What Does Hezbollah Want?

Jeffrey Goldberg says Hezbollah "is simultaneously doing effective work undermining its apologists in the West. We've heard the arguments over and over again: Hezbollah is social service agency; Hezbollah wants to join the Lebanese political process; Hezbollah is not in fact dominated by murderous Jew-haters. And so on."

I find the idea that people who disagree with Goldberg's take on Hezbollah are, as such, apologists for the group is pretty offensive. Given that the policies that folks like me have been opposing have turned out to massively empower Hezbollah, I think you might as well say that the folks on the other side in the West are the "apologists" -- they're the ones who keep making Hezbollah more and more powerful.

Meanwhile, on the substantive point I would say that those of us who characterize Hezbollah as primarily a Lebanon-focused political movement that's primarily interested in gaining power inside Lebanon (rather than one primarily motivated by anti-semitic or anti-Israel sentiments) have been vindicated by this turn of events. Hezbollah's not fighting killing right now, and it's not fighting to destroy Israel -- they're fighting Lebanese people to try to secure more power in Lebanon.

Comments

A five dollar footlong?

Posted by strobopotamus | May 9, 2008 5:47 PM

Hezbollah's not fighting killing right now

Not fighting for the sake of kiiling, maybe?

----

Good post. Goldberg's blog so far has been shuttling between an embarrassment and an offense. I'm glad to see you taking him on.

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

Perhaps you could ask Jeffrey Goldberg to name all these "apologists in the West."

Since his blog doesn't take comments we can't ask him directly and since he doesn't publish his phone number we can't call him up and ask.

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

Are these ideas mutually exclusive? Can't the Hezbollah be fighting to take over Lebanon serve as a prelude to later menacing Israel? They want to do one and then the other, seeing the former as a necessary step toward the latter...

Posted by Bharris | May 9, 2008 5:55 PM

Are these ideas mutually exclusive? Can't the Hezbollah be fighting to take over Lebanon serve as a prelude to later menacing Israel? They want to do one and then the other, seeing the former as a necessary step toward the latter...

Posted by Bharris | May 9, 2008 5:57 PM

Can't the Hezbollah be fighting to take over Lebanon serve as a prelude to later menacing Israel?

Sure, but they could also be fighting to take over Lebanon in a misguided attempt to win the affections of Kate Bosworth. There's no reason to mount overly complex theories when the simplest answer is clear - like everyone else, Hezbollah wants power.

Controlling Lebanon is valuable in and of itself. There's no reason to assume that this group is motivated by crazy, when their actions are perfectly explicable as motivated by a desire for power.

Posted by DivGuy | May 9, 2008 5:59 PM

Well I was going to make a joke about this, but we're talking about the guy that got his shitty war...and A Pony!

...So he's nailed you, Matt. Admit it; you are a Jewish anti-semite and an atheistic Hezbollah apologist!

Posted by Client #11 | May 9, 2008 6:01 PM

Let's draw up a list of Hezbollah and Hamas ENABLERS, shall we? We could start with Condi and the Bush keystonekopatariat, Likud's similarly feckless out-lashers of 2006, Krauthammer, VDH(amas thanks you), and go on from there.

The "apologists" list, on the other hand, is kind of analogous to that of the Elders of Zion, so far as I have ever seen or heard tell. (Name one apologist who's not already considered beyond the pale of the political debate in foreign policy circles, you cowards....)

And again, I ask: Why are the powers that be at the Atlantic Monthly intent on dragging their fine name and brand into the ideological sewer?

Posted by elle loco | May 9, 2008 6:03 PM

One thing's for sure: whatever is going on in Lebanon is at least in part the result of 8 years of Bush-Israeli bungling throughout the Middle East. Everything they touch turns to shit.

Posted by Egypt Steve | May 9, 2008 6:06 PM

Given that the policies that folks like me have been opposing have turned out to massively empower Hezbollah

Matthew's typos strike again! It's not spelled "opposing", Matthew. The word is spelled "espousing".

The people who are empowering Hezbollah are the people who are standing in the way of striking Hezbollah, who are preventing us from taking action against Syria and Iran. People like Matthew are helping Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to expand their reach. And people like Obama are going to keep helping Iran and Syria do that through their naive idea that if we can just talk to Iran and Syria, everything will turn out OK.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 6:07 PM

since he doesn't publish his phone number we can't call him up and ask.

And I doubt he donated to the Obama campaign either, so they won't know.

But Goldberg's an embarrassment. No, his employers are an embarrassment, as big as those who hired Billy-bob Kristol.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 6:07 PM

Half-truth-plus-smear is the essential playbook of the Israeli-lobby sort of journo.

Posted by otto | May 9, 2008 6:16 PM

It's spelled 'Al' and pronounced 'giant fucking hack'. The wonders of the English language, Yg-mangled or otherwise.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 6:20 PM

"they're fighting Lebanese people to try to secure more power in Lebanon"
Just like us in Iraq, only they're better at it (for one thing, they actually know who they're fighting). And they're probably even using less firepower.
Perhaps this is why we're empowering their allies in Iraq...

