HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

McTag wrote:

If they smash up Lebanon and humiliate them, they will increase the Hezbollah support in the wider muslim world, and in Lebanon itself.

Exactly.

0 Replies

el_pohl wrote:

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

Noticed this, in the midst of a good post. The use of the slingshot has a historical resonance here.

0 Replies

Quote:

they will increase the Hezbollah support

That is precisely my fear as well, and there is some anecdotal evidence from CNN and blogs that this is happening, at least in Lebanon.

0 Replies

I just heard Louise Arber (UN prosectutor) warning military and civil commanders that they could be held liable for war crimes.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...Israel waged war in the Lebanon for four years before Hezbollah came into existence. O'Bill can bury his head in the sand if he wants, and make a silly remark about history not being relevant, but that doesn't change a fact, which, to put in terms O'Bill may understand, is that Israel has made its bed, and is not obliged to lie in it.

I have no trouble understanding you or the history you're referring to, thank you. Tell me; how long should Israel lye in the bed you describe? Do you believe the sins of the father should be visited upon the son too? The simple fact remains; Hezbollah's cross border attack was unprovoked. No historical reference, no matter how compelling, nor list of Israel's sins, no matter how comprehensive, will change this simple fact. Had Hezbollah not attacked Israel--> there would be no Israeli counter attack, of any proportion.

Setanta wrote:

I'm sure O'Bill wants to ignore history. Then he doesn't have to address the issue of why the Persians would hate the United States and Israel.

That you're sure provides no assurance that you are correct. I neither want to ignore history nor do I disagree with much of what you've posted about it. Were I a Persian, Muslim or Arab in the ME; I'd likely hate the U.S. too... for many of the same reasons you've stated.

But this doesn't change my position on whether or not Israel has a right to exist. Nor does it change my position on whether deliberate targeting of innocents is despicable, thereby forcing me to despise groups who choose that method of operation.

The Lebanon was making progress towards picking up the pieces after decades of struggle. Hezbollah, by way of attacking Israel, destroyed this. They are the true enemy of Lebanon. Since Lebanon so clearly hasn't benefited from Hezbollah's unprovoked attack, and no reasonable assessment could have predicted there being a benefit for Lebanon, I can only assume that Hezbollah isn't fighting on behalf of Lebanon.

Conversely, Iran has benefited greatly by the attack and has suffered nothing for it. Being as they are the creators, funding source, and the experts on the ground for Hezbollah; how can anyone think Hezbollah is anything but what they are: a terrorist extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Setanta wrote:

So, i think that Hezbollah has acted on their own in what they see as their own best interest. I do not consider that Syria and Iran can control them, and the focus of the Shrub on them is yet another example of the terrorist hysteria rhetoric which serves both western nations and Israel so well in bringing their populations along in these destructive and counterproductive actions.

Destructive and counterproductive, yes, but not hysterical. Self defense against an enemy who crosses your border to attack you is a normal reaction.

Being as Lebanon has everything to lose and nothing to gain by the actions of Hezbollah; I find it more than a little naive to think Hezbollah works for anyone but the people, who created, trained, funded and continues to supply them. Syria, who may or may not be any less a puppet to Iran, provides the supply route for Iran to supply Hezbollah weapons with. If it is Israel's intention to try to destroy Hezbollah; it makes perfect sense to eliminate the supply routes to their enemies first. Unfortunately for the Lebanese; that means destroying their infrastructure in the process. Lebanon is not without responsibility of their own, however, having tolerated Iran's Hezbollah and allowed the build up of weapons in the first place... and refusing to either disband them or seek help in doing so.

It's easy to demonize Israel as the bully, since they're rich and supplied by the richest, most powerful (and hated) nation on earth with overwhelmingly superior weaponry. That tactical advantage, coupled with the arrogance that tends to accompany it, doesn't mean they are not in the right... which I for one believe they are.

0 Replies

Good post, IMO, Occom Bill.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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 eliminate 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?

Repeat as you will, it doesn't make your analysis any more cogent.

Provide evidence of my taking the position that "anyone who attacks our friends and allies is ipso facto a terrorist fit only to be exterminated," or stop trotting out this silly nonsense.

You have very brazenly and unequivocally made the assertion that Israel created Hezbollah. Your argument to support this assertion has been clearly made: "No Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, no civil war; no civil war, no Hezbollah."

Anyone with a link to Wikipedia can spout historical facts. This is not nearly as impressive as someone who can identify causality and patterns beneath these facts.

You have acknowledged that Israel invaded Lebanon because of PLO attacks. By your own logic, the PLO, not Israel, are responsible for creating Hezbollah.

