Putsch Interruptus?

Hezbollah stages what looked like the opening blows in a coup in Lebanon but then seem to have stopped short of that and "the Lebanese capital had mostly returned to calm on Friday morning" though Hezbollah and its allies still "closed down the television station and newspaper and political offices of Mr. Hariri, the leader of the largest bloc in Parliament, and handed them over to the Lebanese army."

Over the past year or so I've heard various voices try to propagate revisionist accounts of Israel's short-lived effort to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon where people tried to argue that the mission was only an apparent failure, but actually succeeded in some sense. I think we can see from events like this that that's total nonsense -- Hezbollah is very much not crushed.

Comments

Ok, someone please post a youtube link of McLaughlin and Buchanan laughing at Bush when he declared that Hezbollah was defeated. Too rich!

Posted by freddiemac | May 9, 2008 9:49 AM

I also think it is worth recalling those huge rallies in Lebanon that featured pictures of young hotties in tight t-shirts on some one shoulders above the crowd waving Lebanese flags. There were claims at the time about how Bush's confrontational strategy was working and all across the Middle east a new democratic day was dawning.

I can't quite recall precisely what they were calling it, some kind of Mideastern Prague Spring or Velvet Revolution.

Posted by Chuck | May 9, 2008 10:11 AM

Ah, Wikipedia. Scroll to the "Wave of Democracy" section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution

Posted by Chuck | May 9, 2008 10:18 AM

Ah yes, the Cedar Revolution. Unfortunately for Bush, the Middle East is Muslim!

Posted by freddiemac | May 9, 2008 10:31 AM

"Over the past year or so I've heard various voices try to propagate revisionist accounts of Israel's short-lived effort to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon where people tried to argue that the mission was only an apparent failure, but actually succeeded in some sense. I think we can see from events like this that that's total nonsense -- Hezbollah is very much not crushed."

Thanks much to the total incompetence of the Bobbsey triplets, Olmert, Halutz, and Peretz. The last two are gone, the first may be on his way out, hopefully to a term in the slammer.

Posted by SLC | May 9, 2008 10:35 AM

Huh? Maybe Hezbollah hasn't been crushed militarily (although it was a *failed* coup) but they've been crushed politically.

Since the war, Hezbollah has been demanding more power in the Lebanese government, and not getting it. Instead, they've turned the rest of the country against them. There haven't been any elections because Hezbollah hasn't wanted them They know that they've lost popularity and would do badly.

Posted by Ragout | May 9, 2008 10:54 AM

"Ah yes, the Cedar Revolution. Unfortunately for Bush, the Middle East is Muslim!"

So Muslims can't handle democracy? When did anti-war people become so stupid? Isn't Indonesia sort of a Muslim democracy? Turkey is a democracy which borders Syria and Iraq.

According to Hezbollah's leader, the Lebanese government started it by sending troops to shut down Hezbollah's private telephone network. The network greatly helped Hezbollah in it's victorious recent war with Israel.

Posted by Peter K. | May 9, 2008 10:55 AM

"Over the past year or so I've heard various voices try to propagate revisionist accounts of Israel's short-lived effort to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon where people tried to argue that the mission was only an apparent failure, but actually succeeded in some sense."

How long is 'crushed' supposed to last? Israel left quickly. Pretty much the main thing they demonstrated was that Hezbollah's much vaunted military capability counts only when Israel chooses not to fight back. Whether or not that helped the overall situation is open to debate.

Posted by Sebastian | May 9, 2008 11:06 AM

Iranian backed militias = trouble.

I am amazed that many people get all huffy about soveriegnty when the US snatches Jihadis off the streets but seem to think that Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army have some sort of legitimacy.

If you can point out a highly functioning democracy that is predominantly Muslim I have some ocean front property in AZ to sell you. I like Peter K's caveat "sort of" to describe Indonesia's democracy. I would call Turkey a "low functioning" democracy under threat by Islamic parties. The entire Muslim world is low functioning (social, economic, political) and repressive. I do like Middle Eastern food though.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2008 11:20 AM

"So Muslims can't handle democracy? When did anti-war people become so stupid? Isn't Indonesia sort of a Muslim democracy? Turkey is a democracy which borders Syria and Iraq."

Perhaps I should have clarified. This has nothing to do with democracy. This has everything to do with Palestine. Muslims generally support Palestinians. And people who support Palestinians are usually cast in with terrorists. Therefore Muslims are going to elect representatives that are labeled terrorist organizations by the Bush administration. You see it with Hamas (who won the elections in the West Bank and became pariahs), Hezbollah (who won democratic elections and became pariahs), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and also in Iraq (do you remember when Bush wouldn't consider an Islamist Iraq? Now Islam is part of the Iraqi constitution).

