15 ms·

Lebanon became independent in 1945. Civil war began in 1975, largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic s

Lebanon became independent in 1945. Civil war began in 1975, largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon. Lebanon beforehand, it is important to note, was not Muslim majority at all. It was Christian and Druze, and that was the very foundation of the country itself. It was never the country of Muslims in the first place. Iran was also never colonised by European countries. Its decline began with both theocratic rule as well as sanctions, but even despite this it’s still remarkably functional and developed in comparison to a ton of countries that weren’t put in such a position.

ecopoesis 4y ago
- intrestingstuff 4y ago
  irrelevant comment and flamewar i expect my comment to be downvoted (and of course flagged) instead of yours because HN
  - erikpukinskis 4y ago
    It’s actually quite relevant, but probably low effort and yes flamewar.
- s5300 4y ago
  Eh, sometimes it’s the mongols.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Ironically, they’re probably more tolerant, though with more initial destruction.
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      Yep it's very easy to be tolerant whenever fears you. Remember the Mongols killed around 10% of the worlds population. The reason they could have tolerance is that you knew if you stepped one toe out of line the Mongols would destroy you, your family, rape the women, slaughter the town and everyone you knew, and then come back a few days later just to make sure they got everyone. This is like saying China is super tolerant once they get rid of the Ughyrs.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        I didn’t say it was great, but if I had to be stuck under vicious authoritarian rule, I’d rather one that will tolerate my culture and religion as long as my loyalty is there, which is not what China seems to be doing. Shit the Mongols themselves ruled over the Uyghurs (though admittedly I’m not quite sure whether medieval Uyghurs and modern Uyghurs are the same people) and many were in high ranking court positions, not re-education camps.
        saiya-jin 4y ago
        Well, they did kill left and right during their conquests, sometimes even literally exterminated whole cities that surrendered to them without fight. Piling human heads, ears, penises and whatnot on very tall heaps. Chinese are currently fluffy cuddly kittens compared to mongol brutality. When they will kill half of uyghur in most gruesome way and rape the rest then we can start comparing.
- narrator 4y ago
  Like the religious extremists that destroyed American cities like Detroit and Baltimore in the 70s and after? Maybe it was this same religious extremism that is leading to the economic crisis today in Florida and Texas? /s
  - suoduandao2 4y ago
    you jest, but an officially secular system that asks us to 'trust the experts' has a lot in common with religious fundamentalism.
    - suzzer99 4y ago
      As a whole, "trust the experts" has a much better track record than "google what you want to be true".
      - suoduandao2 4y ago
        A better track record according to whom, the experts? It's one thing when an expert in biblical study tells you not to do your own research. When the same instructions come from an institution deferring its authority to the scientific method, someone's very obviously gone off the rails.
        suzzer99 4y ago
        Should a random person with no scientific background or familiarity with medical studies trust their doctor and the overwhelming consensus of epidemiologists and virologists over Joe Rogan and a two hour youtube video? Yes, clearly. That this is even up for debate shows how insane things are right now..
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        This video series: https://odysee.com/@BiohackThePlanet:3/coding-the-dna-for-a-diy-rona-vaccine:7 https://odysee.com/@BiohackThePlanet:3/coding-the-dna-for-a-... was created before any MRNA vaccines for novel coronavirus were scheduled to be released and the global research community world was scrambling for any edge against covid-19. It documents the efforts of a group of citizen scientists to develop and test an MRNA vaccine against Covid and test it on themselves. If you can offer one semi-compelling reason why it should have been removed from youtube without resorting to ad hominem against either me or the people producing it, I'll engage in some self-reflection.
rayiner 4y ago
When Lebanon became independent from France it was based on a political structure created by the French. Lebanon’s religious demographics are fuzzy, but the Christian population probably became a minority decades before the civil war.
webmobdev 4y ago
An elderly friend, retired, likes to reminisce about his time in the middle-east. He was quite upset when he heard about the conflict in Syria. For him, it was one of the few places that had a vibrant culture in the middle-east, and the beautiful women there (not covered up), added to the cosmopolitan charm of the place. (Another good read that provides a brief glimpse about how the tragedy of partition affected people - An Indian author’s last days in the Lahore of 1947 - https://qz.com/india/1355466/khushwant-singh-recalls-lahore-before-indias-1947-partition/ https://qz.com/india/1355466/khushwant-singh-recalls-lahore-... ).
kamaal 4y ago
