Does Hezbollah have the right to be in Lebanon? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 08-07-2006, 10:09 PM

Some say yes, some say no.

If so, should hezbollah be further incorporated into Lebanese society in the aftermath of this conflict?
Should it assume a greater role in Lebanese politics? In what capacity?

If not, how could the Lebanese government remove itself from hezbollah's sphere of influence?
Should hezbollah have a lesser role in Lebanese politics? In what capacity?

Or, introduce your own questions on the matter.

Willravel · 08-07-2006, 10:16 PM

Hezbollah as it exists now shouldn't exist. Building a few schools and hospitals can't compare to continued acts of terrorism that only continue the horrible racist violence in the Middle East. If Hezbollah gave up it's militant ways and only did good, then I'd say of course, but they are leading Lebanon into war. It's not fair for a minority of a country to lead the whole country into a needless war (as if any war was needed). Lebanon should get rid of the Hezbollah organization by any reasonable means, and should choose to elect people who AREN'T radicals. I have no problem with Islamic leadership, or even a theocracy, under the right circumstances...but radicals have no business leading anyone. That goes for every country.

Edit: HA! First vote!!

Mobo123 · 08-07-2006, 11:11 PM

Third vote and we are unanimous!!!!

dlish · 08-07-2006, 11:34 PM

id say yes.

yes in the sense that all the shiites in lebanon would consider themselves at least in part to be 'hezbollah'. so to get rid of hezbollah is only to either run them underground and have them re-surface under a different name, or you could incoroporate them into society and try and slow make them give up their radicalism.

i am by no means a supporter of hezbollah. never have, never will. but if you want to spread freedom in the middle east, you cant go taking away peoples rights to affiliation.

roachboy · 08-08-2006, 07:20 AM

i am not wholly sure if this is the best place to put this, but i'll do it here anyway. apologies if it comes to constitute a threadjack--but it seems to me that, given all the chatter about hezbollah, this would be of interest:

Quote:

Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong

The assault on Lebanon was premeditated - the soldiers' capture simply provided the excuse. It was also unnecessary

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 8, 2006
The Guardian

Whatever we think of Israel's assault on Lebanon, all of us seem to agree about one fact: that it was a response, however disproportionate, to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah. I repeated this "fact" in my last column, when I wrote that "Hizbullah fired the first shots". This being so, the Israeli government's supporters ask peaceniks like me, what would you have done? It's an important question. But its premise, I have now discovered, is flawed.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

On May 26 this year, two officials of Islamic Jihad - Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub - were killed by a car bomb in the Lebanese city of Sidon. This was widely assumed in Lebanon and Israel to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. In June, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh confessed to the killings and admitted that he had been working for Mossad since 1994. Militants in southern Lebanon responded, on the day of the bombing, by launching eight rockets into Israel. One soldier was lightly wounded. There was a major bust-up on the border, during which one member of Hizbullah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded. But while the border region "remained tense and volatile", Unifil says it was "generally quiet" until July 12.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit.

But there is no serious debate about why the two soldiers were captured: Hizbullah was seeking to exchange them for the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the occupation of Lebanon and (in breach of article 118 of the third Geneva convention) never released. It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

On July 12, in other words, Hizbullah fired the first shots. But that act of aggression was simply one instance in a long sequence of small incursions and attacks over the past six years by both sides. So why was the Israeli response so different from all that preceded it? The answer is that it was not a reaction to the events of that day. The assault had been planned for months.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and thinktanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail". The attack, he said, would last for three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared ... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board".

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

So it is not hard to answer the question of what we would have done. First, stop recruiting enemies, by withdrawing from the occupied territories in Palestine and Syria. Second, stop provoking the armed groups in Lebanon with violations of the blue line - in particular the persistent flights across the border. Third, release the prisoners of war who remain unlawfully incarcerated in Israel. Fourth, continue to defend the border, while maintaining the diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah (as anyone can see, this would be much more feasible if the occupations were to end). Here then is my challenge to the supporters of the Israeli government: do you dare to contend that this programme would have caused more death and destruction than the current adventure has done?

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...839281,00.html

stevo · 08-08-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

It seems clear that if Israel had handed over the prisoners, it would - without the spillage of any more blood - have retrieved its men and reduced the likelihood of further kidnappings. But the Israeli government refused to negotiate. Instead - well, we all know what happened instead. Almost 1,000 Lebanese and 33 Israeli civilians have been killed so far, and a million Lebanese displaced from their homes.

What makes the author believe that trading hostages for prisoners would reduce the liklihood of future kidnappings? Hezbollah admitted a week into the current violence that they thought they could get a prisoner exchange for the hostages like they did in 2001 with germans as the brokers. They expected it to happen because it happened in the past. So now, the author thinks if the israelis would have just given in to the demands of hezbollah there would be less kidnappings in the future. And this reasoning makes sense to who?

I would also like to point out the "almost 1,000" lebanese civillian deaths quoted in this guardian article. Just this morning I read a report of less than 700 deaths in lebanon among civillians, lebanese army, and hezbollah fighters total. the guardian is rubbish and you know it.

pan6467 · 08-08-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

id say yes.

yes in the sense that all the shiites in lebanon would consider themselves at least in part to be 'hezbollah'. so to get rid of hezbollah is only to either run them underground and have them re-surface under a different name, or you could incoroporate them into society and try and slow make them give up their radicalism.

i am by no means a supporter of hezbollah. never have, never will. but if you want to spread freedom in the middle east, you cant go taking away peoples rights to affiliation.

I pretty much agree with this. There is no such thing as freedom if you drive the radicals underground, only to resurface later as something else with even more hatred than before.

If you incorporate them, listen to what they say, and then show them what you have to offer you will win. Why? Because freedom is far better than living in tyranny and fear.

The problem is we are wanting changes in people, beliefs and policies, over there, overnight. It isn't going to happen. It will take years, and yes, there will be setbacks but in the end you have to look at the goal, stay focussed and never waver. The radicals over there know that the West (the US especially) only looks at the now, we expect results now, we don't act until either our wallets are hit or something horrendous like 9/11 happens. And even then we react for the now and tend to lose focus, until it blurs and is out of thought. Our enemies know how we operate and they just sit back and wait.

On Sun/Mon Art Bell show he had a guest on that talked about this. The Koran speaks of being patient and out waiting your enemy, force him to make the mistakes.

The problem is while we sit on our asses worried about abortion, assisted suicides, death penalties, fair wages and teaching our youth to be greedy, self indulgent pukes, these people are teaching their kids that their religion wants them to go to war against all who oppose them.

It's like the last days of Rome...... Rome had their armies spread thin, their allies not so fearful or worried about Rome. Hell, Rome's infrastructure was falling apart and the people didn't care. Those "allies" were far more worried about their own. Meanwhile, the rich in Rome continued to live gluttunous lives and in debauchery, while the poor grew ever more frustrated and the enemy nations grew stronger and stronger and used Rome's lifestyles and how the rich treated the peasants as propaganda for their cause.

"Rome can't protect it's own people, how do you expect them to protect you?"

You can see many similarities between them and the modern US.

* Just for history nuts....... so noone can say "but those "allies" were actually conquered lands" Rome turned conquered lands more into allies that paid protection fees, as Rome early on would conquer then make treaties with the region, so that Rome didn't have to worry about war and maintaining troops there, but would offer help to that region should someone try to invade.

Sticky · 08-08-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am not wholly sure if this is the best place to put this, but i'll do it here anyway. apologies if it comes to constitute a threadjack--but it seems to me that, given all the chatter about hezbollah, this would be of interest:

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...839281,00.html

There is alot to discuss concerning this editorial. Maybe it can be spun off into a seperate thread. The back and forth "discussion" that can arise from this artical will certainly take us away from powerclown's intent for the thread.

I think that powerclown's questions are very important questions, and not just relating to Hizballah. For those of us that live in democratic societies these are serious questions.

Let's consider at first based on the laws of most of the democratic countries.
- Do people have the right to think what they want?
Yes.
- Do people have the right to say (express) what they want?
Yes...well no. People have the rigth to express what they want as long as it does not promote hate and incite violence (there are specifics in all countries).
- Do people have the right to start a political party or organization or associate with others based around certain beliefs and ideas?
Again Yes and No. As long as it does not promote hate...

Is this right? Should a demorcary limit our freedoms like this?
My opinion is yes. In order to protect alot of the other freedoms we have some freedoms have to be limited. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Many of us will agree on this (let us know if you don't). The question is, where do you draw the line?

So accorrding to the laws (and where the lines are drawn) of the democracies within which a lot of us live, should Hizballah (in its current form - it is what it is) exist? No.

