lebanese Shi'ites. Neocons also failed to notice that the Cedar Revolution was partly inspired by Al-Jazeera reporting on the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.

Posted by Reality Man | January 23, 2007 5:08 PM

God Christ Almighty, Al is a hack.

I like to imagine Stalin's stable of hacks up in heaven, looking down on Al, and thinking, "That guy's doing stuff we never even dreamed of."

Posted by grh | January 23, 2007 5:15 PM

The right does not celebrate protests and civil disobedience against relatively democratic regimes, because those protests and civil disobedience are anti-democratic.

Wow...just wow. Not to pile on, but that's just breathtaking. To protest against the actions of a "relatively democratic regime" is, by definition, "anti-democratic"? Color me gobsmacked.

I assume you've expressed your outrage in all the suitable venues about that intrinsically anti-democratic protest that took place in DC yesterday.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | January 23, 2007 5:18 PM

So, Al, the American civil rights protests were "anti-democratic," because they were against "relatively democratic" regimes?

No, I don't think that's right. The southern states were not relatively democratic, due to Jim Crow. But that really misses the point anyway. We support the overthrow of despots and their puppet regimes, and the replacement of those despots and puppets with democracy. That's not the same as "any protest or civil disobedience in this country".

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 5:18 PM

To protest against the actions of a "relatively democratic regime" is, by definition, "anti-democratic"? Color me gobsmacked.

Uh, no. I don't know why this is so hard to understand for the left. Protests against despots and in favor of democracy = OK. Protests against democratic government and in favor of despots = bad.

What this has to do with any "protest that took place in DC yesterday" escapes me. Nobody yesterday was protesting to throw out a democratically elected government and replace it with a pupppet of despots.

Posted by Al | January 23, 2007 5:22 PM

the problem was that the rightwing pundits tried to use these protests as vindication for their blow shit up and freedom on the march domino Middle East foreign policy.

Very true, and they look stupid. Again.

Having said that, the fact that March 14th/Lebanese government has not given into Hezbollah threats, intimidation and now violence (three killed, 44 shot) is a positive sign.

Hezbollah called the "strike/protest" off today, because of the bad p.r. But they have warned they will start up again if they do not get their way.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/getstory?openform&2F40215DF1553447C225726C0073AB0E

Bad/sad days ahead, unfortunately.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2007 5:23 PM

We support the overthrow of despots and their puppet regimes, and the replacement of those despots and puppets with democracy.

No sane person believes this, Al. We support people who we think will throw in with us. (And that's how it should be.) And, Jeebus, if I were looking for people who supported "democracy," I wouldn't go looking to the region of the country where they least understood it historically, and amongst the people who say things like “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead."

I think it's safe to say that the democracy supporters on the right are just douchebags looking for rhetorical cover for whatever the fuck it is they think they're doing or supporting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 23, 2007 5:30 PM

I think it's safe to say that the democracy supporters on the right are just douchebags looking for rhetorical cover for whatever the fuck it is they think they're doing or supporting.

What makes Al one of history's greatest hacks is that this is so freakin' obvious. Al knows this. We know it. He knows we know it. We know he knows we know it. Yet he continues to spew out clouds of bullshit without seeming to feel any shame whatsoever. Most humans -- indeed, including most of the Republi-bots cadre -- just couldn't do it like he does.

Posted by grh | January 23, 2007 5:47 PM

Most humans -- indeed, including most of the Republi-bots cadre -- just couldn't do it like he does.

Cue Carly Simon:

Nobody does it better
Makes me feel sad for the rest
Nobody does it half as good as you
Baby, you're the best....

Posted by Eric Martin | January 23, 2007 6:12 PM

Please ignore the Bush administration supported coup attempt against the overwhelmingly democratically supported Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. If you simply pretend that event - and a few other activities surrounding such paragons of democracy as, for example, Mushareef in Pakistan, Pinochet in Chile or Marcos in the Phillipines - never, ever, ever happened then Al's arguments that the right only supports pro-democracy protests are the very paragon of logic and veracity.