>>Lebanon beforehand, it is important to note, was not Muslim majority at all. It was Christian and Druze, and that was the very foundation of the country itself. It was never the country of Muslims in the first place. As a part of Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French wanted Lebanon to be a Christian Israel in the Middle East. WW1/2 didn't workout well for France and Britain(Should have listened to Neville Chamberlain, the empires would have continued for another century at least). And ensuing rise of USSR to the world scene mean't both French and British colonial aspirations were brutally put to an end. Too bad for the French, their colonial designs failed, and it didn't achieve the required demographics to achieve its goals of geopolitical control in the Mid east. Lebanon didn't end up being a Christian Israel.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  What part that Chamberlain was saying?
campground 4y ago
Iran may not have been colonized but their democratic government was overthrown by the US and Britain to prevent them nationalizing their fossil fuel supply. I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran has been able to use their oil wealth for their own democratic civil development.
- googlryas 4y ago
  That's not really what happened. The Shah was the ultimate authority in Iran, and he asked the Prime Minister to step down, which was his legal right. The Prime Minister said "No thanks, I'm the boss now", at which point the US/UK helped the Shah assert his actual legal right under their existing rule of law. Can you tell me - if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - teh_klev 4y ago
    That's quite the re-writing of history there. The Shah removed Mosaddegh from power in 1952 but re-instated him almost immediately due to pressure from pro-democracy supporters. The Shah was then exiled after a failed coup attempt by one of his Imperial Guard colonels effectively leaving him powerless. The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil. > if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind? Regardless of Johnson's behaviour and incompetence I'd hold my nose and throw my support behind the Prime Minister. Such autocratic behaviour should not be tolerated. I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.
    - 4y ago
_alxk 4y ago
>largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon Not accurate. Until the early 90s and the rise of Hamas the most active Palestinian militant groups were secular, some were even Marxist/Leninist (as in, officially areligious). Fatah, in control of the PLO, has always been secular and the second most active Palestinian militant group during the 1970s was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist organisation led by a Palestinian Christian. Political Islam as a force in Palestinian politics started in the 90s and only really became a big thing during the second intifada in the early 2000s. The Wikipedia page [1] makes for an interesting read if you want to understand more about the Lebanese Civil War and the many groups and foreign interests involved in this tragic conflict. As for the Palestinians, they had a large refugee population established in Lebanon and the PLO leadership wanted a base for their militias; the Lebanese state understandably didn't want a parallel state operating with militias within their borders; this lit the fuse on a country with an already fragile sectarian balance and dozens of sizeable minorities that had grief with the state and each other. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
- babarock 4y ago
  While the PLO tried to distinguish itself from Hamas by claiming to be more secular, make no mistake that they were clearly a muslim force. I was too young to remember the civil war, but at least in the collective retelling of the story, it's commonly accepted that PLO tried to topple the Beirut government to install their own. There are many claims that Arafat wanted Lebanon to be an alternative for their "stolen" Palestine. If it's the first time you hear that, then I think it's likely you never talked to Lebanese people about the war and the PLO. Arafat, the leader of the PLO, wasn't christian. That's ... weird you claim this. His name is Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini. That's as Muslim as it gets. He was even a member (or a close ally I don't know) of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's tough to convey to non arabic speakers, but several politicians, PLO front and center, use the terms "Arabs" and "muslims" almost interchangeably. The Lebanon "civil war" is a misnomer. For the majority of the time, it was a war between lebanese christian militias and palestinian invaders that were tolerated by the lebanese muslim groups. Lebanon's history and the civil war are complex and I'm not doing a good job of explaining then in a HN comment. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that islam has become more strict in the palestinian ranks after the 90s. This may be true. But I assure you that from the late 50s to the late 80s, they were trying to kick the non-muslims out of Lebanon by force.
_shadi 4y ago
> largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon. those damn communist and nationalist Palestinian factions wanting to create a caliphate. Not interested in a political discussion, just wanted to point out that this guy has no idea about the Lebanese civil war or the history of the region
finnh 4y ago
