1
   

HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 12:05 pm
It's intresting seeing the Hezbollah reaction.

I imagine a cartoon... first frame has some terrorists kidnapping and murdering some Isaraeli guards, second frame shows bombs dropping all aroung the hezbollah terrorists as they run and hide behind their womens skirts, third frame would have them begging the UN for help and crying their eyes out, fourth frame would show the UN resolution and how Hezbollah will need to be disarmed and done away with, fifth frame would have the hezbollah terrorists with their heads sticking out of the skirts giving a bronx cheer to Israel saying "we won! we won!" while in the background the UN is seen taking their weapons away.

Yeah, they won... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 01:53 pm
Your cartoon frames are out of touch with reality:

First frame of this sad cartoon: Israeli state terrorists take Palestinian prisoners and hold them without trial (like the US).

Second frame: Hezbollah takes 3 Israeli soldiers and attempts to make a prisoner exchange while Israeli bombers fly overhead.

Third frame: Israeli bombers kill innocent women, children and old people, forcing one million to leave their homes and levelling entire towns (this isn't terrorism?) while from beneath the rubble, not behind women's skirts, Hezbollah guns force Israelis to flee and hide behind their tanks.

Fourth frame: Shows the last Hezbollah rockets being launched while Bush makes another lame speech about Israeli victory that Israelis don't even believe, nor does the world. (Read BBC, something besides Fox).

Fifth frame: Shows Condi boo-hooing her eyes out because she couldn't come to an agreement with the French (Lebanon was a French colony once), while millions of Lebanese return to their destroyed homes, and the UN flag flies high in its overwhelming support of the legitimate, sovereign democratic government of Lebanon's request of a ceasefire. They didn't start the war; Israel attacked them. Lebanon only wanted to trade prisoners for prisoners. Does that mean that because 9/11 was a terrorist act done by Saudis that the US should go in and blow away Saudi Arabia? ( Laughing oops, the Yanks got the wrong country - Iraq)

Sixth frame: Shows the radical terrorist wing of Hezbollah once shunned by most Lebanese, now elevated to the state of heroes throughout the country and the Mid East.

Israelis, sponsored by the US, attempt at ETHNIC CLEANSING FAILED.

Israel won nothing except less respect in the world and more anti-Semitism.

Rapture Index of 85 and Below: Slow prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 85 to 110: Moderate prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 110 to 145: Heavy prophetic activity
Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belts

Rapture index today: 160 - Ol' Bushie will have to wait awhile longer. Cool
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 11:49 pm
Quote:
Examining Iran's ties to Hezbollah

Just how much influence does the Islamic Republic wield over Hezbollah?

By William O. Beeman

The conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah had hardly begun when the Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters began blaming Iran for the conflagration. On July 25, Henry Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, told a reporter that Iran is "clearly directing a lot of Hezbollah actions. Hezbollah asks their permission to do things, especially if it has broader international implications." Meanwhile, in the July 24 Weekly Standard, William Kristol called Hezbollah's fighting an "act of Iranian aggression" and suggested "we might consider countering [it] Â… with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

However, giving Iran another tongue lashing, or worse, deciding to attack it, will do nothing to stop the violence in the region. Not only is there no evidence that Iran had a role in instigating this round of violence, the possibility itself is unlikely.

Iran's control over Hezbollah has been steadily declining since approximately 1996, during the reformist presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Money does continue to come "from Iran" to support Hezbollah, but not the Iranian government. Instead, it's private religious foundations that direct the bulk of support, primarily to Hezbollah's charitable activities. Nor are the amounts crucial to Hezbollah's survival; even the high estimate frequently cited in the press?-$200 million per annum?-is a fraction of Hezbollah's operating funds. However, the most important reason for not targeting Iran for the continued fighting in Lebanon is that this conflict is antithetical to Iran's interests.

Neoconservatives clearly have another agenda in attacking Iran besides stopping Hezbollah. By blaming Iran for this latest flare-up, neoconservatives are following their decade-long program to encourage a military attack against the Islamic Republic.