Otherwise the dumb bastard is so full of shit his eyes are brown.

Posted by Sarcastro | January 23, 2007 6:46 PM

Anyone going to blame Israel for this turn of events in Lebanon?

Posted by alphie | January 23, 2007 7:37 PM

Sure, what the hell.

No Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the eighties, no Hezbollah period.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 23, 2007 10:25 PM

Please ignore the Bush administration supported coup attempt against the overwhelmingly democratically supported Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Al doesn't believe Chavez was elected. I saw him say this last time he was elected after the recall attempt. He holds a number of incredibly fantastic opinions and logic doesn't seem to move them an inch.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 23, 2007 10:28 PM

"the March 14 coaltion, which does seem to represent a majority of the Lebanese population"

And you know this...how? My guess is Hezbollah represents the majority of the Lebanese population, which is Shi'ite. Not to mention that Hezbollah recently demonstrated itself the only power capable of militarily protecting Lebanon against Israeli invasion. The March 14th government was another jerry-rigged power-sharing arrangement to keep the Shi'ite majority from overwhelming other ethnic groups in Lebanon.

Posted by MQ | January 23, 2007 10:56 PM

Shh, that's called democracy, and the EU and the US aren't patrons like nasty ole Syria.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 23, 2007 11:01 PM

My guess is Hezbollah represents the majority of the Lebanese population, which is Shi'ite.

That's not true, MQ. There is no sect (Sunni, Shia, Christian or Druze) which is a majority of the Lebanese population.

They are all minorities.

Not to mention that Hezbollah recently demonstrated itself the only power capable of militarily protecting Lebanon against Israeli invasion.

You really call what the Hezbollah did "protecting Lebanon against Israeli invasion"?

They caused an Israeli invasion and Lebanon got clobbered - brutally - because of it.

Some protection. That's the opposite of protection from invasion. They invite invasion. They provoked one and got it. I can understand why people would support Hezbollah, but I can't understand why people would support Hezbollah on the grounds that it "protects" Lebanon from Israel. Quite the opposite - look what happened.

The March 14th government was another jerry-rigged power-sharing arrangement to keep the Shi'ite majority from overwhelming other ethnic groups in Lebanon.

Again, there is no Shi'ite majority. There is NO majority sect.

As for March 14, I said it "seems" to have a majority - since it represents most Sunnis, Christians (save the Aounists) and Druze - it's basically 2 1/2 sects (March 14) vs. 1 1/2 (Shia Hez, Shia Amal and Hezbollah). I also said that Hezbollah has a lot of support - clearly both sides do.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 23, 2007 11:39 PM

Whoops, I meant Shia Hez, Shia Amal and Aoun.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 12:27 AM

I can understand why people would support Hezbollah, but I can't understand why people would support Hezbollah on the grounds that it "protects" Lebanon from Israel.

Well, if you can't understand something basic like that, I must assume most of the world is an impenetrable mystery to you.

Posted by grh | January 24, 2007 4:42 AM

The Christians bugged out years ago. There hasn't been a survey done in decades because everyone knows it and the confessional system of representation you are talking about would be dead in the water.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 24, 2007 6:54 AM

Well, if you can't understand something basic like that, I must assume most of the world is an impenetrable mystery to you.

Basic?

Only if you hate the Lebanese.

Again, Lebanon got brutalized this summer. The Israelis suffered a pin prick by comparison. That's the worst "defense" of a country ever.

Whatever.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 8:47 AM

Again, Lebanon got brutalized this summer. The Israelis suffered a pin prick by comparison.

The above is why this --"They caused an Israeli invasion and Lebanon got clobbered - brutally - because of it"--is overstating it. If a cop wants to stop your car, he can always find a reason. Depending on who you are and what region you find yourself in, he can probably do a lot more than just stop the car.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 10:44 AM

SCMT,

Even accepting your analogy, I think the larger point still stands, even if one is of the view that the Israelis were merely waiting for a pretext.

