Blog 8 Political Violence

Blog 8 Political Violence

Political Violence seems like a subject that has clear definitions of each of their forms. However, this is subject that can have differing opinions when defining the different terms of political violence. However, looking at Lebanon and its Civil War of 1975, we can find that the definitions in David Samuels Comparative Politics are very accurate.

The Lebanese Civil War which took place in 1975 and lasted until 1990 is an example of a form of political violence in Lebanon, and perhaps the most significant for the country itself. The country was devastated by the war and since has not fully recovered from it. The war took place between the PLO, which is made of Palestinians that were displaced from Israel, and the Maronite Christians. The Palestinians that were displaced numbered 100,000 people (GlobalSecurity). The government was controlled by the Christians, who sided with the West, and this change in demographics in the increase of Muslims/Palestinians, who sided with the pan-Arab states, to the area was detrimental to the Christians in power. This difference in cultures and the demand of the Muslims to gain more power in the Lebanese government was the push for action and specifically, political violence in the form of warfare. Attacks began to occur early in the spring of 1975. This caused the future attacks and they escalated into full on warfare by 1978 (GlobalSecurity). In the end of the conflict between the Muslims/Palestinians and the Christians, the Ta’if Agreement was created, which ended the conflict. This gave the Muslims an equal share of the seats in the government, on a one to one ratio. It also created the disbandment of all militias. Thus, this effectively ended the conflict (Global Security).

When looking at the specifics of the Civil War in Lebanon, David Samuels’ definition is accurately affirmed. He believes that a civil war is “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities” (Comparative Politics). This basic definition holds true in the case at hand. The two groups here are the Palestinians and the Christians who were both subject to the Lebanese form of government. The conflict began due to the differences in political representation of the Muslims, which covers the combative portion of the definition. This basic definition holds true for Lebanon.

When looking further into Samuels’ argument for civil wars, we find that Lebanon continues to support his argument. He affirms that states are more prone to civil war when they are from European colonies (Samuels 260). In the case of Lebanon, a French colony, this holds true. The Christian background from the French rule, ultimately was part of the conflict in the Civil war, and was a legitimacy issue in the government. We also can look at Samuels’ assertion that cultural grievances also are a cause for civil war (Samuels 263). The fact that the Palestinians and the Muslims had an unequal representation in the legislature caused a stir amongst the Muslims and they said it was discrimination. This also was a reason for mobilization of Palestinians and a push for war. We also see in Samuels’ argument that civil wars last for at least one year and cause at least 1000 casualties (Samuels 259). Lebanon’s war lasted fifteen years and resulted in 100,000 deaths, 100,000 handicapped, and over 900,000 displaced from homes, and over a quarter million permanently emigrated (Global Security). This makes Samuels’ argument and definition stronger.

His argument is also furthered when looking at the international context of Lebanon. Samuels asserts that “actions and attitudes of foreign countries can exacerbate state weakness and create opportunities for insurgents to contest control over the state” (Samuels 261). This holds true for Lebanon, who was influence by both the Western states and the pan-Arab states, who supported the Christians and the Palestinians respectively. Western ideas and pan-Arab ideas came together and clashed in this conflict.

Overall, Samuels’ definition of civil war is very well defined and supported by the case of Lebanon and the Lebanese Civil War. When observing the colonial legacy, international context, and cultural grievances part of his argument and how these elements affected Lebanon and pushed them into civil war, his argument is further supported. Civil war and political violence, however, can vary depending on the specific country observed, but Samuels’ argument is very generalizable.

David J Samuels, Comparative Politics

Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon.htm