Iran's support for Hezbollah

The broad assertion that Iran supports Hezbollah is verifiable, but it is important to understand what the nature of this support is, and the extent to which Iran is able to influence the actions of this Shi'ite Lebanese group.

Since 90 percent of Iran's population is Shi'ite, its citizens had an undeniable interest in the fate of its co-religionists in Lebanon following the Revolution of 1978-79. Like Iranians, the Lebanese Shi'ite community was under oppression both from Sunnis and Maronites. Moreover, Palestinian refugees, settled in Lebanon without consultation with the Shi'ite community, served as a drain on weak local economic resources and drew fire from Israel. The Shi'ites felt helpless and frustrated. The successful revolution in Iran was enormously inspirational to them. While the Iranian central government was weak and scattered after the Revolution, semi-independent charitable organizations, called bonyad (literally, "foundation") sponsored by individual Shi'ite clerics began to help the fledgling Hezbollah organization establish itself as a defense force to protect the Shi'ite community. This was simply not state support. Given the semi-independent corporate nature of Shi'ite clerics, especially in the early days of Iran's revolution, when internal power struggles were endemic, there was little the Khomeini government could do to curtail these operations.

Now, after nearly two decades, this ad hoc export of Iranian revolutionary ideology may have succeeded too well. Whereas today the bulk of the Iranian population has at least some doubts about their government, Hezbollah maintains a stronger commitment to the symbolic legacy of the Iranian Revolution than Iranians, according to Georgetown University professor Daniel Byman. In a 2003 Foreign Affairs article, Byman pointed out that, "[Iran] lacks the means to force a significant change in the [Hezbollah] movement and its goals. It has no real presence on the ground in Lebanon and a call to disarm or cease resistance would likely cause Hezbollah's leadership, or at least its most militant elements, simply to sever ties with Tehran's leadership."

In short, Hezbollah has now taken on a life of its own. Even if all Iranian financial and logistic support were cut off, Hezbollah would not only continue, it would thrive.

Hezbollah has achieved this independence by becoming as much a social welfare and political organization as a militant resistance organization. In a 2004 speech, Dwight J. Simpson, a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University, reported that it had "12 elected parliamentary membersÂ…[and] many Hezbollah members hold elected positions within local governments." At that time, the group had already built five hospitals and was building more. It operated 25 primarily secular schools, and provided subsidies to shopkeepers.

The source for their money, Simpson reported, is zakat?-the charitable "tithe" required of all Muslims. The Shi'ites, having seen their co-religionists in Iraq succeed in initial elections there in 2005, had hopes that they too would assume the power in Lebanon that accorded with their status as the nation's largest community, approximately 40 percent of the population. The growth of Hezbollah's charitable operations increased non-state-level financial support for the organization not only from Iran, but from the rest of the Shi'ite world, since formalized charity is a religious duty. As this charitable activity increased, Hezbollah was on the road to ceasing its activities as a terrorist group and gradually assuming the role of a political organization. Even in its current engagement with Israel, its "terrorist" activities have been reframed as national defense, especially as Hezbollah began to use conventional military forces and weapons.

Many of these weapons, it is claimed, have been acquired from Iran over the years, but even this is not fully verified. The rockets used by Hezbollah have been tentatively identified as Katushya rockets, of the form manufactured by Iran, and known as Fajr-3 and Fajr-5. But the United States has not been able to identify that these rockets are absolutely Iranian.

Moreover, although it is certainly possible that branches of Iran's Islamic guard may be operating in Lebanon without the full knowledge of the central government of Iran, no country has yet been able to verify their presence in the current conflict, and rumors that they have aided in the firing of the rockets have been vehemently denied by Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Given the loose and ambiguous nature of the Iranian government's control over support for Hezbollah, claims by U.S. officials that Iran has an organized state-level support system for such activities are clearly exaggerated.