Let me put it in simple terms so that it will sink in with everyone. No PLO attacks on Israel from Lebanon, no Israeli invasion of the Lebanon; no Israeli invasion of Lebanon, no civil war; no civil war, no Hezbollah.

If the firing on Fort Sumter was not the cause of abolition in the US, and the attack on Pearl Harbor is not the reason why the Japanese Empire doesn't, dominate, half of the globe, then you can hardly argue that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is the reason why there is, today, an Islamist terrorist group firing rockets on Israeli cities.

In order to sustain this simplistic argument it must be conceivable that in the absence of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon there would be no Islamist group intent upon its extermination. This is a particularly hard argument to make since the reason for the supposed fount of anti-Israeli terrorist groups (The invasion of Lebanon) was a military response to the attacks of an anti-Israeli terrorist group.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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?

You have a problem with anti-semitic but not fetid?

Surely you understand that the overwhelmingly common usage of the term "anti-semitic," is to describe a person or group of persons who hate Jews.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McTag wrote:
If they smash up Lebanon and humiliate them, they will increase the Hezbollah support in the wider muslim world, and in Lebanon itself.

Exactly.

But perhaps they will also smash Hezbollah and put it out of action.

But even if that is not the case your reasoning, and that of McTag's, seems to be:

Hezbollah attacks Israel.

Israel counter attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Lebanon suffers as a result of this counter-attack.

Hezbollah's support in the "muslim world," and Lebanon grows.

Therefore Israel should not counter attack Hezbollah, and endure their attacks so as not to increase their support in the region.

Does this really make sense to you?

The "muslim world" and Lebanon already either supports Hezbollah or has absolutely no intent to reign them in.

This being the case, what does Israel risk by counter-attacking?

If Israel does not counter-attack Hezbollah will the "muslim world," and Lebanon withdraw its support from Hezbollah? How might anyone possibly consider this to be a realistic possibility?

The argument is currently made that by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon that the Israeli's are only insuring that there are successive generations of Arabs who hate Israel and wish to harm it.

Since when do Arabs need Israel to do anything but exist to stir up hatred?

There is no reason to believe that if Israel endured the Hezbollah attacks without retaliation that:

1) The UN and the rest of the world would come to its defense.
2) Arab extremists would lose their desire to exterminate Israel, or (more importantly) their ability to recruit new members among the younger generations of Arabs.

It is unlikely that Israel will be able to wipe out Hezbollah, and even if they could, a new organization of terrorists would likely take their place, and so the counter-attacks in Lebanon will, almost certainly, not solve this problem.

Never-the-less, Israel cannot simply ignore attacks upon their homeland.
The people of Israel would never tolerate such an approach, and such an approach offers no greater promise for resolution.

It is a lousy choice Israel faces, and whichever choice it accepts it will be criticized. If I were the leader of Israeli I would care more for the criticism of my fellow Israelis that that of the wider world. The wider world has not done well by Israel and Jews.

0 Replies

Summary of today's British press (by the Wrap, one of Guardian Unlimited's paid-for services).

Quote:

CRITICISM OF ISRAEL GROWS

Robert Fisk, in Beirut, is impatient. "How soon must we use the words 'war crime'? How many children must be scattered in the rubble of Israeli air attacks before we reject the obscene phrase 'collateral damage' and start talking about prosecution for crimes against humanity?" Fisk's report laments the death of a single child, name unknown, "whose dead body lies like a rag doll beside the cars which supposedly were taking her and her family to safety".

Fisk's USP is subjectivity, but the Independent commendably prints his report opposite a dispatch from Donald Macintyre in Nazareth. Macintyre too concentrates on the deaths of children, shelled by Hizbullah. He says Hizbullah's rockets are now targetting Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs indiscriminately. A Guardian sidebar laconically notes that 63 Lebanese and four Israelis were killed yesterday.

The Times says that Britain is concerned that Israeli action against Hizbullah is counter-productive, and crucially is not denting the organisation's ability to fire rockets at Israel. The Guardian reports a Hizbullah claim that an Israeli attack on one of its command bunkers had failed. The FT quotes the Lebanese prime minister, who says the attacks are bolstering support for Hizbullah.

The Guardian also says that France has "challenged the Bush administrations's hands-off approach" to the crisis by calling for "immediate action by the UN security council to stop the fighting".

It's grim news everywhere. The Guardian also reports on the "forgotten war" in Gaza and the West Bank, where 13 Palestinians were killed yesterday. The Independent's leader column calls readers' attention back to Iraq, where, it says, there have been 5,818 violent deaths in May and June alone.

0 Replies

I agree with Finn, and the logic behind the arguments.

Quote:

It is unlikely that Israel will be able to wipe out Hezbollah, and even if they could, a new organization of terrorists would likely take their place, and so the counter-attacks in Lebanon will, almost certainly, not solve this problem.

