There is little doubt that Hezbollah, by itself, does not possess the political muscle to bring down the government.
...
The conservatives have ranted that the Lebanon was responsible for the war last summer, because they "harbored" Hezbollah. The Lebanese really had no choice in the matter. Now, however, Hezbollah may actually be able to take power, even though they continue to be a minority party.
I do wonder if you folks who whine about islamo-fascists ever really pay attention to any news which isn't spoon-fed you by your favorite American outlets.
I can see that my point blew right over your head. My point is that Hezbollah hasn't the political power to accomplish the fall of the government on its own, but that as the leader of a coalition of all of the opposition groups, it may well have enough power to bring down the government. I consider that a dangerous development which does not bode well for the future of the Lebanon.
But, i'm not surprised that you missed that, as you seem only to ever be interested in peddling your own naive world view.
There is little doubt that Hezbollah, by itself, does not possess the political muscle to bring down the government.
...
The conservatives have ranted that the Lebanon was responsible for the war last summer, because they "harbored" Hezbollah. The Lebanese really had no choice in the matter. Now, however, Hezbollah may actually be able to take power, even though they continue to be a minority party.
I do wonder if you folks who whine about islamo-fascists ever really pay attention to any news which isn't spoon-fed you by your favorite American outlets.
... i've long known that you're clueless about the middle east, and i saw right away that you didn't understand my posts about Hezbollah . . . and still don't.
Posted on Sun, Dec. 10, 2006
See TALKS
By Juan Cole
In its report released last week, the Iraq Study Group strongly urged the Bush administration to negotiate with Syria and Iran as a way of resolving the crisis in Iraq. The commission headed by James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton urged an immediate diplomatic offensive, the organization of a regional conference and the inclusion of Tehran and Damascus in these efforts.
But can George W. Bush swallow his pride and reach out to what is left of the axis of evil? And even if he did, would Syria and Iran see any advantage to such a new relationship with Washington?
The neo-conservatives had envisaged the invasion of Iraq as a first step toward the overthrow of the governments of Syria and Iran. In 2003, the hawks at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., joked that everyone wanted to go to Iraq, but real men wanted to go to Iran. Others hoped that the fall of the Baath Party in Baghdad would fatally weaken the rival Baath regime in Damascus, headed by the lanky former ophthalmologist, Bashar al-Assad. For Washington now to seek a rapprochement with these governments will require not only engagement but also a good deal of fence-mending.
At the news conference introducing the study group's report on Wednesday, Baker was frank about the prospects. He admitted that Iran might not be eager to enter talks with the United States. The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had attempted to initiate talks with Iran in the spring of 2006, but they faltered when the Iranians withdrew. Washington had offered only a single track for the talks, with sole focus on Iraq, while the Iranians wanted to put all outstanding bilateral issues, including Iran's nuclear energy research program, on the table.
In contrast, Baker said of Syria, ``There is a strong indication they would be in a position to help us and might want to help us.'' The initial response from Syria was in fact positive. Syria's vice president said Wednesday that both his country and its ally Iran are prepared to help. Referring to his nation and Iran, Syrian Vice President Farouq al-Sharaa said, ``The two countries are Iraq's neighbors, and without getting them involved it will not be easy to find a solution to the predicament in Iraq.'' He added, speaking to a conference in Damascus, ``We are not so arrogant to say that Syria and Iran can solve Iraq's problem . . . The entire international community may not be able to solve it. But let them (the Americans) be a little bit modest and accept whoever has the capability to help.''
Syria has an 800-mile border with Iraq. Some of the estimated 1,300 foreign devotees of anti-American jihad in Iraq have slipped across that border. It is not clear that the secular Baath Arab nationalist regime in Damascus is actively encouraging wild-eyed Sunni fundamentalists. But it likely could do a better job of policing key border crossings if it had an incentive. Syria also is in a position to mediate between the United States and the remnants of the Iraqi Baath high command, who are responsible for much more of Iraq's violence than the newly minted Al-Qaida wannabes of Ramadi and Tikrit.
Washington is at odds with Damascus not only over Iraq, but also on two other fronts. Syria is a major ally of Lebanon's militant Shiite party, Hezbollah, and stands accused of having allowed Iran to provide the latter with missiles and other weaponry for use against Israel. It has also been accused of complicity in a string of assassinations against anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon, most notably former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Syria also supports the Palestinians in their dispute with Israel.
Baker, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group (ISG), argued that such disputes should not forestall ``tough'' negotiations with Syria and Iran, noting that the United States kept talking to the Soviet Union even during the darkest days of the Cold War. Moreover, the group's report is not advocating that the United States capitulate on any of these major outstanding issues. In fact, the Baker-Hamilton commission insists that the investigation of Hariri's assassination must be vigorously pursued.
