Lebanon's confused secularism

The confessional system has failed, but if secularism is to succeed we need to add clarity to the language surrounding it

This Sunday, a group of Lebanese citizens will take to the streets of Beirut to demonstrate their support for secularism. No one knows how many people will show up, but this is a country that has grown accustomed to the pageantry of public demonstrations, and so a crowd of several thousand is not unlikely. Plus, the weather forecast looks promising: no rain, hazy skies and warm temperatures. In short, perfect conditions for strolling through a crowded square, waving a banner and chanting slogans.

The question of what it is that people will be chanting is of particular interest. Will they call for the dismantling of Lebanon's system of political confessionalism, which divides power between different religious communities? Or will they demand the separation of religion from personal status matters, such as marriage and inheritance laws? Some may carry banners denouncing the intrusion of religious figures – priests and muftis, bishops and mullahs – into the realm of politics. And some may just come along for the ride, unsure of what exactly "secularism" means in the context of a country like Lebanon, but certain that it must be better than what we have now.

I count myself in this latter category of open-minded observers, deeply dissatisfied with Lebanon's system of governance and the sectarian logic at its heart, but uncertain of how to go about replacing it.

Since independence in 1943, Lebanon's president has always been a Maronite Christian, its prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and its speaker of parliament a Shia Muslim. Within parliament, seats are divided equally between Christians and Muslims, and even high-level civil service posts are filled according to tortuous sectarian formulas.

This system, which was once upheld by scholars as a successful symbol of consensual democracy and religious coexistence, has long since demonstrated its failures – including chronic instability, gross inequalities of suffrage, frequent paralysis, and a central government so weak as to be incapable of providing basic services, security, and transparency.

Recent polls have shown that there is significant public support for abolishing the confessional system in Lebanon, but, like many issues, this is also influenced by a sectarian calculus: most of the support lies among Lebanese Muslims, whose numbers relative to the Christian population have grown over the past several decades. Many fear that trying to impose sweeping changes on the country without the support of a majority of the Christian community could have severe repercussions. Finally, of all the participants surveyed in the above-mentioned poll, nearly a quarter said that they did not know what "abolishing confessionalism" even meant.

And this really is the crux of the matter. Previous efforts by Lebanese civil society groups to push a secularist agenda have failed largely because of the ambiguity of their ideas.

While almost every major political party in Lebanon has, at one point or another, paid lip service to the ideal of a meritocratic system of government free from sectarian quotas, there have been all too few concrete proposals for how such a system would function and the process needed to produce it. The current initiative behind the Lebanese Laique Pride march on Sunday seems destined to suffer the same fate as its predecessors: a brief, hopeful moment of energy and goodwill, followed by a quiet death on the op-ed pages of a handful of Lebanese newspapers.

I hope, desperately, to be proven wrong. But until the language surrounding this issue becomes more precise, nuanced, and reality-based – language that, alas, does not lend itself so well to banners and slogans – the prospect of a secular Lebanon will remain a distant vision.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • PhilipD PhilipD

    23 Apr 2010, 5:51PM

    Its something I always found strange about Lebanon - that as a visitor I found it a very cosmopolitan, mixed country, with little evidence (to me as an outsider) of much self segregation - and yet politically everyone seems to fall behind their regional or religious leader. As a country it never seemed to form a true national identity (not surprising, given its history). I know some Lebanese insist on the whole thing of descending from the Phoenicians as an answer - sometimes myths like that are useful - but I doubt if it would succeed.

    My understanding is that even fairly secular Lebanese favour the current system because of a fear that breaking it down will reveal what many have suspected in the absence of proper census data - that the majority of Lebanese are Shia - and that the Shia will vote for their religious leaders ahead of any other allegiance.

    Given how many people depend on the current system for their power and influence, it seems almost impossible to see how a truly secular political system could be adopted - and if adopted, whether it could be prevented from being hijacked by Shia religious groups.