Posted by Diana | May 9, 2008 6:23 PM

The Hezbollah supports, if you follow the link, are Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky and "the far-left combined with "secular liberals" who "applaud armed Islamic groups" because of "hostility" aimed at "the United States" and "Israel" arising from Israel's "treatment of the Palestinians" and "Western-dominated, capitalist-driven globalization."

Why its clear as mud, all those people over there behind those trees hating on our troops and freedoms. ; )

Posted by t. jasper parnell | May 9, 2008 6:34 PM

... those of us who characterize Hezbollah as primarily a Lebanon-focused political movement that's primarily interested in gaining power inside Lebanon (rather than one primarily motivated by anti-semitic or anti-Israel sentiments

If this is Hezbollah in a nutshell, then why did it stoke a war with Israel in 2006 and why does Al-Manar broadcast anti-Semitic material?

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | May 9, 2008 6:52 PM

Sheesh Matt, and once they've consolidated power in Lebanon, what do you suppose they'll do with it? Hold bake sales? I wasn't sure it was possible to be as naive as you seem to be, but hey - go be a throwback to Kellog and Briand. History hasn't treated them well, and it won't treat your mindset well, either.

Posted by James Robertson | May 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Hezbollah is the "A-Team of Terrorism" because we're the "F Troop" of Middle East diplomacy.

Posted by Trevor | May 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Sheesh Matt, and once they've consolidated power in Lebanon, what do you suppose they'll do with it? Hold bake sales?

I can tell you what they won't do - launch a suicidal war on Israel.

Will they oppose Israel more than the current government, if they seize power? Yes, because they won't be dependent on US support for their hold on power. But they're not suicide bombers, they're a political-military party like many others in Lebanon, and they should be understood as a perfectly normal, deterrable, negotiable power group, even if we don't like them.

Posted by DivGuy | May 9, 2008 7:01 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg's latest post is titled "Muslim-Jewish Anti-Hog Coalition." If Goldberg keeps on like this James Kirchick may have to fight for the name Mini-Me.

Posted by nms | May 9, 2008 7:37 PM

Let me fix Al's post for you, guys.

"The people who are empowering Hezbollah are the people who are standing in the way of striking Hezbollah, who are preventing us from taking action against Syria and Iran."

Thereby sinking the US economy and military into a black hole from which it may never recover, since Hizballah is an organization which is pretty clearly the master of Fourth Gen War and therefore cannot be destroyed without essentially destroying most of the Shia in Lebanon.

Not to mention the same capability writ large in Iran, if not Syria. And I suspect Syria learned a lot from the 2006 war and will be turning to asymmetric war if Israel attacks Syria.

"People like Matthew are helping Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to expand their reach."

Hizballah has no interest in "expanding its reach" It's sole function is to safeguard Lebanon from Israel imperialism. It didn't exist until it was created precisely because of Israeli imperialism, just as Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until the US came in and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army wasn't significant until the US came in.

I'm sure Hizballah wants to see the Israeli state eliminated. It's a justified position given Zionist imperialism. They also know they can't do that directly. They also presumably have solidarity with the Palestinians to some degree, and would like to see the Palestinians achieve their homeland back. But the reality is they can't do anything directly about that either.

Not to mention that Hizballah represents the Shia in Lebanon. Their primary interest is in insuring the Shia get adequate representation in the government, which has not been the case for decades, similar to Iraq. I don't hear Al screaming about Ayatollah Sistani supporting the Shia ascending to power in Iraq, even though Sistani has long been on record as wanting the US to leave. But he bitches because the Shia in Lebanon have been stomped on by Sunnis and Israel for decades, but have also managed to put together a fighting force that can influence that.

"And people like Obama are going to keep helping Iran and Syria do that through their naive idea that if we can just talk to Iran and Syria, everything will turn out OK."

Whereas Al wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" - and Syria - thus leading to the collapse of the US economy and military, not to mention enriching the oil companies and the military-industrial complex, not to mention continuing to inflame the entire ME region. And he thinks this is a good thing.

Al is a moron.

Any notion that Hizballah wants to "attack Israel" is brain dead. They don't have any capability to do so in any way that would directly threaten Israel's existence. Their sole capability is to kick Israel's ass when Israel tries to invade Lebanon, as Israel learned during the original Lebanese war and again in 2006 - and will learn again shortly when it tries to attack Lebanon again, as it most certainly will.

"why did it stoke a war with Israel in 2006 and why does Al-Manar broadcast anti-Semitic material?"

First, Hizballah did in no way "stoke a war" in 2006. They kidnapped two soldiers with the intent of doing a prisoner swap for Lebanese prisoners still held by Israel. Israel, who had been planning a war on Lebanon for at least the previous six months to a year, used that action as an excuse to invade Lebanon, seize the Litani River area for the water rights, and push back Hizballah north, while destroying much of Lebanon's infrastructure and killing a thousand Lebanese civilians who had nothing to do with Hizballah solely to disrupt the Lebanese government for its own purposes.

To accuse Hizballah of "stoking a war" under these circumstance is to reveal profound ignorance of the situation at the time, not to mention a severe case of ketamine addiction.

