I was looking up info about Lebanon, and I came across this interesting page. But there seems to be something missing:

Lebanon finally gained its independence in 1946, but was unfortunately ravaged by a 16-year civil war that ended in 1992

At the war's conclusion, the Lebanese government and people finally established a more equitable political system, and began to rebuild the damaged infrastructure. Some cultural and religious conflicts (rather common in the Middle East) do remain, and the country still struggles with reforms.

No mention whatsoever of the country just to the east.

Contrast it with this page, from the same site, in which there's no apparent hesitation to use the "O" word:

Today the Gaza Strip and West Bank (shown on the map above) are partially Israeli occupied, and the ever-changing boundaries and status of same are subject to on-going Israeli-Palestinian agreements and negotiations.

And note this map of some imaginary country called "Palestine." And it uses that "O" word as well, with regard to the Golan Heights.

I guess that there are occupations, and then there are "occupations."

I'm surprised they didn't mention that Southern
Lebanon was also Israeli occupied until just a few
years ago (2000 IIRC). And as much as I think
that Syria ought to go and leave them alone,
*there is* a moral difference between a country
that was asked to come in and help end a civil war
(but has now long outstayed its welcome) and a
country that just invaded without permission and
still militarily occupies another.

So Rand, here's a question. If Syria does finally
leave Lebanon, are you then going to join in the
call for Israel also ending its occupation of the
Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza? Or are there
occupations and "occupations"?

~Jon
PS I know that Israel has made noise about pulling
back from Gaza, and has even started--this is good
but much remains to actually be done instead of
just promised. As for ending its occupation of
the West Bank and Golan Heights, I'm not holding
my breath. Once again, they are making some token
efforts in some parts of the West Bank that *are*
better than nothing, but so long as the Wall still
goes right through the middle of another country
(instead of on the border between the two), and
so long as there are still dozens of outposts and
thousands of military troops there, the place is
still occupied. You guys are so quick to call
foul when Syria talks about pulling back out of
parts of Lebanon, but when Israel pulls out of
only a part of Gaza and the West Bank you treat
it as though they completely withdrew.

I'm not anti-Israel, I just think that we ought
to hold our allies to the same standards as our
chosen enemies. What's good for the goose sure
as heck ought to be good for the gander. And
if you really think that Israel has a right to
occupy territory owned by other countries in order
to provide for its security, then morally where do
you get the right to lecture other countries for
doing the same thing?

...a country that just invaded without permission and still militarily occupies another.

Jon, you display a profound lack of knowledge of the history of the Middle East. Or actually, misknowledge (i.e., you seem to know things are aren't, in fact, correct). Do you really believe that Israel just "invaded without permission"? And whose permission should they have sought, and who would have been expected to grant it?

Rand,

>>...a country that just invaded without
>>permission and still militarily occupies
>>another.
>
> Jon, you display a profound lack of knowledge
> of the history of the Middle East. Or actually,
> misknowledge (i.e., you seem to know things are
> aren't, in fact, correct). Do you really believe
> that Israel just "invaded without permission"?

I was referring more to the Golan Heights and to
Southern Lebanon than to the West Bank, but yes
they invaded without permission. Israel wasn't
invited into Sothern Lebanon, it came in on its
own trying to setup a puppet government in Beirut
and trying to take out the PLO while it was still
regrouping after getting trashed by the Syrians.

As for the West Bank, IIRC the UN resolution that
recognized the statehood of Israel also recognized
the statehood of Palestine and delineated borders
for the two countries. The fact that Israel has
troops stationed throughout the borders of what
was legally recognized as Palestine, and is in
the process of building a wall right through the
middle of there is disturbing. To put it bluntly
if any other country in the world did this to
another, they would be roundly condemned by the
US. Heck, imagine what would have happened if
say Iran had done even half of what Israel is
doing. There's a double standard, and if you
can't see it it says a ton about you.

> And whose permission should they have sought,
> and who would have been expected to grant it?

That's the point. Do you think they'd be in the
Golan Heights if they had asked Syria's permission
to waltz in?

So, you didn't answer my question. When Syria
leaves Lebanon, will you also call for Israel
at least pulling out of Golan Heights?