Can Hizballah change? Will it change? Does it want to change?
I think that the answers to these questions are as follows (my opinion of course):
- Can Hizballah change? Yes, anyone can change.
- Will it change? No. Even if we wait forever I don't believe Hizballah will change and the reason for this is the asnwer to the next question.
- Does it want to change? No, I don't believe that Hizballah wants to change. What in their Opinions would they think is wrong with their organization, what they do on a day to day basis and their overall goals?

roachboy · 08-08-2006, 09:23 AM

i put the edito here because i think it impacts on your conception of what you are talking about when you consider the question posed in the op.

as it stands, i find the op incoherent in that it asks questions that refer to matters of principle that are neither settled nor obvious.

you would think, for example, that the question about hezbollah's "assimilation" after the conflict would necessarily involve the particularlities of lebanese law and political structures, wouldn't you? unless the op is really asking you to evaluate the questions based on some vague sense of the legal situation drawn mostly from your impressions of american law, as if that law was a kind of universal model--which it self-evidently is not.

what is hezbollah ayway? the op implicitly situates it as some kind of alien body within lebanon--it isnt.

the op presupposes access to information about context that enables a coherent assessment of the questions posed: i do not see any agreement about that context and posted the monbiot piece to raise problems about that context.

Sticky · 08-08-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

as it stands, i find the op incoherent in that it asks questions that refer to matters of principle that are neither settled nor obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you would think, for example, that the question about hezbollah's "assimilation" after the conflict would necessarily involve the particularlities of lebanese law and political structures, wouldn't you? unless the op is really asking you to evaluate the questions based on some vague sense of the legal situation drawn mostly from your impressions of american law, as if that law was a kind of universal model--which it self-evidently is not.

Actually, I think that powerclown is just asking for an opinion.
In the response that I wrote I decided to look at it from a western democratic view. I specifically stated that I was talking about

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

democracies within which a lot of us live

In your response you can come at it from a different point of view.

We are talking about opinions here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what is hezbollah ayway? the op implicitly situates it as some kind of alien body within lebanon--it isnt.

Actually, I did not see it that way at all. After having read the title, having read previous posts from powerclown, I actually the OP to be much different whe I originally clicked on the link.

powerclown says things like "further incorporated" and "greater role". To me these indicate that powerclown is stating that they are a part of Lebanese government and day to day life.

I also found the questions about whether one feels that they should not be a part of Lebanese every day life to be very fair and unpointed. powerclown even leaves us with the question of whether they should be part of Lebanese politics but in a lesser role.

I guess how each of us read things is different. Just like our opinions are.

I just think that powerclow, in this thread, with these questions, was looking to see what peoples opinions are about Hizballah and their role in Lebanese politics and everyday life.

But like I said, the article that you introduced brings up a lot of discussion points. To discuss the article specifics would take us way of track of the point of the thread like what happens in alot of the other threads on this board.

I don't want to be presumptive (is that even a word) but can we say that based on the article your opinion is that Hizballah plays a crucial and important role in Lebanese politics and daily life?

Is that a fair assesment?

abaya · 08-08-2006, 11:35 AM

The "right" to be in Lebanon? According to whose definition?

Last I checked, there wasn't a universal set of rights/responsibilities that applied to all nations. Otherwise we might all be getting along a lot better. (Yes, I know there is a declaration of universal human rights by the UN, but the US never signed it, so it's not universal. And that's not what we're talking about anyway.)

Some people might say that no one has the "right" to be in power unless they are fairly elected in a democracy... but oops, oh wait, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Never mind about their "right" to be in power... Americans don't think Hamas has the right, so that's that. Forget all that stuff about being elected in a democracy as granting "right" to a person or party. If we don't like 'em, they don't have rights.

I'm not saying Hezbollah does or doesn't have the "right" to be in Lebanon. I don't see myself as a moral arbiter in this situation... there's plenty I don't know and don't understand, enough that I would rather reserve my own judgement until I learn more.

The important question is what the people of Lebanon think about Hezbollah... and there's certainly not unanimous agreement there. But I can tell you that every day this conflict goes on, people who never would have supported Hezbollah before, even in their wildest dreams, are starting to see Hezbollah's right for existence. Which probably seems totally counter-intuitive to us armchair observers, but who can say what those people are going through, and how it is shaping their opinions? We cannot.

host · 08-08-2006, 11:49 AM

roachboy, I've posted documentation that consists of quotes from former (until 1995) chief of U.S. middle east intelligence/analysis at the the U.S. state dept.,
as well as of former U.S. treasury sec'ty Paul O'Neill. that makes the case that the Bush admin., as early as Jan. 30, 2001, abandoned diplomacy in favor of a "tilt toward Israel", and that Sec'ty Rice was giving the impression of pursuing a cease fire in Lebanon, while her intent was actually to keep that from happening.... indefinetly.

Why would you think that your "evidence".....from a report in the Guardian, evidence that amounts to nothing more than an indicator of pre-ordained policy of war, would be any more compelling than my earlier evidence from involved administration "players", who witnessed the official decision making from the inside....that what we are seeing is the result of Israel receiving a "green light" from the new, "one sided" U.S. policy makers?

No one commented in reaction to my "evidence", which seems much more persuasive and closer to the foundation of the changes that enable what we see playing out in the M.E. today. Don't expect much reaction to your "stub" from the Guardian. The mindset here is not based on consideration of evidence. It is all about "feelings".

powerclown · 08-08-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

yes in the sense that all the shiites in lebanon would consider themselves at least in part to be 'hezbollah'.

dlishsguy, I am wondering if you could elaborate more on this statement?
In what way do all shiites in Lebanon identify, at least in part as you say, with hezbollah?

Thanks.

stevo · 08-08-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No one commented in reaction to my "evidence", which seems much more persuasive and closer to the foundation of the changes that enable what we see playing out in the M.E. today. Don't expect much reaction to your "stub" from the Guardian. The mindset here is not based on consideration of evidence. It is all about "feelings".

There is more than just one mindset here, host. Of course, members of one of those mindsets believe trash from the guardian is "evidence." While others believe it is just trash.

Here's some evidence of my own I'd like to put out there. Since, you know, we're all posting "evidence" and all. but unlike many articles posted, this one actually has to do with the issue at hand. Does hezbollah have the right to be in lebanon? Not if hezbollah is what this article says...but then again tcsdaily might not be a reputable enough source for some, probably because it goes against their "feelings."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080806B

Quote:

Hate to Say We Told You So, But...

While events make it seem like an age ago, it was in fact exactly one month ago that TCS published a column whose prescience and eerie timing surprised even to us, its authors.

In The Hezbollah Nexus?, we reminded readers that the world seemed to have forgotten about this Iranian client and its central role in the drama of the contemporary Middle East (which at that moment in time centered on the Iraqi insurgency and the looming confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program). We introduced our essay as follows:

"The Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah has enjoyed a respite in Western news of late, even though it continues to augment its considerable weapons stockpile despite being required to disarm by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 and by anti-Syrian factions in Lebanon. The United States, the driving force (along with France) behind 1559, is preoccupied with Iraq and with Iran's nuclear program. Israel, whose northern border remains vulnerable to Hezbollah "kill an Israeli soldier" incursions, has its hands full dealing with the elected Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and with its own political debate about the determination of borders. But there is reason to believe that all these issues -- the insurgency in Iraq (which is certainly being fanned by Iranian meddling), Iran's nuclear ambitions, Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli security -- are interrelated, and that their nexus is in fact Hezbollah.

Last year, Hezbollah's "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, computed for the first time the scope of his group's arsenal: "They say [we have] 12,000 rockets...I say more than 12,000 rockets." Most of these fire 107mm and 122mm Katyusha missiles supplied directly from Iranian army stocks. These devices have small payloads and short effective ranges. But an increasing number of Hezbollah's rockets are of a more lethal variety. Intelligence analysts report that Iran has made large scale deliveries of Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets to its Lebanese clients, shipping them via passenger and cargo flights to Damascus International Airport where, with the approval of Bashar al-Assad's Ba'athist regime, they are collected by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and delivered to Hezbollah installations in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Iran builds the Fajr missiles with Chinese and North Korean assistance. Fajrs are fired from hard-to-destroy mobile launchers, and can carry up to 200 pounds of explosives from 25 (for the Fajr-3) to 45 miles (for the Fajr-5). Israeli intelligence estimates that several hundred Fajr rockets have been delivered so far. Most are aimed at Israel's third largest city, Haifa, home to one of the Jewish state's two oil refineries and to Matam Park, the hub of its high-tech industry. To help with targeting, Hezbollah has access to Iranian-controlled Mirsad-1 unmanned aerial vehicles which can transmit live video footage."

Everything that we feared has come to pass. Iran, with Syrian connivance, coordinated a small-scale Hezbollah invasion of Israel, accompanied by the killing of four Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others, as an act of war designed to probe its enemy. Israel responded much more aggressively than Iran had predicted, availing itself of this casus belli to attempt to destroy its terrorist adversary before it became even more menacing. Alas, Israel's initial efforts at self-defense proved less stellar than usual. As Charles Krauthammer argued in his Washington Post column this past weekend, Prime Minister Olmert has provided uninspiring leadership. Initially relying on only air power, he rejected his generals' arguments for a ground offensive. Worse, he allowed his cabinet meetings to become public spectacles with internal divisions leaking to friend and foe alike.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah propagandists successfully have exploited the Western press. They have employed both outright anti-Semitic lies about "war crimes" (as in this incredible Reuters photo fabrication of bombing in Beirut -- although the press agency evidently learned from Dan Rather's experience, and quickly killed the photo after the fabrication was exposed by the Little Green Footballs blog) and more subtle intimidation of the members of the Fourth Estate. Time magazine stringer Christopher Allbritton, writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, casually illustrated this latter technique: "To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one."

