 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:20
|
|
To clarify, in '48 the Christians refused to give the Palestinian refugees citizenship, keeping them in squalid refugee camps, so they could maintain their majority. Then in the mid-50's the Maronite Christians tried to unconstitutionally install their President for a second term (history seems to repeat itself, eh? ), which provoked a civil war. The Maronites won and installed a police state. In the '70's, with demographic changes, the PLO rebelled, supported by the Sunnis and Druze against the Maronites (the Maronite militia was called the Phalange, based on the Spanish Falange). Syria invaded and crushed the PLO militia, keeping the country in chaos.
The Israeli intervention was due to trying to permanently crush the PLO, rather than hunting down terrorists (the PLO had launched their "peace offensive" the year prior to Israel's intervention).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
Which is not an unreasonable idea in of itself, it's just that ideas like economic inequality and labor organization are generally divorced from the dictatorship/terror model. And are generally deemed unimportant anyways. |
Which is why i would say no one on the NYT editorial board, or the WaPo editiorial board is a neocon. Neo con as a modern ideology has a substantial economic and cultural component. There is an important (IMHO) segment of opinion in the US that shares many of the foreign policy views of the Neocons, but are NOT neocons. Theres a history to this. In 1973 Podhoretz, Dector, Penn Kemble, some labor types formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (yours truely, expressing precocious views, joined, and had the opportunity to meet Dector, Kirkpatrick, among others) CDM was strongly supportive of Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson. In 1980 many of these folk, plus the Kristols (who werent involved in CDM,iirc) joined the Reagan admin, and became GOP. Not all did, nor did all who sympathized with them in the Dem party. Indeed the DLC emerged from the thinking of the "left" of the CDM crowd, although, influenced by southern Dems, it was far less labor oriented, and was downright hostile to the AFL CIO on select issues. while the DLC has been is some dissarray lately, there is still a hawkish new dem position that supported the war in Iraq, and whose principle sounding board is the editorial page of the WaPo, and to a lesser extent the New Republic. It seems to me that the NYT editorial was a bow to the WaPo POV, not to "neocons". As for Friedman, he has his own POV, which shares the WaPo concerns, but is unique to Friedman.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
To clarify, in '48 the Christians refused to give the Palestinian refugees citizenship, keeping them in squalid refugee camps, so they could maintain their majority. Then in the mid-50's the Maronite Christians tried to unconstitutionally install their President for a second term (history seems to repeat itself, eh? ), which provoked a civil war. The Maronites won and installed a police state. In the '70's, with demographic changes, the PLO rebelled, supported by the Sunnis and Druze against the Maronites (the Maronite militia was called the Phalange, based on the Spanish Falange). Syria invaded and crushed the PLO militia, keeping the country in chaos.
The Israeli intervention was due to trying to permanently crush the PLO, rather than hunting down terrorists (the PLO had launched their "peace offensive" the year prior to Israel's intervention). |
a few corrections A. while demographic change had happened steadily, the PLO expulsion from Jordan after a civil war in that country, and the resultant transfer of the PLO leadership to Lebanon was also a trigger of the Lebanese civil war, IIRC. B. there were several Maronite militias under different leaders, IIRC only one, led by the Gemayel clan, was called the Phalange. C. While Syria was called in by the Maronites, the Syrian-Maronite alliance was quickly broken.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:20
|
|
lotm, I'm curious how you define "neoconservatism." I can't say that I've ever come up with a good definition. It just seems to me insane that folks like Kirkpatrick could talk about the betrayal of Somoza or Pahlavi on one hand, and this is somehow consistent with the promotion of democracy and human rights.
quote: B. there were several Maronite militias under different leaders, IIRC only one, led by the Gemayel clan, was called the Phalange. |
The Phalange were the biggest players among the Maronites at the time. Indeed, the Gemayels succeeded the Sarkis administration.
quote: While Syria was called in by the Maronites, the Syrian-Maronite alliance was quickly broken. |
Not that quickly. IIUC, it wasn't till '82 that the alliance broke, and it never was fully dissolved. Even today, there are prominent pro-Syrian Maronites: Lahoud and more importantly Franjieh.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|