~Jon

Jon, when you attack someone repeatedly, and lose the resulting wars, you don't just get your territory back afterward. They have to be negotiated in a peace agreement. Israel's neighbors have never been willing to make peace with it, so it must retain strategic territory that it captured in wars they didn't start, and from which they had been previously attacked. Syria will get the Golan Heights back when it has a government that Israel can trust not to attack it from them.

I don't know where you get your so-called knowledge of the Middle East, but I'm a little surprised that someone calling himself a libertarian would lend so much credence to leftists.

Or after all the revelations about the corrupt Oil For Food program, do you still believe that it was the sanctions, and not Saddam, that were starving Iraqi children and keeping them from medical supplies?

In that light, many historical invasions would technically be kosher. For example, the invasions of France and Russia duing the Second World War probably could have cleared this hurdle (maybe even Sweden under Quissling after the fact). Russia's invasion of Afghanistan in 1981 was by invitation. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Israel's occupation of the various territories was invited by some of the residents way back when (I think this were the case in southern Lebanon, for example).

The point here is that there's always a faction you can bribe or convince to "invite" your invasion, especially after the fact.

Syria attacked Israel multiple times from the Golan Heights, and anyone with even a tiny amount of battle tactics education can take one look at a map and tell you that they are of EXTREME tactical and strategic significance. Israel took them over to prevent any further nonsense, and as Rand points out above, Syria can have the area back when they can be trusted with it.
War is hell.

Jon - What Rand and Toren said. Personally, I don't think Israel ever intends to give back the Golan Heights - nor should they. Hell, Germany isn't ever going get back that piece of present-day Poland they used to have either and for similar reasons. Germany only attacked Poland twice. Syria has attacked Israel at least four times. Ditto for the adjustments to the 1947 borders of "Palestine." When you attack a country repeatedly and lose, you should expect to kiss some territory a permanent goodbye. Having to get a visa to visit what used to be yours is a way of reminding the unregenerate that actions have consequences.

Karl - invest in an almanac or take a minute to Google.

1. Are you seriously suggesting that France and the Soviet Union invited in the Germans in WW2? Or is it the D-Day invasion of France by the allies you refer to? If so, how does "Russia" (i.e, the Soviet Union) fit into this picture?

2. It was Norway under Quisling, not Sweden under "Quissling." Sweden was never invaded by Germany in WW2. The Swedes, as they never tire of telling we uncouth Americans, are a high-minded and moral people who refuse to indulge in such nasty business as war. Rather than be occupied by the Nazis, as their Norwegian and Danish cousins had been, the noble Swedes spent the war providing R&R for the Wehrmacht and selling them anti-aircraft guns.

3. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, not 1981 - remember Jimmy Carter's Summer Olympics boycott of 1980? I do. Also, the "government" that "invited" in the Soviets did so only after staging a coup d'etat and murdering the previous head of state who had, himself, only gotten that job by deposing the long-time king the previous year. The Soviets evidently wanted a fig-leaf "invitation" and the first guy, although a Marxist, didn't want to play ball.

For your information Dick, people and leaders in Estonia and Ukraine backed the Nazi invasion of the USSR. Not to mention Croatia being on the side of the Nazis on ex-Yugoslavia.

The Waffen-SS had volunteers from numerous countries.

Quoting Wikipedia:
In addition to the all-German units there were the SS Freiwilligenverbände (SS Volunteer¹ Units) from countries and regions as diverse as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia, Britain and the Commonwealth (Britisches Freikorps), Bulgaria, Belarus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France (Charlemagne Division), Finland, Georgia, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, North Caucasus, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sudetenland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tibet, Turkistan and Ukraine.

Examples of SS units are the SS Division Nordland, formed from Norwegian, Danish and Baltic volunteers; an SS Hitlerjugend Division (enlisted ranks were volunteers from the Hitlerjugend); and an SS Totenkopf Division, formed from excess guard detachments who had almost all died out by 1942 in the Valdai Hills of Russia (these were replaced by volunteers not affiliated with the concentration camps).

...people and leaders in Estonia and Ukraine backed the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

Hardly surprising, under the circumstances. They probably couldn't conceive of someone worse than Stalin...

However biased you may be from liking western culture influenced jews more than arab muslims (i know i am not unnaffected by that). The truth remains that Israel as a state was founded on terrorism (e.g. King David Hotel bombing) and illegal land occupation.