Never-the-less, Israel cannot simply ignore attacks upon their homeland.
The people of Israel would never tolerate such an approach, and such an approach offers no greater promise for resolution.

It is a lousy choice Israel faces, and whichever choice it accepts it will be criticized. If I were the leader of Israeli I would care more for the criticism of my fellow Israelis that that of the wider world. The wider world has not done well by Israel and Jews.

0 Replies

That being said, I also think it is fair to say that no party in that region, active or passive, has ever acted in lily-white, purely (good, rational, working for the common good, magnanimous, generous, bold: supply your own word) fashion.

And being an old region, with a long history, events of the present are always seen through the prism of that past. The past is always brought to the forefront. Mistakes or unfortunate actions are never forgotten, forgiven, or seen within context.

If the cultures of the entire region do not all develop amnesia, then I see very little hope for the future of the people in those cultures.

0 Replies

In response to Louise Arbour (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) Benjamin Netanyahu said her threats of bring war crimes charges against the Israeli leadership were not justified as all the war crimes were being committed by Hizbollah, who were hiding rockets in houses thus forcing the Iraelis to kill families living in them.

When questioned about Iran and Syria's "backing" of Hizbollah, he said something very interesting. Netanyahu said it was a case of "division of labour". What he meant by that is that Israel is quite happy to take on Hizbollah, but it is for the Americans to attack Iran.

Arbours warning that individual Israeli (and Hizbollah) commanders and political controllers could be indicted for war crimes clearly rattles the Israelis. I'm not surprised, havent we been through this loop before? Isnt there a man in a coma somewhere for mer prime minister of Israel (democratically elected) and indicted war criminal? And his successor elected on his reputation.

Jimmy Carter:-

"We sent marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers - women and children and farmers and housewives - in those villages around Beriut...As a result of that ...we became kind of a Satan in the minds of htose who are deeply resentful. This is what precipitated the taking of our hostages in Iran and that is waht has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks - which were totally unjustified and criminal"

Lettter to NY times from the group responsible for the 1993 wtc bombing

"We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political economical and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the resto of the dictator countries in the region"

0 Replies

A protracted colonial war

With US support, Israel is hoping to isolate and topple Syria by holding sway over Lebanon

Tariq Ali
Thursday July 20, 2006
The Guardian

In his last interview - after the 1967 six-day war - the historian Isaac Deutscher, whose next-of-kin had died in the Nazi camps and whose surviving relations lived in Israel, said: "To justify or condone Israel's wars against the Arabs is to render Israel a very bad service indeed and harm its own long-term interest." Comparing Israel to Prussia, he issued a sombre warning: "The Germans have summed up their own experience in the bitter phrase 'Man kann sich totseigen!' 'You can triumph yourself to death'."

In Israel's actions today we can detect many of the elements of hubris: an imperial arrogance, a distortion of reality, an awareness of its military superiority, the self-righteousness with which it wrecks the social infrastructure of weaker states, and a belief in its racial superiority. The loss of many civilian lives in Gaza and Lebanon matters less than the capture or death of a single Israeli soldier. In this, Israeli actions are validated by the US.

continues

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1824538,00.html

0 Replies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1824533,00.html

"Plans for a military victory over Hizbullah are a fantasy

Israel's response was justified, but now the international community must act to save both sides from self-destruction

David Grossman
Thursday July 20, 2006
The Guardian

Hizbullah's surprise blitz against the Galilee, Israel's northern region, proves - if anyone needed proof - how sensitive and explosive this region is, and how little it takes to bring it to the brink of war. Israel has launched a counter-attack, and it has every right to do so. There is no justification for the large-scale violence that Hizbullah unleashed this week, from Lebanese territory, on dozens of peaceful Israeli villages, towns and cities. No country in the world could remain silent and abandon its citizens when its neighbour strikes without any provocation.

For years, the government of Lebanon has avoided direct confrontation with Hizbullah. During this time, the fundamentalist Shia militia constructed a network of outposts and huge weapons depots, containing thousands of long-range missiles that can reach deep into Israel's territory. Israel, seeking not to heat up the border, also abstained from taking any real action against them. The result was an intolerable situation: within the territory of the sovereign state of Lebanon, which has no claims against Israel, an organisation the UN has classified as terrorist acts freely, and attacks Israel time and again.
Israel has attacked Lebanon because that country is officially responsible for Hizbullah. It is also the address from which missiles are being fired at Israeli cities. Hizbullah's leaders are members of the Lebanese cabinet, and participate in setting the country's policies. Even those who hope for an immediate end to violence and the opening of negotiations must acknowledge that Hizbullah deliberately created the crisis.