Hezbollah provided the pretext - which the Lebanese government immediately condemned, btw (probably for fear that their country would not be properly defended in any real sense) - and Hezbollah's "defense" of Lebanon consisted of firing small (but potentially deadly) rockets into Northern Israel as Lebanon was getting pummelled.

I don't think Hezbollah did Lebanon any favors this summer, absent the misplaced notion of "pride" in "standing up to/resisting" the Israelis (which wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if not for the killing and capture of IDF soldiers), which did Lebanon little good during the war and is doing even less good now.

To some, clearly, that is an opinion which can only be expressed by someone to whom "most of the world is an impenetrable mystery," even as Lebanon has to beg for international aid and the bulldozing/rebuilding is still in the nascent stages 6 months later, while life in Israel was pretty much exactly the same immediately after the war as before it started.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 11:43 AM

Israel had sonic boomed Beirut weekly for years and years and years, conducted assassinations at will, has been holding hostages for years, and yet they started it.

They also did one hell of a lot more than launch rockets at Israel. They destroyed Merkevas, naval ships, and put up a kill ratio that scared the living hell out of the IDF.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 24, 2007 5:07 PM

I don't think Hezbollah did Lebanon any favors this summer

Me, either, except as the war had the unintended and unexpected effect of a slight weakening of Israel's very strong position in the American mind. I'm not a fan of Hezbollah. ("I'm no Hezzy," maybe?)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 5:16 PM

Ed,

And Hezbollah had been firing Katyushas into Northern Israel for years, has reneged on promised information about Ron Arad, etc...

And yes, Hezbollah had MUCH more success against IDF ground forces than Israel anticipated, but Lebanon still got pummelled.

I'm not happy with what Israel did, by the way - I would have rather they did the usual (unfortunate in its own way) tit for tat that Nasrallah claimed he was expecting.

But if Nasrallah and Hezbollah supporters want to claim "victory" on behalf of Lebanon's newly dead and homeless - so be it. Sad victory, that. Lebanon will be recovering from that victory for a long time to come, while it's been business as usual since August in Israel.

It was one of the worst defenses ever - Hezbollah will be paying the price for a long time - some of which is now being evidenced by the fact that obviously a lot of the country is not standing for their pressure tactics, despite the (at the time) perceived massive "victory" they won.

I think people can now tell what really happened, and how much Lebanon was hurt by this summer's actions.

SCMT,

Me, either, except as the war had the unintended and unexpected effect of a slight weakening of Israel's very strong position in the American mind.

As has the Iraq war on the weakinging of our own stong position in our own minds.

But re: Israel being perceived as weaker, I'm not sure that is going to help Hezbollah (and Lebanon) and all of the talk from certain quarters of the Arab world about how "vulnerable" the Israelis are.

I bet they will strike back harder the next time one of their neighbors decides to engage in military "adventurism."

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 5:34 PM

If a cop wants to stop your car, he can always find a reason.

The cops don't want to stop the car, except that Hezbollah is driving it.

OK, to step back from your analogy, Israel would not have any reason to invade if Hezbollah would stop attacking it. The best way for Hezbollah to "protect Lebanon from Israel" would be to disband. Since in that case Israel would have no reason to set one foot inside Lebanon.

Posted by Al | January 24, 2007 5:47 PM

And Hezbollah had been firing Katyushas into Northern Israel for years, has reneged on promised information about Ron Arad, etc...

They did not fire Katyushas into Israel for years, you are out of your element or you are starting to tell lies.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 24, 2007 6:38 PM

Test

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 8:31 PM

I've been trying to post with embedded links, but each time I try I get a "Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner" note. Don't know what's up with that.

Suffice it to say, Ed, I would ask you to apologize, but I get the feeling I'm not going to get one.

