[james-redwood]

Lebanon became independent in 1945. Civil war began in 1975, largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon. Lebanon beforehand, it is important to note, was not Muslim majority at all. It was Christian and Druze, and that was the very foundation of the country itself. It was never the country of Muslims in the first place.

Iran was also never colonised by European countries. Its decline began with both theocratic rule as well as sanctions, but even despite this it’s still remarkably functional and developed in comparison to a ton of countries that weren’t put in such a position.

[babarock]

Your description of Lebanon is correct, but incomplete.

- Lebanon (as an independent state) has been created in 1920, right after WW1 by the French "colonialists" specifically to draw an enclave of non-muslim minority in the country. It's classic Divide&Conquer strategy.

- The PLO (Palestinian Islamists) did try to set up an Islamic state in the country, but they were aided, or at least encouraged through inaction, by the muslims in the country who felt that the system was unfair.

- Currently the conflict isn't "muslims vs non-muslim". It's much more a conflict between Shia muslims (affiliated to Iran) and Sunni muslims (affiliated to KSA/Gulf). The non-muslims are now a minority and are split more or less evenly across the two camps.

- As of today, there's a lack of national identity, where every region's local lord amasses more power and influence than any "central" government.

It's not as simple as "they were non-muslims, got invaded by muslims and now it's gone bad"

Source: I'm Lebanese. PS: Pedantically, we became independent in 1943.

[AtlasBarfed]

A huge issue in the middle east for democracy is that muslims, or the very very substantial percentage of them that are fundamentalist, want democracy if they aren't in power, and a super oppressive totalitarian state if they are in power. To the point that it isn't just about establishing islamic states and oppressing non-muslims, it's about establishing an islamic state of the Sunni or Shia variety and brutally oppressing the other islamic branch.

The Kurds are an exception, arguably should have their own state and would be the most sane partner in the middle east, but the US can't get its shit together to stand up to Turkey. Alas, we routinely screw over the Kurds as they get gassed by Saddam Hussein, ethnic cleansed by Turkey, abandoned to destruction by Russia when they were our best anti-ISIS ally.

Oil money and the wealth inequality that came with it certainly don't help things to engineer functioning democratic states, and then as stated elsewhere, neither does the CIA toppling democratic governments because multinational corps find them inconvenient.

America building "democracy" in Iraq was a telling process. All we cared about was oil and maintaining political control. We didn't care about making the lives of the everyday person better, which is the true fundamental path to a functioning democracy (it's why the USA's is gradually apart after all).

[azth]

I disagree that Muslims want democracy (I'm Muslim). Present day democracy generally contradicts and is against Islam, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

[rayiner]

I’m from a Muslim country, and I think they do want democracy. What they don’t want is liberal democracy like in the west.

Shadi Hamid has been instrumental in helping me understand the distinction between the two things. Here’s a good example: https://mobile.twitter.com/shadihamid/status/144363599537580.... More generally: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...

What (most) Muslims want is something like what America was like in the early days. Puritan society was extremely democratic, insofar as the people did make the rules for society. But it was not liberal democracy—the puritans created public schools for the purpose of socializing children into religion. They also made it a criminal offense to celebrate Christmas: https://www.history.com/news/when-massachusetts-banned-chris...

[al_mandi]

> insofar as the people did make the rules for society

But which rules? While Islam does have certain leeway for certain things to be left to society to decide, not everything is. You will not find any Muslim who will make it an offense to celebrate Eid for example.

[guelo]

This is also why the West generally supported or stayed quiet about the violent coup that took out the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's only democratically elected government. We value liberalism even if it's at the point of a gun over democracy.

[petre]

The USA should at the very least support the Kurdish region in Iraq if it bothered to topple Saddam. The thing is that it can't/won't stand up to Türkye mainly because we (all) need it in NATO, we need it meddling into Russian affairs in the Caucasus and the Black Sea, at the expense of the Kurds and the Armenians.

[james-redwood]

I didn’t intend to make it seem that simple - I did so rather to point out the fallacies in the parent comment and point out the main reason for civil war to my knowledge. I’m well aware the situation is significantly more complex today.