Despite these setbacks, now in the fourth week of this imposed war, the tide has begun to turn decisively in Israel's favor. Hezbollah supply routes have been cut, and as a result the terrorist group's commanders have pulled their men out of most combat sectors in southern Lebanon and concentrated them in a half-dozen pockets of fierce resistance. From one of these enclaves near Sidon, last Friday night, August 4, Hezbollah fired long-range Khaibar-1 missiles at Hadera, 25 miles north of Tel Aviv. Saturday morning, Israel humanely dropped leaflets warning Sidon's 200,000 inhabitants to leave their homes and head north to escape the coming Israeli elimination of this launching zone. One by one, each Hezbollah bastion may become the object of "attrition," to use the euphemistical term.

Debka.com reported a very dangerous but potentially promising development on Sunday. Realizing that it overplayed its hand by waging war on Israel before being fully prepared, Iran has apparently now dispatched the world's most fearsome remaining terrorist (after Osama Bin Laden) to supervise Hezbollah operations. Imad Mughniyeh has been wanted for 25 years by the FBI for the suicide bomb attacks he orchestrated against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and against American and French peacekeepers (to say nothing of a spate of "lesser" hijackings and murders). Mughiyeh is so important in the hierarchy of international terror that he answers directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Prime Minister Olmert is now directly opposed not by the relatively parochial Lebanese cleric Hassan Nasrallah, but by an extremely seasoned terrorist who comes as the chief paladin of Iranian mullahs and their ambitions to hasten of the apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam.

Accordingly, even more than when we wrote our pre-war apologia for the elimination of Hezbollah's missile threat, Israel's fight is America's fight. If the United States government insists on a ceasefire at this point (as Secretary of State Rice appears to be doing by supporting a flawed United Nations resolution), it will not only undermine Israel's security, but will betray the principles of the civilized world in general and our own national interests in particular. The Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear program is less than a month away. Does any sane person really think that if the mullahs and their proxies emerge unscathed from their current adventure -- recall that Hassan Nasrallah has asserted that Hezbollah "needs only to survive to win" -- they will be more amenable to diplomatic efforts on an issue of even greater importance to them? Tehran has let loose its "dog of war," Imad Mughniyeh. Can even the mullahs leash him again short of the Shi'a eschaton which he and Iran's genocidal president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to hasten? Iran has, with impunity, been fanning sectarian tensions in neighboring Iraq for months, costing America both lives and treasure. If no consequences follow from the far more direct aggression of Iran's Hezbollah proxy far from home, will the Tehran regime suddenly relent from meddling in Baghdad?

Both America's mind as well as its heart should dictate that the administration lend even greater support for Israel's belatedly vigorous self-defense against Hezbollah. The IDF's lines in Lebanon have become the pivotal front of the global war on terrorism.

powerclown · 08-08-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

The "right" to be in Lebanon? According to whose definition?

I meant it in the sense of identifying and acknowledging the official armed forces of a sovereign government. Where hezbollah is a separate militia operating independently from the official state armed force. I was speaking in political terms not moral terms.

Quote:

Some people might say that no one has the "right" to be in power unless they are fairly elected in a democracy... but oops, oh wait, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Never mind about their "right" to be in power... Americans don't think Hamas has the right, so that's that. Forget all that stuff about being elected in a democracy as granting "right" to a person or party. If we don't like 'em, they don't have rights.

There are many strings attached here because without outside assistance (and not just from the US), Hamas doesn't have the financial resources to run a government properly; they rely on outside money to the point where they are paralyzed without it, yet they want to be the ones setting the agenda, and I'm not sure things work like that when others give you money. In return for money, Hamas was told to moderate their views - and they started to - when the kidnappings occured. Some claim that Israel carefully planned this latest fighting from the start, because there is public evidence (of sorts) that Israel had a military contigency plan in case of hostilities from the north. I don't believe this is true because many different armed forces of the world make contigency plans for many different scenarios of conflict.

Quote:

The important question is what the people of Lebanon think about Hezbollah... and there's certainly not unanimous agreement there. But I can tell you that every day this conflict goes on, people who never would have supported Hezbollah before, even in their wildest dreams, are starting to see Hezbollah's right for existence. Which probably seems totally counter-intuitive to us armchair observers, but who can say what those people are going through, and how it is shaping their opinions? We cannot.

Well said. I agree that Israel is running the risk of empowering hezbollah even further. Also, there are some who say that a potentially nuclear Iran is trying to widen its sphere of influence through this conflict, which brings even more issues to the table - valid ones in my opinion. There are questions over how involved radical Islamists from other groups, such as al-qaeda, might become, whether they see this conflict as an opportunity to expand their operations. I also think it speaks volumes that many governments have taken an extremely diplomatic stance on the issue of the Israeli counteroffensive, with some arab nations even speaking out against hezbollah.

Willravel · 08-08-2006, 07:55 PM

My first response was messy and vague. Allow me to clairify:
-Hezbollah basically acted like a government, sending aid -food and medicine, maintaining houses, hospitals, policing, fighting fires, essentially holding together the infrastructure of Lebanon when the Lebanese government couldn't. For that I commend them. They are not *just* a terrorist organization. They have done a great deal of good for the people of Lebanon, who have been through hell.

- Before the current conflict, the Hezbollah had about a 30% following in Lebanon, based on the best information available. Now, the number is anywhere from 50% to 80% support. This is a massive shift in polularity could become the shift that makes the Hezbollah a perminent part of Lebanese government, as opposed to one part of the whole. I am concerned that instead of becoming the Hezbollah that acts in the best interest of Lebanon, as described above, they will move more into a militaristic stance towards Israel.

-Hezbollah is an organization that has repeatedly turned to terrorism in order to get what they want. Whether the cause is just or not...there is simply no excuse. They have decided that they will place their hatred of Israel over the good of Lebanon, and thus are no longer working towards the ultimate goal of any humanitarian organization: peace. This is hardly the first time Israel has gone apeshit on someone, and there was always that risk in attacking them. Israels military could theoritically go toe to toe with the rest of the Middle East and win at the drop of a hat, but one on one, no Arab country stands a chance. Knowing this, Hezbollah continued their terrorist acts.

Hezbollah is just as much to blame for the dead in Lebanon as the Israeli government. Because of that, I think that the group should be disbanded from pressure from the Lebanese people. If they are strong enough to come out of that horrible civil war, they are strong enough to sacrafice the Hezbollah for the sake of peace.

host · 08-08-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

There is more than just one mindset here, host. Of course, members of one of those mindsets believe trash from the guardian is "evidence." While others believe it is just trash.

Here's some evidence of my own I'd like to put out there. Since, you know, we're all posting "evidence" and all. but unlike many articles posted, this one actually has to do with the issue at hand. Does hezbollah have the right to be in lebanon? Not if hezbollah is what this article says...but then again tcsdaily might not be a reputable enough source for some, probably because it goes against their "feelings."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080806B

If you read nothing else in this post, please read the contents of the first two quote boxes. (Below...) If you disagree with the Wiki descriptions of the Guardian or of tcsdaily.com , consider going to the Wiki site and editing the articles to fit your well documented POV, to improve the accuracy of the descriptions.

stevo, I find that maintaining a POV as far to the opposite of the influences and agendas of the largest international corporations, works best for me, since I know that, even with such intent, there is a high risk that they will shape my opinion where they intend it to be, and fool me into thinking that it is my own idea, that I am advocating for......

I noticed that "tcsdaily" has been linked on these threads previously. What process do you "go through" to satisfy yourself that the source that you cite (I assume that...if you cite it....your thinking or feelings have been influenced by the information provided by a given source....) won't end up looking like this, in a side by side comparison:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
The Guardian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....It has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1999 and 2006 by the British Press Awards. The Guardian Unlimited web site won the Best Newspaper category two years running in the 2005 and 2006 Webby Awards, beating (in 2005) the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Variety[4]. It has been the winner for six years in a row of the British Newspaper Awards for Best Electronic Daily Newspaper.[5] The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine Editor & Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed newspaper online service [6]. The website is well-known and recognised for its commentary on sporting events, particularly its over-by-over cricket commentary....

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_Central_Station

Tech Central Station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tech Central Station (TCS) describes itself as a website "where free markets meet technology". Since late 2005, the website has appeared under the title of TCS Daily, a publication of Tech Central Station.

TCS is published by DCI Group, a lobbying and PR firm based in Washington, DC, using TCS to raise doubts about global warming and the film An Inconvenient Truth[1]. It is hosted by James K. Glassman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Service. He also writes a monthly financial column for Kiplinger's Personal Finance. TCS is primarily funded by sponsors that currently or previously have included AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, and PhRMA.....

stevo, you indicate that your opinion is that the award winning Guardian news source that roachboy cited is inferior to a "news piece" that is featured on a website that is owned by a lobbying firm that has as it's mission, dissemination of a PR message inline with the views of major multinational corporations. The 'host" of the website, James K. Glassman, is a fellow at AEI

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002217.php
(November 19, 2003 -- 09:51 AM EDT)
For years -- literally years -- I've been writing about Astroturf organizing and that trendsetting operation in the trade, DCI -- home of that Johny Appleseed of the plastic and the green, Tom Synhorst.