On December 27, 2005 - several Katyusha rockets were fired at Kiryat Shemona.

On November 21, 2005 - Hezbollah launched a cross border attack followed up by Katyushas.

May 11, 2005 - Katyusha rocket fired at Shlomi.

So if by "they did not fire Katyushas into Israel for years" you meant that there were at least three separate salvos of Katyushas fired by Hezbollah in the year immediately prior to this summer's war, then you would be right.

Before you go calling someone a liar or out of their element, I'd suggest you at least google.

Here are your google search terms:

1) "On December 27, 2005 Katyusha rockets"

2) "November 21, 2005 hezbollah katyusha"

3) may 11, 2005 katyusha shlomi (no quotes needed)

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 8:44 PM

I'd like you to go pick up a dictionary and read the defintion for years.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 24, 2007 8:58 PM

You're kidding, right?

So by "they did not fire Katyushas into Israel for years" you really didn't mean to include 2005 - the very year before all this started? Or is it just that katyusha firing during any one year prior to the summer war doesn't count on its own under your they did not fire Katyushas into Israel for years claim?

Strange. Wow.

OK.

Well, a simple apology would have made you look better, but whatever.

May 28, 2006 (a month and a half before the summer war) - Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets, mortars and machine guns into several Israeli towns and villages.

(Google search term: may 28, 2006 israel accepts cease-fire request from lebanon)

March 14, 2005 - a series of Katyushas hit Mt. Dov.

(Google search term: "World Briefing | Middle East: Israeli Forces And Hezbollah Exchange Fire")

November 2004 - Katyusha rocket fired into Israel

(Google search term: "BBC UN urges calm on Lebanon border")

April 9 and 10, 2002 - Katyushas hit Ein Kuniya and Western Galilee

(Google search term: ein kuniya katyusha)

But do 2006 (before the war started), 2005, 2004, and 2002 together quality as years?

In addition to suggesting that you google before you claim someone is a liar and out of their element, I would suggest you use google before you make your "snappy comeback."

But it's always a pleasure to deal with such an honest person, clearly in his element.

Cheers.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 12:36 AM

Again, Lebanon got brutalized this summer. The Israelis suffered a pin prick by comparison. That's the worst "defense" of a country ever.

As I surmised, most of the world clearly is an impenetrable mystery to you. I wish you luck in dealing with the bizarre, inexplicable two-legged beings who surround you.

Posted by grh | January 25, 2007 8:57 AM

Damage to Lebanon = $3.6 billion
Lebanese deaths = 1,181 people

I'm sure the Lebanese people admire your superior wisdom - and snark. It will no doubt help them get through their lengthy and difficult rebuilding process.

A few more "defenses" like that and there won't be much left.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 9:42 AM

Damage to Lebanon = $3.6 billion
Lebanese deaths = 1,181 people

Dear god almighty. Tell you what -- rather than bloviating about how you "can't understand" how many Lebanese can feel what many do in fact feel, all the while professing your great concern for their well-being, maybe you should visit Lebanon, talk to some Lebanese (including some who don't live in Beirut and don't speak English), and learn something about Lebanese history.

I realize this seems like a less attractive option than just staying here and luxuriating in your own ignorance, but give it a shot -- after a while you might actually begin to like learning about other people.

Posted by grh | January 25, 2007 10:32 AM

Not agreeing with you = not liking to learn about other people.

Gotcha.

If you would get off your high horse (I know, very difficult for "righteously indignant" people like yourself), you would see that I acknowledged that "pride" in "resistance" plays a large part in people's feelings towards Hezbollah. There are many other reasons - not just sectarian - including providing services to a traditionally discrimnated against minority - that the Lebanese goverment has never done on its own. That, however, is a separate issue as to whether Hezbollah "defended" (key word: defended) the country well this summer.

I just feel - clearly you disagree, whatever - that emotions such as pride are less important than over a thousand dead and a destroyed infrastructure.

