The political strife and violence in Lebanon is reaching its heights, and might get worse. Am I too quick to blame this event on the recent Israeli incursion into the Lebanese territory? To be frank, in the past situation of the Israeli invasion of the Lebanese sovereign soil, the decision to attack was a total military and political failure in that Israeli army was unable to secure total victory over the Hezbollah faction and that the Israeli government was unable to secure moral and legal superiority over the faction/party/idea they were supposedly fighting against despite relatively significant loss of resources and decidedly superior men/womenpower Israeli army had considering the strength of the enemy. All that ‘war’ caused was worsening of the split within the already significantly weakened Lebanese government base and moral justification and effective recruitment campaign for Hezbollah and other violent political parties of the middle east sector of the world. Regardless of what the Israeli government and military intended during that ‘war’ (which is in itself peculiarly uncertain), the end result is that a sovereign nation’s economy was destroyed along with significant portion of its infrastructure. And looking at all the homeless people in the NYC, I don’t think people without money and education would devote themselves to peace with the people who bombed the hell out of their job, homes, and families. It almost seems as if some core faction within the Israeli government doesn’t wish for any sort of stabilization of the middle east region, a claim frequently sprouted by many fringe theorists of international politics. Either that or the visible majority of the Israeli government is composed of idiots who can’t figure out what’s good for their own country, but I’m personally against assuming that other people are simply retarded, so this is beginning to worry me quite a bit.
The government ‘crackdown’ on the Hezbollah owned media/telecom facilities hint toward some sort of outside influence/pressure that had been building up for quite a while, ignited by already present internal strife for/against the Hezbollah and the brand of politics such parties frequently represent, militaristic, fundamentally religious (though I do not believe that any religiously fundamental and political objective can be in any way related to religion) and anti-Israel policies. This is a nasty can of worms for any surrounding nations, including Israel, since any sort of intervention by a single foreign state in the region would be interpreted as partisan to one side or another, since everyone around Lebanon has a direct geopolitical and diplomatic interest within the region and its controlling regime.
What is even more worrisome is how the Lebanese military is intervening in the conflict between two major governing factions of Lebanon. In my experience with world history, such movement by the military of a sovereign nation rarely results in any diplomatic or politically sound policies. In fact, they tend to foster a tendency toward ultra-nationalism and dictatorship in which the military is such a deeply entrenched influence in the governance of a nation that they need to spend decades, and even centuries to cleanse themselves of the impact, provided that they are lucky enough to be rid of the military dictatorial regime in the first place. Numerous examples of such situations abound, like Iraq under Sadam, China, Pakistan, past South Korea (not contemporary), and in some limited fashion, even Japan (though not in any contemporary times).
I do find some of the people of Israel I know to be perfectly lovely and respectable people. And that is the same sentiment I have for the people of Lebanon towards whom I hold great respect. Yet the regional government policies and their actions (especially that of Israel) certainly leaves a lot to be desired, to the point that they are making a perfect stranger like me, who resides in NYC and holds no aptitude in international politics, to suspect of willful wrongdoing in supposed interest of their nation, which will soon prove to be severely short sighted.
If only United Nations had some effective decision making organ and a backbone to support their decisions, about the half of the mobilzing conflicts in the world would be finished before they even start. Perhaps this century will see the United Nations finally taking a step to becoming something they always meant to be?
Seriously, the military in Lebanon wasn’t as pronounced as they are now, and I’m beginning to suspect that certain chain of circumstances stemming from the widely publicized (and criticized) Israeli invasion of Lebanon led them to gaining certain political and cultural momentum they were prevented from attaining in pre-war Lebanon. Of course, I’m no expert on the matters of international politics and their subterfuge which tend to be rather too subtle for public consumption, but still, the logical reasons to suspect so are clearly in place, I think.
All the more reason to lament the lack of backbone present in contemporary United Nations. Have I ever mentioned that I am a great supporter of the concept of United Nations and such related ideals of internationalization? Some would cry foul at such sentiments, but I view the problem of internationalization as the problems of implement rather than idea, so there it is.
In this world, where the powers of individual states fluctuate and condense into arms-based absolute levels (am I the only one finding it ridiculous that the only permanent members of the security council happen to the the biggest arms manufacturers and sellers in the world?), the only sure way for peace would be to place some sort of international laws, enforcements for such laws, and forums to discuss such laws beyond the narrow aspirations of any single nation. Unlike what some amazingly complacent people seem to believe, population in misery have a habit of wanting to be rid of the source of their misery, and within the cycle of the world economy, which is a physics applied with human emotion, the source tend to be (justifiably?) those who are more advantaged than themselves due to environment/stroke of luck, slant of the system itself and etc. Such a world system is innately unstable in that the very moment it is implemented upon real people, it begins to manufacture dissidents with significant energetic potential and logical reason to overturn the whole system. Such a system maintained by human beings able to perceive the threat to their relatively priviliged way of life, then must spend significant amount of energy and resources to manufacture the ‘antibodies’ against such dissidents, the very dissidents who are in fact also the result of the materials and resources that might have been spent to further the causes of general human philanthropy.
In such a world, composed of such examples of humanity, the only efficient way (physically and economically, in long term) would be to provide a forum in which disadvantaged nations and individuals might be able to speak out on equal footing as the ones with the most nuclear weapons on subjects that affect them. And economical and diplomatic fairness guaranteed by the international organization (United Nations) would provide the incentive for the groups of weaker nations and middle-of-the-way bourgeoisie nations (like many nations in the Europe region) to seek diplomatic methods to their conflicts that would in the end be significantly less violent and damaging to the infrastructure and civilians of the world (though I expect that they will be no less fierce).
The problem, then, is how such international organization would rise to such prominent position amidst all the scheming supernations of the world, and how such an organization would be able to guarantee fairness and diplomatic coverage to the less advantaged portion of the globe, preventing them from turning into groups of violent dissidents like so many supernations had done before.