As for why al-Manar might broadcast anti-Jewish sentiment, I suggest one look at the sort of rhetoric the Israeli right uses against Palestinians, and further, the sort of rhetoric scum like Dershowitz and SLC use against the critics of Israel in this country. While all Jews are not to blame for the Palestinians and Lebanese problems, clearly it IS Jews - Zionist Jews specifically - who are. It's not surprising that militants in Lebanon aren't concerned about Jewish feelings as concern trolls in the US.

When you were the victim of Israeli war crimes for years, one tends to have less than a passionate attachment to Jews.

Tough shit. Deal with it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 9, 2008 7:41 PM

Yes. This is right.

People that try and conflate Hezbollah with AQ or Iran or anything else are grossly mistaken. While Iran may funnel weapons and the like to the area (for geopolitical power reasons), hezbollah is an indigenous Lebanese movement. People of Goldberg's ilk that wish to flatter themselves and insist that Hezbollah is a jew hating machine first betray an understanding of lebanon or Hezbollah's history. As we know, they rose to fame when Israel was occupying Lebannon and the people of that country were none to keen on it. Whereas all the corrupt governments of the middle east could never skillfully repel Israel, Hezbellah did so and gained popular support because of it. Whether one like there politics, religion or whatever, they are a group with a rather strictly defined agenda, relegated to matters lebanese.

As concerns Goldberg, the man is always wrong and displays a culturally chauvinistic attitude on everything. The fact that Atlantic harbors this imbecile is a rather sad commentary on its intellectual worth. Outside of Yglesias, what do they have, Fallows (who blogs little) and Ambinder who is strictly a narrow electoral commentator. Kinda sad. It's time that either Matt found a better home or the Atlantic stop giving ponies to lying, bloodthirsty assholes.

Posted by jeff | May 9, 2008 7:48 PM

Seriously, has anyone been over to that wretched corner of the blogosphere Goldberg calls home. It looks like half of his posts are about the Nation of Islam and the other half about the danger of Arabs. It's like the Atlantic imported him to compete with Marty Peretz's "Spine" for most useless jewish-centric blog. After a quick glance, it seems that J Goldberg thinks that a pogrom is going to break out among a dangerous coalition of blacks, arabs, and goyim.

Posted by jeff | May 9, 2008 7:58 PM

Ditto @ James Robertson's comment. Even if one concedes the idea that Hezbollah "just" wants to seize/increase power in Lebanon, that only raises the real question, which is what the ramifications will be of a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon? Is there anyone outside of Lebanon who might have valid reasons to be concerned about such an eventuality? You really assert the answer to be "no"?

(And even that ignores the implicit notion that we're all required to think it's ok if Hezbollah "just" kills a lot of people in Lebanon until they seize power over them...)

Matthew's analysis does not appear to contemplate this question, which basically means he is missing the entire point.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 8:05 PM

Jeesh, the comments on this thread, are as ugly as anything found on right-wing Zionist OR left-wing Anti-Zionist blogs. One of URL links below will take 'ya to reportage/polemic vs. the main "anti-war" coalition in the UK, led by the Trotskyist SWP, in a "Right Opportunist" Bloc with Reactionary Islamists.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/09/hezbollah-takes-west-beirut/ Hezbollah takes west Beirut

Gene, May 9th 2008, 6:40 pm

Hezbollah and its allies have taken control of west Beirut and shut down pro-government media in fighting that has left at least 11 Lebanese dead.

The Lebanese army, not wishing to take sides, chose not to get involved.

Opposition gunmen of the Syrian Socialist National Party set ablaze a building housing studios of [governing coalition leader Saad] Hariri’s TV station.

You may remember those outright fascists from one of the posts in davem’s Syrian Journal last year.

AFP reports:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — whose country is Iran’s closest regional ally — said the unrest was a purely “internal affair” but called for dialogue.

And I’m sure he’d say exactly the same if his allies in Hezbollah had got their asses kicked.

Is it safe to say that Saturday’s “Free Palestine” demonstration in London will feature lots more glorification from the “We Are All Hezbollah” crowd?

Update: Two blogs by people on the ground in Beirut: here and here.

Posted by Michael Pugliese | May 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg>.... "I believe, simply put, that the occupation of the West Bank undermines Israel demographically, strategically, and morally."
Golly jee-whiz, 'ya mean Goldberg can critique the Neo-Cons? B.b.but, isn't he a neo-con?
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_delusions_of_caroline_glic.php

Posted by Michael Pugliese | May 9, 2008 8:16 PM

Matt there you go using evidence and logic again. Won't you ever learn that they hate us for our freedom, >i>that is the only important thing.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 9, 2008 8:17 PM

Will someone besides the brilliantly named Richard Steven Hack, resident lunatic and apparent anti-Semite, answer my question?

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | May 9, 2008 8:21 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg is definitely an awful addition to the Atlantic Magazine. He as one issue type of the Martin Peretz school.

Posted by Dustin | May 9, 2008 8:23 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg is definitely an awful addition to the Atlantic Magazine. He is a one issue type of the Martin Peretz school.

Posted by Dustin | May 9, 2008 8:23 PM

Has anyone noticed an uncanny resemblance between a bearded Jonah Goldberg and Hamza Yusuf? I think that is absolutely hilarious.

Posted by Sid | May 9, 2008 8:27 PM

Iranian website.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54916§ionid=351020203 Al-Qaeda 'declares war on Hezbollah'
Fri, 09 May 2008 19:19:35
Al-Qaeda has reportedly called on its operatives to go to Lebanon and defend what it called the Sunni community of the country.

The report came while some Arab media outlets described the current clashes in Lebanon as a fight between Sunni and Shia communities.

In an interviews with Sunni clerics with links to Saad Hariri's pro-government bloc, Al-Arabiya TV network described the ongoing clashes as a sectarian strife.

Sheikh Ali al-Jozo, Mufti of the Jebel region, who is well known for his harsh stance against Hezbollah told the TV network that the clashes are a battle between Lebanon's Shia and Sunni communities and called on Arab leaders to prevent "Iran's influence in the country."

The TV network reported that al-Qaeda on all of its websites urged its operatives to defend the Sunni community of Lebanon.

The reports came while in interviews with NBN and al-Manar TV stations on Thursday, a number of Sunni clerics said that the clashes are not a sectarian strife and many Sunni Muslims in Lebanon support Hezbollah.

RE/RE

Posted by Michael Pugliese | May 9, 2008 8:27 PM

"Hezbollah's not fighting killing right now, and it's not fighting to destroy Israel -- they're fighting Lebanese people to try to secure more power in Lebanon."

As if that were legitimate.

Israel's misadventure in Lebanon didn't come out of nowhere. It came out of a desire to hunt down people determined to destroy it as a nation-State by violent means.

Hack is the sort of fool Goldberg was writing about. Being realistic and pragmatic about Hezbollah is not the same thing as taking their side. The psychology of shared victimhood through delusional empathy knows no bounds (just ask the Hillbots.) The only thing more annoying than the Israel can do no wrong crowd is the Hezbollah/Hamas can do no wrong crowd.

Whatever domestic grievances the Shia might have in Lebanon do not justify Hezbollah's power lust and demagogic worldview. Putting them in context doesn't have to go along with making excuses for them. Israel left Lebanon. That could have been the beginning of peace, but peace is not what these people want. They want to win the whole thing. The vengeance should sicken us all.

Matt's mostly right on policy: fighting fire with fire often leads to fire. That doesn't mean he isn't also naive. Evil people can and do exploit good faith diplomacy as a weakness. Since Matt rightfully criticizes Bushies for engaging in faux-diplomacy without any real intent of compromise, I expect him to make the same demands of groups that attack civilians on purpose. If Hezbollah can't concede anything, they don't deserve a place at the table -- not ours, or Lebanon's.

Posted by nice strategy | May 9, 2008 9:14 PM

Well, here we go:

1) Hezbollah did not start a war with Israel. If you believe capturing two soldiers is tantamount to a deceleration of war than Israel has tried to forment war innumerable times. The Israeli supreme court legalized hostage taking in 1997 by declaring captured Lebanese as bargaining chips. The idea was to capture Lebanese in order to induce prisoner swaps of Israeli soldiers. Thus, Hezbellahs act was, according to Israeli rules, merely a tit for tat.

2)Im not sure how Al-Manar's broadcast of anti-semitic material proves anything other than Hezbollah is anti semitic. That is not the same as creating a second shoah, nor does it suggest that their interest is destroying Israel. Instead, while they are anti-semitic, their primary interest is in matters Lebanese, and this includes protecting and repelling Israel from incursions in Lebanese territory as well as attempting to reclaim imprisoned comrades. So their interest in Israel is secondary and predicated on protecting the territorial sanctity of Lebanon.

Posted by jeff | May 9, 2008 9:15 PM

Jeffrey Goldberg says ... "We've heard the arguments over and over again. Hezbollah is social service agency; "

so I guess it shouldn't have been impossible for him to find one of those arguments on the intertubes no ? I personally have never read or heard the claim that Hezbollah is a social service agency.

Recall
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002250.html

"God, it would be SO GREAT if there were some invention that would give Goldberg enough room to demonstrate with evidence [snip] Even better would be if this invention allowed Goldberg to easily direct readers' attention to such evidence elsewhere, thereby "linking" his post to it.

Perhaps someday science will provide us with such a glorious new means of communication. Certainly if it ever exists, Jeffrey Goldberg will make full use of it. He hates being forced to baldly assert things as fact and expect everyone to take his word for it. But given the internet's terrible shortcomings, he has no other choice."

Now I personally noticed that Goldberg was at it again, but I had no recollection of where I read that wonderful takedown. So I used The Google.

It was tough as all I remembered was "Jeffrey Goldberg" and something about limits to internet technology. Took me two whole searches even (jeffrey goldberg internet limits no dice and jeffrey goldberd internet technology 5th hit a link to the tinyrevolution post.). Turns out that there are *a lot* of Jeffrey Goldberg's and many of them know a lot more about internet technology than your esteemed colleague. Either that or one other Jeffrey Goldberg and that one can't keep a job for more than a month.

Now the full takedown about how recent events support the view that Hezbollah (also) cares about countries other than Israel (huh wah ? Only an insane apologist would think that people in Lebanon care about Lebanon too ?) was good, but, I think not the best use of your brain Matt. I suggest that someone wikipediaize the internet linking to blog posts like Goldberg's with a post consisting entirely of "citation needed."

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 9, 2008 9:35 PM

If this is Hezbollah in a nutshell, then why did it stoke a war with Israel in 2006

To get back Lebanese prisoners held in Israel since the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon 1982-2000.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 9, 2008 10:06 PM

Re John-Paul Pagano vis Richard Steven Hack

Since I have not seen Mr. Paganos' name previously on this blog, he may be unfamiliar with Mr. Hacks' background. Mr. Hack is a self described anarchist and ex-convict who was convicted of armed bank robbery and spent 9 years in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas for his crime.

Since he has been commenting on this blog, presumably after release from prison, he has, among other things advocated the assassination of police officers and made threats against right wing fascist radio talk show host Michael Savage (nee Weiner). As Mr. Pagano has inferred, Mr. Hack is a man who quite clearly does not have both oars in the water.

Posted by SLC | May 9, 2008 10:09 PM

Robert Waldmann

so I guess it shouldn't have been impossible for him to find one of those arguments on the intertubes no ? I personally have never read or heard the claim that Hezbollah is a social service agency.

When I do the search "hezbollah" "social services" it comes back with about 101,000 hits. To be sure many of the results point to sites attempting to dismiss/debunk the social services claim. Other results do not, and present Hezbollah's social services provision in the context of an "on the other hand.." or "because they are politically astute.." or "what complicates the issue is.." argument (cf. here). At a glance the ratio appears to be fairly evenly split between the two. So there are plenty of people who play up or at least feel the need to point out Hezbollah's "social services" angle; it's certainly strange that you could have never heard this before, if you've been paying attention to the surrounding debate.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | May 9, 2008 10:19 PM

Maybe they should invade Poland.

They may be disappointed though in the limited number of gay tailors.

Posted by Linus | May 9, 2008 10:52 PM

"As Mr. Pagano has inferred, Mr. Hack is a man who quite clearly does not have both oars in the water." (SLC)

Coming from a twerp that pleasures himself by swishing his snail in a septic tank - that's rich.

Posted by Trevor | May 9, 2008 11:18 PM

As Mr. Pagano has inferred, Mr. Hack is a man who quite clearly does not have both oars in the water.

Be that as it may, Mr. Hack got the better of their little exchange. That's the glory of the internet, the better logic wins.

Would someone please point us to the evidence that Hezbollah is other than an internal Lebanese political party that attempts to protect its constituency groups in that notoriously violent country, both from external Israeli invasion and from the constant threat of Lebanese civil war.

Posted by mq | May 9, 2008 11:54 PM

Positions in the Lebanese political system are doled out based on sect or religion - prime minister's a Sunni, president's a Maronite, the Shi'ites have somebody, Druze somebody, Greek Orthodox...

There relative powers are supposedly dictated from some long-ago census that does not reflect the demographics today, with the Shi'ites now probably being drastically underrepresented. Most non-Shi'ites aren't particularly keen on a new census, and the likelihood that a legitimate one could be carried out is small.

Posted by Mike | May 10, 2008 12:49 AM

Is Jeff Goldberg objectively pro Hezbollah? Wouldn't that be a fair characterization of him if you uses a similar criteria of thinking about his program that he used with others in the past?

Wasn't Goldberg's cynical attempt to convince Americans that Saddam was linked to 9-11 part of a sales job that led to a policy that helped Nasrallah?

Twenty years from now - upon reflection - Goldberg would probably admit this and write a book about it and do a panel discussion.

Posted by Comment | May 10, 2008 1:01 AM

Why are there no suggestions for a two-state solution in Lebanon? Give one part to Hezbollah, and they can run that they way they want, and give the other to all the other Lebanese. To remove any pretext for future Hezbollah-Israel wars, Hezbollah can be given a territory in Northern Lebanon. This would seem to be a win-win-win: The non-Hezbollah Lebanese could live in peace and attract foreign investment; Hezbollah would have the autonomy to live in their own Islamic state; and Israel wouldn't have any Hezbollah rocketeers on its northern border.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 1:01 AM

Lebanon is patched together with a confessional system that assigns power based on ethnic group/religion, and the arrangement short-changes the Shiites. But the Shiites form nearly half the population, and the Christians are split, with half of the Christians in the pro-Syrian alliance along with Hezbollah.

If the Lebanese had a truly democratic system, Hezbollah and its allies could take power by popular vote.

Posted by Joe Buck | May 10, 2008 1:17 AM

R.S. Hack's patient, unsentimental facts on the ground assessment of Hezbollah's extra-legitimate, raison d'etre should silence for good all the cowardly ziocon worms still shilling for the Terrorist State that is Apartheid Israel. But, no, they mince to the constipated whine their putzo dumbbell fuhrer Joe Lieberman instructs them with. When in doubt...cry "anti-Semite!" - the carp an effete metallic rasp followed by spittle and involuntary leg kicks.

Posted by Trevor | May 10, 2008 2:52 AM

"Why are there no suggestions for a two-state solution in Lebanon? Give one part to Hezbollah, and they can run that they way they want, and give the other to all the other Lebanese. To remove any pretext for future Hezbollah-Israel wars, Hezbollah can be given a territory in Northern Lebanon. This would seem to be a win-win-win: The non-Hezbollah Lebanese could live in peace and attract foreign investment; Hezbollah would have the autonomy to live in their own Islamic state; and Israel wouldn't have any Hezbollah rocketeers on its northern border.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 1:01 AM"

That is an interesting idea. It makes me queasy, but nobody has shown they have what it takes to remove Hezbollah from power in southern Lebanon. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Christian, Sunni and Druze leaders start floating this idea in a few years to reduce Lebanon's Shi'ite population and to end some of their problems with Israel. However, such a state would have to be located in southern Lebanon to make this workable. First of all, that is where their base of support is and where a lot of poor Shi'ites are. If Hezbollah was given a state in the North to separate it from Israel, Hezbollah would leave a enough of a rump in the South that it would still be the South's de facto government (and thus still cause problems between Israel and Lebanon) while gaining power in a place they wouldn't be wanted in the first place.

When an outside force like Israel starts bombing nearly random targets like the Beirut airport and power plants, they reduce the average Lebanese person's power and wealth vis-a-vis Hezbollah, making it harder for the Lebanese to root out Hezbollah. Think of how our bombing of Cambodia may have killed a few Khmer Rouge members incidentally, but it killed so many normal Cambodians and destroyed so much of Cambodia's infrastructure that it became easier for the KR to seize power.

Posted by Reality Man | May 10, 2008 3:25 AM

What Hezbollah is doing now is to cash in on the boost in popularity after Israels bombing of Lebanon. The parliamentary (Confessionalism) system is both flawed, rigid and rigged, where positions and seats are predetermined. The President, for example, has to be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian-
This is a recipe for eternal unrest .Siniora's illegitimate and corrupt regime with its close ties to Bush and American bank institutions has very little support in the Lebanese population , and Olmert's ill conceived war made Siniora's position even worse. His attack on Palestinian refugee camps and closing of the opposition’s media outlet are but the last convulsions of a dying regime.

Posted by Daga | May 10, 2008 3:29 AM

Jeez, which country do y'all think will get to choose its government by direct popular vote first?

The United States of America or Lebanon?

Lebanon may beat us to it, and the thanks may go to Hezbollah...

...which will, of course, turn Lebanon into a living hell, the "creative class" will emigrate en masse...

Many will wash up, here, in the USA. Some will end up driving Matt's hybrid taxicabs in Washington,DC.

Earth to Matt....when you get into that taxicab, and notice the Lebanese "cedar tree" FLAG magnet on the dashboard...

Don't bring up the topic of Hezbollah as a social movement with the cabbie.

Look at the magnet, keep quiet on the ride.

When you get out of the cab, hand the guy a huge tip, tell him you're a Jew and fool him into thinking that you know shit from shinola about
Lebanon.

No.

Just hand the guy a huge tip.

Posted by wobbly | May 10, 2008 4:03 AM

Jeez, which country do y'all think will get to choose its government by direct popular vote first?

The United States of America or Lebanon?

Lebanon may beat us to it, and the thanks may go to Hezbollah...

...which will, of course, turn Lebanon into a living hell, the "creative class" will emigrate en masse...

Many will wash up, here, in the USA. Some will end up driving Matt's hybrid taxicabs in Washington,DC.

Earth to Matt....when you get into that taxicab, and notice the Lebanese "cedar tree" FLAG magnet on the dashboard...

Don't bring up the topic of Hezbollah as a social movement with the cabbie.

Look at the magnet, keep quiet on the ride.

When you get out of the cab, hand the guy a huge tip, tell him you're a Jew and fool him into thinking that you know shit from shinola about
Lebanon.

No.

Just hand the guy a huge tip.

Posted by wobbly | May 10, 2008 4:10 AM

Globalizers like Mr. Yglesias seem to think that a future of open borders emigration is good for everyone, particularly people in the emigrants' home countries. Lebanon is a good example to the contrary. Lebanon was founded as a Christian homeland and many of its problems stem from the fact that so many Christian have emigrated to Europe, South America, etc. that it has altered the balance of power and created a power vacuum. A non-Christian Lebanon really doesn't have that much logical reason to exist and would probably make more sense as part of Syria. (Part of this is also related of course to the much lower birth rate among Christians).

Daga, you make a good point, but I thought the position reserved for Orthodox Christians was Foreign Minister, not Deputy PM. I also think the head of the army needs to be a Druze. I'm not opposed to a confessionalist system in principle but obviously it doesn't work terribly well in Lebanon anymore because of the demographic changes I mentioned above.

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 9:22 AM

Just out of curiosity, what is the likely fate for Lebanese Christians under a Hezbollah regime?

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 9:33 AM

"Lebanon was founded as a Christian homeland and many of its problems stem from the fact that so many Christian have emigrated to Europe, South America, etc. that it has altered the balance of power and created a power vacuum. A non-Christian Lebanon really doesn't have that much logical reason to exist and would probably make more sense as part of Syria. (Part of this is also related of course to the much lower birth rate among Christians)."

They moved away because of civil war. It would be downright inhuman for parents who would have the opportunity to move with their children to a new country so that their children wouldn't be killed in a violent civil war but decided not to just to keep Lebanon a little more Christian. So people shouldn't be allowed to leave war zones? That's sick.

Posted by Reality Man | May 10, 2008 9:37 AM

Re Hector

To answer Mr. Hectors' question, consider the fate of the few Christians remaining in the Gaza Strip which is under the Hamas terrorists. Several churches there have been firebombed since the Hamas terrorists took over in a coup.

Posted by SLC | May 10, 2008 9:42 AM

Reality Man,

I didn't say that the Lebanese Christians should not have been _allowed_ to emigrate. But they did, by emigrating, contribute to making the situation worse for people who stayed, by exacerbating the power vacuum. In point of fact, Christian emigration has been going on for at least 130 years, long before the modern civil war, and many Christians emigrated for economic opportunity. The established Lebanese communities in places like France, Brazil, Argentina, the United States and parts of Africa are quite old.

Emigrating to the USA was certainly good for my parents but it probably wasn't so good for the India which was deprived of their efforts and talents.

Posted by Hector | May 10, 2008 9:52 AM

Um, giving the Falangist Christians power would result in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataeb_Party if history is to be trusted.

The genocidal Christian party is the bad guys. Hezbollah may not be the good guys, but the party advocating genocide is DEFINITELY the bad guys.

Posted by Luke | May 10, 2008 11:23 AM

"The Lebanese army, not wishing to take sides, chose not to get involved."

One might note this as an important fact. Particularly since the Army is mostly composed of poor Shia who are the ones being represented by Hizballah.

Also, the Lebanese Army is pathetically ill-equipped, undermanned, ill-trained, and would be essentially useless against Hizballah, even though it outnumbers them. If Israel's 10-15,000 well-trained, well-equipped military couldn't do much of anything against Hizballah's 2,000 or less guerrillas in 2006, expecting the Lebanese Army to do anything is ridiculous.

If another civil war breaks out in Lebanon, you can count on Israel mounting another invasion to take advantage of it.

As for making Lebanon a two-state solution: ridiculous. A quick Google found this:

"A 1986 estimate by the United States Central Intelligence Agency of the confessional distribution of the population showed 27 percent Sunnis, 41 percent Shias, 7 percent Druzes, 16 percent Maronites, 5 percent Greek Orthodox, and 3 percent Greek Catholics. However, these data were, at best, informed estimates subject to revision."

So you're going to move the Sunnis, who are probably a quarter of the population, where? The Shia are almost half tha population. They're going to move? Where? The thirty percent who are some form of Christian are going to move where?

Then there's this problem - the mixture of population:

"Until the 1950s, Beirut was inhabited primarily by non-Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims. In the 1950s a wave of immigrants from all parts of Lebanon and from all sects sought the lure of economic prosperity and the readily available government services of Beirut. The civil strife that began the 1970s has reinforced the sectarian demographic divisions in the city.

Other major cities in Lebanon include Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek, and Zahlah. Tripoli, the capital of Ash Shamal Province, has a majority Sunni population and a Christian minority. Sidon, in Al Janub Province, also has a Sunni majority, with a sizable Christian community. Tyre, in Al Janub Province, has a diverse sectarian composition. Although the majority of its inhabitants are Shias, the city has always included Christians of various sects. Baalbek, in Al Biqa Province, has a Shia majority and a Christian minority. Zahlah, also in Al Biqa Province, has a predominantly Christian population."

So basically you're going to uproot the entire country's population and shuffle them like deck chairs.

It's ridiculous and has nothing in common with Israel.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 10, 2008 6:49 PM

R.S. Hack,

You could give the Shia a part of Lebanon proportionate to their share of the population, and they could be compensated for moving to the Northern part of Lebanon. Current non-Shia residents of Northern Lebanon could be similarly compensated for moving to Southern Lebanon. Eliminating the Hezbollah-Israel conflict would remove a source of instability and friction for Lebanon, and a Shia-versus-everyone-else partition would remove another. Syria could be given a de facto approval to interfere in the Shia part of Lebanon if they agreed to leave the non-Shia part alone. As part of the partition, Lebanon's Palestinians, who have been confined to refugee camps and denied the rights of legal residency in Lebanon, could be given those equal rights in either the northern or southern partitions of the country. Again, the Shia would be free to live the way they want, and a smaller, ex-Shia, multi-confessional Lebanon would have a chance at achieving peace and prosperity. Without the constant threat of Hezbollah-instigated fighting, perhaps some of the highly-talented and entrepreneurial Lebanese Christian diaspora would come back to Lebanon.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 8:15 PM

You're an idiot, Fred.

One is not going to uproot the entire country for this stupid scheme.

Also, shuffling the populations around would not "eliminate the Hezbollah-Israel conflict" since Israel would not stop trying to get the Litani River water, or otherwise stop trying to expand into Lebanon - and probably try to drive more Palestinians into Lebanon. It would merely make it harder for Hizballah to defend Lebanon against Israel.

And this is precisely your goal with this stupid notion - to make Lebanon vulnerable to Israel.

And Hizballah is not the only one instigating fighting in Lebanon, as the attempt to shut down their communications network proves.

Not to mention that there are probably plenty of mixed Sunni-Shia families in Lebanon, just as there are in Iraq, and this sort of ethnic cleansing is just incredibly damaging to those families who choose to live in specific locations in a country.

But of course, you don't give a shit about them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 10, 2008 8:42 PM

"You're an idiot, Fred."

Thanks, Hack.

"Also, shuffling the populations around would not "eliminate the Hezbollah-Israel conflict" since Israel would not stop trying to get the Litani River water, or otherwise stop trying to expand into Lebanon"

Sure it would, since Israel has no interest in expanding into Lebanon or attempting to divert water from the Litani river.

"And this is precisely your goal with this stupid notion - to make Lebanon vulnerable to Israel."

I'm not sure why you'd think I would want Lebanon to be vulnerable to Israel, but the reality is that Lebanon is vulnerable now, because with Hezbollah on Israel's northern border, Hezbollah can draw the rest of Lebanon into a war it doesn't want by launching attacks on Israel that will result in Israeli retaliation, just as it did in 2006. The presence of the latest group of foreign peace keepers on the border can neither prevent Hezbollah from launching missiles at Israel nor prevent Israel from responding with artillery or air strikes.

"Not to mention that there are probably plenty of mixed Sunni-Shia families in Lebanon, just as there are in Iraq, and this sort of ethnic cleansing is just incredibly damaging to those families who choose to live in specific locations in a country."

And the status quo constant fighting and instability isn't "incredibly damaging" to them?

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 9:07 PM

"consider the fate of the few Christians remaining in the Gaza Strip which is under the Hamas terrorists. Several churches there have been firebombed since the Hamas terrorists took over in a coup." Posted by SLC | May 10, 2008 9:42 AM

Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense. (consider the source). It is "The Land of Milk and Honey" that has bombed, out, imprisoned, persecuted, shot "by accident" an ungodly number of Christian churches, Christian pastors, and good Christian people (Arab and Occidental) in Jerusalem, Nazaret, all across "Judea" and "Samaria". We all recall the "oops" we shot the poor Christian churchgoer who rang his churche's bell "incident" when Israel decided to fire tank rounds into this most ancient and holy of Holy Land churches to flesh out a few "terrorists" holed up there. It has always been the penultimate goal of ziocons (in and out of Israel) to con Christians into thinking the "Islamists" wish to establish their "Caliphate" on the skeletons of Pat Boone and John The Baptist...all the while continuing an outright "Jewish Homeland" militarized Terror campaign of ethnic/religious cleansing. The "most moral army in the world" Israelis make the Stone Buddha smashing Taliban look like sandbox ruffians.

Christian Lebanon would GREATLY prefer a Hezbollah controlled Lebanon to the brand of tolerance sure to be offered by their Zionazi enemy. No contest. After Israel's indiscriminate cluster bombing of southern Lebanon in its Invade Lebanon! Part II misadventure in '06 - Lebanese Christians hold no more illusions about the sweet, caring schnook Terror State next door.

Posted by Trevor | May 10, 2008 9:26 PM

Trevor,

I have no particular love for the State of Israel, but comparing them to the Taliban is simply absurd. Israel bombs Christian holy sites because they happen to be in the way. Perhaps they are wrong to do so, but it's qualitatively different than Hamas doing so because they want to purify the holy land of infidels, or some such.

Israel is a nation like any other. It's no better than most, but it's no worse either. Throwing around terms like 'Zionazi' is really damn creepy.

Posted by Hector | May 11, 2008 9:39 AM

Fred: "since Israel has no interest in expanding into Lebanon or attempting to divert water from the Litani river."

Like I said, you're an idiot.

"the reality is that Lebanon is vulnerable now,"

Only because Israel wants to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank into Lebanon (and elsewhere) and for the other reasons cited, and to do that Lebanon must be an Israeli satrap and to do that Hizballah must be destroyed.

Which is entirely why the Lebanese government, a puppet of the US, is trying to crack down on Hizballah. The Guardian says this:

"The 18-month political crisis that has left the country without a parliament or president was sparked in the immediate aftermath of the July war, when Prime Minister Siniora called a cabinet meeting to discuss disarming Hizbollah. In response, Nasrallah accused Siniora of being a 'traitor' and working for Washington and Tel Aviv.

'Before the July war, Hizbollah had called for a national unity government,' said Amal Saad Ghorayeb, a Hizbollah expert. 'But after the war, they became much more vocal and hard-line because they saw that there was a clear US policy to use the government coalition to disarm Hizbollah and weaken Iran and Syria in the process.'

The government's decision to tackle Hizbollah's infrastructure head on shocked diplomats and analysts in Beirut. 'Tackling the airport and telephone system was the first time since the Syrian withdrawal that the government has taken practical measures to deal with the resistance,' said Patrick Haenni , Beirut-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. 'This was a paradigm shift by the government and it was met by a paradigm shift by Hizbollah, who said they would never turn their weapons in.'"

Nasrallah has correctly described the government as "Israelis in suits speaking Arabic."

And I reiterate, your plan is still stupid since it entails uprooting the entire population and because once again it would not change the situation significantly. Only the elimination of the Zionist state in Israel can change the regional dynamics significantly.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 5:24 PM