Iran's decline began when the US overthrew Mossadegh's democratically elected government and installed the Shah, which led to the Ayatollah.
- bnralt 4y ago
  The U.S. didn't install the Shah. He'd been in power since 1941, when the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran forced the abdication of his father. He didn't have as much power as his father, so there was a power struggle between him and members of parliament, but he still wielded a great deal of political power in the country pre-1953. One only need look at the 1949 constitutional assembly, where the Shah sought and succeeded at getting changes to the constitution made that gave him greatly enhanced powers. The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution). But by the time he was removed, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (his administration claimed the result was 99.9% in favore of the plebiscite[1]). The U.S. certainly conspired with the Shah to oust him, but it seems like their initial plans failed (certainly, the plotters seemed to think it failed), and royalists in the Iranian military were ones who ultimately removed him. The whole thing was a fairly complex situation that tends to get reduced to a simplistic soundbite with little connection to what actually happened. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-999-of-the-vote-in-iran-plebiscite-on-majlis-ouster.html https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9...
  - joshuaissac 4y ago
    > The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected > (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution) This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies. The head of state (either the president, the monarch or the viceroy) invites the leader of the largest party or coalition in the parliament to form the government and become the prime minister.
    - bnralt 4y ago
      > This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies. Iran _wasn't_ a parliamentary democracy at the time. It was a constitutional monarchy where an unelected monarch wielded significant political power. As I noted, he had just had the constitution changed a few years prior to increase the political powers granted to him (against U.S. objections, it should be noted).
babarock 4y ago
Your description of Lebanon is correct, but incomplete. - Lebanon (as an independent state) has been created in 1920, right after WW1 by the French "colonialists" specifically to draw an enclave of non-muslim minority in the country. It's classic Divide&Conquer strategy. - The PLO (Palestinian Islamists) did try to set up an Islamic state in the country, but they were aided, or at least encouraged through inaction, by the muslims in the country who felt that the system was unfair. - Currently the conflict isn't "muslims vs non-muslim". It's much more a conflict between Shia muslims (affiliated to Iran) and Sunni muslims (affiliated to KSA/Gulf). The non-muslims are now a minority and are split more or less evenly across the two camps. - As of today, there's a lack of national identity, where every region's local lord amasses more power and influence than any "central" government. It's not as simple as "they were non-muslims, got invaded by muslims and now it's gone bad" Source: I'm Lebanese. PS: Pedantically, we became independent in 1943.
- james-redwood 4y ago
  I didn’t intend to make it seem that simple - I did so rather to point out the fallacies in the parent comment and point out the main reason for civil war to my knowledge. I’m well aware the situation is significantly more complex today.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  A huge issue in the middle east for democracy is that muslims, or the very very substantial percentage of them that are fundamentalist, want democracy if they aren't in power, and a super oppressive totalitarian state if they are in power. To the point that it isn't just about establishing islamic states and oppressing non-muslims, it's about establishing an islamic state of the Sunni or Shia variety and brutally oppressing the other islamic branch. The Kurds are an exception, arguably should have their own state and would be the most sane partner in the middle east, but the US can't get its shit together to stand up to Turkey. Alas, we routinely screw over the Kurds as they get gassed by Saddam Hussein, ethnic cleansed by Turkey, abandoned to destruction by Russia when they were our best anti-ISIS ally. Oil money and the wealth inequality that came with it certainly don't help things to engineer functioning democratic states, and then as stated elsewhere, neither does the CIA toppling democratic governments because multinational corps find them inconvenient. America building "democracy" in Iraq was a telling process. All we cared about was oil and maintaining political control. We didn't care about making the lives of the everyday person better, which is the true fundamental path to a functioning democracy (it's why the USA's is gradually apart after all).
_nedR 4y ago
> a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine You mean the native palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homeland and became refugees in Lebanon (and Jordan and Syria)
- rougka 4y ago
  He probably meant the PLO that moved from Jordan to Lebanon after failing to make Jordan the failed state it has made Lebanon
azth 4y ago
Lebanon was literally formed by the colonialist West, who used divide and conquer to strategically place people there so that the conflicts keep going.