  • shalone shalone

    23 Apr 2010, 5:55PM

    Your statement that: Since independence in 1943, Lebanon's president has always been a Maronite Christian, its prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and its speaker of parliament a Shia Muslim. Within parliament, seats are divided equally between Christians and Muslims, and even high-level civil service posts are filled according to tortuous sectarian formulas., is true but is part of the constitution 'forced' on Lebanon by france backed by some politicians. Firstly the number of Muslims is much larger now than it was in 1943, secondly any document based on religious ethnicity is bound to be inferior. This encourages groups to remain loyal to their faith. What happens if a Muslim marries a Christian?
    I have been to this beautiful country, seen the poor ares where Muslims live and the luxurious ares of others. Fair enough. But who is going to tell all that they are Lebanese first and faith is their private affair?

  • AwkwardSquad AwkwardSquad

    23 Apr 2010, 7:34PM

    It's hard to imagine Lebanon as a secular state after all the cathartic bloodshed and passion of the civil war years. Really though how can a secular government be advocated when it's members will more than likely be religious and partisan to their respective, Sunni, Christian, Druze or Shia camps? How could the needs and expectations of each community be adequately balanced and safeguarded against dominant groups encroaching on each others territory and hegemony? Would those in the provinces trust the intentions and motives of their secular representatives? Turkey is nominally and officially secular whilst it's people are universally muslim yet the Turks have an homogeneous interpretation of Islam and apart from Kurdish separatism have a stable unified and coherent society underwritten by the Army who uphold the secular state whilst allowing the rest of society to practice their faith as long as it does not try to overturn the Kemalist secular constitution, but that is not paradigm for Lebanon.

    In Lebanon if the civil service and other sections of society are indeed structured along "tortuous sectarian formulas" then it's hard to imagine a secular executive co-existing and in harmony with it. Surely the civil service will have to be reformed along with the executive, and what works well in the Beirut may not sit well among the Shia and Christian fault lines of South Lebanon, or in the Bekaa valley amongst the Druze, not to mention curtailing the extra-territorial and destabilising ambitions and influence from countries like Syria, Israel and Iran. That said I wish you all the best. Let's pray that it works. Or shall we skip the prayers in this case.

  • McLefty McLefty

    23 Apr 2010, 7:44PM

    If the confessional system is abandoned, a rapid descent into civil war is the inevitable outcome.

    Hezbollah has already created a state with in a state. It's playing along with the government at the moment while it rebuilds, waiting in the wings and ready to pounce. Hezbollah will not care what happens to Lebanon once it sees and takes its chance.

  • GhassanKaram GhassanKaram

    23 Apr 2010, 8:03PM

    Oh how strongly I am in opposition to the thrust of the argument presented by Mr. Muhana.
    There is nothing ambiguous about secularism except the efforts by its opponenets and luke warm supporters to muddy the waters. The Lebanese populace in general does not have a high rate of academic achievement by the standards of the developed world. I believe that the average number of years of schooling is shy of 4 . This is important because when surveys ask people what is secularism then you are confronting them with a phrase that is relatively new to them and so no wonder the results show a variety of definitions.
    In the final analysis the matter is very simple. Citizens are not to be judged on how they prey, to whom they prey or whether they prey. They ought to be judged by a simple criteria. Are they qualified to hold that job.
    Granted that such a deep seated tradition of confessionalism will not be wiped out from society with the strike of a pen.But what is important and actually crucial is for the government to make any such acts illegal. Does this mean that we will all conform by riding our personal thinking of sectarian elements? Of course not. Anti discrimination laws as well as anti slavery laws in addition to to prohibiyion against violent acts have not created a society of angels anywhere. But morally we are obliged to set these standards of equality as goals whose infringments by anyone will lead to prosecution.
    The attempt to define certain concepts clearly reminds me of the quip by the Supreme Court justice in the US who said that there is no need to define pornography because I know it when I see it.
    The first step in towards secular society in Lebanon ought to be a respect for the constitution which does not specify that any of the elected officials ought to be members of one faith or another.

  • Pokerdonkey Pokerdonkey

    23 Apr 2010, 9:29PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Aliboy Aliboy

    23 Apr 2010, 9:44PM

    I was interested to discover the real identity of Qifa Nabki, whose comments elsewhere I have read for some time. It's a wonderful screen-name, the opening phrase of a number of classical Arabic poems (qasida), meaning approximately "stop, let us weep". I couldn't say which qasidas, I'm not that skilled. However we are talking about someone who appreciates Arabic culture, while his name is Christian Lebanese. The Christians in Lebanon do not normally appreciate Arab culture, rather go back to ancient Phoenicians for their identity.

