Middle East Continued Again...

[Ramo]

There's even a Jewish mp in the Iranian parliament.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I was quoting Hezbollah.

1. You stated that Iran was an example of this genocidal urge.
2. Iran and Hizbullah has very similar positions on the issue.

3. What you continue to fail to realize is that calling for the end of the "Zionist entity" is not the same as calling for genocide of the Jews, because again, the end of a state is not the same as the end of a people. The Polish state was destroyed in the 1780's and 1790's. That did not lead to the end of the POlish people.

Need still more common sense beaten into you?

[Ramo]

An interesting article I've come across:

Even Christians back Hizbollah!

By Hamid Mir

BEIRUT: Hamra Street in west Beirut was once famous for its nightclubs. Today, these clubs are virtually deserted. My hotel is located close to this once-bustling street. The other night, after hearing the sound of heavy Israeli bombardment I decided, like many other journalists, to come out of the hotel. It was 1.30am. Despite the eerie silence and overall gloom, west Beirut looked extremely beautiful.

While strolling through the area with some fellow journalists, I ended up on Hamra Street where I noticed that one nightclub had its lights on. Astonished, we decided to go inside, where we found a man with his head down reading Robert Fisk’s ‘Pity the Nation’. When asked what he was doing alone so late at night in the nightclub, the middle-aged man looked at us with great suspicion. He asked us to identify ourselves and when we told him we were journalists he immediately relaxed.

He told us that he was waiting for two women from south Lebanon who work in his nightclub. They had left for Tyre that morning to evacuate their families and bring them to Beirut. When they arrive with their families, he said, he would take them to a Christian school nearby where a refugee camp has been set up. The man was named Basheer and had a cross dangling from his neck. I asked him about his Muslim name, to which he smiled and replied that Christians in Lebanon are often named Basheer. A former Lebanese president, Basheer Jamail, who was killed in a bomb attack in 1982, was also a Christian.

I asked Basheer what he felt about Hizbollah. Without a moment’s hesitation he said: “ Hizbollah is defending Lebanon. A large number of Christians, like myself, are its supporters.” His reply stunned me. Here we were in Hamra Street where a Christian nightclub manager was openly supporting Hizbollah’s resistance against Israel! A French journalist asked Basheer whether he knew that Al-Qaeda leader Aiman al-Zawahiri had also supported Hizbollah and whether that made him have second thoughts. He replied: “ I don’t know what Zawahiri’s motives are. But I do know that if the Israelis reach Beirut their bullets will not differentiate between Sunnis, Shias, Christians or the Druze.” He pointed out that the Israeli bombing of West Beirut in 1982 had destroyed a number of churches and that the honour of not only Muslim but many Christian women was also violated by the Israeli army. “ Only Hizbollah can stop Israel.”

Basheer pointed out that only Hizbollah has succeeded in defeating Israel. Today, six years later, Israel is still licking its wounds over its humiliation in South Lebanon. He said that perhaps Sheikh Hassan Nasarallah would intensely dislike his (Basheer’s) profession. “Maybe he might not even trust me because of my religion. But if I want to live in Lebanon I fervently believe that only he can provide us security.” The French journalist said that because of Hizbollah, South Lebanon is in ruins and asked what Hizbollah has given Beirut apart from destruction. Basheer replied with more than a trace of bitterness: “ You European Christians are responsible for many of the problems facing Arab Christians. The US and Europe want us to become your agents and allies. In 1982 we did just that. But when the US and French forces left, we were at the mercy of Hizbollah. They did not persecute us, that is why we are with Hizbollah.”

Basheer’s words were corroborated by a survey published on July 29 in the Daily Star, Beirut’s only English language newspaper. The paper printed a survey conducted by the Beirut Centre for Research and Information which reveals that 86.9 per cent of Lebanese support Hizbollah’s resistance against Israel. Hizbollah’s actions have the support of 96.3 per cent of Shias, 79.5 per cent of Druze, 80.3 per cent of Christians and 88.9 per cent of Sunnis. On the question of Hizbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers, 96.3 per cent of Shias supported the move, while 40 per cent of Druze, 54 per cent Christians, and 73.1 per cent of Sunnis approved.

On the US recent role in the Middle East, all communities showed their disapproval. A staggering 94 per cent of Shias viewed the US role negatively, while 88 per cent of the Druze, 85 per cent Christians and 91.7 per cent of Sunnis also reacted negatively. This survey was conducted only in Beirut and reflects the capital’s feelings accurately. Even though the Israelis have made a distinction between the largely Shia south and the Christian west, most Christians and Druze in the west of the capital do not consider Israel their friend.