ecopoesis 4y ago

intrestingstuff 4y ago
irrelevant comment and flamewar i expect my comment to be downvoted (and of course flagged) instead of yours because HN
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  It’s actually quite relevant, but probably low effort and yes flamewar.
s5300 4y ago
Eh, sometimes it’s the mongols.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Ironically, they’re probably more tolerant, though with more initial destruction.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    Yep it's very easy to be tolerant whenever fears you. Remember the Mongols killed around 10% of the worlds population. The reason they could have tolerance is that you knew if you stepped one toe out of line the Mongols would destroy you, your family, rape the women, slaughter the town and everyone you knew, and then come back a few days later just to make sure they got everyone. This is like saying China is super tolerant once they get rid of the Ughyrs.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      I didn’t say it was great, but if I had to be stuck under vicious authoritarian rule, I’d rather one that will tolerate my culture and religion as long as my loyalty is there, which is not what China seems to be doing. Shit the Mongols themselves ruled over the Uyghurs (though admittedly I’m not quite sure whether medieval Uyghurs and modern Uyghurs are the same people) and many were in high ranking court positions, not re-education camps.
      - saiya-jin 4y ago
        Well, they did kill left and right during their conquests, sometimes even literally exterminated whole cities that surrendered to them without fight. Piling human heads, ears, penises and whatnot on very tall heaps. Chinese are currently fluffy cuddly kittens compared to mongol brutality. When they will kill half of uyghur in most gruesome way and rape the rest then we can start comparing.
narrator 4y ago
Like the religious extremists that destroyed American cities like Detroit and Baltimore in the 70s and after? Maybe it was this same religious extremism that is leading to the economic crisis today in Florida and Texas? /s
- suoduandao2 4y ago
  you jest, but an officially secular system that asks us to 'trust the experts' has a lot in common with religious fundamentalism.
  - suzzer99 4y ago
    As a whole, "trust the experts" has a much better track record than "google what you want to be true".
    - suoduandao2 4y ago
      A better track record according to whom, the experts? It's one thing when an expert in biblical study tells you not to do your own research. When the same instructions come from an institution deferring its authority to the scientific method, someone's very obviously gone off the rails.
      - suzzer99 4y ago
        Should a random person with no scientific background or familiarity with medical studies trust their doctor and the overwhelming consensus of epidemiologists and virologists over Joe Rogan and a two hour youtube video? Yes, clearly. That this is even up for debate shows how insane things are right now..
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        This video series: https://odysee.com/@BiohackThePlanet:3/coding-the-dna-for-a-diy-rona-vaccine:7 https://odysee.com/@BiohackThePlanet:3/coding-the-dna-for-a-... was created before any MRNA vaccines for novel coronavirus were scheduled to be released and the global research community world was scrambling for any edge against covid-19. It documents the efforts of a group of citizen scientists to develop and test an MRNA vaccine against Covid and test it on themselves. If you can offer one semi-compelling reason why it should have been removed from youtube without resorting to ad hominem against either me or the people producing it, I'll engage in some self-reflection.

rayiner 4y ago

When Lebanon became independent from France it was based on a political structure created by the French. Lebanon’s religious demographics are fuzzy, but the Christian population probably became a minority decades before the civil war.

webmobdev 4y ago

An elderly friend, retired, likes to reminisce about his time in the middle-east. He was quite upset when he heard about the conflict in Syria. For him, it was one of the few places that had a vibrant culture in the middle-east, and the beautiful women there (not covered up), added to the cosmopolitan charm of the place. (Another good read that provides a brief glimpse about how the tragedy of partition affected people - An Indian author’s last days in the Lahore of 1947 - https://qz.com/india/1355466/khushwant-singh-recalls-lahore-before-indias-1947-partition/ https://qz.com/india/1355466/khushwant-singh-recalls-lahore-... ).