[rougka]

Since when are the PLO considered an Islamist movement?

[ROARosen]

From Wikipedia[0]:

Under President Arafat, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority adopted the 2003 Amended Basic Law, which stipulates Islam as the sole official religion in Palestine and the principles of Islamic sharia as a principal source of legislation. The draft Constitution contains the same provisions. The draft Constitution was formulated by a Constitutional Committee, established by Arafat in 1999 and endorsed by the PLO.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organizat...

[Apocryphon]

So, after the Lebanese Civil War already ended.

[ROARosen]

Arafat was chairman of the PLO from the 1960's, before the Lebanese Civil War started. These were his policies.

[Apocryphon]

The dates in the excerpt are 1999 and 2003!

[campground]

Iran may not have been colonized but their democratic government was overthrown by the US and Britain to prevent them nationalizing their fossil fuel supply.

I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran has been able to use their oil wealth for their own democratic civil development.

[googlryas]

That's not really what happened. The Shah was the ultimate authority in Iran, and he asked the Prime Minister to step down, which was his legal right. The Prime Minister said "No thanks, I'm the boss now", at which point the US/UK helped the Shah assert his actual legal right under their existing rule of law.

Can you tell me - if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

[teh_klev]

That's quite the re-writing of history there. The Shah removed Mosaddegh from power in 1952 but re-instated him almost immediately due to pressure from pro-democracy supporters. The Shah was then exiled after a failed coup attempt by one of his Imperial Guard colonels effectively leaving him powerless.

The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.

> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

Regardless of Johnson's behaviour and incompetence I'd hold my nose and throw my support behind the Prime Minister. Such autocratic behaviour should not be tolerated. I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.

[ballenf]

> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies, even if they are quaint and historical anachronisms.

Curious why? Would you hold that position even if the monarch has present widespread support from the population?

Do you think something has changed to make that form of rule more objectionable than it was in the past? I.e., do you have an equally negative view of historic monarchies?

[ben0x539]

I wouldn't go around and label myself an anti-monarchist but I'm surprised that that's a contentious position? Yes, of course the people should strip all power from their monarchies/monarchs/aristocrats in a democracy, because democracy is about sovereign power originating from the people or whatever, not from divine right or right of conquest or tradition or something. And yes, of course historic monarchies are at least equally objectionable! As a rule I'm pretty sure they exploited people a lot worse than at least the present-day monarchies we tolerate for whatever reason!

If the monarch as a person has present widespread support from the population they can probably do the aristocratic equivalent of a gofundme to keep living in their pretty palace if that's what the population wants, and then get elected to normal political offices like a normal person. If the monarch as an office has present widespread support I'm going to quietly disagree with the population and in the case of the UK at least roll my eyes a little.

[googlryas]

As has been noted, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

[petre]

> I should reveal that I'm an anti-monarchist and a believe that states should strip any and all powers from from their monarchies

I guess Charles taking Bakr Bin Laden's (the half brother of Osama Bin Laden) money is not enough to outrage the English enough to strip him of his powers. But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.

[teh_klev]

> to strip him of his powers.

The thing is he has no powers. Even if/when he becomes king the "powers" of that role are purely ceremonial, even if enshrined in law and what paltry bits of a constitution we have in the UK. As another commenter here suggested, if the monarch were to use one of these powers (that they historically agreed not to use) then they'll endanger the privileges afforded to them for merely being the "royal family". They'll happily put up and shut up so they can roll around their estates in their Range Rovers and tweeds accompanied by their close protection unit.

> But maybe if Scotland and Northern Ireland secedes, they'll realize their queen's successor is quite useless.

But they're all quite useless, and many of us already realise this.

[googlryas]

To label the protestors "pro-democracy supporters" is an interesting take. To me, it would be like labeling the Jan 6 protestors as pro-democracy supporters. The people protesting for him were the nationalists and the islamists, and some socialists. Not pro-democracy folk. Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

> The rest is history and we've gotten to where we're at today because the UK and the US interfered with a nascent democracy because...oil.

