Does the FPM as a Party Want Peace with Israehell

Peace agreement with Israel?


  • Total voters
    26
NewLeb

NewLeb

New Member
I think hell will freeze before you see such a "united" Muzzie force. That you can bet on.
I assure you, hell will never freeze over.

And it isn’t really that far-fetched when you think about it. There are many historical figures out there that no one saw coming. Did anyone predict Hitler for example?
 
  • Advertisement
  • Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You know PLO were secular right? and most who sympathized with them were very left leaning secular parties and druze right? like Kamal Jumblatt's PSP. Also, the SSNP were majority Christians and sympathized with the Palestinian cause. Shias for example did not really care until Israel started land grabbing in the South in 1976 till 2000. You knew that right? and btw did you know the Vatican opposed the Israel state until the early 1990s? so I think it's naive to say there wouldn't have been any war. War was inevitable after the nakba of 1948. Everything could have been avoided if the Balfour declaration never materialized and followers of the Jewish faith would have just moved into Palestine rather than forcing their identity on other people who have been in those lands for such a long time.
    Name one Muslim who was forced to become Jewish.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I assure you, hell will never freeze over.

    And it isn’t really that far-fetched when you think about it. There are many historical figures out there that no one saw coming. Did anyone predict Hitler for example?
    Yup, many Hitlers existed throughout history and many Hitlers exist today. We are fighting some of them. But we are also more than happy to see Sunnis and Shiites fighting, bless your little heart.
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Yes some prominent Sunni families were allowed to partake in the power structure. But the way Lebanon was set up by the French dictated Maronite supremacy in the hierarchy of sectarian rule. This rule isn't just about control of the state but of the country's resources and points of trade. This is still reflected in the way the social and economic capital is distributed in the country today. For instance the Maronite Church alone is the biggest landowner in Lebanon. That's discounting all the other land owned by the sectarian aristocracies.
    This isn’t a precise argument in this case. Those prominent Sunni families were not allowed to partake, but were active and equal partners, otherwise the system would have never worked. If the Lebanese state was truly as Maronite dominant as you say, it would have never materialized in the way it did. The Maronites could’ve elected to create a system that did not share power, dominating the state through traditionally autocratic means. I think they realized they couldn’t do this and chose to go with a pluralist system relying on consensus-building. Remember that it was a pact and not a constitution. Each side figured things out on their own end and came together in an not-so-perfect union.

    Additionally, what resources were exclusively controlled by Maronites? The country doesn’t have very many to begin with, and now the Maronites own less than before. Clearly, being the biggest landowner hasn’t helped the church maintain any significant political role, nor control over its own flock and their dwindling numbers and political influence. As you know, neoliberalism is making Maronites flee just as much as the members of any other sect.

    Because that was the nature of the power 'sharing' agreement.
    Exactly! They shared power, thus making the system fundamentally incapable of being completely dominated by Maronites.

    We're not talking about a hegemonic ideology but a hegemonic sectarian ruling class that was artificially implanted by the French.
    I’m simply following the logic of your argument. A hegemonic ruling class must imbue the state and society with an ideology (cultural, political) to maintain its grip on power (Gramsci, Althusser).

    If we’re not talking about a hegemonic ideology, then the accusation of fascism fails, possibly in favor of some weird attempt at pluralism. The ideology, supposedly, is Maronite sectarian dominance. Since complete Maronite dominance was far from the truth, the claim of them being a hegemonic ruling class also fails as they necessarily had to share power. The system was contrived poorly, the ruling class sucked, but if the system was artificial, then what was natural 1920, especially given the conditions experienced not so long before? I think a look a Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy might provide some insights. The ruling class wasn't artificially placed, but a product of historical developments that culminated in the formation of the state.

    This broaches a different topic that we could delve into on its own.
    I don't think so. It’s very much addressing the claim you first made in your post that the motivating reasons for the “disadvantaged” group in the civil war was systemic injustice. They were represented by the National Movement, which undoubtedly possessed power, thus making the motivation for the war political (read: sectarian) and not purely economic.

    I would be inclined to disagree here as the notion of the sectarian bureaucratic state that france tried to implement in Lebanon was to be modeled along the nation building experiment that it underwent during the 19th century. Would you have supporting sources that delve into the issue with more detail?
    I’ll include several sources. You’ll find that some view the role of the Ottoman state more favorably, while others view it more negatively. That said, the millet divisions and Tanzimat were double-edged swords. While they helped preserve Christian populations by affording them some autonomy and special status (much like reservations helped preserve several indigenous tribes in the US), they also made them targets as every millet sought to jealously guard themselves in an increasingly hostile environment for fear of retribution from other sects (see Makdisi below). Classic divide and conquer.