Added to all of this is the fact that the Lebanese violence does not serve Iran's political purposes. The verbal attacks of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Israel would cause it to be targeted if Israel were ever involved in a wider conflict with the Islamic world. Although Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has claimed that Iran instigated this attack to draw attention away from criticism of its nuclear development program, this scenario seems far-fetched. Indeed, Iran's strategic situation has certainly been worsened by this fighting. Kenneth Katzman, senior Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service, recently told Voice of America: "Iran is viewed, widely viewed, as at least complicit in what is going on, supporting Hezbollah. And that is likely to make some of the fence-sitters, I guess Russia and China perhaps, take a dimmer view of Iranian intentions and perhaps be more amenable to U.S. and other arguments that Iran is playing a destabilizing role in the region and needs to be confronted by the [U.N. Security] Council."

Beyond state support

Why would the United States repeat such unfounded assertions with such incessant regularity as if they were established fact? Aside from their continuity with 27 years of ongoing attacks against Iran, such assertions accord with a longstanding U.S. foreign policy myth that believes terrorism cannot exist without state support. If a state is needed to explain the continued existence of groups like Hezbollah, then Iran is an ideal candidate. Ergo, the connection must exist. Such claims serve to bolster the central, but fallacious, political doctrine for the Bush administration that the Global War on Terrorism really exists.

The alternative is to understand that terrorism is fundamentally community-based. Sub-state groups with grievances that they feel cannot be addressed in any other way resort to terrorism as a way of increasing attention to their plight and pressuring those whom they perceive to be oppressing them. Though they may welcome external financial support, the impetus and motivation for terrorist groups' actions is not dependent on it. Indeed, the more pressure they are subjected to, the stronger their collective will to resist increases.

When this dynamic is understood, the problems of addressing terrorism also come into focus. Rather than looking for global fantasy structures such as al-Qaeda and their state supporters, the international community needs to employ methods to address the needs of sub-state groups, while simultaneously working to curtail their activities as conditions improve. For the Shi'ites in Lebanon, it may be far too late to employ such a strategy.

William O. Beeman is Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies at Brown University. His most recent book is The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.


http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2790/
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 09:10 am
Good lookin' out, Anonymouse, thank you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 09:51 am
So, can anyone sum up that article a bit? There are an awful lot of although's and aside's that make it appear that Iran has no control or influence over Hezbollah...

It seems to me that it is the work of an Iranian sympathizer looking to make his mark in the editorial world and appealing to like minded liberals.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:06 am
William O. Beeman
Why Middle Eastern terrorists hate the United States
9/19/01

Middle Eastern opposition to the West is far from being a phenomenon invented by Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban, or for that matter Iran, Iraq or the Palestinians. It has waxed and waned as an effective oppositional force in confrontation to secular political systems for more than a century.

American officials may choose to conduct a "war" against terrorism, but unless we address the roots of our political and military heritage in the Middle East, the violence will never stop.

American citizens have short memories; they believe that events such as the horrendous attacks on New York and Washington September 11 happened solely as a result of recent events. Nothing could be further from the truth. The roots of this event go back more than 150 years. All of the confrontations between the United States and the Middle East - ranging from the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis and the current tragedy - arise from a single source. This is the heritage of difficult relations between European colonial powers, with whom the United States is inextricably linked, and the Middle East.

Middle Eastern opposition to the West is far from being a phenomenon invented by Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban, or for that matter Iran, Iraq or the Palestinians. It has waxed and waned as an effective oppositional force in confrontation to secular political systems. Western powers were blind to Middle Eastern opposition forces throughout the 20th century because they were overshadowed by great power rivalry during this period.

The original leader of the opposition to the West was Jalal al-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897), an Iranian. Al-Afghani framed his resistance movement as an "Islamic reform movement." Using an Islamic ideology helped him to transcend ethnic differences in the region and preach a message all would understand. Although most of his message was political, this religious framework has served to give the impression in the West that Middle Eastern opposition was based on religious differences rather than social or political considerations. Al-Afghani claimed that Britain, France and Russia in particular were operating in collusion with Middle Eastern rulers to rob the people of their patrimony through sweetheart deals for exploitation of natural and commercial resources in the region.