And the other fact remains that Israel was until recently the only democracy in that benighted region, and one that treats its Arab citizens better than any of its Arab neighbors treat their own Arab citizens.

Is Turkey in that benighted region too? Are they a democracy or not?

No, I do not think forceful dislocation and demolition of people's houses, strip searches for people passing the border to work, is necessarily better treatment than all its neighbours do to its arab citizens.

It's sadly amusing how quickly any discussion of MidEast issues seems to devolve into uncompromising dogma. The site and the narratives cited by Rand do, in fact, reflect the hypocrisy of many alleged supporters of Arab and Palestinian rights. That hypocrisy often stems from the conflation of support for Arab and Palestinian regimes with support for the liberty of individual Arabs and Palestinians. This wrongheadedness leads well-intentioned but naive people to believe that supporting the internal imperialists and internal colonialists that currently rule most Arab nations is tantamount to supporting Arab freedoms. (Others know better, but play the game in their own self-interest.)

That notion is widespread in the Middle East, where, as in many African states, widespread contempt for the regime and its leaders is artfully submerged by propaganda upholding the state as the personification of individual liberties under attack by evil foreigners and apostates. Hence, the often expressed notion in the Arab world that the ills, the borders and even the existence of Arab states are the creations of Western colonial powers. This bit of pan-Arab dogma is belied by the bias and bigotry Arabs express to and about each other.

I know from personal experience in the region that it is impossible to find an Arab map that does not include Palestine or that does acknowledge Syrian occupation of Lebanon. In truth, though, that's just more propaganda from the state: Everyone knows the Syrians are in Lebanon (especially the Jordanians, who don't suffer from an abundance of affection for the al-Asad clan); and the only Arabs who really want to see Palestine become more than just a fictional spot on a map are the Palestinians themselves. (With the demise of 'Arafat, every Arab ruler fears the existence of a democratic Palestinian state.)

Is Turkey in that benighted region too?

Exception that makes (or I should say, made) the rule.

No, I do not think forceful dislocation and demolition of people's houses, strip searches for people passing the border to work, is necessarily better treatment than all its neighbours do to its arab citizens.

You act as though they just randomly do those things for no reason at all. And you apparently don't understand how badly Arab regimes treat their citizens. In Israel, Arabs can vote, and even be in parliement--something that no other Arab nation allowed until a month and a half ago.

I'm sorry about the number of mistakes I made there particularly about the misidentification of Quisling with Sweden. But Dick, yes, I'm serious about France, the USSR, Afghanistan, etc. France after it lost to Germany in 1940 exhibited a lot of cooperation afterwards. Certainly, if Nazi Germany found it expedient, they could have shown after the fact the existence of an "invitation". The USSR was an even clearer case since as mentioned before Nazi Germany did receive a lot of its soldiers from USSR territory. If the Nazi's hadn't been so bloodthirsty and brutal, they might have won that front. Obviously, the D-Day invasion was also by invitation, but it wasn't at the invitation of Germany or Vichy France.

In the early days of the Second World War, when Germany still found some use for world opinion, I bet its propagandists often claimed that Germany had been "invited" into Austria or Czechoslovakia.

And Dick, your helpful comments on Afghanistan proves my point. Depending on invitation or the appearance of invitation as any sort of moral justification is absurd. If you really need an invitation for invasion, then you can find someone to do it even if you have to depose a regime or two to get it.

Since 1976, in the always volatile Middle East, Syrian troops have been stationed in Lebanon as a peacekeeping force.

I like that. "Stationed". "Peacekeeping force." Syria's obviously the caring and sharing gentle giant of the region. I wonder if Iraq's entry mentions how in the "always volatile Middle East" the US has had a "peacekeeping force" "stationed" there since 2003? Let's have a look:

Today, after the US-led invasion in March of 2003, the Hussein power base is gone, and Iraq is in transition. Military forces remain, helping to restore the damaged infrastructure, and the development of a freely elected government.

Well, could be worse, but could be better. "Hussein power base" sounds rather innocuous and it is unclear exactly who caused most of the damage to the infrastructure. Hopefully, the fact that Syria is not mentioned as the occupying force in Lebanon will soon be made moot by the continuation of current developments there.