Some observers have claimed that after the present strife, a large proportion of Lebanese Christians will abandon the country. They point to the fact that western embassies are readily issuing visas to this community and predict that after the ceasefire the number of Christians in Lebanon will sharply fall. The ones who remain, it is said, will hang on to their identity but will seek protection from Hizbollah and be dependent on their goodwill.

After spending ten days in the country, it is apparent that Hizbollah’s real strength lies in its welfare activities among ordinary people. The group’s hospitals are not solely for the Shia population but are open to Sunnis, Christians and Druze alike. The party can be described as a combination of democracy, Jihad and Ijtehad. Hizbollah made a lot of mistakes in its early years. It waged an armed struggle against the Shia Tehrik-i-Amal and Palestinian refugees. The beneficiary of such actions was always Israel.

That is why Hassan Nasrallah in more recent years has focused his attention on Shia-Sunni unity and on conciliation with the Christians.

The results of these actions are now there for all to see in Lebanon. On Saturday morning, Israeli jets attacked and destroyed a car belonging to a Hizbollah leader in the southern Beirut area of Al-Dahiya. When I got there with my cameraman, I heard patriotic music blaring from a Hizbollah truck and people distributing sweets to the assembled crowd. We learnt that they were celebrating the retreat of the Israeli army from a south Lebanon village of Bint Jabal.

On our way back near Sabra, I saw some Hizbollah men distributing sweets in front of a church. A Christian nun, while eating the sweets, had raised her right hand in jubilation and was making a victory sign with her fingers.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=2257

[Ramo]

On Qana:

Qana strike: civilians in the line of fire
By Mark Perry, Conflicts Forum, July 30, 2006

The claim that Israel is somehow indifferent to the deaths of innocents in Lebanon -- and Israel's own claim that Hezbollah uses human shields to mask its operations -- are both superficial explanations of a much more complex political problem. According to both Israeli and American defense experts, the Qana tragedy is the direct result of the failure of the U.S. and Israel to provide a political resolution to the current crisis.

There is little question that, eighteen days after Israel's ferocious military response to the abduction of two of its soldiers and the killing of eight others, the IDF has yet to show that it is capable of decisively defeating Hezbollah in open battle or significantly degrading Hezbollah's military capacity. As a result, IDF senior officers have stridently argued that Hezbollah infrastructure strong points and marshalling stations not yet included in IAF strike packages because of their proximity to civilian concentrations be "put on the table."

Over the last 48 hours, and in the run-up to Condoleezza Rice's return to the region, pressures have mounted inside Ehud Olmert's cabinet to expand the IAF's target list to include these marginal sites, despite their proximity to high concentrations of Lebanese civilians. The calculation of the IDF's senior command, and the argument they used with Olmert, was that while expanding the target list might lead to increased civilian deaths in Lebanon the prospective military gains from successfully degrading these high value but high-cost targets was too good to ignore.

Olmert and his defense minister hesitantly gave permission to expand the target list on Friday afternoon, I have been told. Included on the target list were Hezbollah command and control centers in Tyre and in the string of towns south and east of that city. Striking these sites, it was thought, would have a decisive political -- and not just military -- impact, by degrading Hezbollah's missile capacity. Significantly bringing down the actual numbers of rockets launched against Israel would allow the U.S. and Israel to declare that the current operation was a success, thereby establishing the ground from which the U.S. could argue that the "terrorist threat" from Lebanon had been defeated. Bringing down the number of rocket strikes on Israel would also allow the IDF to claim a victory in its campaign -- an absolute necessity given the current Israeli political environment.

Reports from the ground in Lebanon confirm that the IAF has expanded its target envelope, hitting sites that were considered off limits just 48 hours previously. Unfortunately, as nearly every military expert knows, precision weapons are not that precise -- and a miscue of even ten meters can make a huge difference. This is what happened at Qana. Nor, it seems, do IDF officers take seriously the more graphic defense of IAF targeting, as justified because Hezbollah uses human shields. Israel also co-locates many of its basing operations in cities and amongst the civilian population -- simply because of the ease of logistics operations that such co-locations necessitate. "The human shield argument just doesn't wash and we know it," an IDF commander says. "We don't expect Hezbollah to deploy in the open with a sign that says 'here we are.'"

http://warincontext.org/2006_07_30_archive.html#115427724625757041

[Elok]

Hmm, we'll be starting yet another thread soon. Has the argument gone anywhere at all?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Hmm, we'll be starting yet another thread soon. Has the argument gone anywhere at all?

NO. Does it ever?