Simply put, Astroturf organizers are in the business of creating phony grassroots support, or rather the appearance of grassroots support, for this or that cause.

You got the money and the cause? They'll bring the front groups, the push-polls, the oped payola, you name it.....

.....For years, the trendsetter in Astroturf has been DCI. And a couple days ago, if you were watching really closely, a tiny sentence changed on an <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20031008190838/http://www.techcentralstation.com/about.html">out-of-the-way page</a> on the TechCentralStation website.

The sentence that read ..
"Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C."

now reads ...
"Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C."

It wasn't an accident. It was because this article -- <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html">'Meet the Press'</a> by Nick Confessore -- was about to be published by The Washington Monthly.
-- Josh Marshall

Quote:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...onfessore.html
Meet the Press
How James Glassman reinvented journalism--as lobbying.
By Nicholas Confessore

......But the real secret of his success is that the market Glassman writes about is very different from the one in which he thrives: the burgeoning world of Washington influence-peddling. As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support the Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industry debates, rather like a corporate lobbyist. Nowhere is this more apparent than on TCS, where Glassman and his colleagues have weighed in on everything from which telecommunications technologies should be the most heavily regulated to whether Microsoft is a threat to other software companies.

But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also "sponsors" of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.

James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. Lobbying firms that once specialized in gaining person-to-person access to key decision-makers have branched out. <h3>The new game is to dominate the entire intellectual environment in which officials make policy decisions, which means funding everything from think tanks to issue ads to phony grassroots pressure groups.</h3> But the institution that most affects the intellectual atmosphere in Washington, the media, has also proven the hardest for K Street to influence--until now........

AEI or "American Enterprise Institute", is just that....an "Enterprise Institute".
It is founded and funded by very wealthy and influential folks who "win" when they can influence you to think like they want you to, How is that "good": for you, and more importantly, how is it good for America????

I'll use the spectacle of the AEI "embracing" Chalabi, last november, long after he was finally discredited, as an example:

Quote:

http://www.aei.org/events/type.upcom...ent_detail.asp
An Insider's View: Democratic Politics at Work in Iraq

A Foreign Policy Briefing from Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi
Start: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 2:30 PM
End: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 3:45 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

Registration for this event is now closed due to an overwhleming response. Members of the media may contact Andrew Pappas at 202.862.4870 or apappas@aei.org. Walk-in registrations may not be accepted.

Quote:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001080.php
Peering Into Ahmad Chalabi's Cesspool & What About New Jersey, Virginia and New York City?

......Remarks by Colin Powell, 12 June 2003:

I can't substantiate [Chalabis] claims. He makes new ones every year..........
<img src="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/chabi%20newsweek.bmp>"

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Columnist
The CIA And the Coup That Wasn't

By David Ignatius
Friday, May 16, 2003; Page A29

....... Complicating the CIA's coup planning was a similar effort in northern Iraq by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. A CIA officer named Bob Baer was dispatched in January 1995 to coordinate the various covert efforts, but they only got more tangled. Chalabi launched his unsuccessful coup in March 1995, and Baer was suddenly summoned home to Washington.

The 1995 fiasco only reinforced the CIA's belief in the traditional military coup approach of DBACHILLES. But an Iraqi source argues that by late 1995, some of Shawani's and Alawi's operatives were already controlled by Iraqi intelligence.

Chalabi was so convinced that the military-coup plan had been compromised that he traveled to Washington in March 1996 to see the new CIA director, John Deutch, and his deputy, George Tenet. He told them the Iraqis had captured an Egyptian courier who was carrying an Inmarsat satellite phone to Shawani's sons in Baghdad.

When the CIA officials seemed unconvinced, Chalabi went to his friend Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative. Perle is said to have called Tenet and urged that an outside committee review the Iraq situation. But the coup planning went ahead. .........

stevo, consider the names on this list.....is it any wonder that James Glassman is the host of the corporate PR site, "tech station" that you cited?
American Enterprise Institute Personnel:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...edit&section=2

== Personnel ==
*[[Lynne Cheney]], the wife of U.S. Vice President [[Dick Cheney]], and an AEI senior fellow......
.......*[[David Frum]], an author and former speechwriter for [[George W. Bush|Bush]], is a resident fellow.
*[[Reuel Marc Gerecht]] is a resident fellow. He is the director of the [[Project for the New American Century]]'s Middle East Initiative and a former [[Middle East]] specialist at the [[CIA]].
*[[Newt Gingrich]], member of the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] and Speaker of the [[United States House of Representatives]] between 1995 and 1999, is a senior fellow at AEI focusing on health care (he has founded the Center for Health Transformation), information technology, the military, and politics.
*Author [[James K. Glassman]] is a resident fellow.....
.....*[[Michael Ledeen]] was previously involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the [[Iran-Contra]] affair -- an adventure that he documented in his book, ''Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair.''
....*[[Richard Perle]] serves on the [[United States Defense Policy Board]] and the former deputy [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]].
*[[Lee Raymond]], CEO of [[ExxonMobil]], is the vice chair of AEI's board of trustees.....
.....*[[Fred Thompson]], the current D.A. on ''[[Law & Order]]'' and former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, researches "National Security & Intelligence (China, North Korea, and Russia)" for the AEI.....
......*[[John Yoo]], formerly of the [[Office of Legal Counsel]], and a professor at [[Boalt Hall]], is a visiting scholar.
* [[Karl Zinsmeister]], editor in chief of the ''American Enterprise Magazine'' 1994-2006, as of 2006 Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Here is some info on your article's authors, J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss:

Quote:

http://classweb.gmu.edu/mkrauss/publications.html
Krauss Home Page > Publications

1. NON-ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

* Magazine articles: FORBES, The Weekly Standard, Policy Review; Liberty; Reason; National Review; St. Croix Review; American Outlook (Hudson Institute); numerous French-language magazines. Click here for a sample mini-essay.
* National Review Online, Tech Central Station, Fox News Online, occasional online contributor. Click here for a sample op-ed.

Quote:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...en&lr=&strip=1
or..... http://www.jmu.edu/nelsoninstitute/I...s&%20Pham).pdf
Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders
Krauss, Michael I. & Pham, J. Peter

Neither historical nor legal barriers stand in the way of unilateral action.

....WITH RESPECT to Jewish settlement on the West Bank, the first document of any legal consequence dates from the San Remo Conference of 1920, where the victorious allied powers of World War I assigned the League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Great Britain. In doing so, they recognized, in the words of the mandate, "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for constituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the document even "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," land very much including the modern West Bank.*....

IMO, even Krauss and Pham cannot have overlooked the following, when they wrote the "fairy tale" pro Israeli propaganda "piece" quoted above, they simply ignored the following:

Quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mi...ocov.htm#art20
The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968
Text of the Charter:
.....Article 20:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

stevo, the website where you linked the article that supports your POV is a corporate propaganda site, and the authors or your article wrote an article, quoted above, last month, titled, "Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders" , that seems as unrealistic, arbitrary and prejudiced towards Israel, as any that I've encountered. One author, Michael I Krauss, is a frequent contributor on fox news, national review, and sometimes on William Kristol's weekly standard.

The other author of your article, and director of JMU based "NELSON INSTITUTE" is J. Peter Pham, promoting the appearance on tcsdaily.com of the article that you cited, on the NELSON INSTITUTE website:

Quote:

http://www.jmu.edu/nelsoninstitute/toldyouso080806.htm
NELSON INSTITUTE DIRECTOR, GMU LAW PROFESSOR REAFFIRM HEZBOLLAH AS NEXUS OF MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

August 8, 2006

HARRISONBURG—In an op-ed published today by TCS Daily, Dr. J. Peter Pham, Director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University, and Professor Michael I. Krauss of George Mason University School of Law return to the thesis they expounded in a commentary published just days before the outbreak of the current war in Lebanon in which they predicted that the Iranian build-up of Hezbollah’s arsenal, abetted by Syria, would lead to the terrorist group making an incursion into Israel and that the ensuing conflict would become the front on the war on terrorism. In their new article, the two professors argue that not only have events proven them right, but that Hezbollah is now more than ever the nexus of tensions in the Middle East.

The essay by the two professors, “Hate to Say We Told You So, But…,” can be accessed online by <a href="http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080806B">clicking here.</a>

To sum up my core point, stevo, IMO, you can do better. From your current "up is down", POV; that an award winning internationally recognized news source, "the Guardian"....known for the quality of its reporting and record of journalistic investigation, is "trash".

Shills like Krauss and Pham, confined to spouting their biased "narrow cast" on a mega-corporate site, such as tcsdaily.com (Pham was actually promoting the appearance of their recent article there, via the "Institute" that he directs,) a site that came into being and was financed to distribute disinformation about global warming that was perceived as a threat to EXXON-MOBIL's "business", are touted by you as sources of reliable commentary.

Have you considered why the Krauss and Pham article is featured on tcsdaily.com, why Glassman is the "host" of that website, and a fellow at AEI, why AEI has the list of other "Fellows", that it does, and why Krauss is welcome (confined) to comment on Fox news, NRO, and weekly standard?

