Hiding Behind Words
Joshua Landis laments the "missed opportunity" of compromise in Lebanon:
The notion that Lebanon could be pried away from Syria without offering Damascus either security or the return of the Golan was a mirage....
It is clear that the Levant's future hinges on establishing a spirit of compromise. This is the lesson of the failure of force in Iraq. Compromise means satisfying the minimal terms demanded by Syria and the Lebanese opposition. Refusing to do so will have grave consequences for Lebanon, its neighbors and the United States."
Those who believe Lebanon is a democracy may be a little confused. In the first election in which Syria did not have the deciding vote, Lebanon elected an anti-Syrian government. In 2009, the Lebanese opposition will have another chance to win a greater number of seats in Lebanon's Parliament, and regain power legally. So then, what are these "grave consequences" that Landis mentions?
Of course, it is not much of a mystery. What Professor Landis means is that, if the opposition's "minimal terms" are not met, some of the majority's leaders will be shot in the head by Syria or its proxies. Other March 14 politicians will be ripped apart when a car packed with explosives detonates beside them. And then there is the possibility of random, chaotic violence among Lebanese that neither side's elites can fully control, which risks hurtling the country into civil war.
I do not expect Professor Landis to define with any specificity these "grave consequences." He is an American, and hardball politics in his home country is at least played with a semblance of rules. He is an academic, and explicit threats of violence are generally frowned upon in the ivory tower. From my limited contact with him, he also seems to be a gentleman, and what lies behind his equivocations is far from gentlemanly. For all these reasons, the true meaning of his words must be embarassing. In Lebanon, they fool nobody.
Comments (9)
"In 2009, the Lebanese opposition will have another chance to win a greater number of seats in Lebanon's Parliament, and regain power legally."
In your opinion, and on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being nil, 10 being super fine, how good are their chances? :)
Posted by Super Dude | February 10, 2008 3:58 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 15:58
A gentleman he is not. He is a tool of the Syrian regime.
Posted by Tony | February 10, 2008 4:31 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 16:31
Super Dude: There's not a lot of information available on this front, but I'd say no more than a 1 or 2. You have to look at the Parliamentary election of 2005 first, and see where the balance of power is most likely to shift. And that has to be in Mt. Lebanon, with the FPM's support. You already have a lot of circumstantial evidence that Aoun's support is deteriorating -- poll results, poor showing in student elections, and an inability to rally people to the street. An alliance with Hezbollah and Syria simply isn't what voters in that part of Lebanon had bargained for. Aoun won that election in 2005, before the MoU and at the height of his popularity. It would've been hard to duplicate no matter what he did upon his return.
As for Hezbollah and Amal -- they already pretty much swept the South, so there's simply not a great deal of seats they can pick up there. They could theoretically gain ground in Beirut or the Bekaa, and a lot will depend on the strength of the Future movement. Saad Hariri has gone on record saying that he thought a lot of votes for him in 2005 were really votes for his father, and that's no doubt true. The million-dollar question is the extent to which he has been able to consolidate this support, and whether the "sympathy vote" is still in effect 4 years later.
Tony: A gentlemanly tool of the Syrian regime, then.
Posted by David Kenner | February 10, 2008 5:40 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 17:40
Nope. A gentleman doesn't do a mukhabarat hit job against an imprisoned Syrian dissident or embrace terrorism or advocate murder.
The gentlemanly veneer is simply part of the overall dishonesty.
Posted by Tony | February 10, 2008 5:50 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 17:50
No gentleman in my book, but a tool alright (if you know what I mean).
Posted by JoseyWales | February 10, 2008 6:37 PM
Posted on February 10, 2008 18:37
You have described him (acurately) as a scoundrel and a liar.
His use of honeyed phrases such as "the spirit of compromise" in the context of murderous, prevaricating tyrants would all be rather humorous (were it not so sickening), and gives his game away completely.
So what's with the "gentleman" bit? He doesn't open others people's letters (though he's quick to justify the ways of thugs to man)?
Posted by Barry Meislin | February 11, 2008 8:27 AM
Posted on February 11, 2008 08:27
Exactly. There's also "the use of force failed" but not assassinations and car bombs apparently. He is a master of this type of slimy doublespeak. Such as Syria wants Lebanon "in its sphere of influence" (i.e. under its boot). Hariri should accept "50% justice," etc. It's all in the "spirit of compromise."
Posted by Tony | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM
Posted on February 11, 2008 15:51
My son...where is your gentleman's night club?
Posted by Shlomo Ben Ami | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
Posted on February 15, 2008 11:04
Landis is an Assistant Professor, not full Professor. Please refer to him by his appropriate academic title. Undoubtedly, the syrians have promoted him to Professor as they continuously fund his research, however,the University of Oklahoma has not deemed his activities as a commensurate measure of academic achievements.
Posted by EV | February 17, 2008 4:26 PM
Posted on February 17, 2008 16:26