Lebanon - civil wars, history

[progressive_lefty]

Are many people familiar with the history of Lebanon?

I recently watched a couple of documentaries about the country and have found it relatively interesting. It seems like the country was split right down the middle with the muslims and the christians in the 70s and 80s and the eventual civil wars. This obviously culminated with the many atrocities that occurred on both sides - including the massacre at Sabra and Shatila when the Israelis foolishly let the Phalangists into Palestinian refugee camps. The country has obviously changed quite a bit since Hezbollah became more powerful - but it seems as though the country still has sectarian issues while many christians have left altogether.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I have recently read a book about the Israel-Lebanon war. (Sorry, it's in Norwegian, so you probably won't be able to read it - if it should be translated, you could perhaps find it by the author's name: Odd Karsten Tveit. On Norwegian it's called 'Libanon farvel', which could be translated with 'Lebanon farewell'). It describes the Isreali occupation from late 70ies to about the year of 2000. As you said, Lebanon has changed a lot. Beirut went from being the 'Paris of the Middle East' to collapse into a war zone, dividing the city.

Something very interesting about Lebanon, is that it is influenced by so many Middle East powers. You find militias supported by Syria, Iran, Israel, Palestine etc., and all these countries (excluding Palestine, perhaps, not being a State. I think Lebanese and Palestinians traditionally support each other, especially after the Isreali occupation of southern Lebanon) try to influence the Lebanon politics. As it's said in the mentioned book: "To understand the Middle East, understand Lebanon". Many of the Middle East conflicts are summed up in Lebanon, so to say.

As I understand it, Lebanon has went through a great change, thanks to the long war against Israel. From being a quite tolerant country, it became more dangerous, more open to extremism (of course, not all terrorist or extremist organisations are necessarily terrorists or extremists just because some states or intern. organisations claim so), more divided between cultures and political views (isreal-friendly vs. Syria-friendly vs. Iran-friendly etc.). I think the war against Israel tore the country apart. However, I'm not an expert on this subject, neither have I ever visited Lebanon or Middle East. I'm just quite interested in the region.

Any Lebanes out there to correct me or add something?

[Ismail]

Here's a short thing from 1987: http://ml-review.ca/aml/BLAND/Lebanon_WBB.html

[Spartacist]

U. S. invasion in 1957.

[Mazin]

Are many people familiar with the history of Lebanon?

I recently watched a couple of documentaries about the country and have found it relatively interesting. It seems like the country was split right down the middle with the muslims and the christians in the 70s and 80s and the eventual civil wars. This obviously culminated with the many atrocities that occurred on both sides - including the massacre at Sabra and Shatila when the Israelis foolishly let the Phalangists into Palestinian refugee camps. The country has obviously changed quite a bit since Hezbollah became more powerful - but it seems as though the country still has sectarian issues while many christians have left altogether.

It's easy to fall into the trap of simplifying the situation as a sectarian conflict between Muslims and Christians but the reality was quite different. Remember this conflict took place at a time when the Arab world was relatively secular. Apart of the Iranian revolution (which only had limited support among Amal and Hezbollah in Lebanon), Islamic fundementalism and religious-political ideology in general was anything but prevelant. It was more a conflict between Right (lebanese front) and left (lebanese national movement). The lebanese front wasn't particularly religious but was interested in maintaining the sectarian political system which left the Maronite population in a position of power and security. The Shia organisations (Amal being the main early player) abstained from the conflict intially and infact supported the Israeli invasion due to the harrasement those in South Lebanon suffered by armed Palestinian militias. Even when Amal turned against Israel, it continued it's battle against the Lebanese national movement and the PLO, crushing the Al-Mourabitboun (a nasserite Arab nationalist faction) in the war of the camps.

The largest factor in the maintence of the sectarian system was the Syrian regime which threw it's weight behind the Lebanese front in 1976, effectively crushing the Lebanese national movement and PLO (Syria also funded Amal, while Iran backed Hezbollah). Had Syria not invaded and occupied the country as part of the "Arab deterrent force", it is possible that the LNM and PLO would have established a secular, non-sectarian democratic system in Lebanon.

The situation has changed radically since the civil war but Lebanon remains one of the most divided Arab nations. The Al-Saud regime of Saudi Arabia is a notorious backer of the March 14 alliance and the Hariri lead Future movement. Syria and Iran try and counter this influence through Shia dominated groups. All these external groups work to maintain the anti-democratic and sectarian nature of Lebanon's state, one which is completely subordinate to external (mainly American and Saudi) influence.

[Devrim]

The lebanese front wasn't particularly religious but was interested in maintaining the sectarian political system which left the Maronite population in a position of power and security.

Sectarian conflicts are not about the niceties of religious dogma. They are exactly about power.


It was more a conflict between Right (lebanese front) and left (lebanese national movement).