Have you considered that their associations..... tcsdaily.com, AEI, and it's "Fellows", Fox news, NRO, and weekly standard....are all part of a closed loop of ideas (feelings ?) that may seem like a "universe" that is "open" and attracts new ideas, and alternative POV's.....but might not be.....might instead be a closed loop of talking points that are in synch with a lobbyists driven message that might not be what you think it is, or be from where you thought that it was coming from?

stevo · 08-09-2006, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, you indicate that your opinion is that the award winning Guardian news source that roachboy cited is inferior to a "news piece" that is featured on a website that is owned by a lobbying firm that has as it's mission, dissemination of a PR message inline with the views of major multinational corporations. The 'host" of the website, James K. Glassman, is a fellow at AEI

I've seen shit bands win grammys. Doesn't mean they're any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

AEI or "American Enterprise Institute", is just that....an "Enterprise Institute".
It is founded and funded by very wealthy and influential folks who "win" when they can influence you to think like they want you to, How is that "good": for you, and more importantly, how is it good for America????

I like AEI. I would like to work for AEI. If its related to AEI then to me its even more credible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, the website where you linked the article that supports your POV is a corporate propaganda site,

Its no more a corporate propaganda site than the guardian is a mouthpiece for socialists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

To sum up my core point, stevo, IMO, you can do better. From your current "up is down", POV; that an award winning internationally recognized news source, "the Guardian"....known for the quality of its reporting and record of journalistic investigation, is "trash".

Do you know why I say it is trash? Look farther up in this thread. look at my response to the article rb posted. Its trash. I don't see how some reporter can say giving into terrorist demands will lead to less terrorism, and i really don't know how people believe him. I also don't beleive the "almost 1,000 civillians dead" when that same day the total number of deaths in lebanon from civs, lebanese army, and hezbollah together was reportedly less than 700 - (which means about 150 actual deaths). THere is little verification of "facts" in your sacred newspapers. The Post, Times, Guardian, et al., they take what is fed to them and print it as gospel.

roachboy · 08-09-2006, 07:50 AM

i think the monbiot piece was transparently commentary that lined up evidence about which there is not much dispute and drew conclusions from it. like i said, i posted it here because the question of whether hezbollah "has the right to exist" in lebanon or "has the right" to be integrated into the wider political process in lebanon presupposes (1) a clear undestanding of what hezbollah is (2) some sense of lebanese law (i am not convinced of the interest of posing questions about integration relative to some abstract notion of "western democracy"--which is an empty category, given that democracy is very different in different places and is minimal at best in the united states) and (3) the question posed is self-evidently tied to your view of the present conflict, whcih operates as the main context that shapes views-the article functions to clarify that context---the implication of much rightwing commentary is that hezbollah is some alien force in southern lebanon, a proxy for iran, and not a popular militia....referring to hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" says nothing about it analytically at all, but does function to answer questions like powercown's in advance--so such coherence as there is in the op relies on prior conceptions of hezbollah.

as for the use of problematic sources: host did a fine job demolishing the aei shill-site stevo linked---i dont find stevo's "the guardian is a pinko rag" line to be particularly interesting--it certainly is not accurate when it comes to information presented as news--the editorial positions in the guardian do include more left positions than would most american papers--but this is more a commentary on the sorry state of the american press than it is on the guardian.

stevo · 08-09-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the editorial positions in the guardian do include more left positions than would most american papers--but this is more a commentary on the sorry state of the american press than it is on the guardian.

So because american papers aren't spewing as much socialist drivel as the guardian the american press is in a sorry state? yikes.

roachboy · 08-09-2006, 08:10 AM

there is no point in continuing this stevo.
back to your regularly scheduled programming....

powerclown · 08-09-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i think the monbiot piece was transparently commentary that lined up evidence about which there is not much dispute and drew conclusions from it. like i said, i posted it here because the question of whether hezbollah "has the right to exist" in lebanon or "has the right" to be integrated into the wider political process in lebanon presupposes (1) a clear undestanding of what hezbollah is (2) some sense of lebanese law (i am not convinced of the interest of posing questions about integration relative to some abstract notion of "western democracy"--which is an empty category, given that democracy is very different in different places and is minimal at best in the united states) and (3) the question posed is self-evidently tied to your view of the present conflict, whcih operates as the main context that shapes views-the article functions to clarify that context---the implication of much rightwing commentary is that hezbollah is some alien force in southern lebanon, a proxy for iran, and not a popular militia....referring to hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" says nothing about it analytically at all, but does function to answer questions like powercown's in advance--so such coherence as there is in the op relies on prior conceptions of hezbollah.

I'd be curious then as to how you would charaterize hezbollah vis a vis the government of Lebanon. Would you have an opinion as to why Lebanon, for example, refuses to deploy its army in the south to guard its borders? Would you have an opinion on the political relationships between Iran and hezbollah, or syria and hezbollah, or Iran and Syria, or Syrian and Lebanon, or the existence of armed militias in Lebanon? Would you have an opinion on Iranian ambitions in the region? Or, if you aren't satisfied with the way the questions are framed, feel free to frame things your way.

What is your take on the dynamics of this conflict?

dlish · 08-10-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

dlishsguy, I am wondering if you could elaborate more on this statement?
In what way do all shiites in Lebanon identify, at least in part as you say, with hezbollah?

Thanks.

in the religious/ideological sense powerclown. since hezbollah is essentially a shiite group with shiite clerics as the head of the group, its only natural that all religious shiites look to them as a source of wisdom or guidance, and hence identify with them in a religious sense. do i make any sense?

i guess it'd be the same as if say some fundo wacko ran for president of the united states of america, you'd get many of the fundos' voting for him based on that fact alone.

Sticky · 08-10-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

in the religious/ideological sense powerclown. since hezbollah is essentially a shiite group with shiite clerics as the head of the group, its only natural that all religious shiites look to them as a source of wisdom or guidance, and hence identify with them in a religious sense. do i make any sense?

Is there any other shiite structure/organization available for shiites to look to or has Hizballah been able to make themselves The Group.

flstf · 08-10-2006, 08:19 AM

Hezbollah has the right to be in Lebanon just as the Montana Militia has the right to be in the United States. To allow these groups to dictate national policy is the fault of the respective governments unless their policy is one the government endorses.

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Hezbollah has the right to be in Lebanon just as the Montana Militia has the right to be in the United States. To allow these groups to dictate national policy is the fault of the respective governments unless their policy is one the government endorses.

Yeah, but how many people have the MM killed in the past year? How many times have they threatened to destroy an entire country? Also, how often have they allowed their hatred and anger to endanger the people they are supposed to protect? I do see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that the Montana Militia is quite the right group to compare to the Hezbollah. If the MM were in a country that were at war, I might be singing a different tune, though. Who knows?

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

in the religious/ideological sense powerclown. since hezbollah is essentially a shiite group with shiite clerics as the head of the group, its only natural that all religious shiites look to them as a source of wisdom or guidance, and hence identify with them in a religious sense. do i make any sense?

i guess it'd be the same as if say some fundo wacko ran for president of the united states of america, you'd get many of the fundos' voting for him based on that fact alone.

Yes, that makes sense. I have to admit to being uncomfortable with the phrase "all religious shiites" identifying with hexbollah...where you have ordinary, peaceful shiites forced to identify with a militant religious group. Where is the moderate voice of the shiite population in Lebanon? Why is hezbollah allowed to be representative of the populace, when they are such a tiny minority in the official Lebanese government? Could there be something going on behind the scenes here?

roachboy · 08-10-2006, 09:58 AM

hezbollah is effectively a living expression of the self-defeating character of israeli military policies---left to itself, without israeli actions, i doubt seriously that hezbollah would be a particularly prominent group--but in the context of (repeated) israeli invasions of lebanon hezbollah has taken on considerable importance. the israeli military is the best recruiting tool hezbollah could ask for. right now, for exampe, hezbollah is being seen as a symbol of resistance to israeli actions.

i posted the monbiot piece earlier in part to see if debate could be shifted away from the fairly simplistic frame within which it was started, which eliminates all context around the emergence and ongoing nature of hezbollah by eliminating any consideration of the israeli role in creating and maintaining it.

you cannot understand what is going on in the region if you begin with pollyanna premises about the role played by the regional military superpower in israel. you cannot understand what is going on if you only think of israel as a fantasy, or of you only consider israel as it presents itself in wartime propaganda (the illusion that the invasion of lebanon is purely defensive, say)..based on this type of fundamental ignorance of the empirical situation, only false questions can be posed, like whether hezbollah "has the right" to exist in lebanon.

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

hezbollah is effectively a living expression of the self-defeating character of israeli military policies---left to itself, without israeli actions, i doubt seriously that hezbollah would be a particularly prominent group--but in the context of (repeated) israeli invasions of lebanon hezbollah has taken on considerable importance. the israeli military is the best recruiting tool hezbollah could ask for. right now, for exampe, hezbollah is being seen as a symbol of resistance to israeli actions.

Quoted for perfect truth.

