Pat Buchanan's stance on Lebanon
Christopher B. Stone
<rjo...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>cbs...@tucson.princeton.edu (Christopher B. Stone) wrote:
>>Surely you realize that conflicts between two states can affect a third
>>party. Since Israel is occupying a self-proclaimed security zone in
>>southern Lebanon, and since Syria has hegemony over the rest of
>>Lebanon, I would say that Lebanon is surely a third party to the conflict
>>between Israel and Syria?
>In our previous discussion, if you recall, the issue was not Lebanon's
>being a third party to the conflict between Israel and Syria, but rather
>political realism.
Just how are the two stances incompatible? I think that far from being
incompatible, political realism is what *makes* Lebanon suffer as a third
party to the conflict between Israel and Syria.
>Your premise appeared to be that the regional powers "define" Lebanon's
>political reality. I pointed out that the United States is part of the
>political equation.
Fine -- I happily concede that the United States is part of the political
equation in the Middle East. So what?
I happily concede that the United States has some degree of influence over
Syria and Israel, though claims of American influence can certainly be
exaggerated as well. Again, so what? I've said as much all along: if
the United States pressures Syria and Israel to come to a peace accord,
thus enhancing regional stability, Lebanon will benefit.
Your position is implicit in everything I've been saying so far, so I
don't see why you are quarreling with me. Do you seriously think that a
Buchanan administration would continue Warren Christopher's shuttle
diplomacy, or that it would consent to place American peacekeepers on the
Golan to guarantee a regional peace settlement?
>You speak as if Israel has "sovereignty" over "its" security zone.
It depends on how you define "sovereignty," I suppose. If you mean that
the security zone doesn't fall within the political boundaries of Israel,
then you're quite right: Israel doesn't have sovereignty there. Israel
does, however, call the shots in the security zone; the South
Lebanon Army is mostly Israel's puppet.
>>Israel simply will not withdraw from southern Lebanon until the issue of
>>the Golan Heights and the peace treaty with Syria is settled. You may
>>not like that fact, but we cannot sugarcoat it. Assuming that reclaiming
>>control over the security zone lies in Lebanon's interest, anything that
>>furthers Syrian-Israeli peace also lies in Lebanon's interest.
>>Moreover, Beirut cannot regain its former vitality as a commercial center
>>in the Middle East unless the Syrian-Israeli conflict is resolved.
>>Investors will be too nervous to place capital in Lebanon until they can
>>be confident it won't be lost in another war.
>That Israel refuses to withdraw from "its" security zone, however you
>sugarcoat it, has nothing to do with sovereignty.
It has everything to do with sovereignty in that the Lebanese government
does not fully control all the territory within its borders.
Assuming that Lebanon would like to regain control over the security zone --
and assuming that Israel will not withdraw from the security zone until it
concludes a peace treaty with Syria -- anything that furthers
Syrian-Israeli piece lies in Lebanon's interest. The United States ought
to help achieve that goal.
>You state, "Anything that furthers Syrian-Israeli peace also lies in
>Lebanon's interest." You've got to be kidding????????????????????????
>Suppose that Israel concedes Syria's "sphere of influence" in Lebanon --
>suppose that Israel consents to Syria's interference in Lebanese domestic
>affairs -- provided, however, that Syria controls the "terrorists". This
>lies in Lebanon's interest?
I submit that Israel has already conceded Syria's sphere of influence in
Lebanon -- outside the Israeli security zone on the south, of course.
Israel is quite content to let Syria call the shots in Lebanon so as to
prevent communal conflict from spilling over into Israel proper, and to
keep Hizbollah in check.
Your argument here seems to be that the Israeli presence in the south
benefits Lebanon by acting as a counterweight to Syria. By this line of
reasoning, Israeli withdrawal would hurt Lebanon by ceding the whole
country as a Syrian sphere of influence.
If that's your argument, please make it explicitly; you owe it to people
reading this message to be forthright about your stance. If that *is*
your argument, however, I would suggest two things. First, you're
seriously deluded; a sphere of influence is equally bad whether it
stems from Damascus or Jerusalem. Second, if you are relying on Israel
as a counterweight to Syria, I don't understand why you choose to bash
Israel below.
In short, *you're* the one playing the apologist for Israel by making
this argument -- not me. If I've misconstrued your arguments, please do
let me know.
You owe it to your readers to be crystal clear: are you in favor of
abolishing the Israeli security zone in southern Lebanon, or aren't you?
>>Look, if you intend to become active in politics, surely you have *got*
>>to base your opinions on something more substantive than who responded to
>>your letter. Do you read the _New York Times_, for instance, or any sort
>>of political journals related to the Middle East?
>The New York Times? What is that? We've never heard of the New York
>Times down here.
Move away from Texas to the Land of Enchantment. We get the New York
Times in New Mexico. :)
(Actually, upon reading your comment, I wonder if you actually meant it
seriously rather than in jest. The _New York Times_ is the foremost
American newspaper for reportage on foreign affairs, and if you're going
to make such sweeping pronouncements on Middle Eastern politics, I
suggest you read it.)
>>I've worked on political staffs before, and for numerous political
>>campaigns. Frankly, it's very easy to dash a letter out saying something
>>like "I regret I cannot be with you today, but I stand with you in
>>spirit." Unless the group in question is quite controversial (such as
>>the Christian Coalition), such letters are routine -- and meaningless, to
>>be honest.
>>I strongly suspect that the staffer who wrote the letter doesn't even know
>>what the "Lebanese cause" is, as if *Lebanese* could even agree on a
>>precise definition of what the Lebanese cause is.
Unrefuted, of course.
>>Granted, it was slightly sloppy management for everyone not to dash off a
>>note like Buchanan did, because there are too many ignorant voters out
>>there who will cast ballots based on trivial reasons like the one you
>>offer. But that doesn't change the fact that your reasons for liking
>>Buchanan, ultimately, *are* trivial.
>Thank you Christopher, for your words of wisdom. Unsubstantiated and
>arrogant though they obviously are.
They're not unsubstantiated at all; I am doing graduate work in Middle
Eastern politics (Russian-Middle Eastern relations, to be exact), and I
have quite a good amount of experience in the area. Furthermore, I have
worked on numerous political campaigns and on a congressional staff.
Your reason for admiring Pat Buchanan boils down to this: some staffer of
his sent you a letter with a few well-chosen words. Nothing in
Buchanan's record suggests he will live up to those words. That is a
trivial reason for supporting a given political candidate, particularly
when mountains of evidence suggest that candidate is a moron.
>The fact of the matter is, in 1992, Candidate Clinton systematically refused to EVEN MEET with leaders of the
>Arab American community. This refusal did not involve a single letter,
>or a single phone call. Senior officials in the Clinton campaign refused
>to return the calls of Arab American leaders.
I'd like to see a source for this charge, because I strongly suspect it
is untrue.
I met with a number of Arab-Americans at the 1992 Democratic National
Convention in New York city, and I even acquired a number of political
buttons that said "Democrats for Palestinian rights," which I wore at
Clinton headquarters at the Intercontinental Hotel.
Now, I'll certainly grant you that AIPAC wields excessive and
disproportionate influence over American policy towards the Middle East.
They're hardly unique in that respect; the same could be said of AARP on
the issue of health care policy, or of the NRA on gun control.
The only solution to the problem of such PAC's is genuine campaign finance
reform, which unfortunately both major parties have ignored for
short-term electoral benefit.
That said, AIPAC has grown increasingly conservative and pro-Likud in its
stances, whereas the Clinton administration clearly continues to support
the peace process and tacitly favors the re-election of Peres' Labor
Alignment. Should Netanyahu become Israel's next Prime Minister, the
peace process will grind to a halt.
I repeat: the end of the peace process would be a nightmare for Lebanon.
It would mean that Israel would remain in control of its security zone in
southern Lebanon indefinitely. It would mean an end to Beirut's hope of
becoming once again the financial capital of the Middle East, as nothing
scares off investors like political instability.
>>Did Buchanan say how he plans to get the Israelis out of the Golan
>>Heights? He's virulently against U.S. peacekeeping overseas, but any
>>peace treaty between Israel and Syria would require that American
>>peacekeepers be stationed on the Golan Heights, just as they are now
>>stationed in Sinai.
>The Golan Heights (and the Sinai) are not in Lebanon.
Thank you very much for the geography lesson.
To bludegon the point to death: Syria will not conclude a peace treaty
with Israel without regaining the Golan Heights. Israel will not give up
the Golan without an American peacekeeping force stationed there, which
a Buchanan administration would not permit.
Assuming that the peace process is good for Lebanon, then, the syllogism
leads us to conclude that a Buchanan administration, in undermining the
peace process, would harm Lebanese interests.
Do you seriously think that a xenophobic, racist candidate who refers to
Mexicans collectively as "Jose," who "admires" Hitler, and who seeks to
build a wall along America's southern border is going to take an
enlightened view of Middle Eastern politics? Do you seriously think such
a manwould rescind the travel ban on Lebanon? Of course not.
>>Buchanan is equally as adamant in his stance against immigration, and
>>surely you aren't going to argue that the Lebanese-Americans haven't
>>benefitted from immigration.
>Nope. You got me there. They have, however, benefitted from "legal"
>immigration.
Mr. Buchanan favors clamping down on legal immigration too, in case you
hadn't noticed; he thinks immigrants take jobs away from native-born
Americans.
>Which brings us, young man, to the the question that you never answered:
>Please tell the thousands of Lebanese Americans who read this page--
>the thousands whose relatives have been killed, injured, or displaced
>over the past sixteen years, the thousands whose families have fallen
>victim to American-made cluster bombs, the thousands who have witnessed
>their ancestral homeland ravaged and destroyed -- please tell us
>all: What has Bill done for Lebanon other than give Israel free reign in
>the South?
Do us all a favor and cut out the hyperbole.
Israel's security zone in the south predates the Clinton administration
by a number of years.
Secondly, you can criticize Clinton for cozying up to Israel, if you
like; I certainly don't claim that Clinton's foreign policy has been
perfect, and I am particularly distressed at his enthusiasm for expanding
NATO into Eastern Europe.
The task of passing overall judgement on Clinton's foreign policy,
however, is not the question before us today.
Rather, the question we must answer is this: would Pat Buchanan make a
better president than Bill Clinton in terms of helping Lebanon? For that
matter, would Bob Dole, the probable GOP nominee, make a better president
than Bill Clinton?
The answer to both questions is a resounding no.
You imply, and rightly so, that Lebanon would benefit if Israel
relinquished its security zone in the south. Israel, however, will not
relinquish the security zone until it achieves a comprehensive peace with
the Syrians. Bill Clinton, whatever his faults, has been trying to
broker such a peace.
Furthermore, if the Oslo accords fall apart, the entire peace process
with Syria will grind to a halt.
The Republicans -- *not* the Democrats -- have proposed cutting all
bilateral aid to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Hamas'
terrorist bombing of the Dizengoff Center in Tel Aviv and of buses in
Jerusalem. The Democrats have rightly condemened a cutoff of aid as
premature.
An end to aid means more poverty and less development in the West Bank
and Gaza. More poverty means more radicalism, more support for Hamas,
and more terrorist bombings. More terrorist bombings means an end to the
peace process, with all the negative consequences for Lebanon that an end
to the peace process entails.
Bill Clinton, whatever his faults, understands this syllogism. Bob Dole
and Pat Buchanan do not.
Without the peace process, Israel will remain in the security zone in
southern Lebanon, and Beirut will never again be the financial capital of
the Arab world.
--
Chris Stone
cbs...@phoenix.princeton.edu * http://www.princeton.edu/~cbstone
"Isolationism must become a thing of the past." -- Harry S. Truman
r.jo...@mail.utexas.edu
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS POINTLESS TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOGUE WITH CHRISTOPHER
STONE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM HIS ARGUMENTS THAT HIS PRIMARY CONCERN IS
ISRAEL, NOT LEBANON. INTIBU. HE HAS NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION, "WHAT
HAS BILL DONE FOR LEBANON OTHER THAN GIVE ISRAEL FREE REIGN IN THE
SOUTH." HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS TO PLANT MISINFORMATION CONCERNING
LEBANESE AMERICAN INTERESTS ON THIS PAGE.
HUWWE BYIFTIKIR NEHNA "HAMEER". MIN WAIN IJJA? SHOU ASLOU?
AS FOR THE SCOOP ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO
OBJECTIVE, FIRST-HAND INFORMATION. LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW REFERENCES:
AMERICAN TASK FORCE FOR LEBANON, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TELEPHONE: (202) 223-9333
ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TELEPHONE: (202)429-9210
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ARAB AMERICANS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TELEPHONE: (202) 842-1840
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
(CHRISTOPHER KNOWS THE NUMBER.)
TRUST ME. I AM WITH YOU.
RICHARD (MIN BAIT FEGHALI)