As a direct result of the efforts of Al-Afghani and his followers, groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood evolved throughout the region. These groups generally espoused three methods in their political and religious activity, personal piety coupled with evangelism, religious modernization, and political resistance to secular regimes.

The activities of the reformers were unceasing, but the events of two world wars effectively overshadowed them in Western eyes. Throughout this period the nations of the Middle East were treated largely as war prizes to be divided and manipulated for the good of the militarily powerful Europeans. Every current nation in the Mediterranean-Mesopotamian region was created by the British and the French without consent or consultation on the part of the residents. This increased the resentment of the fundamentalists against the West and against the rulers installed by Westerners.

After World War II, the Cold War conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union for influence in the region dominated politics. Governments such as those of Egypt, the Sudan, Iraq and Syria were constantly pressed to choose between East and West. The choice was often prompted by "gifts" of military support to sitting rulers. With ready sources of money and guns in either Washington or Moscow, secular rulers could easily oppress the religious fundamentalists who opposed them. This added still further to the anger of the religious reformers. This perpetuated the old alliance between the West and the rulers of nations in the region condemned by Al-Afghani. At this point the oppositionists abandoned political action through conventional political processes and turned to extra-governmental methods - terrorism - to make their dissatisfaction felt.

The United States became the sole representative of the West after 1972, when Great Britain, poor and humbled, could no longer afford to maintain a full military force in the region. The United States, anxious to protect oil supplies from the Soviet Union, propped up the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Arabian government in the ill-fated "Twin Pillars" strategy. This ended with the Iranian revolution, leaving the United States with a messy patchwork of military and political detritus. Anxious about Iran, the United States propped up Saddam Hussein. Anxious about Soviet incursions into Afghanistan, it propped up the Taliban. These two monstrous forces are very much an American creation.

To make things worse, when America finally had to confront its former client, Iraq, in the Gulf War, they established a U.S. military base on Saudi Arabian soil, considered sacred by pious Muslims. Saudi officials had been resisting this move for years, knowing that it would be politically dangerous both for them and for the United States. This action was the basis for Osama bin Laden's opposition to America.

All of this meddling only confirms the century-old assertion that the West was out to rob the people of the Middle East of their prerogatives and patrimony. The current revolutionaries in the region, including bin Laden, have political pedigrees leading directly back to the original reformer, Al-Afghani. Willy-nilly, the United States keeps reinforcing these old stereotypes. It is essential that we find a way to break this pattern, or we will be mired in these troubled relations forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William O. Beeman teaches anthropology at Brown University in Providence, R.I. A specialist on Mideast culture, he has written extensively on fundamentalism and terrorism. He has worked for the last four years in Tajikistan, where he has been able to monitor developments in Afghanistan.


More articles:
http://www.agenceglobal.com/author.asp?type=2&id=68
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:10 am
McGentrix wrote:
So, can anyone sum up that article a bit? There are an awful lot of although's and aside's that make it appear that Iran has no control or influence over Hezbollah...

It seems to me that it is the work of an Iranian sympathizer looking to make his mark in the editorial world and appealing to like minded liberals.


Come on, McG. Christ in heaven, can't you see the contrast here between people who take the time to read and study a lot and those who are happy to simply believe some small group of government officials or partisan pundits?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:28 am
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
So, can anyone sum up that article a bit? There are an awful lot of although's and aside's that make it appear that Iran has no control or influence over Hezbollah...

It seems to me that it is the work of an Iranian sympathizer looking to make his mark in the editorial world and appealing to like minded liberals.


Come on, McG. Christ in heaven, can't you see the contrast here between people who take the time to read and study a lot and those who are happy to simply believe some small group of government officials or partisan pundits?


I did ask for a summation of his overly penned editorial, care to provide one?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:39 am
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
So, can anyone sum up that article a bit? There are an awful lot of although's and aside's that make it appear that Iran has no control or influence over Hezbollah...

It seems to me that it is the work of an Iranian sympathizer looking to make his mark in the editorial world and appealing to like minded liberals.