This is at the very core of the current conflict. Before Israel launched it's invasion, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support. Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is playing into the role of overzealous, racist military extreemsim. The disproportionate response over the past month is serving to galvanize the region, and create droves of new enemies for Israel. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel were trying to make enemies.

Ch'i · 08-10-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel were trying to make enemies.

What reason would they have to do such a thing? Are they attempting to spur the Middle East into conflict, counting on their fundinging and political backing by the U.S.? Or are they unaware of the effects of their attack?

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

What reason would they have to do such a thing? Are they attempting to spur the Middle East into conflict, counting on their fundinging and political backing by the U.S.? Or are they unaware of the effects of their attack?

I'm sure they're fully aware, since this has happened before. If I had to guess, I'd say they're provoking arab extreemists out of hiding in order to eradicate them, while *accedentally* killing and terrorizing arab civilians at the same time (two birds with one missle). Israel seems to think the only way it can survive is through complete supremacy over the region. They want the other countries to be so afraid of them that the thought of attacking them is out of the question. This is the very definition of state sponsored terrorism.

Of course, the problem with that strategy is that Israel will end up killing many, many inncent arab civilians.

Sticky · 08-10-2006, 10:57 AM

It's funny (or ironic). I agree with half of alot of your sentences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Before Israel launched it's invasion, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support.

I would agree (I know you don't need to get me to agree) with this:
- Before July 12th, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support. OR
- Before Israel responded to the Kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and border incursion on the part of Hezbollah, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is playing into the role of overzealous, racist military extreemsim.

On this one I agree with the first half and would rather see the full statement look something like this:
- Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is playing right into Hizballa's hand. Or even
- Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is willingly playing right into Hizballa's hand.

And for this one...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The disproportionate response over the past month is serving to galvanize the region, and create droves of new enemies for Israel.

I would take out disproportionate (my opinion) and say something like this:
- The response over the past month is serving to galvanize the region, and create droves new recruits for the enemies for Israel.

And lastly

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel were trying to make enemies.

I think you do know better that you are pretty much on track, however, I think the following is probably more accurate:
- If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel is not concerned with making new enemies. Or
- If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel were actually using this as an opportunity to do something that they felt they were eventually going to have to do.

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

hezbollah is effectively a living expression of the self-defeating character of israeli military policies---left to itself, without israeli actions, i doubt seriously that hezbollah would be a particularly prominent group--but in the context of (repeated) israeli invasions of lebanon hezbollah has taken on considerable importance. the israeli military is the best recruiting tool hezbollah could ask for. right now, for exampe, hezbollah is being seen as a symbol of resistance to israeli actions.

i posted the monbiot piece earlier in part to see if debate could be shifted away from the fairly simplistic frame within which it was started, which eliminates all context around the emergence and ongoing nature of hezbollah by eliminating any consideration of the israeli role in creating and maintaining it.

you cannot understand what is going on in the region if you begin with pollyanna premises about the role played by the regional military superpower in israel. you cannot understand what is going on if you only think of israel as a fantasy, or of you only consider israel as it presents itself in wartime propaganda (the illusion that the invasion of lebanon is purely defensive, say)..based on this type of fundamental ignorance of the empirical situation, only false questions can be posed, like whether hezbollah "has the right" to exist in lebanon.

Before preceeding along this line of discussion, I'd like to ask this:

Do you think Israel has the right to exist?

Sticky · 08-10-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sure they're fully aware, since this has happened before. If I had to guess, I'd say they're provoking arab extreemists out of hiding in order to eradicate them, while *accedentally* killing and terrorizing arab civilians at the same time (two birds with one missle). Israel seems to think the only way it can survive is through complete supremacy over the region. They want the other countries to be so afraid of them that the thought of attacking them is out of the question. This is the very definition of state sponsored terrorism.

Of course, the problem with that strategy is that Israel will end up killing many, many inncent arab civilians.

This is why alot of us will never agree.
I will pick out two parts that will keep me from agreeing with the above

#1

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

while *accedentally* killing and terrorizing arab civilians at the same time (two birds with one missle)

I don't believe that Israel has any intention to harm or terrorize arab civilians. (If this was the case, why not add ball bearings to the missiles they are firing?) I know that I can't make you believe it, I wish I could. To believe this I would have to think that Israel population is bad and they elect bad people who want to do bad things.
In this specific case Olmert is the one that is pushing the rest of Israel to give the West Bank to the Palestinians. Even Peres, the guy that would give Jerusalem is on board with the war. I just don't see it as you do.
I believe that what Israel is doing is bombing real targets and saying "you know what, we are at war. If the bomb strays and hits something else and people get hurt we will feel bad but that is not going to stop is. Or if by the time the bomb gets there the target is not there anymore and people get hurt again we will feel bad but that will not stop us either. This is war we have to defend our citizens"

#2

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

They want the other countries to be so afraid of them that the thought of attacking them is out of the question. This is the very definition of state sponsored terrorism.

Yes, exactly as you state, they want the other countries to be afraid of them so that they won't attack. That is correct.
Did they build up a tremendous army for this purpose. Yes and also for the purpose of defending in case of attack.
Do they have nuclear power for this purpose. Yes, definately.
Are they bombing Lebanon now for this purpose. No (i know I will probably not get you to agree to this either). They are bombing Lebanon to try to root out Hizballah.
Do any of these make up state sponsored terrorism, no.

(I hope that I did not leave any of my thoughts our from when I first read the post)

roachboy · 08-10-2006, 12:10 PM

powerclown:

what is that a relevant question?
it is 2006, powerclown: it is obvious that israel exists.
there are no threats to it at this level.
it is a regional military superpower: no combination of forces is able to pose anything remotely like a threat to its existence.
the question is moot.

i have no problem at all with the fact of israel.
but i oppose the policies of the israeli right. i do not think them rational, nor are they the only alternative.
i oppose israel's treatment of the palestinians. i find it continually shocking to see institutionalized racism directed at the palestinians from the israeli military, supported by the israeli right. you would think that, if any population on earth shold understand the horrifying implications of racism, it would be that of israel. many in israel do register this as a problem, and a fundamental problem, ethically and politically. you just do not hear much from these folk in the states.
i think the dominant ideological view of the situation in israel that you encounter in the states is totally incoherent.
i see nothing legitimate about the collapse of all support of israel, at any level, into an unthinking support for the policies of likud.

and i do not see what purpose you imagine is served by asking me that question.

abaya · 08-10-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Before preceeding along this line of discussion, I'd like to ask this:

Do you think Israel has the right to exist?

Well, excellent question, powerclown. That's pretty much the foundation of all of these debates, isn't it? Might be a totally different thread topic, really.

Still, even though you are not asking me, I want to reply. My sheer gut reaction is:

1) Yes, I do believe Jews (and any displaced population) have the right to a homeland.

2) But no, I do not believe anyone has the right to establish a homeland (Jewish or otherwise) on TOP of someone else's land, thus creating another displaced population. It will not work, and it is not working. They could have picked somewhere else. Maybe that sounds simplistic, but honestly... there WERE other options. You would have to be insane to think, even back then, "Hey! Let's create a homeland for the Jews... in that lovely, welcoming place called the Middle East. There's plenty of space and the people are very welcoming to Jews... everyone loves their neighbors there. Let's do it, man." (And people are STILL surprised at the reactions, 60 years down the line... ) I mean, W T F ?

3) That said, if it had to be Palestine... the Jews, as with all other populations in the world, deserve a "homeland" in a troubled area to the extent that they are able to defend its borders ON THEIR OWN, just like everyone else (other than Israel) is forced to do. Without military crutches to hold them up. Civilizations and populations have risen and fallen for millenia based on their sovereign ability to fight and establish themselves, or surrender and be taken over. I just fail to see why Israel is any more special than any other nation in the history of the world, and why it should deserve special treatment from anyone.

I mean, if I, as a suburban middle-class person, move to the ghetto because my great-grandparents used to have a house there, and Dammit, I WANT to live there no matter how dangerous it is... I'm not going to expect the fucking US government to subsidize my desire to live in the ghetto. Good luck. I would be on my own, no matter what happened to me. Any of you would agree with that...

I welcome other responses to powerclown's question. Maybe it will clear up some things for everyone here.

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there are no threats to it at this level.
it is a regional military superpower: no combination of forces is able to pose anything remotely like a threat to its existence.
the question is moot.

i see nothing legitimate about the collapse of all support of israel, at any level, into an unthinking support for the policies of likud

It's kadima running the show in Israel not likud...still, I don't buy the argument that Israel is not under threat. Is this the excuse used to invalidate Israel's need for security? Hasn't there been more than enough rhetoric and circumstantial evidence that Iran is going for a 'nuclear solution' to the existence of Israel, which for whatever reason doesn't seem to enter into your equation? As you say, why would these militant groups exist if it weren't for the purpose of destroying Israel? Isn't this motive explicitly stated in their official doctrines and charters? Another factor I would consider is the use of asymetrical warfare, fighting from civilian cover, and the use of propaganda to offset any military advantage Israel might have. I question the absolute relevance of military superiority in this type of conflict.

Its strange that you would say Israel is under no outside threat.

