AH Challenge: A Stable Lebanon

Your challenge is to make Lebanon, within reason, the gleaming example of progress and democracy that President Bush seems to want in the Middle East. Bonus points if you ignore obvious PODs.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Your challenge is to make Lebanon, within reason, the gleaming example of progress and democracy that President Bush seems to want in the Middle East. Bonus points if you ignore obvious PODs.

simple, make one sect dominant over the others, best one would be christains, POD is that they had more children, and the muslims had less children, with the Westbank and othber provinces on the dead sea area, and jordan composing a palestinain home.
 
The civil war only started after the PLO which was expelled from Jordan came to Lebanon. Before that Lebanon was pretty much a "gleaming example of progress and democracy" in the middle east.

So simply make the Lebanese goverment refuse to take the PLO.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
The civil war only started after the PLO which was expelled from Jordan came to Lebanon. Before that Lebanon was pretty much a "gleaming example of progress and democracy" in the middle east.

So simply make the Lebanese goverment refuse to take the PLO.

the PLO was the straw that broked the camels back, you forget the palestinian refugees, the whole power sharing affair, the syrians, the iranians, and the lebanese
 
1. yo can keep the original agreement in place by having the Christian Maronite population demographically larger than the Muslim population.

2. The PLO goes elsewhere or maybe even stays in an Independent Palestine.

3. Keep Syria out of the country as well as Israel in the south, their continued occuptations and interferences in the country have done nothing to help.
 
Best way to get stable Lebanon might be to simply never have the French split Lebanon off from Syria in the first place.

If Lebanon is part of Syria, then the elaborate ethnic partitioning of political power, and the inherent instability of such ethnic divides within so small a country, are moot.

How about the British mandate is bigger and they get Beirut too?
 
Mount Lebanon was an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire even in the 19th century. The French weren't the root of it.
 
Best way to get stable Lebanon might be to simply never have the French split Lebanon off from Syria in the first place.

If Lebanon is part of Syria, then the elaborate ethnic partitioning of political power, and the inherent instability of such ethnic divides within so small a country, are moot.

How about the British mandate is bigger and they get Beirut too?
Wouldn't leaving Lebanon in Syria result in a Syria with a large and politically mature Christian minority? That doesn't seem as a way to stabilize things.
 
How about a different spin on the PLO rebellion in 1970. Let's say that they have a bit more luck trying to kill King Hussein, and the Syrians are more supportive in backing them. So the PLO takes over Jordan in a coup. Jordan is in trouble (I don't remember much of the population being behind the PLO at the time), but Lebanon escapes the crisis relativly unscathed. Instead we see a Jordanian civil war with Syria and Israel as major combatants. This will have dramatic repercussions.
 
How about a different spin on the PLO rebellion in 1970. Let's say that they have a bit more luck trying to kill King Hussein, and the Syrians are more supportive in backing them. So the PLO takes over Jordan in a coup. Jordan is in trouble (I don't remember much of the population being behind the PLO at the time), but Lebanon escapes the crisis relativly unscathed. Instead we see a Jordanian civil war with Syria and Israel as major combatants. This will have dramatic repercussions.

This would only delay the PLO going into Lebanon. I'm going to go ahead and say the Israelis are not going to allow the PLO to run a country, and will take the necessary military measures to prevent said event. So the PLO, having briefly appeared victorious before being obliterated by the Israelis, still flee to Lebanon. Having gotten a taste of political power, plus getting the Israelis' blood up, the situation in Lebanon goes south even faster, and now the chaotic, bloody fighting between feuding religions/ethnics goes from Beirut to Amman.
 
Mount Lebanon was an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire even in the 19th century. The French weren't the root of it.
The French were behind expanding the place to the biggest it could get with a 51% Christian majority. Had they established Mount Lebanon as a DOM and handed the rest outside of a sea corridor to Syria the place might be a nice little scrap of the EU to this day.

Of course with a saner precident there the British might reconsider partitioning Palestine.

HTG
 
This would only delay the PLO going into Lebanon. I'm going to go ahead and say the Israelis are not going to allow the PLO to run a country, and will take the necessary military measures to prevent said event. So the PLO, having briefly appeared victorious before being obliterated by the Israelis, still flee to Lebanon. Having gotten a taste of political power, plus getting the Israelis' blood up, the situation in Lebanon goes south even faster, and now the chaotic, bloody fighting between feuding religions/ethnics goes from Beirut to Amman.

