1
   

HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 06:58 am
Heard a report today from a German priest, who works in Beirut and doesn't want to be flown out.

He says that his parish (catholic) was and is strongly anti-Hezbollah. But now, since their homes are bombed as well, they turn anti-Western, he said. As far as he could tell - he said - there's a great danger that not only the Muslim population of the Middle East but all will turn to supporters of the radicals ... since they seem to be the only to defend their homes, rights and life.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:06 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Let me put it in simple terms, once again, as it doesn't seem to sink in with everyone. No Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, no civil war; no civil war, no Hezbollah.


Are you really trying to assert that it is a certainty that if Israel had not invaded Lebanon there would not be an Islamic terrorist group in Lebanon today with the specified goal of exterminating Israel?

Why did Israel invade Lebanon in the first place? Because they wanted their particular brand of coffee all for themselves?

This is an incredibly simplistic view of history.

If the South had not fired on Fort Sumptner, there would have been no civil war, and the South would not have been defeated and there would still be slavery in America.

If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the US would not have gone to war in the pacific, imperial Japan would not have been crushed, and China would now be simply a province of the Japanese Empire.

Etc etc etc.


Allow me to repeat to you what you said to me: "This is an incredilby simplistic view of history."

Slavery was an issue which boiled on the front burner in America for many decades before the outbreak of war. The act of firing on Fort Sumter was a result of the situation, not the cause of it. The United States had embargoed Japan because of their invasion of China, and they could no longer buy from us the petroleum and mineral ores which were needed for their military machine, and Japan had been since 1923 a militarist state in which no government measures could be passed over the objections of the Army or Navy Minister. To get the petroleum and strategic mineral ores needed to support their military machine, the Japanese Imperial staffs had determined on "the Southern Operation," in which they would attack and occupy Dutch East Indies, Malaysia and Borneo. To do so, they had to elminate the threat to their operation on their immediate left flank in the Philippines. Doing that left the Pacific Fleet on the distant flank of their operation, so Yamamoto concieved of the bold measure to attack and neutralize the Pacific Fleet--and it worked.

Israel invaded the Lebanon because of attacks by the PLO. Hezbollah was established four years later, with Persian assistance, because the majority of Lebanese are Shi'ites, Iran is the only Shi'ite nation in the world, and the Syrian Socialist militia excluded the Shi'ites. In the whirl of competing militias in the Lebanese civil war, the Shi'ites had no effective militia, and could not match the long-established power of the Maronite militias. Iran had just overthrown the brutal regime of the Shah, which was maintained by Savak, the Shah's secret police, who had been created, trained and funded by the CIA and Israel's Mossad. That Iran would want to provide the Shi'ites of the Lebanon with an effective militia in the midst of civil war, and while under the constant attacks of the Israelis, and would nuture a grudge against the United States and Israel in doing so, is hardly to be wondered at.

But, of course, the simplistic view that anyone who attacks our friends and allies is ipso facto a terrorist fit only to be exterminated is much more comforting, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:10 am
Speaking about simplistic: why shall it be so simple to erasure Hebollah now when it couldn't be done during the 18 years of its existence ...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 07:14 am
That's a point i've been making throughout this thread, Walter. However, conservatives here seem to be so deafened by their own shouts of "Terrorists, the Terrorists are coming!"--that they seem incapable of viewing the situation dispassionately as seeing the futility of this Isreali operation.

Hezbollah, although claiming to represent Lebanese Shi'ites, has never managed to politically represent more than a small fraction of the population. Israel's hysterical overreation to the kidnapping, and their heavy-handed attempt to destory Hezbollah are very likely to be as futile as their failed attempt to destroy the PLO.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 08:12 am
Territory and prisoners have been the traditional way of viewing most of past conflicts. Are we sure that isn't the old "box", which is no longer an adequate paradigm?

From the Associated Press just recently:

"Israelis clash with Hezbollah guerrillas
By HUSSEIN DAKROUB, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago



BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli troops clashed with Hezbollah guerrillas on the Lebanese side of the border Wednesday, while warplanes flattened buildings and killed at least 20 people overnight as fighting entered its second week with the U.S. signaling it will not push Israel toward a fast cease-fire. "
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 09:12 am
And here is a different 'take' than that expressed here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html?nav=most_emailed_emailafriend

"Hunker Down With History

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; A19



The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view.