    I’ll list the sources here and might be able to attach some PDFs if necessary.

    Carol Finkel’s Osman’s Dream is a good complete history of the Ottoman Empire. Really helps see the context of the development of the Ottoman administration. Chapter 14 particularly pertains to this topic as well as her analysis of the Tanzimat.

    “From Millets to Minorities in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire: An Ambiguous Modernization” by Dimitrios Stamatopoulos is particularly insightful for understanding the effects of Ottoman admins on Christian groups.

    Şuhnaz Yilmaz and İpek K. Yosmaoglu state explicitly that Ottoman confessionalization brought about the birth pangs of the Lebanese political system in “Fighting the Spectres of the Past: Dilemmas of Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans and the Middle East”. They defend the Ottoman legacy, pitting much blame on the French, but at least they admit that the system had roots in Ottoman admins.

    Last one I’ll provide for now is Ussama Makdisi’s Religious Difference in an Imperial Age. His historical analysis nicely complements the literature that he reviews in the first chapter, which are also worth checking out, particularly Masters’ work (Winter also has some very interesting insights).
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    All these were in response to genocidal threats by Iran and their proxy, Hizbullah. It's right there in your links lol.

    Glad you're listening, though. You know the consequences of your actions and you can't pretend ignorance.

    Also, mods need to do their jobs.
    So when others make "genocidal threats", it is bad...and I tell you, it is bad. But what happens when Israehell does the actual genociding? Is that good? Does your conscience agree to it?
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    So when others make "genocidal threats", it is bad...and I tell you, it is bad. But what happens when Israehell does the actual genociding? Is that good? Does your conscience agree to it?
    What genociding? Your population is growing and so is the Palestinians'. If Israel was committing a genocide, the outcome would be much different.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Name one Muslim who was forced to become Jewish.
    Judaism is not a missionary religion. Over time, it has become an ethno religious group. Those gentiles who want to come in are free to. But Jews dont really seek converts. Assuming they do, it would have been a different discussion entirely.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Judaism is not a missionary religion. Over time, it has become an ethno religious group. Those gentiles who want to come in are free to. But Jews dont really seek converts. Assuming they do, it would have been a different discussion entirely.
    In other words, they did not colonize anyone but sought to exist as free people in their historic homeland.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    In other words, they did not colonize anyone but sought to exist as free people in their historic homeland.
    It is not their "historical homeland", at least (even if we are to accept that ALL of them without EXCEPTION descended from some ancient people living or inhabiting Palestine) they spent some 20 centuries in Europe. Europe and elsewhere have equally become THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND. Their "historical homeland" was never in the course of history homogenous in terms of population or exclusive to only one group.

    When you say they "only seek to exist freely on their historical homeland" that could make more sense if they didnt see to undo all others. Their mission was not to coexist but to eliminate all others. That is exactly on what my question is centred on. Does your conscience find that agreeable?
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    In other words, they did not colonize anyone but sought to exist as free people in their historic homeland.
    My historical homeland is Hawaii, can you please tell Donald trump to give me a piece of land there, while we are it I'm allowed to kick out anyone who lives in that land.
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    And all these nations dotted with American bases are prospering while your country is broke and famine is knocking on your doors. Soon you'll be subsisting on UN handouts. Let me know how that works out for ya, as your neighbors to the South offer their children a bright future.
    Be careful what you wish for bud... :)
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    My historical homeland is Hawaii, can you please tell Donald trump to give me a piece of land there, while we are it I'm allowed to kick out anyone who lives in that land.
    Tell him yourself.
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It is not their "historical homeland", at least (even if we are to accept that ALL of them without EXCEPTION descended from some ancient people living or inhabiting Palestine) they spent some 20 centuries in Europe. Europe and elsewhere have equally become THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND. Their "historical homeland" was never in the course of history homogenous in terms of population or exclusive to only one group.

    When you say they "only seek to exist freely on their historical homeland" that could make more sense if they didnt see to undo all others. Their mission was not to coexist but to eliminate all others. That is exactly on what my question is centred on. Does your conscience find that agreeable?
    They did not seek to eliminate anyone, but to defend themselves from those who sought to "throw them in the sea." You failed, get over it. And we liberated Jerusalem.