What would Syria get out of such cooperation? As the ISG report notes, it is not in Syria's interest for Iraq to collapse into warring sectarian and ethnic factions. Syria, a country of 19 million, is itself an ethnic mosaic, with 2 million Kurds, and significant Alawi Shiite and Christian populations, despite a Sunni majority. The secular, Arab nationalist Baath government is run largely by Alawis, who adhere to a form of folk Shiism. The main challengers to the regime have been fundamentalist Sunni organizations of a sort now establishing themselves in western and northern Iraq. A breakup of Iraq would potentially roil Syria's ethnic groups as well.
The commission urges that Israel restore to Syria the disputed Golan Heights, as a way of bringing the Damascus regime in from the cold. Israel captured the territory in 1967, but the United Nations charter forbids the permanent acquisition of a neighbor's territory through warfare. Settling the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the commission argues, is necessary to the achievement of genuine stability in the region, including Iraq.
The ISG is certainly correct that Syria will never accept the permanent loss of the Golan Heights, and that its return is a necessary condition for a normalization of the situation in the Middle East. The prospect of such a settlement would give Syria further incentive to cooperate on Iraq. It could not hope to get the Golan back, however, without making very substantial concessions to Israel and giving up its sponsorship of violent Palestinian groups. It would also have to agree not to re-arm Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The involvement of Iran in a regional conference and in negotiations on Iraq is a more difficult proposition on all sides. The 1979 revolution that overthrew the shah and created the Islamic Republic of Iran was directed in part against the United States, which had long supported the shah. And the 1980 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran remains a sore point for both countries.
It is not just a matter of living in the past. Washington and its allies view Iran's civilian nuclear energy research program with profound alarm. Although there is no evidence that Iran has a weapons program, it is feared that Iran's mastery of uranium enrichment for energy purposes will give it expertise that could be applied to making a nuclear weapon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear this possibility as much as Germany and Israel. The Bush administration has in the past said that Iran's suspension of enrichment is a prerequisite for talks between the two countries, a precondition that Iran has consistently rejected.
Relations have also been worsened by the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose cartoonish antics and outlandish statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the collapse of the ``Zionist regime over Jerusalem,'' have raised alarms among Americans about his intentions. In the Iranian system, however, the president is a relatively powerless figure. The Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei, holds most power in his hands, and he is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
The rise of Iranian power in the Middle East -- and its ability to draw on the ``soft power'' of Shiite allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Syria -- has created a new cold war in the region. Ranged against Iran are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel. These strong American allies are lobbying the United States against entering into talks with Iran, and fear that American concessions to Tehran could backfire and make the regime more dangerous to them. They worry that Iran will misinterpret an American approach as a green light to develop nuclear weapons.
Still, Shiite Iran has substantial influence with Iraqi Shiites and might be able to help convince Shiite militia leaders in Iraq to cease death squad activity against Sunni Arab populations. Iran has offered Iraq $1 billion in foreign aid, as well as port and oil refinery facilities, and plans to build an airport near the holy city of Najaf, which would bring billions of dollars in pilgrimage trade to Iraq. Clearly, Iran is in a position to pressure Iraqi Shiite elites to compromise, should it decide to play that role.
Iran would certainly suffer from a breakup of Iraq. It has a large Kurdish population that is already restive. The emergence of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq might roil Iranian Kurdistan. Iran's Kurds are largely Sunni and chafe under the rule of the ayatollahs. The Iranians fear, moreover, that Iraqi violence might spill over the border.
Whether the Bush administration will agree to speak with Syria and Iran is as yet unknown. But in his response to the study group's report, the president did not sound encouraging, reiterating preconditions for talks that neither Iran nor Syria were likely to accept: Iran must abandon its nuclear program, and Syria must end its support for Hezbollah.
``If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy -- just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not conflict,'' Bush said.
Even if the administration eventually does talk with Syria and Iran, there is no guarantee that it will do any good. Despite frequent attempts to place blame for the situation in Iraq on Damascus and Tehran, there is no good evidence that they are significant contributors to the unrest. Most of the violence is being committed by Iraqi Sunnis; a part of it is committed by the Shiite Mahdi Army. The disadvantage here is that Syria and Iran may be relatively powerless in weighing in with the Sunni Arab guerrillas.