And, as such, the victory if at all, was a pyrrhic one, which by definition equates to a poor defense.

Dear god almighty, yourself.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 10:44 AM

Not agreeing with you = not liking to learn about other people.

No. Professing your ignorance about other people while seemingly having no desire to learn = not liking to learn about other people.

I note also that your lack of knowledge about others seems to extend to Americans writing in English right now. For instance, you apparently believe I think Hezbollah successfully "defended" Lebanon. I don't. Where you and I differ is that I can sure understand why many Lebanese feel that way.

That, however, is a separate issue as to whether Hezbollah "defended" (key word: defended) the country well this summer.

Again: going to Lebanon and talking to Lebanese would help you understand what many Lebanese think. The main benefit for you might be seeing with your own eyes that not everyone lives in an extremely rich, powerful country, and that this leads them to think in different ways than people in extremely rich, powerful countries often do.

Posted by grh | January 25, 2007 11:17 AM

If you took the time to read my 11:39 PM post on the subject, you would see that I wrote:

I can understand why people would support Hezbollah.

Emphasis added for self-important types such as yourself.

And, as I've stated several times now, I ascribe the (often dangerous) emotion of pride as to why many were happy with Hezbollah's efforts this summer, despite the outcome.

But if you really want to be caught up on the super-literal reading of my follow up statement (but I can't understand why people would support Hezbollah on the grounds that it "protects" Lebanon from Israel), even though I've explained several times, including in that original post, that I believe that phenomenon can be ascribed to pride, then so be it.

Whatever.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 11:43 AM

I ascribe the (often dangerous) emotion of pride as to why many were happy with Hezbollah's efforts this summer, despite the outcome.

Okay. Since you're clearly never actually going to speak to the people involved -- preferring instead to speculate wildly about their motives -- let me tell you what many of them would tell you, in case you can hear and understand:

People don't support Hezbollah's efforts "despite the outcome." They support it because of the outcome. That's because they believe Israel was looking for any excuse to attack, would have found one whatever Hezbollah had done, and would have killed many more Lebanese and done much more damage without Hezbollah's resistance.

Now, I'm sure you disagree with that. But the people who believe this actually have a rational case for it, mostly based on their direct experience with Israel. You may remember that Israel made serious plans to annex part of Lebanon in the fifties, invaded Lebanon before Hezbollah existed, and did so using a concocted pretext for what they wanted to do anyway.

I'm not going to argue with you about who's "right" about the 2006 war. Personally I don't agree think the Hezbollah-friendly narrative is correct (though I certainly don't think yours is, either). I'm merely pointing out that if you want to understand other people, it helps to listen to them rather than simply guess at what they're thinking.

Posted by grh | January 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Wow, finally an almost non-insulting post from you.

And I will speak to the people involved when I get a chance - I am not going to do it today or between posts. I have no problem with that and I would love to go.

And I do speak to people who are pro-Hezbollah - I went to a large Muslim Students Association conference two weekends ago - (everyone I spoke with was Sunni, btw) and they all happily told me about why they support Hezbollah.

Now, I'm sure you disagree with that.

As do you, seemingly, because it's not rational when weighed against the outcome.

So I would still write, in a colloquial sense (although I think that's my original mistake vis-a-vis yourself), that I "can't understand" (not meaning that I don't see or understand where they're coming from, but that their logic is both self-defeating and harmful to their own short term and long term interests - that is the point) why they thought they were being "protected" when getting pummelled.

And you seem to agree that the defense was more of a "defense" that didn't work out so well, by any logical evaluation.

And I think we're saying pretty close to the same thing, you just were really annoyed by how I said it.

Fair enough.