In which the so called left engaged in sectarian massacres just as the right did. Damour was probably the worst example, but it is only one example amongst many.


Apart of the Iranian revolution (which only had limited support among Amal and Hezbollah in Lebanon),

Hezbollah didn't exist at the time of the Iranian revolution.


The Shia organisations (Amal being the main early player) abstained from the conflict intially and infact supported the Israeli invasion due to the harrasement those in South Lebanon suffered by armed Palestinian militias.

This is true. The many reason being that the Palestinian militias behaved much like lords ruling over their serfs. This is what tends to happen when you have armed gangs, whatever ideology they claim to have, ruling over civilian populations.


it is possible that the LNM and PLO would have established a secular, non-sectarian democratic system in Lebanon.

but it is much more likely that they would have maintained the same sectarian structures which their power was based on.


- including the massacre at Sabra and Shatila when the Israelis foolishly let the Phalangists into Palestinian refugee camps.

This makes it sound like the Israelis merely failed to provide the requisite security. The reality was quite different. The Israelis transported al-Kata’eb militia men into Beirut, and even light up the camp at night for them to allow them to continue their massacres.

Devrim

[synthesis]

the massacre at Sabra and Shatila when the Israelis foolishly let the Phalangists into Palestinian refugee camps

I think "foolish" is exactly the wrong adjective to use in this context.

[Mazin]

Sectarian conflicts are not about the niceties of religious dogma. They are exactly about power.

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that the conflict wasn't a simple split between Christians and Muslims. The simple fact that many Palestinians are christians, the large number of Greek orthodox, Syriac orthodox and other christian denominations who fought in both sides of the war indicates that the sectarian aspect of the war wasn't as widespread as commonly believed. I'm not trying to down play the brutality that came about because of sectarian hatered. This was a brutal, disgusting conflict but not all groups were interested in sectarian power.


In which the so called left engaged in sectarian massacres just as the right did. Damour was probably the worst example, but it is only one example amongst many.

Again, we are in agreement here. But remember that the Lebanese national movement wasn't a homogenous organisation. The effective leader of the umbrella movement, Kamal Jumblat (the leader of the Socialist progressive front) was head of a largely sectarian party. But what about the Communist party, Communist action group, Al-Mouratiboun, PFLP and DFLP. They weren't all sectarian.


Hezbollah didn't exist at the time of the Iranian revolution.

I know, but the appeal of the Islamic revolution still lingered on beyond 1979. When Hezbollah was founded, Iran was the main backer.


This is true. The many reason being that the Palestinian militias behaved much like lords ruling over their serfs. This is what tends to happen when you have armed gangs, whatever ideology they claim to have, ruling over civilian populations.

This is part of the unfortunate reality of events in that conflict. But one must also be careful not to lump all the Palestinian militas into one group. The PLO was largely divided between Fatah and the more left leaning groups. George Habash ordered his soldiers not to enter villages in the South while armed. I do agree, though, the majority of groups that operated in the South behaved savagely.

[Devrim]

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that the conflict wasn't a simple split between Christians and Muslims. The simple fact that many Palestinians are christians, the large number of Greek orthodox, Syriac orthodox and other christian denominations who fought in both sides of the war indicates that the sectarian aspect of the war wasn't as widespread as commonly believed.

Lebanon has a complex religious situation, and the sectarian tensions in the war reflected this. I don't think it is wrong to say though that it was primarily a sectarian conflict. Yes, there are Palestinian Christians but they are a small minority. Certainly less than 10% and probably less than 5%. They are over represented in both the Palestinian national movement.


Again, we are in agreement here. But remember that the Lebanese national movement wasn't a homogenous organisation. The effective leader of the umbrella movement, Kamal Jumblat (the leader of the Socialist progressive front) was head of a largely sectarian party. But what about the Communist party, Communist action group, Al-Mouratiboun, PFLP and DFLP. They weren't all sectarian.

I think that both sides in the war were sectarian. You can't be party of what is essentially a sectarian movement, like the LMN was, without being a part of it. Al-Mourabitoun, which is one of the groups that you describe as not sectarian played a leading role in the massacre at Damour.


This is part of the unfortunate reality of events in that conflict. But one must also be careful not to lump all the Palestinian militas into one group. The PLO was largely divided between Fatah and the more left leaning groups. George Habash ordered his soldiers not to enter villages in the South while armed. I do agree, though, the majority of groups that operated in the South behaved savagely.

I think that you are missing the main point here. It is not whether any particular group was 'left-leaning' or behaved worse than the others towards the civilian population. Certainly you are right that Fatḥ was one of the worst behaved, but none of the groups involved in the lebanese civil war had anything to offer the working class beyond being cannon fodder for local warlords, or the regional or international powers.

Devrim