    Oh and by the way, Arabs in Israel are not digging in trash for food.
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    This isn’t a precise argument in this case. Those prominent Sunni families were not allowed to partake, but were active and equal partners, otherwise the system would have never worked.
    Exactly, it didnt :D


    If the Lebanese state was truly as Maronite dominant as you say, it would have never materialized in the way it did. The Maronites could’ve elected to create a system that did not share power, dominating the state through traditionally autocratic means. I think they realized they couldn’t do this and chose to go with a pluralist system relying on consensus-building. Remember that it was a pact and not a constitution. Each side figured things out on their own end and came together in an not-so-perfect union.
    They could have elected to do many different things especially when you entertwine the fact that they were constrained by the leeway colonial and imperial powers gave.

    Additionally, what resources were exclusively controlled by Maronites? The country doesn’t have very many to begin with, and now the Maronites own less than before. Clearly, being the biggest landowner hasn’t helped the church maintain any significant political role, nor control over its own flock and their dwindling numbers and political influence. As you know, neoliberalism is making Maronites flee just as much as the members of any other sect.
    Take a drive along the Dawra highway. Look at all the major dealerships concentrated in that area. Those dealerships are THE major funnel of money in Lebanon and the source of embedded wealth.



    Exactly! They shared power, thus making the system fundamentally incapable of being completely dominated by Maronites.
    I never said that it was completely dominated by Maronites. The Maronite oligarchy had the lion's share of the spoils and in running the country. I don't see how that position is controversial when its readily accepted as historical fact.


    I’m simply following the logic of your argument. A hegemonic ruling class must imbue the state and society with an ideology (cultural, political) to maintain its grip on power (Gramsci, Althusser).
    A hegemonic sectarian ruling class(es). Sectarian being the difference whereby the power structure and its administrattion is divided along sectarian lines.

    If we’re not talking about a hegemonic ideology, then the accusation of fascism fails, possibly in favor of some weird attempt at pluralism.
    How does it fail? Were there or were there not fascist christian organizations?

    The ideology, supposedly, is Maronite sectarian dominance. Since complete Maronite dominance was far from the truth, the claim of them being a hegemonic ruling class also fails as they necessarily had to share power. The system was contrived poorly, the ruling class sucked, but if the system was artificial, then what was natural 1920, especially given the conditions experienced not so long before? I think a look a Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy might provide some insights. The ruling class wasn't artificially placed, but a product of historical developments that culminated in the formation of the state.
    That state was artificially created by colonial powers and then further strengthened by imperialism. Of course the ruling powers used local populations and utilized the structure of the existing oligarchy to implement colonial rule. The French certainly didn't create the ruling classes but they gave them their positions and their status and their roles. Especially when you consider that those same ruling classes were presiding over regions they never had sway in.


    I don't think so. It’s very much addressing the claim you first made in your post that the motivating reasons for the “disadvantaged” group in the civil war was systemic injustice. They were represented by the National Movement, which undoubtedly possessed power, thus making the motivation for the war political (read: sectarian) and not purely economic.
    There's no such thing as "purely" economical. There's always a confluence of reasons. But the main and most whitewashed reason is the economic and social depravity that the vast majority of Lebanese were trapped under. Especially when you contrast that with the propaganda campaigns by Intrabank and the like to present Lebanon as this oasis of prosperity and culture.

    I’ll include several sources. You’ll find that some view the role of the Ottoman state more favorably, while others view it more negatively. That said, the millet divisions and Tanzimat were double-edged swords. While they helped preserve Christian populations by affording them some autonomy and special status (much like reservations helped preserve several indigenous tribes in the US), they also made them targets as every millet sought to jealously guard themselves in an increasingly hostile environment for fear of retribution from other sects (see Makdisi below). Classic divide and conquer.

    I’ll list the sources here and might be able to attach some PDFs if necessary.

    Carol Finkel’s Osman’s Dream is a good complete history of the Ottoman Empire. Really helps see the context of the development of the Ottoman administration. Chapter 14 particularly pertains to this topic as well as her analysis of the Tanzimat.

    “From Millets to Minorities in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire: An Ambiguous Modernization” by Dimitrios Stamatopoulos is particularly insightful for understanding the effects of Ottoman admins on Christian groups.

    Şuhnaz Yilmaz and İpek K. Yosmaoglu state explicitly that Ottoman confessionalization brought about the birth pangs of the Lebanese political system in “Fighting the Spectres of the Past: Dilemmas of Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans and the Middle East”. They defend the Ottoman legacy, pitting much blame on the French, but at least they admit that the system had roots in Ottoman admins.

    Last one I’ll provide for now is Ussama Makdisi’s Religious Difference in an Imperial Age. His historical analysis nicely complements the literature that he reviews in the first chapter, which are also worth checking out, particularly Masters’ work (Winter also has some very interesting insights).
    Will go over these thanks.
     
    Top