Come on, McG. Christ in heaven, can't you see the contrast here between people who take the time to read and study a lot and those who are happy to simply believe some small group of government officials or partisan pundits?


I did ask for a summation of his overly penned editorial, care to provide one?


Can't you read and figure it out for yourself. Just like a conservative, in order to understand something it has to be soundbite five words or less.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:42 am
BBB
McGentrix is just following his usual lazy pattern. It takes time and work to study issues. The lazy person just parrots their leader's sound bites.

McGintrix can't help himself. He an authoritarian follower.

BBB
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:47 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
McGentrix is just following his usual lazy pattern. It takes time and work to study issues. The lazy person just parrots their leader's sound bites.

McGintrix can't help himself. He an authoritarian follower.

BBB


Nice way to stay ignorant. Problem is every time he open his mouth he shows his ignorance.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 10:48 am
Ah well, time to move on.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 11:01 am
BBB
xingu, McGintrix's game is to be a conservative Republican provocateur,
not to learn or to inform.

BBB
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 11:05 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
xingu, McGintrix's game is to be a conservative Republican provocateur,
not to learn or to inform.

BBB


Sounds like a good reason to ignore him.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 12:08 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
xingu, McGintrix's game is to be a conservative Republican provocateur,
not to learn or to inform.

BBB



Meanwhile, BBB's singular goal in life seems to be to incessantly post as many articles that strike her fancy as she can, in her never-ending quest to "inform."
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 12:44 pm
Re: BBB
Ticomaya wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
xingu, McGintrix's game is to be a conservative Republican provocateur,
not to learn or to inform.

BBB


Meanwhile, BBB's singular goal in life seems to be to incessantly post as many articles that strike her fancy as she can, in her never-ending quest to "inform."


Ya, I suppose if there's anything people of this country or A2K should not be that's informed. Best keep everyone ignorant. Easier to control that way.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 12:45 pm
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


same thought struck me . . .

okbye
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 12:53 pm
Setanta wrote:
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


same thought struck me . . .

okbye


Did you hurt yourself?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 12:53 pm
Libraries and the internet should be banned in america to prevent the decimination of information.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Aug, 2006 01:02 pm
What a bunch of crap. McG simply pointed out the holes consistently present in Beeman's BS. With that many words; it is beyond absurd to pretend he's giving a comprehensive point of view, while failing to point out Hezbollah was formed, funded and continues to be so by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Suggesting that the rockets are anything but Iranian is utterly unsupportable. Notice, he didn't even offer an alternative. Further, his attempt to separate religious charity from State Sponsorship in Iran is laughable. Is he under the impression that there is any separation between Church and State in Iran? Laughing

If indeed, the Lebanese people could and would support Hezbollah without Iranian support; that would only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel was correct in holding them responsible. Being as they only hold a fraction of available seats in government, it is obvious that the thinking majority of Lebanese do not wish to support Hezbollah. Their complicity is more accurately depicted by their failure to take steps to opose Hezbollah.

Pointing out the obvious parallel purposes of Iranian and Hezbollah's religious faithful, while admitting enormous financial support, yet denying the obvious link is beyond fallacious. Non Sequitur of the first order. Iran formed, funded and continues to support this terrorist group since it's inception. While it is certainly true Hezbollah provides much of what the Lebanese government fails offer the Lebanese people; it remains idiotic to pretend they are anything but a terrorist organization. These cowards intentionally murder civilians in Israel while hiding behind civilians in Lebanon. Both countries' civilians suffer because of this terrorist activity. It confuses me that so many obviously intelligent, informed people have no trouble overlooking this simple truth.

If Beeman's denial of State sponsorship in favor of uniform Shiite desire were accurate; it would simply increase the number of people who should be considered the enemy. I don't buy it. While I can't know, I can only assume that the thinking majority of Shi'ites would reject the notion of supporting the murderers of women and children. It makes much more sense to conclude Iran funnels it's support of murderers through these channels.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 11:05:09