    As we know, Lebanon, even before modern times, was always a territory of multiple communities. The situation was made worse under the French Mandate, when they wanted to enlarge Christian territory, and added land only inhabited by Muslims.

    It should be noted that the whole Middle East is a multi-cultural area, mainly because Islam never forced people to convert. But Christianity did. How many Muslims are left in formerly Islamic Spain? or formerly Islamic Sicily? This is a big problem today. Islam would have been wiser to convert everybody, then today's problems would not have existed, even of Israel, because there would be no Jews today.

    I agree with Muhanna. It would be better to have open elections in Lebanon. Without doubt it would mean a win for the Shi'a, probably that means Hizbullah, as they are very popular.

    Actually a feeble state works well in Lebanon. Hizbullah does its thing with regard to Israel. It wouldn't do better if Lebanon were united.

    The main complaint I have in the present situation, is that my Lebanese colleagues in my field of archaeology, are underfunded, and work for essentially nothing. That is the product of the powerless state.

  • Pokerdonkey Pokerdonkey

    23 Apr 2010, 10:42PM

    The Christians in Lebanon do not normally appreciate Arab culture, rather go back to ancient Phoenicians for their identity.

    I thought many male Christian Lebanese have European genes, from the crusades?

  • peterNW1 peterNW1

    24 Apr 2010, 2:48AM

    I have great sympathy for the Maronites of Lebanon, largely because they are on their own in the world. Britain and France created the state of Lebanon as a permanent refuge for Middle East Christians, and then promptly pulled out, leaving the Christians to fend for themselves. Israel might have preferred a Christian Lebanon to a Muslim Lebanon, but Israel wasn't prepared to shed Jewish blood in this fight between gentiles. Again, the Maronites were on their own. Decades of Christian emigration, and lack of support from the US and EU have now taken their toll. Lebanon is now a country with a Muslim majority.

  • UPinARMS UPinARMS

    24 Apr 2010, 7:24AM

    It should be noted that the whole Middle East is a multi-cultural area, mainly because Islam never forced people to convert. But Christianity did.

    You must be kidding. I fear you are not.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 8:06AM

    It's interesting, in a country like Australia, Christian Muslims have been arriving since the late-19th century. The number of Lebanese Christian migrants increased during the 1970 civil war, at which time, Australia also started taking Leganese Muslims in large numbers. The Christians arrived, took on a work ethic and settled in seamlessly into their new country, as did the first wave of Lebanese Muslims. That has changed, a lot. Now, the 2nd and 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims are creating problems in places like Sydney where there are large enclaves. Lebanon was once a Christian majority country and it seemed to fair well economically and politically then in terms of secularism, now it's a Muslim majority country and it has gone to the dogs. Secularism and Islam doesn't seem to go hand in hand anywhere in the worrld.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 8:07AM

    It's interesting, in a country like Australia, Christian Muslims have been arriving since the late-19th century. The number of Lebanese Christian migrants increased during the 1970 civil war, at which time, Australia also started taking Leganese Muslims in large numbers. The Christians arrived, took on a work ethic and settled in seamlessly into their new country, as did the first wave of Lebanese Muslims. That has changed, a lot. Now, the 2nd and 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims are creating problems in places like Sydney where there are large enclaves. Lebanon was once a Christian majority country and it seemed to fair well economically and politically then in terms of secularism, now it's a Muslim majority country and it has gone to the dogs. Secularism and Islam doesn't seem to go hand in hand anywhere in the worrld.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 8:12AM

    "It's interesting, in a country like Australia, Christian Muslims have been arriving since the late-19th century."

    Apologies, I meant to have said Lebanese Christians have been arriving....

    As for the rubbish about Muslims not forcing others to convert, only the Christians had this expectation, this is the sort of ignorance that belies the troubles in the Arab world. Rather like some non-Muslims declaring that the agenda of Islam is to control the world by converting infidels. Yes, that term "infidels" implies anything but tolerance for other faiths, yet it is a generic term tossed about by the Islamic world.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 10:22AM

    upinarms

    You must be kidding. I fear you are not.