So it isn't that Muslims can't handle democracy. It is that Muslim interests don't align with US interests, especially in the Middle East (where they tend to live). So when Muslims democratically elect governments, it tends to end up poorly for old Georgie. If only the Middle East were Western Europe, like so many neo-cons wish, then the Cedar Revolution would have been the Velvet Revolution II.

Posted by freddiemac | May 9, 2008 11:35 AM

[If you can point out a highly functioning democracy that is predominantly Muslim I have some ocean front property in AZ to sell you]

if you're engaged in a difficult job like selling beachfront property in Arizona, it would be a good idea to make your attempts at a con game less obvious than sticking a meaningless "highly functioning" into this sentence in a place where it's obvious you're going to use it to sneak out of Turkey, Tanzania, Senegal, Malaysia, etc

Posted by dsquared | May 9, 2008 11:41 AM

"If you can point out a highly functioning democracy that is predominantly Muslim I have some ocean front property in AZ to sell you. I like Peter K's caveat "sort of" to describe Indonesia's democracy. I would call Turkey a "low functioning" democracy under threat by Islamic parties."

Well I'd say a lot of it is a legacy of European colonialism and the fact that the Middle East was a Cold War playground. Israel's aprathied-like treatment of Palestinians hasn't helped.

You sound like a spoiled tool who thinks because the home team fucking rocks that it rubs off on him somehow when all it means is that he was lucky enough not to be born into some third world shithole.

Posted by Peter K. | May 9, 2008 11:44 AM

In Lebanon, Shia's feel they are denied of a fair share of power - the Christians, Sunnis and Druzes have it all divided up under the constitution. It's a messy country with competing religious and ethnic groups. The presence of Palestinians upset the equilibrium in the 1970s, now its the pressure of Shi'ites for a

Iraq is the new Lebanon, or Lebanon is turning into the new Iraq -

Posted by toby | May 9, 2008 11:47 AM

"This has nothing to do with democracy. This has everything to do with Palestine. Muslims generally support Palestinians. And people who support Palestinians are usually cast in with terrorists. Therefore Muslims are going to elect representatives that are labeled terrorist organizations by the Bush administration."

If that's true, then Hezbollah has nothing to fear from letting Lebanon have elections: they can run on the platform of launching rockets at Israel and triggering another massive retaliation from the Israeli air force, and some other parties can run on making sure the recyclables get picked up on Wednesdays.

The truth is that the average Arab (and even the average Persian) is tired of their governments focusing more on the Palestinians than them. During the Hezbollah's war with Israel, Iranians were protesting that their government was spending money in Lebanon and not on them. After Saddam Hussein fell, the Palestinians who had been his guests in Iraq were ostracized by the Iraqis, who resented the interests of the Palestinians being put in front of theirs.

Posted by Steve B. | May 9, 2008 12:36 PM

I don't buy the "legacy of European colonialism" line. Colonialism ended primarily in the 50's and 60's. None enlightened leadership has driven their countries into the ground for 40 - 50 years. How long did they get a free pass for the past sins of the Europeans? Mugabe can't be blamed on the Europeans.

Israel is such an apartheid state that Fatah members fled there when Hamas took over. Israel is such an apartheid state that thousands of Africans sneak into the country every year. Rubbish. It is the best thing going in the ME. You want to see apartheid? Go to the Gulf States and see how foreign workers are treated.

Peter K. You are right. I thank God every day that I was born in the USA.

"Turkey, Tanzania, Senegal, Malaysia, etc" Real enlightened hotspots. See how far you get trying to convert from Islam in Malaysia. Want to compare emigration vs immigration rates for the afore mentioned countries compared to Europe or N. America?

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2008 1:16 PM

"Turkey, Tanzania, Senegal, Malaysia, etc" Real enlightened hotspots. See how far you get trying to convert from Islam in Malaysia. Want to compare emigration vs immigration rates for the afore mentioned countries compared to Europe or N. America?

If I was an Israeli, I'd emigrate to America as soon as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/world/middleeast/09briefs-AHATENOTEONI_BRF.html?ref=world

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “stinking corpse” that was doomed to fail, and warned countries that they would “burn in the fire of their people’s hatred” if they helped Israel, the news agency IRNA reported. “Today the reason for Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation,” he said in a speech on the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state."

The region's demographics work against Israeli, and Iran will get nukes sooner or later.

Posted by Peter K. | May 9, 2008 1:41 PM

C'mon, Peter, you're mistranslating the popular, elected, and peaceful Iranian leader and thereby have become part of the zionazi-neocon-jewish-christian-likudnik cabal that hates all brown people and fails to see how enlightened and progressive Islam truly is. Don't you get it - Muslems like Ahmedinijad are simply progressives in a hurry. Just ask Juan Cole - he'll tell you so.

One more thing - the Jews are not running away from Israel, no matter how loudly the Arabs and the Persians and the lefties yell. So what if Iran actually gets a bomb - what are they going to do that the Germans, the Palestinians, and the Arabs haven't already tried?