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

I would agree (I know you don't need to get me to agree) with this:
- Before July 12th, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support. OR
- Before Israel responded to the Kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and border incursion on the part of Hezbollah, the Hezbollah was losing a great deal of support.

I doubt many in Lebanon were chering that the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, so I'm going to go with the latter. Before the grandiose response from Israel, the Hezbollah was losing a lot of it's core support: that of the civilians of Lebanon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

On this one I agree with the first half and would rather see the full statement look something like this:
- Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is playing right into Hizballa's hand. Or even
- Now they are seeing renewed resolve and great support not just in Lebanon but all over the ME, simply because Israel is willingly playing right into Hizballa's hand.

Yes and no. Israel isn't necessarily playing into anyone's hand. Hezbollah was not looking for war with the kidnapping. They were looking for a prisoner exchange, not unlike those of the past. The Hezbollah organization was not trying to bait Israel into an all out attack with the kidnapping, but it is arguable that they have been essentially trying to force a show of force from the Israelis for a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

I would take out disproportionate (my opinion) and say something like this:
- The response over the past month is serving to galvanize the region, and create droves new recruits for the enemies for Israel.

OH, it was mighty disproportionate. It's important to point out mistakes or wrongdoing on both sides of this if anything is to get solved. Neither the Hezbollah nor the Israeli government is totally innocent in this. It was wrong of Israel to bomb and invade, espically to the degree that we are seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

I think you do know better that you are pretty much on track, however, I think the following is probably more accurate:
- If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel is not concerned with making new enemies. Or
- If I didn't know any better, I'd think Israel were actually using this as an opportunity to do something that they felt they were eventually going to have to do.

They have to be concerned with making new enemies, so the first one is right out. As for the second, I can say yes, this could be something that they would have eventually done had the kidnapping not happened. As for "having" to do it, absolutely disagree. This is a huge step backwards for Israel and is doing nothing but plunging the ME further back into war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

I don't believe that Israel has any intention to harm or terrorize arab civilians. (If this was the case, why not add ball bearings to the missiles they are firing?) I know that I can't make you believe it, I wish I could. To believe this I would have to think that Israel population is bad and they elect bad people who want to do bad things.
In this specific case Olmert is the one that is pushing the rest of Israel to give the West Bank to the Palestinians. Even Peres, the guy that would give Jerusalem is on board with the war. I just don't see it as you do.
I believe that what Israel is doing is bombing real targets and saying "you know what, we are at war. If the bomb strays and hits something else and people get hurt we will feel bad but that is not going to stop is. Or if by the time the bomb gets there the target is not there anymore and people get hurt again we will feel bad but that will not stop us either. This is war we have to defend our citizens"

I keep listening to Israelis on the news try and explain away what they're doing. They say stuff like, "Hezbollah are targeting civilians by using bombs that do not have accurate tracking systems." Think about that. Israel has bombs and missles that DO have reklatively accurate tracking systems, but tons more Lebanese civilians have died than Israeli. Not only that, but very few Hezbollah militants have died. That suggests one of two things: they are not using the accurate tracking capabilites, or they are targeting everyone. Yes, Hezbollah is hiding in civiliand areas, but there should be higher reported Hezbollah casualties and less civilian casualties to support Israels claims of not targeting civilians. It reminds me a great deal of the US "smart bombs", that almost never hit their targets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky

Yes, exactly as you state, they want the other countries to be afraid of them so that they won't attack. That is correct.
Did they build up a tremendous army for this purpose. Yes and also for the purpose of defending in case of attack.
Do they have nuclear power for this purpose. Yes, definately.
Are they bombing Lebanon now for this purpose. No (i know I will probably not get you to agree to this either). They are bombing Lebanon to try to root out Hizballah.
Do any of these make up state sponsored terrorism, no.

What is going on right now is not just defensive but offensive aswell, and that's important to keep in mind. The bombs in Lebanon are serving the same purpous as the invasion of Lebanon by Israel once did: control through fear and oppression. The 'terrorism' part is the fear. They are trying to gain control of the reigon by committing violent acts that are meant to terrorize the populace into submission. That is the terror part. Look at Palestine. Why would they bulldoze buildings? To scare the s**t out of the Palestinians.

roachboy · 08-10-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Its strange that you would say Israel is under no outside threat.

that's because i didnt say what you impute to me.
i responded directly to your question.

i do not think that the official lines of any number of militant organizations mean very much substantively--they may be useful in mobilizing support--but they do not translate into any actions, any series of actions or any series of potential actions that poses anything like a threat to israel's existence.

there are obviously conflicts that israel is involved with--for the most part, israel itself is the motor of these conflicts.

kadima is sharon's party.
let's not play stupid games.

personally, i think that if there is a basic driver to all this trouble, it is the fact that most israeli political organizations are geared around the notion that israel must be a specifically jewish state. it would be easier for everyone if israel could become secular, dont you think? for example, that would undercut the basis for the oppression of the palestinians, yes? it would undercut any and all objections to the right of return, yes? it would not necessarily preclude anything--but it would remove religion, and ways of thinking about conflict rooted in religion, from conflicts.
just saying...

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

2) But no, I do not believe anyone has the right to establish a homeland (Jewish or otherwise) on TOP of someone else's land, thus creating another displaced population. It will not work, and it is not working. They could have picked somewhere else. Maybe that sounds simplistic, but honestly... there WERE other options. You would have to be insane to think, even back then, "Hey! Let's create a homeland for the Jews... in that lovely, welcoming place called the Middle East. There's plenty of space and the people are very welcoming to Jews... everyone loves their neighbors there. Let's do it, man." (And people are STILL surprised at the reactions, 60 years down the line... ) I mean, W T F ?

Good points..but you must be aware that there are legitimate counter-arguments. The jews have as much religious and historical devotion to the land as the arabs do. Empires have come and gone in the region, kicked jews out, but that doesn't erase the fact that jews have lived there for thousands of years. Another inflammatory issue would be that the majority of the jewish religion's most holy sites are located only in Israel, while many of the most holy islamic sites are scattered around the middle east. Yet there remains no compromise on issues of tolerance.

Quote:

3) That said, if it had to be Palestine... the Jews, as with all other populations in the world, deserve a "homeland" in a troubled area to the extent that they are able to defend its borders ON THEIR OWN, just like everyone else (other than Israel) is forced to do.....

I mean, if I, as a suburban middle-class person, move to the ghetto because my great-grandparents used to have a house there, and Dammit, I WANT to live there no matter how dangerous it is... I'm not going to expect the fucking US government to subsidize my desire to live in the ghetto. Good luck. I would be on my own, no matter what happened to me. Any of you would agree with that...

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. If this were the case, then there would be no justification for partnerships, coalitions or any other type of mutually beneficial political relationships. No need for the United Nations (which I could be tempted to argue for), no need for NATO, no Allied Force in WW2, no Axis Force - there are many examples of strategic partnerships found throughout history.

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that's because i didnt say what you impute to me.
i responded directly to your question.

I think the record is clear as to what you said above.
Whether it was elicited from me or not...only you would know for sure.

Quote:

kadima is sharon's party.
let's not play stupid games.

Historically, perhaps. But operationally, kadima has made concessions that likud never would. I don't think kadima are as far right as you would have them be, and I don't think right-wing politics are behind Israel's right to security.

Quote:

personally, i think that if there is a basic driver to all this trouble, it is the fact that most israeli political organizations are geared around the notion that israel must be a specifically jewish state. it would be easier for everyone if israel could become secular, dont you think? for example, that would undercut the basis for the oppression of the palestinians, yes? it would undercut any and all objections to the right of return, yes? it would not necessarily preclude anything--but it would remove religion, and ways of thinking about conflict rooted in religion, from conflicts.

No, I don't think the basic problem is in Israel being majority jewish. You must be aware that in Israel there are arab jews, arab christians, and arab muslims living together in peace. I find this extremely telling. A government adequately providing for its people in a free and open society, and the people take it from there. Which might be one reason why the middle east lives in such fear of Israel - the fear of obsolescence. Unlike many countries, in the west for example, most of Israel's problems come from without, not within. So I have no idea why you bring up the issue of secularism. Israel would be one of the very last entities in the region I would accuse of needing to dispense with religion. As far as issues of refugee re-assimilation, I've just about given up on its validity. When I see what happens to Israel when it returns land, and the way other arabs and persians manipulate the palestinian people for their own political gain, I wonder how legitimate the whole issue really is.

View Poll Results: Does Hezbollah have the right to be in Lebanon?
YES	14	42.42%
NO	19	57.58%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

08-07-2006, 10:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Does Hezbollah have the right to be in Lebanon? Some say yes, some say no. If so, should hezbollah be further incorporated into Lebanese society in the aftermath of this conflict? Should it assume a greater role in Lebanese politics? In what capacity? If not, how could the Lebanese government remove itself from hezbollah's sphere of influence? Should hezbollah have a lesser role in Lebanese politics? In what capacity? Or, introduce your own questions on the matter.