    Of course, I'm not kidding. You don't know your history. Brutal forced conversions are a fact of Christian history, not of Islamic. How many non-Catholic Aztecs are left?

  • mainecoon8 mainecoon8

    24 Apr 2010, 11:47AM

    @ aliboy

    you said: "...Islam would have been wiser to convert everybody, then today's problems would not have existed, even of Israel, because there would be no Jews today..."

    Before 1948 there were over 25,000 Jews in Lebanon. Today there are less than 100. it didnt need islam to cleanse them if as is shown Lebanon has a multi-religious governance.

    Also apparently a great way to 'neutralise' political influence then isnt it.

    The sooner secular governmant prevails the better.

  • Abtalyon Abtalyon

    24 Apr 2010, 12:20PM

    Forced conversion to Islam? Yes or no?

    I really wouldn't know but the link below lists various sources which report such conversions. One might suppose that some of it must be true.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2153026/posts

    As for the article above, it seems to me that the content is irrelevant. Lebanon is run on a clan system so the addition of yet one more called "secular" will change nothing. In any case, the country is a Syrian puppet state so the author's dissatisfaction counts for little.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 12:37PM

    @mainecoon08

    Before 1948 there were over 25,000 Jews in Lebanon. Today there are less than 100. it didnt need islam to cleanse them if as is shown Lebanon has a multi-religious governance.

    It was Israel that cleansed them; they wanted the people. Like the Falashas.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 12:42PM

    @abtalyon

    Freerepublic has difficulty in finding even a few cases of limited numbers. No denying some happened.

    But not like the hundreds of thousands, nay millions, forcibly converted to Christianity.

  • DrJohnZoidberg DrJohnZoidberg

    24 Apr 2010, 12:57PM

    aliboy- so islam wasn't forced on the maghreb or anywhere outside the arab peninsula?....oh, i think i just saw your nose grow.

    good luck to the lebanese in securing a secular future. it's been a country at war with itself for decades (with the help of plenty of outsiders). however, i think that those nice liberal hezbollox types in the south won't quite go along with 'project renounce thesky pixie' not will their syrian or iranian paymasters.

    '...and no religion too' the only decent words that fucking hippy treehugger lennon ever came out with...there's only one lennon of any relevance and he's from lurgan.

    good luck to the people of lebanon.

  • DrJohnZoidberg DrJohnZoidberg

    24 Apr 2010, 1:11PM

    aliboy-

    But not like the hundreds of thousands, nay millions, forcibly converted to Christianity.

    so the terms 'jihad bil saif' and 'saif al-islam' have no connection, they're just symbolic terms eh?

  • DrJohnZoidberg DrJohnZoidberg

    24 Apr 2010, 1:12PM

    aliboy-

    But not like the hundreds of thousands, nay millions, forcibly converted to Christianity.

    so the terms 'jihad bil saif' and 'saif al-islam' have no connection, they're just symbolic terms eh?

  • Abtalyon Abtalyon

    24 Apr 2010, 1:17PM

    Aliboy:

    I would have expected an academic to have minimal respect for accuracy. First, you deny outright any forced conversions to Islam, then you blame Israel for the emigration of Lebanese Jews.

    Having acknowledged that you were wrong about forced conversions, can you not bring yourself to desist from propaganda sound-bites like "ethnic cleansing" and agree that no such thing took place in Lebanon. Most Lebanese Jews left Lebanon as a result of deterioration in their relationship with the other Lebanese in the aftermath of the Six Day War, again in 1975-6 during the Civil War and finally after 1982. Some emigrated to USA, Canada and Australia, others preferred Israel, while a tiny minority chose to stay.

    Your comparison of the emigration of Lebanese Jews with the successful missions undertaken by Israel to rescue the Jews of Ethiopia from various murderous regimes in that country during the '80's and '90's is invalid.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 2:31PM

    "It should be noted that the whole Middle East is a multi-cultural area, mainly because Islam never forced people to convert."

    It should also be noted that you live in a fantasy world. Would you include 90% of the Emirati population, that is, those workers mostly from the sub-continent and south-east Asia who perform back-breaking labour in the UAE, with no labour laws to protect them, and who are considered little more than slaves. Many of these workers have been living in the UAE since 1971, when the Emirates federated, and despite the passing of time have no chance of securing an Emirati passport, let alone, of inviting a wife or children to join them in their adopted homeland. Yes, very multi-cultural indeed. The wealthy regions of the the Middle East depend heavily on guest labour, but this does not equate to multi-culturalism, just because the workers represent a multitude of nationalities.

