8 ms·

Very easy: One is founded on libertarian ideals. The other one is founded on state-mandated pluricultural sectarianism. In switzerland, plurality is represent

Very easy: One is founded on libertarian ideals. The other one is founded on state-mandated pluricultural sectarianism. In switzerland, plurality is represented via multiple presidents and they can represent any canton. In lebanon, plurality is state-mandated: must have a president that is of X religion. A prime minister of Y religion. This is "representative". The swiss has very strong traditions on union out of necessity (to face external threat). Lebanon has no tradition of unity, it is a state unified effectively out of fear (and a bastard child of french palestinian mandate). The swiss culture of unity is long: they worked 800+ years to establish their union and it was carefully balanced over many iterations of conflict, even internal ones. Lebanese culture of unity is very weak. They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. Money buys influence. Imagine if FL depended on Venezuelan treasure to build roads. Very weak internal unity. Lebanon was only the switzerland of the middle east because it was the most free of countries in the region. But the regional bar is very low. As it turns out, that only gets you so far. And time ran out for lebanon... a while back: When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). That permanently and irrevocably set them on the path they are today. In summary, calling lebanon the switzerland of the middle east is a romantic idea for the lebanese that lived thru a somewhat prosperous but short time period of 15 or so years. Nothing suggested it could be long lasting. It was always an empty vessel. A student that cheats on every exam, will eventually get caught. The rest as they say, is history

dotancohen 4y ago
> They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Honest naive question, most people who voice an opinion on the subject seem to have extremely one-sided and narrow viewpoints, your comment demonstrates otherwise. I would appreciate a candid opinion from someone who sees the larger picture.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  >>>>I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more I don't know where this practice comes from or how long has it been around. I do know however the public works bidding is a cartel, and there is so much corruption at all levels, from deputies to private enterprise, that it would make Brazil's petrobras corruption scandal (lava jato) look minor in comparison. >>>>Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. The palestinian issue is rare because they were forced to leave, which is atypical for "total war" conflict. In total war conflicts, the result is winner takes land with resources, and loser state is (a) integrated into larger empire, with either assimilation, or massive civilian casualties, or (b) else loser state is left with minor pop and land. With Palestine, there was no leftover "loser" state, there were no resources changing hands, and no civilian wipeout. I dont know of any democratic country succesfully managing refugees at that scale. Total war is not rare historically, what is rare is democratic states existing at the time total war was still prevalent. The question is interesting. Id like to give it more thought. That being said, history tends to put everyone in their place. Jordan may still implode due to royal malfeasance, but lebanon already did.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    > Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. This is the crux of the issue. Jordan was a strong nation that was able to protect its national identity and existing citizens by subjugating the refugees. Even today, two out of every three people in Jordan are descendants of those displaced in 1948-1949. We might not like what Jordan did to those people, but protecting its citizens is quite the major function of government, is it not? Of course I am referring to the period up until 1967. The PLO actions after 1967 changed the dynamics of the situation and any rubric for judging policy in the period before that year is not valid for judging policy in the period after that year.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? " That is one if the ongoing big questions worldwide, isn't it? The EU solves it by paying Erdogan and co. to do most of the dirty work of keeping them away. There is no nice way, to turn someone desperate away. You can either integrate them well, or you push them out. Or you can work towards solutions, that bring prosperity to the poor, exploited areas of the world. Ending wars would be a good start.

dotancohen 4y ago

> They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence > internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a > sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more. > When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal > unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Honest naive question, most people who voice an opinion on the subject seem to have extremely one-sided and narrow viewpoints, your comment demonstrates otherwise. I would appreciate a candid opinion from someone who sees the larger picture.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
>>>>I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more I don't know where this practice comes from or how long has it been around. I do know however the public works bidding is a cartel, and there is so much corruption at all levels, from deputies to private enterprise, that it would make Brazil's petrobras corruption scandal (lava jato) look minor in comparison. >>>>Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. The palestinian issue is rare because they were forced to leave, which is atypical for "total war" conflict. In total war conflicts, the result is winner takes land with resources, and loser state is (a) integrated into larger empire, with either assimilation, or massive civilian casualties, or (b) else loser state is left with minor pop and land. With Palestine, there was no leftover "loser" state, there were no resources changing hands, and no civilian wipeout. I dont know of any democratic country succesfully managing refugees at that scale. Total war is not rare historically, what is rare is democratic states existing at the time total war was still prevalent. The question is interesting. Id like to give it more thought. That being said, history tends to put everyone in their place. Jordan may still implode due to royal malfeasance, but lebanon already did.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  > Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. This is the crux of the issue. Jordan was a strong nation that was able to protect its national identity and existing citizens by subjugating the refugees. Even today, two out of every three people in Jordan are descendants of those displaced in 1948-1949. We might not like what Jordan did to those people, but protecting its citizens is quite the major function of government, is it not? Of course I am referring to the period up until 1967. The PLO actions after 1967 changed the dynamics of the situation and any rubric for judging policy in the period before that year is not valid for judging policy in the period after that year.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? " That is one if the ongoing big questions worldwide, isn't it? The EU solves it by paying Erdogan and co. to do most of the dirty work of keeping them away. There is no nice way, to turn someone desperate away. You can either integrate them well, or you push them out. Or you can work towards solutions, that bring prosperity to the poor, exploited areas of the world. Ending wars would be a good start.