08-07-2006, 11:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	id say yes. yes in the sense that all the shiites in lebanon would consider themselves at least in part to be 'hezbollah'. so to get rid of hezbollah is only to either run them underground and have them re-surface under a different name, or you could incoroporate them into society and try and slow make them give up their radicalism. i am by no means a supporter of hezbollah. never have, never will. but if you want to spread freedom in the middle east, you cant go taking away peoples rights to affiliation. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-08-2006, 09:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i put the edito here because i think it impacts on your conception of what you are talking about when you consider the question posed in the op. as it stands, i find the op incoherent in that it asks questions that refer to matters of principle that are neither settled nor obvious. you would think, for example, that the question about hezbollah's "assimilation" after the conflict would necessarily involve the particularlities of lebanese law and political structures, wouldn't you? unless the op is really asking you to evaluate the questions based on some vague sense of the legal situation drawn mostly from your impressions of american law, as if that law was a kind of universal model--which it self-evidently is not. what is hezbollah ayway? the op implicitly situates it as some kind of alien body within lebanon--it isnt. the op presupposes access to information about context that enables a coherent assessment of the questions posed: i do not see any agreement about that context and posted the monbiot piece to raise problems about that context. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2006, 11:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	The "right" to be in Lebanon? According to whose definition? Last I checked, there wasn't a universal set of rights/responsibilities that applied to all nations. Otherwise we might all be getting along a lot better. (Yes, I know there is a declaration of universal human rights by the UN, but the US never signed it, so it's not universal. And that's not what we're talking about anyway.) Some people might say that no one has the "right" to be in power unless they are fairly elected in a democracy... but oops, oh wait, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Never mind about their "right" to be in power... Americans don't think Hamas has the right, so that's that. Forget all that stuff about being elected in a democracy as granting "right" to a person or party. If we don't like 'em, they don't have rights. I'm not saying Hezbollah does or doesn't have the "right" to be in Lebanon. I don't see myself as a moral arbiter in this situation... there's plenty I don't know and don't understand, enough that I would rather reserve my own judgement until I learn more. The important question is what the people of Lebanon think about Hezbollah... and there's certainly not unanimous agreement there. But I can tell you that every day this conflict goes on, people who never would have supported Hezbollah before, even in their wildest dreams, are starting to see Hezbollah's right for existence. Which probably seems totally counter-intuitive to us armchair observers, but who can say what those people are going through, and how it is shaping their opinions? We cannot. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

08-07-2006, 10:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hezbollah as it exists now shouldn't exist. Building a few schools and hospitals can't compare to continued acts of terrorism that only continue the horrible racist violence in the Middle East. If Hezbollah gave up it's militant ways and only did good, then I'd say of course, but they are leading Lebanon into war. It's not fair for a minority of a country to lead the whole country into a needless war (as if any war was needed). Lebanon should get rid of the Hezbollah organization by any reasonable means, and should choose to elect people who AREN'T radicals. I have no problem with Islamic leadership, or even a theocracy, under the right circumstances...but radicals have no business leading anyone. That goes for every country. Edit: HA! First vote!!

08-07-2006, 11:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mobo123 Insane	Third vote and we are unanimous!!!!

08-08-2006, 11:49 AM	#12 (permalink)
host Banned	roachboy, I've posted documentation that consists of quotes from former (until 1995) chief of U.S. middle east intelligence/analysis at the the U.S. state dept., as well as of former U.S. treasury sec'ty Paul O'Neill. that makes the case that the Bush admin., as early as Jan. 30, 2001, abandoned diplomacy in favor of a "tilt toward Israel", and that Sec'ty Rice was giving the impression of pursuing a cease fire in Lebanon, while her intent was actually to keep that from happening.... indefinetly. Why would you think that your "evidence".....from a report in the Guardian, evidence that amounts to nothing more than an indicator of pre-ordained policy of war, would be any more compelling than my earlier evidence from involved administration "players", who witnessed the official decision making from the inside....that what we are seeing is the result of Israel receiving a "green light" from the new, "one sided" U.S. policy makers? No one commented in reaction to my "evidence", which seems much more persuasive and closer to the foundation of the changes that enable what we see playing out in the M.E. today. Don't expect much reaction to your "stub" from the Guardian. The mindset here is not based on consideration of evidence. It is all about "feelings".

08-08-2006, 07:55 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My first response was messy and vague. Allow me to clairify: -Hezbollah basically acted like a government, sending aid -food and medicine, maintaining houses, hospitals, policing, fighting fires, essentially holding together the infrastructure of Lebanon when the Lebanese government couldn't. For that I commend them. They are not just a terrorist organization. They have done a great deal of good for the people of Lebanon, who have been through hell. - Before the current conflict, the Hezbollah had about a 30% following in Lebanon, based on the best information available. Now, the number is anywhere from 50% to 80% support. This is a massive shift in polularity could become the shift that makes the Hezbollah a perminent part of Lebanese government, as opposed to one part of the whole. I am concerned that instead of becoming the Hezbollah that acts in the best interest of Lebanon, as described above, they will move more into a militaristic stance towards Israel. -Hezbollah is an organization that has repeatedly turned to terrorism in order to get what they want. Whether the cause is just or not...there is simply no excuse. They have decided that they will place their hatred of Israel over the good of Lebanon, and thus are no longer working towards the ultimate goal of any humanitarian organization: peace. This is hardly the first time Israel has gone apeshit on someone, and there was always that risk in attacking them. Israels military could theoritically go toe to toe with the rest of the Middle East and win at the drop of a hat, but one on one, no Arab country stands a chance. Knowing this, Hezbollah continued their terrorist acts. Hezbollah is just as much to blame for the dead in Lebanon as the Israeli government. Because of that, I think that the group should be disbanded from pressure from the Lebanese people. If they are strong enough to come out of that horrible civil war, they are strong enough to sacrafice the Hezbollah for the sake of peace.

08-09-2006, 07:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think the monbiot piece was transparently commentary that lined up evidence about which there is not much dispute and drew conclusions from it. like i said, i posted it here because the question of whether hezbollah "has the right to exist" in lebanon or "has the right" to be integrated into the wider political process in lebanon presupposes (1) a clear undestanding of what hezbollah is (2) some sense of lebanese law (i am not convinced of the interest of posing questions about integration relative to some abstract notion of "western democracy"--which is an empty category, given that democracy is very different in different places and is minimal at best in the united states) and (3) the question posed is self-evidently tied to your view of the present conflict, whcih operates as the main context that shapes views-the article functions to clarify that context---the implication of much rightwing commentary is that hezbollah is some alien force in southern lebanon, a proxy for iran, and not a popular militia....referring to hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" says nothing about it analytically at all, but does function to answer questions like powercown's in advance--so such coherence as there is in the op relies on prior conceptions of hezbollah. as for the use of problematic sources: host did a fine job demolishing the aei shill-site stevo linked---i dont find stevo's "the guardian is a pinko rag" line to be particularly interesting--it certainly is not accurate when it comes to information presented as news--the editorial positions in the guardian do include more left positions than would most american papers--but this is more a commentary on the sorry state of the american press than it is on the guardian. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-09-2006, 08:10 AM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there is no point in continuing this stevo. back to your regularly scheduled programming.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-10-2006, 08:19 AM	#25 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Hezbollah has the right to be in Lebanon just as the Montana Militia has the right to be in the United States. To allow these groups to dictate national policy is the fault of the respective governments unless their policy is one the government endorses.

08-10-2006, 09:58 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	hezbollah is effectively a living expression of the self-defeating character of israeli military policies---left to itself, without israeli actions, i doubt seriously that hezbollah would be a particularly prominent group--but in the context of (repeated) israeli invasions of lebanon hezbollah has taken on considerable importance. the israeli military is the best recruiting tool hezbollah could ask for. right now, for exampe, hezbollah is being seen as a symbol of resistance to israeli actions. i posted the monbiot piece earlier in part to see if debate could be shifted away from the fairly simplistic frame within which it was started, which eliminates all context around the emergence and ongoing nature of hezbollah by eliminating any consideration of the israeli role in creating and maintaining it. you cannot understand what is going on in the region if you begin with pollyanna premises about the role played by the regional military superpower in israel. you cannot understand what is going on if you only think of israel as a fantasy, or of you only consider israel as it presents itself in wartime propaganda (the illusion that the invasion of lebanon is purely defensive, say)..based on this type of fundamental ignorance of the empirical situation, only false questions can be posed, like whether hezbollah "has the right" to exist in lebanon. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-10-2006, 12:10 PM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	powerclown: what is that a relevant question? it is 2006, powerclown: it is obvious that israel exists. there are no threats to it at this level. it is a regional military superpower: no combination of forces is able to pose anything remotely like a threat to its existence. the question is moot. i have no problem at all with the fact of israel. but i oppose the policies of the israeli right. i do not think them rational, nor are they the only alternative. i oppose israel's treatment of the palestinians. i find it continually shocking to see institutionalized racism directed at the palestinians from the israeli military, supported by the israeli right. you would think that, if any population on earth shold understand the horrifying implications of racism, it would be that of israel. many in israel do register this as a problem, and a fundamental problem, ethically and politically. you just do not hear much from these folk in the states. i think the dominant ideological view of the situation in israel that you encounter in the states is totally incoherent. i see nothing legitimate about the collapse of all support of israel, at any level, into an unthinking support for the policies of likud. and i do not see what purpose you imagine is served by asking me that question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite