To me, it's not just that I'm sympathetic to Israel for having to deal with the attacks (which I am, of course) but also I'm not convinced that it's possible to sever the pretenses as you put it. I just can't imagine what show of good faith would be enough to overcome to propaganda, because any action that we or Israel take seems to be susceptible to being twisted. We're either too interventionist (Iraq, of course), too supportive of dictators (Saddam during Iran/Iraq war, the Saudi regime, etc), or when we do stay out of things (leaving Iraq under Saddam's power after Gulf War I, for instance) we get the blame for that as well. I agree we could do better and sometimes choose the wrong times to forego trying to show goodwill, or fail to act on opportunities- but I'd be more on the bandwagon for setting those goals if I really believed the end result was possible to achieve. Seems to me that we'd need some combination of a goodwill approach coupled with some means of counterbalance of the propaganda itself, to have a voice that comes from within the region (and has the trust of the people) saying that the intentions of the US and Israel are not as sinister as they're portrayed by groups like Hamas.

The thing that I think isn't well understood in the US is that many of the extremist groups are now quite old and organized. They have spent decades building on the ground political/military/religious apparatuses and they interact with their governments very strategically…they know they are strong enough to really mess things up but not strong enough to actually rule, so they just make compromises that are balanced to ultimately consolidate more power. They are definitely not one shot terrorist groups. The governments have tried to contain them by blaming outside influences for all their woes, but that just blinds the populace to the extremists intentions.

For instance, if you read Totten's site you'll see that Hezbollah had quite a bit of support across various groups while Israel was still occupying Lebanese land. It was only in the last few years when it became obvious that Hezbollah was going to be a curse on the Lebanese regardless that there has been a huge rift. Same thing with Hamas. Ultimately I think it's in Israel/the West's best interests to basically let those countries be so the extremists no longer have any false pretenses.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Israel (or we) are acting in as good faith as they need to be to fully sever those pretenses or build trust. Of course it's hard when you are constantly being attacked, I'm sympathetic to that. But when Hezbollah was extremely loathed and attacking Israel for no reason, and Israel retaliated and the Lebanese were at best neutral and mostly angry with Israel…that shows there is a real problem.

It is ironic that all of Israel's neighbors have spent decades demonizing them, yet now they both overtly and covertly work with Israel against religious extremists…but are boxed in from having too much coordination because their propaganda was too effective.

Mikkel, isn't that somewhat analogous to the situation with the Saudis and the jihadists? In both cases it seems that govts have become victims of a policy which dealt with extremism by attempting to keep the extremists' attention focused elsewhere.

Or you can read the debate in this comment thread.

As to what can bring people together… Well, I think if the various parties would quit backing/agitating the various factions, then the Lebonese would hopefully figure it out for themselves. They did after the previous civil war which was near on 20 years ago now, even if the last few have seen escalating tensions again.

“Of course Arab nationalism arose partially as a cure for the sectarian/tribal conflicts that region has always had and that allowed it to be dominated by outside forces.”

That's what I would think. But in the face of so many groups willing to try violence as the end all be all problem-solver, maybe not.

What DOES it take to get a country with diverse strands cohesive or cohesive enough to become stronger and more confident?

I was talking with a friend who is Iranian today and we both had heard someone on NPR earlier this week who had been back and forth between Iran and the US at least once a year for two or three mos. at a time. And he said what my friend has always told me – that the Iranian citizens by and large are not miserable at all. But rather, it's a don't rock the cradle situation that they feel they will decide when if ever the formal gov't will change – they don't want anyone coming in there telling them it has to be done.

Is Lebanon the same? I think that there might be more Lebanese who would be amenable to help from others – the US included – but I don't see how in the end that could still be a terrible move for us.

So, I guess, if the Arab League really could do something, that would be the best case scenario.

Ha, as I also said to my friend – and here is some acknowledged naivete – I simply can not ever ever ever understand why people want more land and more people to rule or govern, esp. when they don't seem to be able to care for the ones they're already supposed to be governing. Simpleton kind of thought perhaps, but I just have never understood that ambition.

Arab nationalism seems pretty much dead. I'm not sure that the Arab League really has much influence anymore.

Of course Arab nationalism arose partially as a cure for the sectarian/tribal conflicts that region has always had and that allowed it to be dominated by outside forces.

I'm not sure anyone can do anything until the sides figure out what's going on.

Nasrallah(sp) is currently unsure of Syria, given they are playing patty-cake with Israel as far as negotiations go. So, Nasrallha (rightly) figures Hezbollah may get thrown under the bus by Assad. Thus he needs the airport to ensure Iran can still help…

The governement needs control of the only(afaik) major airport, because losing that would be a pretty brutal body blow… Hence, I am not sure how it will/can work out. Maybe some sort of face saving gesture between both parties?

Of course the whole thing has been building for quite a while with Nasrallah pushing things toward a conflict for some time. So who knows. Definetly not a godo state of affairs. Perhaps involving hte arab league would be the best approach, certainly Israeli/US aid would be quite problematic…

Also – I thought this exact same thing: “If the government decides to ally with Israel, that is perhaps the best case scenario, but who knows how that would play in the rest of the region or the Lebanese people at large.”

I don't have a lot of confidence Olmert to be someone who could pull that off. Oddly, I feel as though Sharon might have been – would be an interesting full circle from Sabra and Shatilla in the early 80s, in a weird way, no?

But for sure, between the Christian and Druze Arabs in Lebanon and Israel, it could happen, maybe, kind of, sort of?

Do you think Egypt and Jordan and maybe Saudi Arabia could get some interesting brokering going with Israel and the Lebanese gov't?

I think one of my biggest concerns is – our role – I hate even thinking that. How do we not have a role, but still have a role? You know what I mean?

I don't know what should be done. Lebanon is just used as a play ground for its neighbors to fight on. I don't see how the government can really withstand Hezbollah with as much support as Syria/Iran give them, but everyone else is basically in a bind. If the government decides to ally with Israel, that is perhaps the best case scenario, but who knows how that would play in the rest of the region or the Lebanese people at large.

As so much with the Middle East, it's easy to figure out what is going on if you read a lot about it, but impossible to figure out how anything will change.