What has happened over the past few years (2004-on)

[Dry Ice]

I would like to draw a different perspective on what has been happening in Lebanon over the past few years by sharing the opinions of forum members.

Let's say that Lebanon has been going through a lot of events since the year 2004... Explosions, assassinations, Syrian military withdrawal, internal fights, foreign war of 2006, 2007 nahr al bared war, May 7 mini-civil war, etc.

What links together such events and others? What's your opinion looking back at them?

If one had to mostly describe what was and (probably) is still going on in Lebanon, would you summarize it as being mostly:

1. A cold war between mainly the United States/Israel and Syria/Iran that was fought in Lebanon.

2. A cold and (hotter) war between various Lebanese factions over power sharing.

While it's obviously both issues that affected the latest years in Lebanese history, what do you think was the most influencing factor and how would you describe the elasticity between the two?

Thanks for your feedback

PS: Would appreciate a poll with the two options if possible, cheers

[Dry Ice]

I voted the first option, and not to disregard the large responsibility that the Lebanese have for the trouble they've been going through over the past 5 years, however even if one considers that the sectarian/feudal/zu3ama system is the platform upon which that troubled period lies upon, however and IMO the cold war of foreign powers has been the igniter of recent times.

It's so clear that modern political times in the Middle East have been revolving around the 9/11 events of 2001, which created the front of US/Israel/Pro-West Arab Governments vs Syria/Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah/etc..

Every time violence erupts in Lebanon, analysis draws upon who's benefiting from such violence out of the foreign nations with interest in Lebanon, it's been a big game between those countries and has been fought over Lebanese soil - unfortunately, the Lebanese have played along thinking that they were the major players in this game while all along they were pawns (and I am generalizing here), however how much internal progress has been achieved from one side or the other over the past years?

If anything, it's a status-quo, while regionally - one could consider that in theory, the continued existence and role/influence of the Syrian and Iranian regimes is a victory in itself (for them), while their opponents are still seeking to clip their wings... while a direct hit has been impossible on Syria/Iran, the US and Israel have stalled in Lebanon as well. The Hariri tribunal is a clear example of such struggle.

Again, that is a broad generalization, however should hold substantial truth...

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

1. A cold war between mainly the United States/Israel and Syria/Iran that was fought in Lebanon.

2. A cold and (hotter) war between various Lebanese factions over power sharing.

It's a mixture of both.Yet there is something that needes to be clarified:

1-US/Israel didn't fight HA because he is a Syrian or an Iranian ally.Not at all.And many people are making so much confusions about that matter.Review the "clean break" plan.HA is barely mentionned in it.That's because he was not supposed to be a primary target.Not even a target in fact.Barely an obstacle.The target is Iran.And US needed to take controle of Lebanon,in order to encircle Syria,and push it to withdraw its military alliance pact with Iran,which would isolate Iran as a prelude to an eventual war or capitulation.

US/Israel never thought they would be defeated by HA.It was not even in their calculations.They though that HA was barely a milicia,at best,comparable to Fateh of the eighties...This was the lethal error that aborted the plan,before it could begin.

2-The opposition front (including HA) was not fighting on behalf of either the Syrians or the Iranians or protecting any of those 2 countries' interests.Although labeled as such,the opposition front were fighting to preserve Lebanon.If we put aside the obvious need to resist the Israeli aggression of 2006,any person with a minimum of common sense,knows that encircling Syria and isolating it,and possibly waging war on it,from Lebanon,would mean an endless circle of violence and hate between Syria and Lebanon...that would rather take place on the Lebanese soil,and could ultimately result in the end of Lebanon.And that was the least of US and Israel's concerns.

So it didn't matter whether you wanted to serve the Syrians or the Iranians,or not.Since the US decided to fight Syria from Lebanon,a patriot had the duty to stand in front of this project and fight it back.Mish 7obban Be Souriya...Bass Difa3an 3an Massla7et Lebnen Wa Baka2ouhou.

So yes,there was a US/Israeli front on one side...but on the other side,there was a pure Lebanese front.

US and Israel didn't even reach the Syrian/Iranian front...they just stumbled on a non-predicted Lebanese front that signed in itself,the resounding defeat of their project.

Though luck.Y3isho W Yeklo Ghayra....Bass B3id 3anna.

[J_Raad1450]

DI,

Excellent topic and right on target, even thou it is a broad generalization. I think it is mostly # 1 but surely not exclusively. I prefer to read feedback about the issue...

[False Morel]

Lets see:

If option one is to be held true, then using some logic we can deduce the following:

If the Lebanese Conflict is planned, managed, and run by the two big fronts, the American and the Iranian ones, then this leads us to the conclusion that all Lebanese Political Parties are some bunch of mercenaries controlled by foreign powers.

Two subsequences:

These parties know what they are doing, or just being played fool.

In case one, this means that the Lebanese People are in turn being fooled by their supported parties, and hence, their blind support to those political sides is to blame.

In the second case, this means that the whole Lebanese Society is being fooled by foreigners, and hence, the Lebanese inferiority to those regional powers is to blame.

Therefore, as to option one, one thing is to be sure of, the Lebanese People are directly to be blamed.

Now, we'll take option two to be held true.

Political parties fighting over power is normal in all democracies.
So, the fact that the Lebanese People are being divided into two main political fronts, in addition to some independents is very normal and rather healthy for building a good society.

However, those two political poles, are not divided upon political concepts, nor principles, nor programs, nor ideologies.

Those parties, constituting the Lebanese political life, are just about some feudal, sectarian (as of communitarian), and fascist organizations.

Hence, there are no such things as political affiliation in the Lebanese Society, but rather a sectarian affiliation.

This reflects the Lebanese culture. Thus, suggesting that Lebanon by definition, is not only by the international standards an underdeveloped country, but also a failed state. In other words, a state incapable of developing nor civilizing itself.

Hence, we deduce that the Lebanese themselves are not mature enough to govern themselves under a one national entity.
So again, the Lebanese are to blame.



In brief, whether it's option one or option two, the same factor will still serve as the only reason.
Until the Lebanese realize that they are the problem themselves, and start to work on improving their mentalities, way of living, social bonds and principles (in other words, carry out a national social reform), there will be no hope of any change!

[AliArz]

This picture says it all: Bashar is accused by the U.S and France of assassinating Hariri, so the "international tribunal" was launched against him.

Yet Bashar is well received by the French President today...as a partner for the future.

It is clear that Lebanon's misery is steered by foreign interventions.

Regards.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by Abou Sandal

It's a mixture of both...

Hello Abou Sandal, I agree that US/Israel did not fight Hezbollah as a prime target, it was an open front against Iran, the primary target.

Similarily, we think alike that the local players opposed to US/Israel did not do so primarily for the eyes of Syria/Iran, the local players have their own agendas and policies (which is a certain vision of Lebanon, whichever it may be) - however they found themselves in an open front with US/Israel, alongside Syria/Iran.

In the end, the idea that I am advancing is that whatever happened over the past few years was part of a much bigger struggle, however for the Lebanese what is the end result?

Cheers

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Hello Abou Sandal, I agree that US/Israel did not fight Hezbollah as a prime target, it was an open front against Iran, the primary target.

Similarily, we think alike that the local players opposed to US/Israel did not do so primarily for the eyes of Syria/Iran, the local players have their own agendas and policies (which is a certain vision of Lebanon, whichever it may be) - however they found themselves in an open front with US/Israel, alongside Syria/Iran.

In the end, the idea that I am advancing is that whatever happened over the past few years was part of a much bigger struggle, however for the Lebanese what is the end result?

Cheers

Yes,exactly my thoughts.That's the main idea.

About the end result,the price was heavy to pay.Very heavy.Death and destruction occurred everywhere on the Lebanese soil.Not to mention the economic disasters and the increase of poverty.

But I think that our fate was sealed the moment it was decided that this war will take place in Lebanon.

We didn't have too much choice or enough power to stop it from happening.But we were lucky enough to have enough will and means to stand against it,and stop it from spreading and taking its course.

I honestly think that if the US/Israeli front managed to take a stable foot on Lebanese soil,not only would we have witnessed much more serious death and destruction,but i also think that the end result would have then been,the dismantling of the Lebanese entity and the end of Lebanon.

On a final note,i don't think that we could have done anything to avoid any of what happenned.Not a call for unity and not a call for reason.People are people, and they follow naturally their own interests.

The only thing that could have avoided this,is a strong independant stable state, capable of standing as one block,in front of external interferences,and capable enough of protecting the Lebanese territory,enough to not allow others of making it their own playground.

This is the priority to build now.

Without it,Lebanon will always be vulnerable and target for such schemes.And more death and destruction will occur in the future.

[Diabolo_7]

We lack a Lebanese identity, we still need to agree on which Lebanon we want!