Mossadegh was on the path to maintain his all-encompassing emergency powers for the rest of his life, if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos. I just can't understand what this has to do with democracy.

[teh_klev]

> Mossadegh's party also called for the assassination of the Shah during this time.

Going to have to insist on a citation for that claim.

> Isn't Johnson declaring himself the leader of the nation autocratic behavior? But simply non monarchical?

That's not how it works in the UK. In a general election it's traditionally the leader of the winning party who becomes prime minister, the electorate know this and it generally works out fine. The government of the day can still have their policies and legislation challenged in the houses of parliament (simplistically speaking).

Admittedly, what is anachronistic and anti-democratic are the current shenanigans going on to elect Johnson's replacement where the electorate have no say.

> if only his policies weren't so boneheaded as to throw the entire country into chaos

What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

[googlryas]

My source would be Iran Between Two Revolutions, but that's just going from memory. Maybe I'm confusing some other party, but I am fairly sure it was the National Front.

> What's boneheaded about wanting to control your own natural resources and de-colonialise your country?

No, the goal wasn't boneheaded, but the policies he implemented towards that goal were boneheaded. Nationalizing your #1 and basically only source of revenue which is propping up your society, when you don't actually have the ability to continue operating it by yourself, is boneheaded. Thinking that the British would stick around after you nationalized their assets(one mans nationalization is another mans theft) in order to help you figure it all out, is bone headed.

Likewise, rural people deserve freedom and to not be serfs to local lords, but at the same time, just setting them free and thinking they will be able to manage the land as well as the centralized administrator immediately is boneheaded

[gpderetta]

> if Queen Elizabeth asked that Boris Johnson step down from role as PM(which is her right), and Boris Johnson instead refused and said that he was now the leader of the UK, whose side would you throw your support behind?

If it really that were to happen, I suspect UK would become a republic in a few weeks. Parliament is sovereign in England and all the powers that the Queen has left are under the understanding that they are never to be used.

[leaflets2]

You're asking if GP would support a dictator (the queen in your theoretical example) or a democratically elected person.

I think that doesn't make sense to ask

[finnh]

Iran's decline began when the US overthrew Mossadegh's democratically elected government and installed the Shah, which led to the Ayatollah.

[bnralt]

The U.S. didn't install the Shah. He'd been in power since 1941, when the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran forced the abdication of his father. He didn't have as much power as his father, so there was a power struggle between him and members of parliament, but he still wielded a great deal of political power in the country pre-1953. One only need look at the 1949 constitutional assembly, where the Shah sought and succeeded at getting changes to the constitution made that gave him greatly enhanced powers.

The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution). But by the time he was removed, Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament and was ruling by fiat based on a rigged plebiscite (his administration claimed the result was 99.9% in favore of the plebiscite[1]).

The U.S. certainly conspired with the Shah to oust him, but it seems like their initial plans failed (certainly, the plotters seemed to think it failed), and royalists in the Iranian military were ones who ultimately removed him.

The whole thing was a fairly complex situation that tends to get reduced to a simplistic soundbite with little connection to what actually happened.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1953/08/04/archives/mossadegh-gets-9...

[joshuaissac]

> The parliament while Mossadegh was prime minister was democratically elected

> (though Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah, per the constitution)

This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies. The head of state (either the president, the monarch or the viceroy) invites the leader of the largest party or coalition in the parliament to form the government and become the prime minister.

[bnralt]

> This is the case in almost all parliamentary democracies.

Iran _wasn't_ a parliamentary democracy at the time. It was a constitutional monarchy where an unelected monarch wielded significant political power. As I noted, he had just had the constitution changed a few years prior to increase the political powers granted to him (against U.S. objections, it should be noted).

[VictorPath]

> He'd been in power since 1941

Does that include when he had fled to Italy in 1953? The reports were he had little desire to go back to Iran, and the CIA and SIS met trying to figure out how to get him to go back to Iran

> the Iranian military were ones who ultimately removed him

That's how it usually happens, the military elements with contact with foreign powers are usually who do in the local nationalists.