There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. Zealots are not amenable to reason. And there's not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel. There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint -- not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself.

Hard-line critics of Ariel Sharon, the now-comatose Israeli leader who initiated the pullout from Gaza, always said this would happen: Gaza would become a terrorist haven. They said that the moderate Palestinian Authority would not be able to control the militants and that Gaza would be used to fire rockets into Israel and to launch terrorist raids. This is precisely what has happened.

It is also true, as some critics warned, that Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon was seen by its enemies -- and claimed by Hezbollah -- as a defeat for the mighty Jewish state. Hezbollah took credit for this, as well it should. Its persistent attacks bled Israel. In the end, Israel got out and the United Nations promised it a secure border. The Lebanese army would see to that. (And the check is in the mail.)

All that the critics warned has come true. But worse than what is happening now would be a retaking of those territories. That would put Israel smack back to where it was, subjugating a restless, angry population and having the world look on as it committed the inevitable sins of an occupying power. The smart choice is to pull back to defensible -- but hardly impervious -- borders. That includes getting out of most of the West Bank -- and waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else. This will take some time, and in the meantime terrorism and rocket attacks will continue.

In his forthcoming book, "The War of the World," the admirably readable British historian Niall Ferguson devotes considerable space to the horrific history of the Jews in 19th- and 20th-century Europe. Never mind the Holocaust. In 1905 there were pogroms in 660 different places in Russia, and more than 800 Jews were killed -- all this in a period of less than two weeks. This was the reality of life for many of Europe's Jews.

Little wonder so many of them emigrated to the United States, Canada, Argentina or South Africa. Little wonder others embraced the dream of Zionism and went to Palestine, first a colony of Turkey and later of Britain. They were in effect running for their lives. Most of those who remained -- 97.5 percent of Poland's Jews, for instance -- were murdered in the Holocaust.

Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 09:32 am
I have a problem with someone who describes Hamas as a "fetid anti-semitic organization." The Palestinians are ovewhelmingly descended from Bedouin--Semites. Does the author suggest that Hamas are opposed to themselves?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 10:33 am
Bill no need to apologise, I have been known to have drink myself

I just dont want any more of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5194624.stm
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 10:43 am
Finn what I meant was that Isreal is dependent on the USA not only for "permission" to attack Iran, but also on American materiel of war with which to do so.

My reference to conspiracy was merely to point out that its only lay observers who are acused of being obsessed with conspiracies, whereas governments indulge in them all the time. History is not imo "conspiracy theory" or "cock up" theory, its a mixture of both. Governments produce various contingency plans, which inevitably go wrong.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 10:48 am
An Israeli commenator on the radio has puked up two pieces of garbage just now. The first was to say that we must not forget that Hezbollah cheered about September 11th--which is to say, he wants an emotional response, and that response hatred, rather than a considered response based on the circumstances. Then he says that we must remember that Arabs don't think like we do. That is both an example of attempting to demonize the "other," and it is hilarious in a grim sort of way, because i don't see an ounce of difference between the "eye for an eye" attitudes of the Israelis and their Muslims opponents.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:47 am
Dobbs: Not so smart when it comes to the Middle East

By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Posted: 12:21 p.m. EDT (16:21 GMT)

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- We Americans like to think we're a pretty smart people, even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. And nowhere is that evidence more overwhelming than in the Middle East. History in the Middle East is everything, and we Americans seem to learn nothing from it.

President Harry Truman took about 20 minutes to recognize the state of Israel when it declared independence in 1948. Since then, more than 58 years of war, terrorism and blood-letting have led to the events of the past week.

Even now, as Katyusha rockets rain down on northern Israel and Israeli fighter jets blast Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, we simultaneously decry radical Islamist terrorism and Israel's lack of restraint in defending itself.

And the U.S. government, which wants no part of a cease-fire until Israel is given every opportunity to rescue its kidnapped soldiers and destroy as many Hezbollah and Hezbollah armaments as possible, urges caution in the interest of preserving a nascent and fragile democratic government in Lebanon. Could we be more conflicted?

While the United States provides about $2.5 billion in military and economic aid to Israel each year, U.S. aid to Lebanon amounts to no more than $40 million. This despite the fact that the per capita GDP of Israel is among the highest in the world at $24,600, nearly four times as high as Lebanon's GDP per capita of $6,200.

Lebanon's lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians -- three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line. Yet the vast majority of our giving in the region flows to Israel. This kind of geopolitical inconsistency and shortsightedness has contributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Western world seems content to allow to perpetuate endlessly.

After a week of escalating violence, around two dozen Israelis and roughly 200 Lebanese have died. That has been sufficient bloodshed for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to join in the call for an international security force, ignoring the fact that a U.N. force is already in Southern Lebanon, having failed to secure the border against Hezbollah's incursions and attacks and the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

As our airwaves fill with images and sounds of exploding Hezbollah rockets and Israeli bombs, this seven-day conflict has completely displaced from our view another war in which 10 Americans and more than 300 Iraqis have died during the same week. And it is a conflict now of more than three years duration that has claimed almost 15,000 lives so far this year alone.

An estimated 50,000 Iraqis and more than 2,500 American troops have been killed since the insurgency began in March of 2003, which by some estimates is more than the number of dead on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past 58 years of wars and intifadas.

Yet we have seen no rescue ships moving up the Euphrates for Iraqis who are dying in their streets, markets and mosques each day. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has not leaped to Baghdad as he did Beirut. And there are no meetings of the Arab League, and no U.S. diplomacy with Egypt, Syria and Jordan directed at ending the Iraqi conflict.

In the Middle East, where is our sense of proportion? Where is our sense of perspective? Where is our sense of decency? And, finally, just how smart are we?

SOURCE



Katyusha rockets remind me of a slingshot. This guys are using WWII "rockets" while they receive massive bomb attacks. Unbalanced.

I ignore the roots of the conflict, but: why does the US help the Israeli's so much? Does it have something to do with the wealthy american jews? And why is Israel so aggressive? Confused
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 12:12 pm
I feel very ill at all of this, this was (Beirut) my home as a child, where i grew up. The, as I see it, nasty politics of analysis is sickining. We are talking about millions of human beings, christians and muslims bombed into fear of their very existence, they cannont leave their homes nor can they stay in their homes with any degree of safety. This is insanity.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:08 pm
el_pohl wrote:
And why is Israel so aggressive? Confused


I suspect the level of Israeli agression has a direct relationship to the level of the desire of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran to see Israel wiped off the map.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:10 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
el_pohl wrote:
And why is Israel so aggressive? Confused


I suspect the level of Israeli agression has a direct relationship to the level of the desire of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran to see Israel wiped off the map.

I suspect you suspect i errror.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:17 pm
I think I understand you, dys. Your perspective is more personal and deeply felt, but in general terms, we have all become so immune to much of this that we can discuss it dispassionately, analytically, without connection to the humanity.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:21 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

I suspect the level of Israeli agression has a direct relationship to the level of the desire of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran to see Israel wiped off the map.


And so they start to avoid this with wiping of the Lebanese Republic from the map.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:34 pm
I think that it can safely be said that all parties to this diastrous regional calamity are, or have been, their own worst enemies. Even the onlookers.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:38 pm
I've heard today that everyone fighting there knows what he does.

But unfortunately this knowledge doesn't include the knowledge about the consequences.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:50 pm
Setanta wrote:
That's a point i've been making throughout this thread, Walter. However, conservatives here seem to be so deafened by their own shouts of "Terrorists, the Terrorists are coming!"--that they seem incapable of viewing the situation dispassionately as seeing the futility of this Isreali operation.

Hezbollah, although claiming to represent Lebanese Shi'ites, has never managed to politically represent more than a small fraction of the population. Israel's hysterical overreation to the kidnapping, and their heavy-handed attempt to destory Hezbollah are very likely to be as futile as their failed attempt to destroy the PLO.


And not just futile, I fear. If they smash up Lebanon and humiliate them, they will increase the Hezbollah support in the wider muslim world, and in Lebanon itself.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:51 pm
If Israel has the right to use force in self defence, so do its neighbours


Given that the US attacked Iraq because Iraq "might" attack the US, Iran now has the right to attack Israel for that same reason. Certainly Israel has shown itself a more belligerent threat to its neighbors than Iraq showed towards the US prior to the invasion. Therefore, under the precedent set by the United States, Iran is within its right to attack Israel without further cause.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 03:00:35