    What about the "forced" Islamic conversion of peoples in south-east Asia? Do you think the Indonesians, Malaysians and southern Filipinos didn't have their own traditional faiths before Islam poked its head in? Malaysia, once a beacon of south-east Asian Islamic tolerance is fast going down the road of implosion thanks to a new breed of Islamic leadership. The Christians of Aceh in Indonesia are persecuted and murdered daily as they watch the Islamisation of their Achenese culture. Don't mention the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur eh, it's probably too close to home literally. Do you think that had Christopher Columbus not reached South America before a great wave of Islam that the peoples would not have been forced to convert to Islam? Were the Christians of near Asia (Turkey etc) not forced to convert to Islam? Armenian genocide ring a bell here?

    Be careful where you point the finger, as it might come back and stare you in the face one day.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 2:39PM

    @Aliboy:

    "Islam would have been wiser to convert everybody, then today's problems would not have existed, even of Israel, because there would be no Jews today."

    Thank god for the power of diversity eh. On the one hand you praise Islam for promoting "multiculturalism" and on the other, you begrude history for not having created a generic religion called "Islam." I'm an atheist and I've got little titime for backward comments like this.

    "The main complaint I have in the present situation, is that my Lebanese colleagues in my field of archaeology, are underfunded, and work for essentially nothing. That is the product of the powerless state."

    You work in achaeology? You don't call yourself a 'professional' do you with attitudes like this? The product of the powerless state is the people: you get what you settle for.

  • PrincessTeaLeaves PrincessTeaLeaves

    24 Apr 2010, 2:45PM

    "aliboy- so islam wasn't forced on the maghreb or anywhere outside the arab peninsula?....oh, i think i just saw your nose grow."

    Touche! But, I fear Dr John, that Aliboy really is just a boy. When it comes to brainwashing, there can never be enough "cleansing." We live in the 21st century, it's time to bury the draconian baggage of the past, with silly ill-educated and power control freaks controlling women in the Islamic world. Is face covering a tenet in the Koran? How about Islamic men cover their faces too, hey Aliboy?

  • SecularManCometh SecularManCometh

    24 Apr 2010, 3:30PM

    Good luck to 'em, I say. Of course, at this moment in time it's merely far off pie-in-the-sky, but hey; a secular democratic Lebanon followed by a secular democratic Israel-Palestine - now that would be a dream ticket for the Levant!

    Well yeah - we can live in hope. And sometimes that is just about all that's fucking left.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 4:14PM

    Well neither Zoidberg nor Princess Tealeaves have proved a single thing. I am unable to understand Zoidberg's point. He should read some history. No, Islam didn't forcibly convert the Maghreb. People who wanted to remain Christian, could do so. Jews did remain Jews.

    Yes there were cases of forced conversion to Islam. It did happen over the 1,400 years of Islam, spread over half the world. Of course some things like that did happen.

    But not many, compared to the mass forced conversion of Islamic Spain and Sicily. The mass forced conversion of central and south America to catholicism, and the extermination of 90% of the population. And lots of others.

    The trouble with you people is that you don't want to look at obvious truths.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 4:25PM

    @abtalyon

    can you not bring yourself to desist from propaganda sound-bites like "ethnic cleansing" and agree that no such thing took place in Lebanon. Most Lebanese Jews left Lebanon as a result of deterioration in their relationship with the other Lebanese in the aftermath of the Six Day War, again in 1975-6 during the Civil War and finally after 1982. Some emigrated to USA, Canada and Australia, others preferred Israel, while a tiny minority chose to stay.

    Thanks, abtalyon, for reminding us of the details. You've proved my point. The Lebanese Jews were not forced out, not forcibly converted to Islam. It was the Six-Day War that did it. And who started that?

    Don't tell me that it was Egypt, many government Israelis have admitted that there was no danger of an Egyptian attack. I could go and look for the links if I had the time. But you won't admit that, because you prefer sticking to the official Israeli propaganda position on CiF

    By the way, I didn't talk about 'ethnic cleansing'.

  • Steve2000 Steve2000

    24 Apr 2010, 7:08PM

    Aliboy

    It was the Six-Day War that did it. And who started that? Don't tell me that it was Egypt, many government Israelis have admitted that there was no danger of an Egyptian attack. I could go and look for the links if I had the time.

    Sure you could. They won't help you though. What you will find is that Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border. Sightseeing were they?

    But you won't admit that, because you prefer sticking to the official Israeli propaganda position on CiF

    You must be one of the very few people on the planet who thinks CIf is pro-Israel.

  • Parrhesia Parrhesia

    24 Apr 2010, 7:11PM

    Let us focus on the points raised in the article and not on the "beliefs" of various people masquerading as "truths" and used in taking political positions. Whenever "truth" is only related to belief and "justice" is only couched in unchanging and fixed positionalities no change and transformaiton is possible. I am not arguing for "progress" but for the possibility of social change: without secularism (understood as a space that equally distances itself from all "beliefs," whether religious or ideological, and that provides a "free" space to dissent and to discuss) as the foundational ground for politics, social change and social transformation (as well as self-transformation) is not possible!

    How can the Lebanese people revisit their understanding of their own identity and their own meanings and values (whether political, personal, or even religious) through their own history, practices, needs, and not being led by the nose by feodal lords and blindly ordered to fulfill instrumental roles. There is no "Lebanon" without established institutional secularism. The only positive institutional or imaginary structure of Lebanon has been relying on the variety and differences in religions and orientations to allow a quasi-free and equal space of contestation. This needs to be implemented in Lebanon to allow for the transformation of the Lebanese into autonomous citizens who can be religious in both the public sphere and the private sphere but cannot impose religious structures to the dominant poltiical discourse.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 8:20PM

    Steve2000

    Well it was inevitable that one of the hasbaristas would come back and tell us how threatened Israel was at the beginning of the 67 war. It was not the point of view of the Israeli government of the time.

    But I am not going to waste my time going looking for the links.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 9:30PM

    Parrhesia is right to bring us back to the question.

    The problems of Lebanon go back to the Ottoman period, when separate religious communities were emphasised, and to the French who wanted to create a Christian 'Greater Lebanon'. Well, it turned out that increasing Lebanese territory, as France did in 1920, simply added more Muslims, and reduced the Christians to a bare majority. Since then, the balance of population has changed, and if anybody is a majority, it is the Shi'a Muslims, of whom the majority party is Hizbullah.

    If an open election were held, Hizbullah would probably be the winner. This is why the US does not support open democracy in Lebanon.

    The Christians, although now a minority, have also been lobbying against open democracy. Mainly the Maronites. A Sunni minority government, as is Hariri, is OK, but a Shi'a majority government is unacceptable.

    I do think that Muhanna is right that a Lebanese national identity has now been created. There is no irredentist movement, demanding the return of Tripoli and Ba'albakk to Syria.

    I would think that what Muhanna calls for, a Lebanese nation with an open democracy, will in the end happen. That's what my Lebanese students say.

    The problem is Israel. Israel prefers a weak and divided Lebanon. Who knows what will happen the next time Israel attacks Lebanon. But I would be surprised if 1982 can be repeated. That was an attack upon the Palestinians in Lebanon.. This time it would be an attack upon Lebanon

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 9:31PM

    Parrhesia is right to bring us back to the question.

    The problems of Lebanon go back to the Ottoman period, when separate religious communities were emphasised, and to the French who wanted to create a Christian 'Greater Lebanon'. Well, it turned out that increasing Lebanese territory, as France did in 1920, simply added more Muslims, and reduced the Christians to a bare majority. Since then, the balance of population has changed, and if anybody is a majority, it is the Shi'a Muslims, of whom the majority party is Hizbullah.

    If an open election were held, Hizbullah would probably be the winner. This is why the US does not support open democracy in Lebanon.

    The Christians, although now a minority, have also been lobbying against open democracy. Mainly the Maronites. A Sunni minority government, as is Hariri, is OK, but a Shi'a majority government is unacceptable.

    I do think that Muhanna is right that a Lebanese national identity has now been created. There is no irredentist movement, demanding the return of Tripoli and Ba'albakk to Syria.