The spectacular success of the Jewish people and the State of Israel - although both, like all other humans and human creations, are far from perfect - these past 60 years defies rational explanation and are a testament to the power of freedom and the strength of the human spirit. Normal historical laws, apparently, don't apply to the Jews.

Israel is something every person who values the Western Enlightenment and individual freedom should celebrate. Why on earth would you run and hide under the bed, as if it were, rather than build your own country and (if you are Jewish) do your part to make the Biblical promise of Jewish return a reality?

Posted by Eagle613 | May 9, 2008 2:02 PM

I would call Turkey a "low functioning" democracy under threat by Islamic parties. The entire Muslim world is low functioning (social, economic, political) and repressive.

And that's about when I would call you an idiot bigot

Posted by daveNYC | May 9, 2008 2:38 PM

daveNYC - and you would call him names, why? Because you disagree with a conclusion amply supported by all available empirical evidence? By what metric is the Muslim world "high functioning" in social, economic, or political terms? Not health care. Not literacy. Not political freedom. Not women's rights. Not free speech. Not science and technology. Not economic development. Not peace. Not economic equality. Not child mortality. Not clean water. Not clean streets. Not public sanitation. Not tolerance of religious minorities. Not food production.

So let's see some evidence to refute the premise you find objectionable.

Oh, and here is where I call you a dangerously ignorant fool who ignores facts, and a grade A putz for calling names.

Putz.

Posted by Eagle613 | May 9, 2008 5:01 PM

Eagle613 - thanks for the backup. You said it much better than I. I am used to being called names for pointing out facts. Sometimes the truth hurts; especially when it has sharp edges.

Actually, this is a common leftist tactic. If someone says something they can't handle, they immediately revert to name calling and labelling. If I am a bigot than anything I say can be discounted regardless of the validity. Sigh.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2008 5:52 PM

Eagle613, it doesn't matter how superior you are if you are an ethnic bigot and treat people according to ethnicity.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 9, 2008 8:24 PM

Actually, this is a common leftist tactic. If someone says something they can't handle, they immediately revert to name calling and labelling.

Actually, the word "leftist" is also a form of escape from debate. It's used commonly by people who can't debate directly with people, but who want to address a vaguely defined boogeyman instead. It's a form of straw man argument that some people often use.

If I am a bigot than anything I say can be discounted regardless of the validity. Sigh.

Pretty much. A bigot is prejudiced and will look only for evidence of what he believes already.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 9, 2008 8:49 PM

The Swede Bengt Larsson illustrates a common trend: it's people from the whitest places who are the quickest to call others bigots and to deny that there are any differences between groups. They have the luxury to maintain such illusions. If Larsson lived in the U.S., I guarantee he wouldn't send his kids to a mostly-black or mostly-Muslim school.

Posted by Harry | May 9, 2008 10:19 PM

The point is of course the generalization to all members of a group; and you know nothing of what I would think.

If Larsson lived in the U.S., I guarantee he wouldn't send his kids to a mostly-black or mostly-Muslim school.

You have mostly-Muslim schools in the US? Otherwise that's a strange tie-in.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 9, 2008 10:38 PM

Eagle613,

you cite all "all available empirical evidence", and you make a correlation, but what you don't offer is any proof or even any theory of causation -- that these places are the way they are as a direct result of some inherent quality of Islam or Muslim culture. You could replace your argument for Muslim with African, or South American, or Animist, or Buddhist, or, dominated by citizens who are active believers in an organized religion, or (more likely) post-colonial.

Most of the things you list are a product of wealth and education, not an absence of Muslims or Muslim culture.

Posted by D. Fink | May 10, 2008 9:26 AM

"Normal historical laws, apparently, don't apply to the Jews."

Christ, all the scumbag Zionists are out in force, I see.

Hizballah handed Israel it's ass in 2006, not to mention driving Israel out of Lebanon in the first place, and will do so again in the next war Israel is already planning.

Hizballah has yet to retaliate for Mughniyah's killing and will definitely do so - preferably by taking out a high-ranking Israeli, which would be an appropriate response.

Hizballah is not preventing the elections and did not start the current crisis. The US did by pressuring the Lebanese government to crack down on Hizballah's communications network for the benefit of Israel's next attack on Lebanon. Since Hizballah is the ONLY force keeping Israel out of Lebanon, this is tantamount to treason on the part of the Lebanese government.

Israel will learn once again in the next war with Hizballah just how more powerful Hizballah is now than it was in 2006. They have more weapons, better weapons, and are better prepared now for Israeli tactics than before. Israeli might even lose a few jets this time, given the reports that Hizballah now has surface-to-air missiles. And Israel will lose a few more Merkavas this time, given that Hizballah now has better anti-tank missiles.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 10, 2008 6:03 PM