kamaal 4y ago

>>Lebanon beforehand, it is important to note, was not Muslim majority at all. It was Christian and Druze, and that was the very foundation of the country itself. It was never the country of Muslims in the first place. As a part of Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French wanted Lebanon to be a Christian Israel in the Middle East. WW1/2 didn't workout well for France and Britain(Should have listened to Neville Chamberlain, the empires would have continued for another century at least). And ensuing rise of USSR to the world scene mean't both French and British colonial aspirations were brutally put to an end. Too bad for the French, their colonial designs failed, and it didn't achieve the required demographics to achieve its goals of geopolitical control in the Mid east. Lebanon didn't end up being a Christian Israel.

Apocryphon 4y ago
What part that Chamberlain was saying?

campground 4y ago

Iran may not have been colonized but their democratic government was overthrown by the US and Britain to prevent them nationalizing their fossil fuel supply. I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran has been able to use their oil wealth for their own democratic civil development.

googlryas 4y ago
That's not really what happened. The Shah was the ultimate authority in Iran, and he asked the Prime Minister to step down, which was his legal right. The Prime Minister said "No thanks, I'm the boss now", at which point the US/UK helped the Shah assert his actual legal right under their existing rule of law. Can you tell me - if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- teh_klev 4y ago
  That's quite the re-writing of history there. The Shah removed Mosaddegh from power in 1952 but re-instated him almost immediately due to pressure from pro-democracy supporters. The Shah was then exiled after a failed coup attempt by one of his Imperial Guard colonels effectively leaving him powerless. The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil. > if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind? Regardless of Johnson's behaviour and incompetence I'd hold my nose and throw my support behind the Prime Minister. Such autocratic behaviour should not be tolerated. I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.
  - 4y ago

_alxk 4y ago

>largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon Not accurate. Until the early 90s and the rise of Hamas the most active Palestinian militant groups were secular, some were even Marxist/Leninist (as in, officially areligious). Fatah, in control of the PLO, has always been secular and the second most active Palestinian militant group during the 1970s was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist organisation led by a Palestinian Christian. Political Islam as a force in Palestinian politics started in the 90s and only really became a big thing during the second intifada in the early 2000s. The Wikipedia page [1] makes for an interesting read if you want to understand more about the Lebanese Civil War and the many groups and foreign interests involved in this tragic conflict. As for the Palestinians, they had a large refugee population established in Lebanon and the PLO leadership wanted a base for their militias; the Lebanese state understandably didn't want a parallel state operating with militias within their borders; this lit the fuse on a country with an already fragile sectarian balance and dozens of sizeable minorities that had grief with the state and each other. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

babarock 4y ago
While the PLO tried to distinguish itself from Hamas by claiming to be more secular, make no mistake that they were clearly a muslim force. I was too young to remember the civil war, but at least in the collective retelling of the story, it's commonly accepted that PLO tried to topple the Beirut government to install their own. There are many claims that Arafat wanted Lebanon to be an alternative for their "stolen" Palestine. If it's the first time you hear that, then I think it's likely you never talked to Lebanese people about the war and the PLO. Arafat, the leader of the PLO, wasn't christian. That's ... weird you claim this. His name is Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini. That's as Muslim as it gets. He was even a member (or a close ally I don't know) of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's tough to convey to non arabic speakers, but several politicians, PLO front and center, use the terms "Arabs" and "muslims" almost interchangeably. The Lebanon "civil war" is a misnomer. For the majority of the time, it was a war between lebanese christian militias and palestinian invaders that were tolerated by the lebanese muslim groups. Lebanon's history and the civil war are complex and I'm not doing a good job of explaining then in a HN comment. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that islam has become more strict in the palestinian ranks after the 90s. This may be true. But I assure you that from the late 50s to the late 80s, they were trying to kick the non-muslims out of Lebanon by force.

_shadi 4y ago

> largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon. those damn communist and nationalist Palestinian factions wanting to create a caliphate. Not interested in a political discussion, just wanted to point out that this guy has no idea about the Lebanese civil war or the history of the region

finnh 4y ago

Iran's decline began when the US overthrew Mossadegh's democratically elected government and installed the Shah, which led to the Ayatollah.

bnralt 4y ago
The U.S. didn't install the Shah. He'd been in power since 1941, when the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran forced the abdication of his father. He didn't have as much power as his father, so there was a power struggle between him and members of parliament, but he still wielded a great deal of political power in the country pre-1953. One only need look at the 1949 constitutional assembly, where the Shah sought and succeeded at getting changes to the constitution made that gave him greatly enhanced powers. The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution). But by the time he was removed, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (his administration claimed the result was 99.9% in favore of the plebiscite[1]). The U.S. certainly conspired with the Shah to oust him, but it seems like their initial plans failed (certainly, the plotters seemed to think it failed), and royalists in the Iranian military were ones who ultimately removed him. The whole thing was a fairly complex situation that tends to get reduced to a simplistic soundbite with little connection to what actually happened. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-999-of-the-vote-in-iran-plebiscite-on-majlis-ouster.html https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9...
- joshuaissac 4y ago
  > The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected > (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution) This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies. The head of state (either the president, the monarch or the viceroy) invites the leader of the largest party or coalition in the parliament to form the government and become the prime minister.
  - bnralt 4y ago
    > This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies. Iran _wasn't_ a parliamentary democracy at the time. It was a constitutional monarchy where an unelected monarch wielded significant political power. As I noted, he had just had the constitution changed a few years prior to increase the political powers granted to him (against U.S. objections, it should be noted).

babarock 4y ago

Your description of Lebanon is correct, but incomplete. - Lebanon (as an independent state) has been created in 1920, right after WW1 by the French "colonialists" specifically to draw an enclave of non-muslim minority in the country. It's classic Divide&Conquer strategy. - The PLO (Palestinian Islamists) did try to set up an Islamic state in the country, but they were aided, or at least encouraged through inaction, by the muslims in the country who felt that the system was unfair. - Currently the conflict isn't "muslims vs non-muslim". It's much more a conflict between Shia muslims (affiliated to Iran) and Sunni muslims (affiliated to KSA/Gulf). The non-muslims are now a minority and are split more or less evenly across the two camps. - As of today, there's a lack of national identity, where every region's local lord amasses more power and influence than any "central" government. It's not as simple as "they were non-muslims, got invaded by muslims and now it's gone bad" Source: I'm Lebanese. PS: Pedantically, we became independent in 1943.

james-redwood 4y ago
I didn’t intend to make it seem that simple - I did so rather to point out the fallacies in the parent comment and point out the main reason for civil war to my knowledge. I’m well aware the situation is significantly more complex today.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
A huge issue in the middle east for democracy is that muslims, or the very very substantial percentage of them that are fundamentalist, want democracy if they aren't in power, and a super oppressive totalitarian state if they are in power. To the point that it isn't just about establishing islamic states and oppressing non-muslims, it's about establishing an islamic state of the Sunni or Shia variety and brutally oppressing the other islamic branch. The Kurds are an exception, arguably should have their own state and would be the most sane partner in the middle east, but the US can't get its shit together to stand up to Turkey. Alas, we routinely screw over the Kurds as they get gassed by Saddam Hussein, ethnic cleansed by Turkey, abandoned to destruction by Russia when they were our best anti-ISIS ally. Oil money and the wealth inequality that came with it certainly don't help things to engineer functioning democratic states, and then as stated elsewhere, neither does the CIA toppling democratic governments because multinational corps find them inconvenient. America building "democracy" in Iraq was a telling process. All we cared about was oil and maintaining political control. We didn't care about making the lives of the everyday person better, which is the true fundamental path to a functioning democracy (it's why the USA's is gradually apart after all).

_nedR 4y ago

> a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine You mean the native palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homeland and became refugees in Lebanon (and Jordan and Syria)

rougka 4y ago
He probably meant the PLO that moved from Jordan to Lebanon after failing to make Jordan the failed state it has made Lebanon

azth 4y ago

Lebanon was literally formed by the colonialist West, who used divide and conquer to strategically place people there so that the conflicts keep going.