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.
- 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.
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).
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...
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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
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.
I think that doesn't make sense to ask
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...
> (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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
You didn't even check your own link I guess. That group's first attack was in 1984 when they operated out of Egypt and in the south of Israel/Palestine. Not a single one of their attacks happened in Lebanon during the civil war. Their presence in Lebanon starts in 1989, at the end of the civil war, and they have to this day not attacked a Lebanese target.
This confirms the point I've been communicating this entire thread that religion only became a driving force in Palestinian politics and militancy in the 1990s and Palestinian Islamism was not a factor in the Lebanese civil war.
> radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon
This is false and misrepresents Palestinian movements in the pre-1990s era and their objectives in Lebanon. That is all I wanted to point out.
I agree with the rest of what you said though.
See, for middle eastern, words like "muslim" or "chrisitans" or "jews" doesn't represent your spiritual beliefs. It represents ethnic belonging. To put it in a western perspective, your religion is not a mutable characteristic. I'm born "christian", but my level of belief in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it.
You're saying the factions that fought in Lebanon didn't emphasize a islamist rhetoric until the 90s. From what I know from the earlier days of the war, there was a lot of talk of pan-arabism and arabic identity, not talk of an Islam nation, so what you're saying sounds plausible.
But from our middle eastern perspective, lebanese muslims allied themselves to other muslims from syria and palestine to topple the christian-led government. I was communicating the point that the factions involved were based on ethnicity.
People picture "wars" like soldiers in battlefields and there was some of that. But a LOT of the Lebanese war was undisciplined militiamen mass killing villages based on ethnic lines. On both sides. Plenty of massacres in christian villages because they were christians. Plenty of massacres in muslim villages because they were muslim. From our point of view, we saw was christian and muslims killing each other.
> radical Islamist Palestinians who had left Palestine and wanted an Islamic state in Lebanon
The first time I read that quote, I didn't react to the words "radical Islamist", but read "palestinians had left palestine and wanted a state in lebanon". I guess this shows my bias after all :D
Now I'm curious what caused the change in the palestinian rhetoric. I'll try to read some more about it. Thanks for opening my eyes to this.
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.
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.
You mean the native palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their homeland and became refugees in Lebanon (and Jordan and Syria)
(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-... ).
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
i expect my comment to be downvoted (and of course flagged) instead of yours because HN
This is like saying China is super tolerant once they get rid of the Ughyrs.
Shit the Mongols themselves ruled over the Uyghurs (though admittedly I’m not quite sure whether medieval Uyghurs and modern Uyghurs are the same people) and many were in high ranking court positions, not re-education camps.
The weird theocratic/government stuff you see in places like Texas is bad news. No different than the catholic dominated political machines that ruled the Northeast.
The thing is, you might be cool with their politics today, but religious extremists flip on a dime. You may not like them tomorrow.
It's one thing when an expert in biblical study tells you not to do your own research. When the same instructions come from an institution deferring its authority to the scientific method, someone's very obviously gone off the rails.
And Iran was never colonized (Egypt's a bit more complex, though it wasn't simplistically colonized).
To that effect, the pictures of modernism you see from the colonies are restricted to a few cities, and a few minority people from those cities. Bulk of the population masses lived in absolute poverty, illiteracy and there wasn't even a glimmer of hope for the future. The pictures misrepresent a non existent past, making it look like when natives were under colonisation, every last nook and corner of the country was overflowing with affluence, modernity and education. The reality is the exact opposite.
Since independence government spending is a lot more uniform and focused towards the benefits of Indians. Building infrastructure, institutions and projects that make sense towards national interests and not to make some European colonial power win WW1/2.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case with other former colonies of Europe.
In Latin America, the central extractivist structure was kept after independence, only the owners changed. Now instead of a foreign crown siphoning off the wealth, it was the local owners of the land -- who still sold as much as they could to foreign powers, and spent the rest in petty civil wars against their own people. Another common occurrence was involving foreign powers in local disputes, as the landowners always put their own interests before the interests of the country.
Nowadays it's less overt in most places, but it's still going on.
It's beyond even that. The English spent the nineteenth century deindustrializing India - textiles, steel etc.
Huh? You mean in biblical times?
Mossadegh wanted a secular independent Iran, England empowered the mullahs and worked for decades to destroy the secular left in Iran (along with the US). Eventually even the mullahs and bazaari turned against western colonialism.
The west also worked against Nasser's secular pan-Arab socialism, including the French/English invasion of the Suez.
This is in the context of India, but does a good job explaining the phenomenon: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial...
Turkey and Bangladesh are other good examples of countries where elites tried to impose secularism, and succeeded for a time, but which ultimately failed because the public didn’t want it.
Secularism really is more of a process than a law, you can't exactly legislate a culture into people. On the longer term, you need lots of good intentions sustained over decades, and you need investments in education sector to keep them going.
The effort, run from the mid-1950s through to the late 70s by a unit in London that was part of the Foreign Office, was focused on cold war enemies such as the Soviet Union and China, leftwing liberation groups and leaders that the UK saw as threats to its interests
The campaign also sought to mobilise Muslims against Moscow, promoting greater religious conservatism and radical ideas. To appear authentic, documents encouraged hatred of Israel.
Recently declassified British government documents reveal hundreds of extensive and costly operations.