[bnralt]

> Does that include when he had fled to Italy in 1953?

There were ~4 days between the Shah fleeing and royalist forces taking power. I supposed if you want to consider those a 4 day interregnum you can.

[selimthegrim]

He was also buying votes in the parliament before he dissolved it

[_alxk]

>largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon

Not accurate.

Until the early 90s and the rise of Hamas the most active Palestinian militant groups were secular, some were even Marxist/Leninist (as in, officially areligious).

Fatah, in control of the PLO, has always been secular and the second most active Palestinian militant group during the 1970s was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist organisation led by a Palestinian Christian.

Political Islam as a force in Palestinian politics started in the 90s and only really became a big thing during the second intifada in the early 2000s.

The Wikipedia page [1] makes for an interesting read if you want to understand more about the Lebanese Civil War and the many groups and foreign interests involved in this tragic conflict. As for the Palestinians, they had a large refugee population established in Lebanon and the PLO leadership wanted a base for their militias; the Lebanese state understandably didn't want a parallel state operating with militias within their borders; this lit the fuse on a country with an already fragile sectarian balance and dozens of sizeable minorities that had grief with the state and each other.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

[babarock]

While the PLO tried to distinguish itself from Hamas by claiming to be more secular, make no mistake that they were clearly a muslim force.

I was too young to remember the civil war, but at least in the collective retelling of the story, it's commonly accepted that PLO tried to topple the Beirut government to install their own. There are many claims that Arafat wanted Lebanon to be an alternative for their "stolen" Palestine. If it's the first time you hear that, then I think it's likely you never talked to Lebanese people about the war and the PLO.

Arafat, the leader of the PLO, wasn't christian. That's ... weird you claim this. His name is Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf al-Qudwa al-Husseini. That's as Muslim as it gets. He was even a member (or a close ally I don't know) of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It's tough to convey to non arabic speakers, but several politicians, PLO front and center, use the terms "Arabs" and "muslims" almost interchangeably.

The Lebanon "civil war" is a misnomer. For the majority of the time, it was a war between lebanese christian militias and palestinian invaders that were tolerated by the lebanese muslim groups.

Lebanon's history and the civil war are complex and I'm not doing a good job of explaining then in a HN comment. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that islam has become more strict in the palestinian ranks after the 90s. This may be true. But I assure you that from the late 50s to the late 80s, they were trying to kick the non-muslims out of Lebanon by force.

[_alxk]

> PLO tried to distinguish itself from Hamas by claiming to be more secular

Hamas was founded in 1989, a bit late for participation in the Lebanese civil war.

> Arafat, the leader of the PLO, wasn't christian. That's ... weird you claim this.

I'm talking about the leader of the PFLP, George Habash, which was the second largest Palestinian force at the time and operating in Lebanon during the civil war.

> they were trying to kick the non-muslims out of Lebanon by force.

I'm not disputing that the intention of the PLO was to anchor themselves in Lebanon (out of the control of the Lebanese state, even if that meant toppling it) and use it as a base, but I'm going to need some sources for the claim that the PLO wanted to "kick the non-muslims out of Lebanon".

[babarock]

Fair, not Hamas, the Islamic Jihad that came before it. It's not nearly the point of my reply, but good gotcha.

As for sources of how the PLO treated non-muslims during the civil war of lebanon, it's tough to find what you want. The whole civil war was about the christian factions vs the palestinian factions, with different entites in between with rapid shifting alliances.

[_alxk]

There was no "Islamic Jihad" in Palestinian groups before the 90s. Religion wasn't a factor in Palestinian politics or militancy before Hamas, and Hamas only became a big player during the second intifada in the 2000s.

I understand you are from Lebanon and from a sectarian background, but that's maybe partly why you have a biased understanding of the groups, ideologies and foreign players involved. You may want to read some background on the history and the conflict from some other sources maybe starting with [1]. Palestinian militancy played a big role, but their religion did not and they were not trying to ethnically cleanse Lebanon or establish a theocracy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

[babarock]

That's what I get for revealing my identity and sharing my stories. I'm told by strangers hiding behind their anonymous username that my views are "biased". Well, yeah, all views are "biased". Does it mean that those stories are not true?

Lebanon was divided around ethnic lines all throughout the war. On one hand, christian militias. On the other hand, palestinian militias. I know what they said about each other. I know how they killed and assassinated each other. I know how impossible it was to cross the line. I grew up there, I don't full remember the last years of the war, but I definitely remember the after-war and what people did afterwards.

Maybe it "just happens" that the Lebanese muslims sided with the 90+% muslim-palestians. But judged from living there for my whole life I might know that this isn't what they say. Not how they saw each other. The Lebanese muslims sided with the palestinians because of a percieved shared identity. Call it pan-arabism, call it whatever fancy term you want.

I am NOT saying that middle eastern christians are perpetually persecuted or that coexistence with muslims isn't possible. I'm not saying that the situation is the same today in 2022. I'm saying that at one specific moment in history, in one specific country in the middle east, the muslims have attempted (and succeeded at) toppling a non-muslim government that was seen as pro-west-anti-arab.

And to be clear, I agree with you that Lebanon was not a solid nation, was gonna implode anyway, and was dealing with internal conflict long before Palestine was a thing.

> There was no "Islamic Jihad" in Palestinian groups before the 90s.

I guess those guys aren't real then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Movement_in_Pale...

They operated in lebanon. They operated from lebanon. They still operate from lebanon.

[_shadi]

I would say the trend started before the 90s but it became apparent in the 90s.

It started in the 70s, before that all the islamist political groups were heavily repressed by Nasser and different nationalist leaders in the region, Sadat realignment, the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the commercialization of oil in the gulf countries opened the Pandora box for the different(and sometimes warring) groups inspired by different interpretations of Islam.

[Apocryphon]

And didn't the House of Saud invest heavily in Islamist groups as a counterweight to the Arab Nationalists and to Iranian-style Islamic revolutionary influence?

[rougka]

Palestinian Islamism is mostly rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement originating in the 1920's Cairo

[kamaal]

>>Lebanon beforehand, it is important to note, was not Muslim majority at all. It was Christian and Druze, and that was the very foundation of the country itself. It was never the country of Muslims in the first place.

As a part of Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French wanted Lebanon to be a Christian Israel in the Middle East.

WW1/2 didn't workout well for France and Britain(Should have listened to Neville Chamberlain, the empires would have continued for another century at least). And ensuing rise of USSR to the world scene mean't both French and British colonial aspirations were brutally put to an end.

Too bad for the French, their colonial designs failed, and it didn't achieve the required demographics to achieve its goals of geopolitical control in the Mid east. Lebanon didn't end up being a Christian Israel.

[Apocryphon]

What part that Chamberlain was saying?

[_nedR]

> a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine

You mean the native palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homeland and became refugees in Lebanon (and Jordan and Syria)

[rougka]

He probably meant the PLO that moved from Jordan to Lebanon after failing to make Jordan the failed state it has made Lebanon

[rayiner]

When Lebanon became independent from France it was based on a political structure created by the French. Lebanon’s religious demographics are fuzzy, but the Christian population probably became a minority decades before the civil war.

[webmobdev]

An elderly friend, retired, likes to reminisce about his time in the middle-east. He was quite upset when he heard about the conflict in Syria. For him, it was one of the few places that had a vibrant culture in the middle-east, and the beautiful women there (not covered up), added to the cosmopolitan charm of the place.

(Another good read that provides a brief glimpse about how the tragedy of partition affected people - An Indian author’s last days in the Lahore of 1947 - https://qz.com/india/1355466/khushwant-singh-recalls-lahore-... ).

[_shadi]

> largely as a result of radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon.

those damn communist and nationalist Palestinian factions wanting to create a caliphate.

Not interested in a political discussion, just wanted to point out that this guy has no idea about the Lebanese civil war or the history of the region

[azth]

Lebanon was literally formed by the colonialist West, who used divide and conquer to strategically place people there so that the conflicts keep going.