The scenarios for the future do not look good. Of course, Israel does not intend merely to respond to the Hizbullah attack. It is also acting to reshape the realities on its border with Lebanon, in accordance with UN resolution 1559, and to force the Lebanese government to move Hizbullah out of the country's south. Israel's goal is logical and just, but the aggressive conduct of the operation is dangerous. The Lebanese government is weak, and Lebanon could again slip into general collapse and civil war, which could well strengthen Hizbullah. Such a local conflict could easily develop into a regional one, with unpredictable consequences. In recent decades, Israel has got tangled in military operations in Lebanon again and again. It never succeeded in achieving its goals. Attempts to shape the Arab world in accordance with Israel's needs have all failed.

Another goal declared by many of Israel's leaders is to utterly break Hizbullah's power and influence. This is doomed from the start. It recalls the shortsightedness of Israeli leaders in 1982, when they declared they would destroy the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Even though Israel has vastly superior forces, Hizbullah has very strong backing in Iran, Syria and the Arab world. Anyone who thinks Israel can achieve a knock-out victory lives in an illusion.

But there is also a fundamental difference between the two fronts. Hizbullah is, openly, an Iranian agent in the Middle East, a bridgehead for its murderous plans against Israel. Iran is doubtlessly committed to the Palestinian cause, but its aspirations do not include an equitable peace between Israel and Palestine. Even if Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace agreement, Hizbullah will oppose compromises. It will continue to fight Israel, and will threaten the fragile stability such an agreement achieves.

Israel's relations with the Palestinians are utterly different. These two peoples must achieve peace if they wish to live. Their fates cannot be separated. Both have a clear interest in reaching a compromise in which each will give up some of its central demands. Both sides know that their conflict cannot be resolved by force. However, Hizbullah's deadly attack this week impels the great majority of Israelis to view the two fronts as one, both constituting threats to Israel's existence. While this instinct may not reflect the military balance, it has caused disproportionate harm to Lebanon. In the future, it could well lead to an indefinite postponement of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What began as a justified Israeli response to aggression now looks like a trap with two doors, one for each side. Neither can defeat the other, but neither can concede. As the popular saying in these parts goes, each adversary is willing to lose an eye if that is the price to pay for gouging both of its enemy's eyes. Now is precisely the moment when the international community must step in, mediate, formulate a compromise, and save both sides from self-destruction.

Many citizens of Israel, like those of prosperous, westernised Beirut, wanted to believe they were no longer really part of the Middle East conflict. Despairing of its bloody, fundamentalist, hopeless nature, they built themselves bubbles of comfort and escapism. The events of the past few days have shaken everyone awake. The war has reached their doorsteps, reminding them what materials make up life here. Diplomatic acumen will no longer suffice to turn those materials into a stable peace. It looks as if only an alchemist's lore could do that now.

· David Grossman is the author of Death as a Way of Life: Israel Ten Years After Oslo. This article was translated by Haim Watzman".

0 Replies

Can't beat The Guardian:

Lebanon, North Korea, Russia ... here is the world's new multipolar disorder
The unipolar moment of American supremacy has passed. But the new multipolarity may prove to be very nasty indeed

Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday July 20, 2006
The Guardian

Welcome to the world's new multipolar disorder. The state of Israel is now at war with Hizbullah, but not with the state of Lebanon. The Lebanese state does not control its own territory. Iran heavily influences, but does not control, Hizbullah. Fresh from its triumph at the G8 summit in St Petersburg, Russia probably has the closest relations of any of the G8 powers with Syria (to which it supplies weapons) and Iran. China is in there too, as are the leading European powers - once again failing to act as one European union. The US possesses the mightiest military the world has ever seen, and how is it being used? To evacuate its citizens from Lebanon. If the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, manages to broker an end to the fighting, it will only be through complex multilateral diplomacy.

So, welcome to the new multipolar disorder - and farewell to the unipolar moment of apparently unchallengeable American supremacy. The hyperpower! The mega-Rome! Remember that?........

0 Replies

Oh God. Mutually assured destruction via committee decisions.

0 Replies

Grossman deliberately overlooks the fact that the bombing and shelling of innocent Lebanese could stop immediately if Israel agreed a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange. Thats what the families of the captured Israeli soldiers are pleading for. But the captured soldiers is no longer what this war is about. Its about destroying Lebanon, and dragging out the war into a conflagration involving US Iran and Syria.

0 Replies

Thanks McTag I was going to post that Timothy Garton Ash piece but got distracted...!

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Oh God. Mutually assured destruction via committee decisions.

Lebanese villagers being smashed up in cold blood so that Israel can hunt down Hezbollah.

I think a committee could make a better decision than that, don't you?

0 Replies

HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know