...or it could be a recipe for civil war if those trained and armed people split into different factions. I don't see that happening in Switzerland, but that's probably one of the reasons why this model hasn't caught on a lot.
Then the displaced farmers revolted (this is why the war is sometimes blamed on climate change), then the Libyans came, then ISIS and Russia and the whole mess we see today.
Though I do see your point, many people like to cherry-pick parts of conflicts that serve their worldview and ignore other parts, so it may appear to you that was what I did as well. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to discuss certain events and limit the discussion to only those periods during which their favoured side was "right".
So that was in fact not my intention. You are invited and welcome to mention the Western factors that you see relevant.
While I won't deny the Russian or ISIS involvement, the US was also always involved.
Oh, and you conveniently ignore Russian factor too - they were the ones targeting hospitals and ranking up civilian causalities as a strategy.
Nah.
Gaddafi, we enforced no fly zones and called on NATO to help the the Muslim brotherhood oust Gaddafi. In WikiLeaks cables, Clinton bragged about taking out Gaddafi, as well as in public, and Blumenthal even discussed investing in an arms company in order to profit from the conflict.
In Syria, we watched no fly zones being established that protected ISIS, while ISIS was condemned publicly by the same politicians that protected them. Then the CIA sent arms to "moderate rebels" that were simply rebranded IS groups. Some of those groups, after receiving arms, went public with their allegiance to IS.
Don't forget Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, another group that the US had a heavy hand in creating in order to creating.
And we've done stuff like this on every single continent. Patrice Lumumba got too friendly with the Russians and communism. Haven't even gotten to South America.
And I'm someone that would consider themselves very anti communist, but I can acknowledge that the US has been involved in some incredibly destructive behind the scenes foreign policy. This stuff isn't really disputed.
BUT they know being unite is needed and they choose carefully to distribute power around groups to make hard one being able to rule others or some unite against others and they choose a language no-one use (Latin) as a good symbol of "we are unite, but we are all different and together"...
IMVHO this model is not accepted by most countries is because anyone like or dream power and in this model there is no absolute power by anyone so any decision need to be discussed and lobby can't do that much. Oh, it's not perfect, we see recent schizophrenic referendums rows, sure Swiss is not poor anymore, the poorest mercenaries of big European powers of the past, so they can count on being a safe harbor for anyone else etc. BUT try to compare Swiss to Lebanon (the ex-Middle-est Swiss almost anybody forgot)...
One is founded on libertarian ideals. The other one is founded on state-mandated pluricultural sectarianism.
In switzerland, plurality is represented via multiple presidents and they can represent any canton.
In lebanon, plurality is state-mandated: must have a president that is of X religion. A prime minister of Y religion. This is "representative".
The swiss has very strong traditions on union out of necessity (to face external threat).
Lebanon has no tradition of unity, it is a state unified effectively out of fear (and a bastard child of french palestinian mandate).
The swiss culture of unity is long: they worked 800+ years to establish their union and it was carefully balanced over many iterations of conflict, even internal ones.
Lebanese culture of unity is very weak. They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project. Money buys influence. Imagine if FL depended on Venezuelan treasure to build roads. Very weak internal unity.
Lebanon was only the switzerland of the middle east because it was the most free of countries in the region. But the regional bar is very low. As it turns out, that only gets you so far.
And time ran out for lebanon... a while back:
When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods). That permanently and irrevocably set them on the path they are today.
In summary, calling lebanon the switzerland of the middle east is a romantic idea for the lebanese that lived thru a somewhat prosperous but short time period of 15 or so years. Nothing suggested it could be long lasting. It was always an empty vessel. A student that cheats on every exam, will eventually get caught.
The rest as they say, is history
> They basically were friendly with all neighbors seeking to influence
> internal policy. For example, all public works depend on a
> sponsor (saudi, qatar etc), to fund the project.
> When? I think Black september sealed the fate of lebanon. They had no internal
> unity to reject the palestinian refugees like Jordan did (via authoritarian methods).
I don't know where this practice comes from or how long has it been around.
I do know however the public works bidding is a cartel, and there is so much corruption at all levels, from deputies to private enterprise, that it would make Brazil's petrobras corruption scandal (lava jato) look minor in comparison.
>>>>Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods?
Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. The palestinian issue is rare because they were forced to leave, which is atypical for "total war" conflict.
In total war conflicts, the result is winner takes land with resources, and loser state is (a) integrated into larger empire, with either assimilation, or massive civilian casualties, or (b) else loser state is left with minor pop and land.
With Palestine, there was no leftover "loser" state, there were no resources changing hands, and no civilian wipeout.
I dont know of any democratic country succesfully managing refugees at that scale. Total war is not rare historically, what is rare is democratic states existing at the time total war was still prevalent.
The question is interesting. Id like to give it more thought.
That being said, history tends to put everyone in their place. Jordan may still implode due to royal malfeasance, but lebanon already did.
> Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere.
Of course I am referring to the period up until 1967. The PLO actions after 1967 changed the dynamics of the situation and any rubric for judging policy in the period before that year is not valid for judging policy in the period after that year.
That is one if the ongoing big questions worldwide, isn't it?
The EU solves it by paying Erdogan and co. to do most of the dirty work of keeping them away.
There is no nice way, to turn someone desperate away. You can either integrate them well, or you push them out.
Or you can work towards solutions, that bring prosperity to the poor, exploited areas of the world. Ending wars would be a good start.
> You can either integrate them well, or you push them out.
Of course, those refugees had to go live _somewhere_. The Egyptians rounded them up into Gaza, stuffing 250,000 people into land that could support 60,000 and already had over 100,000. That is why there are no real refugee camps in Egypt today, and why Egypt refused to take Gaza back after 1956.
Historically, there was a 3rd and even 4th option. Both are extremely antihuman (genocide, slavery) but they were options nonetheless.
And personally I like the swiss approach, too.
Actually I will take a stab at the question.
I think Switzerland is a decent example of how to handle refugees while still remaining a free country.
In fact, Switzerland offers a glimpse of a solution: the suisse model of citizenship the municipal level.
In Switzerland, each canton makes its own rules for naturalization. Some cantons have adhoc policies, and refuse granting citizenship for almost any reason. [1].
Now, expand that thesis: - if cantons also had sovereign control of their borders (which they did, during the old confederacy) they could manage refugee crisis while retaining democratic ideals.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/sw...
Being able to turn away _all_ refugees is a luxury that some non-Mediterranean European countries have because there is a buffer state before the refuge is actually on your land. But when the refugees are flooding over your border at the rate of 2 refugees for every 1 of your citizens, how effective such a policy in practice?
I do not prize Swiss at a whole, I'm talking just in terms of defense and Democracy...
https://www.weeportal-lb.org/news/lebanon-imports-85-its-foo...
or
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/lebanon/2022/03/11/leba...
https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/russia-ukraine-war-could-cause...
I suppose they have big water issues due to constant droughts and bad irrigation systems, perhaps hyper-dense population and constant war-alike status also impact much but...
And do not undervalue the energy part, pumps for instance can run on p.v. but most tractors, farm equipment run on diesel, witch is not produced locally and cost money. Food supply chain/transformation industry need energy, sometimes in important quantities to keep foods cold or to lyophilize them etc.
Energy does not make foods alone, but it's an important piece of the game.
In fact, I did not consider the energy part. I am aware that much Lebanese agriculture, at least in the south, is still very manual.