Actually, it would keep the PLO out, at least for a while. The scenario we have is a heavily Syrian backed PLO government facing signifigant opposition from the Jordanian people and army, not to mention Israel. Given how well the Jordanians held off the Syrian assault in OTL, this implies a PLO government theoretically in control; but with a tenuous grasp on power. Now, for obvious reasons, this scenario is unacceptable to Israel, so they act. I wouldn't be terribly suprised to see the IAF reenacting the first day of the 6 day war on the Syrian airfields, and Israeli tanks rolling into Jordan to evict the PLO and Syrian army. Now Syria cannot take this lying down and save face, so they go in the offensive. Whether they try to retake the Golan in a blatant land grab/attempt to sieze bargaining chips or send their army south to reinstate the PLO or a similar government is hard to say. I have a feeling that Israel would win this one, given air superiority, being slightly more ready for war (neither party would be prepared for escalation, but Israel starts the ball rolling here), the backing of the local population (if syria heads south), and easily defensible terrain (if they move on the golan heights).

The repercussions of this are intriguing, to say the least. Syria has been defeated again, which will enhance the reputation of the Israeli army. Their plans for revenge for '67 will also be set back a few years. However, Israel may have a more positive image, as it stepped in to preserve the Jordanian government. This may change the dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus making a peace easier; or it may make peace that much harder. If the latter, we may have a Jordanian invasion along with that of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war equivalent that is building in TTL. This may in turn lead to an Israeli preemptive strike (one of their greatest concerns in 1967 was that a Jordanian march out of the west bank could easily bisect the country, and the Jordanians did fight harder then the other arabs in that war), on the logic that they lack the strategic depth facing Jordan to let them strike first, especially given the looming assault on their other borders.

And where is Lebanon in all this? I'm not certain, but it will be relativly untouched by this series of wars. That may be enough to enable it to pull together and prosper.
 
Actually, it would keep the PLO out, at least for a while. The scenario we have is a heavily Syrian backed PLO government facing signifigant opposition from the Jordanian people and army, not to mention Israel. Given how well the Jordanians held off the Syrian assault in OTL, this implies a PLO government theoretically in control; but with a tenuous grasp on power. Now, for obvious reasons, this scenario is unacceptable to Israel, so they act. I wouldn't be terribly suprised to see the IAF reenacting the first day of the 6 day war on the Syrian airfields, and Israeli tanks rolling into Jordan to evict the PLO and Syrian army.

Definitely

Now Syria cannot take this lying down and save face, so they go in the offensive. Whether they try to retake the Golan in a blatant land grab/attempt to sieze bargaining chips or send their army south to reinstate the PLO or a similar government is hard to say. I have a feeling that Israel would win this one, given air superiority, being slightly more ready for war (neither party would be prepared for escalation, but Israel starts the ball rolling here), the backing of the local population (if syria heads south), and easily defensible terrain (if they move on the golan heights).

I don't see Syria being able to keep the Golan Heights. Israel was the superior military power, and would be able to push back any Syrian gains in Golan.

On Jordan. I don't know how an Israeli intervention would play with the locals. Basically you would have the Syrian-backed PLO vs the Israeli-backed monarchy. I think the sympathies of the people would be mostly with the other Arabs, that is with Syria/PLO. However, I could be wrong.

Who the locals support though is nearly a moot point, as the Israelis have intervened directly into Jordan. The question is going to be whether the Jordanian monarchy will accept Israeli help to maintain control. If they are, then I have faith that the monarchy's security apparatus will be able to destroy the PLO in Jordan.

If the monarchy won't accept Israeli help, then the Israelis may have just massively expanded the West Bank.

This might actually be good in a sort of messed up way. With all of Jordan under Israeli control it will be clear to the Israelis that they can't occupy all that land. Therefore the choice of two-state solution or granting Arabs full citizenship will come up much sooner. Since the Israelis now have Jordan, could we see a massive population transfer, as the Israelis push Arabs in the West Bank over the River Jordan and into Jordan proper? Or the Israelis could accept that they cannot occupy the West Bank permanently much sooner, and after annexing (read: massive Jewish settlement and expulsion of Arabs in East Jerusalem) Jerusalem cut the "Republic of Trans-Jordan" loose.

The repercussions of this are intriguing, to say the least. Syria has been defeated again, which will enhance the reputation of the Israeli army. Their plans for revenge for '67 will also be set back a few years. However, Israel may have a more positive image, as it stepped in to preserve the Jordanian government. This may change the dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus making a peace easier; or it may make peace that much harder. If the latter, we may have a Jordanian invasion along with that of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war equivalent that is building in TTL. This may in turn lead to an Israeli preemptive strike (one of their greatest concerns in 1967 was that a Jordanian march out of the west bank could easily bisect the country, and the Jordanians did fight harder then the other arabs in that war), on the logic that they lack the strategic depth facing Jordan to let them strike first, especially given the looming assault on their other borders.

I don't know, maybe?

And where is Lebanon in all this? I'm not certain, but it will be relativly untouched by this series of wars. That may be enough to enable it to pull together and prosper.

As the Israelis, either with Jordanian Royalists help (or not), take the PLO apart in Jordan, surviving militants will flee into Lebanon's refugee camps. This will probably inflame the same (Sunni vs Christian) tensions that caused the civil war OTL.
 
I don't see Syria being able to keep the Golan Heights. Israel was the superior military power, and would be able to push back any Syrian gains in Golan.

I never had them taking them. I said that they might consider a thrust at the Golan so that they would either regain them permanently or have them as bargaining chips in the peace settlement, depending on their decisions. However, I doubt that Syria could retake the Golan Heights for any prolonged period of time.

On Jordan. I don't know how an Israeli intervention would play with the locals. Basically you would have the Syrian-backed PLO vs the Israeli-backed monarchy. I think the sympathies of the people would be mostly with the other Arabs, that is with Syria/PLO. However, I could be wrong.

I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the Jordanian army stayed mostly loyal during the attempted rebellion. I do remember that 250 syrian tanks and an equal number of escorting vehicles were held off by 150 Jordanian tanks which inflicted over a 5:1 kill/loss ratio (about 2.5:1 if you only count tanks in the exchange). However, I have seen some sources which suggest that Jordan would rather fight Israel. For this scenario, presupose that the Jordanian armed forces will defend their country, even if it involves making a pact with the devil (from their point of view).

Who the locals support though is nearly a moot point, as the Israelis have intervened directly into Jordan. The question is going to be whether the Jordanian monarchy will accept Israeli help to maintain control. If they are, then I have faith that the monarchy's security apparatus will be able to destroy the PLO in Jordan.

No comments here, given their preformance in OTL.

If the monarchy won't accept Israeli help, then the Israelis may have just massively expanded the West Bank.

With all the complications that will arise from said action.

This might actually be good in a sort of messed up way. With all of Jordan under Israeli control it will be clear to the Israelis that they can't occupy all that land. Therefore the choice of two-state solution or granting Arabs full citizenship will come up much sooner. Since the Israelis now have Jordan, could we see a massive population transfer, as the Israelis push Arabs in the West Bank over the River Jordan and into Jordan proper? Or the Israelis could accept that they cannot occupy the West Bank permanently much sooner, and after annexing (read: massive Jewish settlement and expulsion of Arabs in East Jerusalem) Jerusalem cut the "Republic of Trans-Jordan" loose.

Very interesting idea. Something tells me there is a flaw in that logic, but I can't find one. And it seems plausible. maybe, for a less militaristic solution, Israel makes a deal to let this republic of TransJordan loose and let the Palestinians emmigrate there in return for a ceasefire and recognition of Israel's (post '67) borders?

As the Israelis, either with Jordanian Royalists help (or not), take the PLO apart in Jordan, surviving militants will flee into Lebanon's refugee camps. This will probably inflame the same (Sunni vs Christian) tensions that caused the civil war OTL.

They may not necessisarily go to Lebanon, at least not at first. In this scenario, they are getting overt backing from Syria, which makes it a likely refuge location (if it doesn't sell them out; which is possible if not likely). Iraq, depending on the current status of it's turbulent political situation, might be an option. And Egypt at this time might accept at least some of the PLO (although getting them their might be tricky). by the time the PLO arrives in Lebanon (assuming they do), they may be delayed enough to let the country pull itself together (a long shot, that one; but it is possible).
 
Top