The major significance of the Baker-Hamilton commission's report is its abandonment of a neo-conservative foreign policy. Arrogant unilateralism, going to war virtually alone, and attempting to occupy a major Arab oil country militarily have produced an enormous crisis for the United States in the region. For a long time after the 2003 invasion, Americans were in denial about how bad Iraq was becoming and how few options there were. At least now the full contours of a realistic solution are becoming clear. Childish refusals to talk to enemies are falling by the wayside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN COLE, professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, is the author of the blog ``Informed Consent,'' at www.juancole.com. He wrote this article for Perspective.
Ex-soldiers break `silence' on Israeli excesses
Yehuda Shaul tells Haroon Siddiqui `something rotten' is going on in Gaza
and the West Bank
Dec. 17, 2006
HAROON SIDDIQUI
A young Israeli was in Canada last week raising ethical questions about the conduct of Israeli soldiers in the Occupied Territories.
Yehuda Shaul was born in Jerusalem to an American mother and Canadian father (from Toronto). Shaul went to school in a West Bank settlement and served in the army from 2001 to 2004. He did a 14-month stint in Hebron, guarding about 650 settlers living among approximately 150,000 Palestinians.
He is one of the founders of Break the Silence, a group of ex-soldiers speaking out about what they saw and did during their tour of duty in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
At 6-foot 1-inch, the heavy-set Shaul cuts an imposing but engaging figure with his beard, ponytail and the kippa. He smiles easily.
He had a lot to say during a vegetarian kosher lunch we shared in my office with his Toronto host, Judith Wiseman.
He came here after a tour of six American cities. In Toronto, he spoke at the Winchevsky Centre of the United Jewish People's Order and at the Quaker House. Then he was off to London, Ottawa and Montreal.
He recounted the moment when, three months before being released from the army, he was alone and wondering what he would do upon returning to civilian life.
It struck him, he said, that he had become "a monster," doing things that were not right. "It was a frightening moment."
He spoke to fellow soldiers. "They were feeling the same: `Something's rotten here.' Israelis don't know what goes on here, and we must tell them.'"
Within three months of being discharged in March 2004, Shaul and friends mounted an exhibit, Bringing Hebron to Tel Aviv. It had powerful photos and video testimony by 64 soldiers showing and describing the treatment meted out to Palestinians by the troops as well as some of the settlers.
There were pictures of Palestinians bound and blindfolded. There was a photo of a settler carrying an assault rifle with a decal on the magazine clip: "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out." Another was of graffiti on a wall: "Arabs to the gas chamber."
The exhibit drew 7,000 visitors and much media coverage.
Other soldiers who had served in the West Bank and Gaza came forward. More photos were gathered, as well as about 400 audio and video testimonies.
These Jews are no different than the Nazis. It's just that the world will not let them set up gas chambers. (my comment)
"We can play with them. This is the mindset from which everything flows."
In Hebron, Shaul manned a machine gun. "It can shoot dozens of grenades a minute up to a distance of about 2,000 metres. We'd shoot 40 or 50 a day ...
"We had three high posts, two where we had kicked the Palestinian families out of and the third was a Palestinian school which we had closed down.
"The idea was that anytime they shoot, we shoot back.
"But the machine gun is not an accurate weapon. You just shoot in the direction of the target ... We have no idea how many we killed. I hope no one."
Shaul said some acts "flow from being afraid or being bored. You are there eight hours a night at the post. You just aim and shoot the water tank."
Or, "when you drive your tank or your APC (armoured personnel carrier), you bump into a streetlight. As you turn a corner, you bump into a wall. It's fun ... It's all about you. Nothing else matters ... Palestinians are no longer human."
Initially, Break the Silence members did not speak to foreigners, to avoid "airing our dirty laundry." But they have since changed their policy.
Two members toured the United States last year. Two exhibitions have been held in Geneva and Amsterdam.
The group (http://www.shovrimshtika.org and http://www.breakthesilence.org.il) exists to break two kinds of silences: "First, the soldiers keep quiet and, then Israeli society keeps quiet.
"We provide the tools for people to understand the deeply woven moral corruption and numbness of what we do (in the Occupied Territories). It's like a slide; once you start going down, you keep going down.
"There's no such thing as a benign or an enlightened occupation. You can't be an occupier and not be an occupier."
Shaul's overall message:
"The issue is not the right of Israel to exist but rather, does it have the right to occupy Palestinian lands and control civilians as it has for 40 years?"
Shaul said he has been well-received in North America, even though some did criticize him.
But, "you can't really criticize me because I am an Israeli who has served in the army."
He's much more: a courageous citizen of Israeli democracy.
But it's not that people don't know. It's that they will not acknowledge what they know, lest the rest of their worldview come tumbling down with the big lie, of moral relativism.
Ican you're really pushing the limit with your statement that the jews of Israel are crazy, Are you a jew hater?