    I would think that what Muhanna calls for, a Lebanese nation with an open democracy, will in the end happen. That's what my Lebanese students say.

    The problem is Israel. Israel prefers a weak and divided Lebanon. Who knows what will happen the next time Israel attacks Lebanon. But I would be surprised if 1982 can be repeated. That was an attack upon the Palestinians in Lebanon.. This time it would be an attack upon Lebanon.

  • Abtalyon Abtalyon

    24 Apr 2010, 9:38PM

    Aliboy:

    You must be a part-time sailor. All your posts show you tacking from side to side and from one position to another and back again.

    First you claim Islam never forcibly converted anyone, then grudgingly retract that statement. You then claim Israel "cleansed" the Lebanese Jews and then deny it, latching on to my explanation of the emigration of Jews from Lebanon because life there became too uncomfortable, again blaming this state of affairs on Israel's mere existence. Finally you seize my reference to the 1967 war as another peg on which to hang your idea that Israel is the source of all Lebanon's problems, which fits in well with your previous regret that Islam didn't convert all the Jews so that none would remain today and there would be no Israel.

    And that, in the end, is your point ; as you clearly have no other, there is no common ground for continuing discussion.

  • Aliboy Aliboy

    24 Apr 2010, 10:51PM

    Abtalyon

    As you like. It was not me who talked about ethnic cleansing, you must be talking about another commenter. You are also in error to imagine that I changed my position.

    Declaring that they are angry and quitting, based upon a misunderstanding, is very common on CiF.

    _______

    The Lebanese Jews were not 'ethnically cleansed'. They left because their attitude was not appreciated after 67. While at the same time, Israel was offering citizenship with open arms, and the US was offering visas without problem.

    If, like the Muslim Lebanese, no such solution was on offer, they would have stayed, and hung on.

    They would have had to bear popular disapproval, because of what Israel did, but they would have coped. Everybody does. But the easy option of free Israeli citizenship, with resettlement subsidies, or an easy US visa, bled out the Lebanese Jewish community. Only those who had a genuine Lebanese attachment stayed.

  • mjinlebanon mjinlebanon

    25 Apr 2010, 8:43AM

    ?The only positive institutional or imaginary structure of Lebanon has been relying on the variety and differences in religions and orientations to allow a quasi-free and equal space of contestation? Parrhesia

    You said it. But a ?quasi-free and equal space of contestation? is not peanuts in a region of dictatorships, under which live angry and dysfunctional societies increasingly impregnated by a general religious comeback in diverse degrees of zealotry. The price to pay so far for personal liberty in Lebanon has been a chronic instability, a feeble state and an impossibility to materialize anything close, so far, to a real patriotic feeling.

    Now look North and South: in Syria, the price to pay for a secular regime is no ?quasi-free and equal space of contestation? at all, at least politically. In the same way that observers predict that a government controlled by Chi?a radicals would be the result of a free democratic vote in Lebanon, a government controlled by Sunni radicals could be assumed as the most likely result for a free and democratic vote in Syria. Looking South, we find a state believed to be secular and democratic, whose democracy allows for apartheid-like discriminatory practices, and whose secularism translates in an endless march in order to obtain the World?s recognition of their right to be a Jewish State, i.e. a State defined by religion and ethnicity. Welcome to the Middle Feast.

  • pretzelberg pretzelberg

    25 Apr 2010, 1:31PM

    How big a part does intimidation play as regards the potential and actual turn-out for the march?

    Aliboy

    It was Israel that cleansed [the Lebanese Jews]; they wanted the people.

    They may well have wanted the people. They may or may not have encouraged emigration.

    But "cleansed"??? Absolutely the wrong kind of vocabulary there.

  • SecularManCometh SecularManCometh

    26 Apr 2010, 1:01PM

    Thanks for the link to your blog, Brian - good one.

    Several thousand people joined the march for secularism in Beirut yesterday. Reuters notes a banner saying "Civil marriage, not civil war" and adds that many of the demonstrators "wore white T-shirts with 'What's your sect?' written on the front and 'None of your business' on the back.

    Excellent stuff. From small acorns etc...

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Guardian Jobs

UK

Browse all jobs

USA

Browse all jobs

  • Loading jobs...

jobs by Indeed job search