But fine, they were happy with this summer's outcome because the Israelis had some never materialized plans to annex part of Lebanon in the fifites and invaded in 1982 under a the "concocted pretext" of fighting a group that had been attacking Israel and Israeli interests from Lebanon since 1968.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 12:40 PM

they were happy with this summer's outcome because the Israelis had some never materialized plans to annex part of Lebanon in the fifites and invaded in 1982 under a the "concocted pretext" of fighting a group that had been attacking Israel and Israeli interests from Lebanon since 1968.

The concocted pretext was the claim that the reason for the invasion was the attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov. Also, in the years leading to the invasion the ratio of people in Lebanon killed by Israel to people in Israel killed by the PLO was at least in the hundreds if not in the thousands.

The reason I'm being purposefully rude to you is that you don't seem to be aware of some of the most basic aspects of this history, and when it's pointed out to you seem to think the history doesn't matter. This is a standard characteristic of people in extremely powerful countries. Ho-hum, Israel invaded Lebanon and killed 20,000 people. Ho-hum, Israel has had an avowedly aggressive stance toward Lebanon since its founding. Ho-hum, the shelling of Qana in 1996 alone killed as many people -- in fact, exactly the same number of people -- as all the Israelis killed in the attacks on "Israeli interests from Lebanon since 1968" to 1982.

How preposterous that anyone in Lebanon should let this affect their thinking! Obviously were you in their position you would be able to rise above their sad irrationality.

Posted by grh | January 25, 2007 1:51 PM

I didn't say "ho hum" about anything, but at the same time, especially since I very early on in this thread said that I understand why people supported Hezbollah, I don't think it's necessary to a discussion of whether Hezbollah's actions this summer were harmful to the interests of Lebanon - and specifically the Shia community and neighborhoods - to start every post with a lengthy history discussion.

And I know why Lebanese (and Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc... etc...), to be charitable, don't like Israelis.

The only reason I really care why Hezbollah supporters view their militia as "good protection against invasion," after having provided a "good defense" of Lebanon, is because it could very well lead to further destructive behavior that would be bad for everyone involved.

The IDF will engage in its own self-destructive behavior - in Gaza, the West BAnks as well as across the Lebanese border. If that were the topic of this thread, I would have been discussing that instead.

Any time an invasion is precipitated on a final act - as is frequently the case - one can use the term pretext. And often it may be true. But there was a small-scale war going on across that border (and against BOTH sides interests abroad) for 14 years.

Just because the Israelis had done more damage in a numbers sense (just as they did this summer) does not mean that their military/politicians did not want to figure out a way to try and to either end it once and for all, or, at a minimum, make things better, from their side.

Just as Hezbollah was trying to improve its position vis-a-vis Samir Kuntar and the other prisoners/hostages and Shebaa Farms, by their actions this summer.

And so no - I don't "ho hum" what the Israelis - or Hezbollah or the PLO/Hamas - do.

How preposterous that anyone in Lebanon should let this affect their thinking!

I don't know where you come up with this stuff - I never said anything should or shouldn't "affect their thinking." I have said - much to your chagrin, apparently - that such thinking is against their short term (as in they got pummelled this summer) and long term (as in what's happening in Lebanon vis-a-vis the other sects right now) interests, having nothing to do with past instances, including - correctly - crediting Hezbollah for booting the Israelis in 2000. Summer 2006 was either a "good defense" or "protection from invasion" or it wasn't. People are allowed to think whatever they want.

Even if you want to be cynical about it, Hezbollah happens to serve as a convenient (or concocted, for you) pretext, and their defense of Lebanon was, again to be charitable, extremely costly. If people are willing to glorify that cost, that's their business and they're entitled to it. But the point is that all of the (wellfounded, locally) justifications for sectarian support for Hezbollah does not mean that they provided a "good defense" or "protection from invasion."

Obviously were you in their position you would be able to rise above their sad irrationality.

Not the point, really, but there are non-Hezbollah supporting Shia (just as there are Western supporters of Hezbollah), and clearly, there are non-Hezbollah supporting Lebanese.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 25, 2007 3:05 PM