To finish off the thread (sort off)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=74419

3 prerequisites for an effective international force

By Augustus Richard Norton
Commentary by
Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Civilian deaths in Israel's war in Lebanon now exceed 700, including about 60 victims in Qana and 18 Israeli civilians killed by Hizbullah rockets. By comparison, the six-year period between Israel's unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000 until the Hizbullah operation of last July 12 was more or less placid. During that earlier period, half a dozen civilians succumbed to Hizbullah weapons, and only a few more Lebanese civilians were killed by hostile action.

The rules of the game were well understood by Israel and Hizbullah. As Israeli analyst Daniel Sobelman wrote in 2004: "[T]he sides have abided by these ground rules, prudently avoiding disproportionate moves. Infrequently, when one party identifies an apparent imbalance, steps are quickly taken to re-impose the status quo ante. This dynamic has become one of the most important stabilizing features in the border landscape."

Contrary to superheated commentary in the United States and Israel, which often blurs the lines between the occupied Golan Heights and Israel, there were few attacks on Israeli civilians across the Lebanese border, and only about six on Israeli soldiers deployed in Israel, some of which were in retaliation for Israeli-caused deaths in Lebanon. This is important to recognize because it illustrates that the task of maintaining stability across this hostile border is not impossible.

Israel's over-the-top reaction to Hizbullah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers has more to do with settling scores with the party and eradicating an Iranian proxy than with the level of violence coming from Lebanon. Hizbullah provided a handy pretext, much as the attempted assassination of Ambassador Shlomo Argov by a sworn foe of Yasser Arafat provided a pretext for the launching of Israel's 1982 war in Lebanon to topple the Palestine Liberation Organization and install a puppet regime in Beirut.

Israel was given a green light for its latest war by the Bush administration, which found the opportunity to decimate Hizbullah and signal to Iran that "you may be next" too delicious to pass up. It is still early for a requiem, but it is clear that Israel's failure to deliver on its early promises of a decisive victory has left the White House discomfited and compelled to recognize, finally, that Israel's campaign is turning into a disaster in which time is working against success.

While it is noteworthy that the US is now working with greater seriousness toward an enduring cease-fire, there are significant issues to be resolved concerning the contemplated international force that is intended to stabilize South Lebanon and create a buffer zone there.

Under the right circumstances, it is certainly possible that an international force would help to restore calm in the border area, but this is one of those ideas that may sound more impressive at a press conference than on the ground. Aside from the practical problem of convincing skeptical states to send contingents to Lebanon, there is a substantial question that first needs to be answered: What would the mandate of the force be?

Will it be tasked to disarm Hizbullah? Will it use lethal force to prevent attacks on Israel, and will it protect Lebanese sovereign territory from Israeli incursions? How would the force respond to Israeli projects to impose a depopulated security strip inside Lebanese territory? Will the force be complicit in preventing Lebanese from returning to their homes, which may have been flattened and which occupants will want to rebuild? In addition, how will the new force complement or replace the present United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon? There is a bountiful minefield awaiting the "crisis force," especially if it lacks the mandate and determination to serve the core concerns of both Israelis and Lebanese.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb

In Israel and the US there is a callous disregard for the fact that residents of South Lebanon have good cause to worry about their security and safety. In the past three decades, some 20,000 Lebanese civilians have died at Israel's hands, most in the invasion of 1982. It is hard to find a family in Southern Lebanon that has been immune from the violence, a factor that significantly explains the popularity of Hizbullah. Any stable solution must take account of the security deficit afflicting the South.

Most of the attacks led by Hizbullah prior to July 2006 spared civilians and were directed at Israeli targets in the occupied Golan Heights, or border posts abutting Lebanon. Even so, Israelis living in the Galilee confront a non-trivial threat from a hostile group pledged to Israel's destruction. Especially after some 2,400 rockets fell on Israel in July, it is preposterous to think that the Israeli government would accept a solution that leaves Hizbullah lurking just across the border. Israelis need to be persuaded that the party's ability to act independently of the Lebanese state has been significantly curtailed.

In order to reconcile these dilemmas three conditions are essential. First, Hizbullah should be prevented from acting independently of the Lebanese state, especially for decisions of war and peace. Of course, the party is comprised of Lebanese citizens who see in it and its resistance wing both an effective political party and a stalwart defense force against Israel. The notion that Hizbullah can be disassembled - still popular in some Washington offices - is not serious. Thus, there must be a plan for bringing the resistance wing of the party under government control in conjunction with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559.

It is in Lebanon's interest to sustain a capacity for deterring Israel. Therefore, the resistance component of Hizbullah would be subsumed by the Lebanese Army, which is far more professional than is commonly understood. Several respected generals (representing several religious communities) are from the South, and they could be prime candidates to play a key role in the absorption of the resistance.

Second, Israel's scheme to flatten border villages - there are dozens of these lying only a few kilometers or less from the border - only provides instigation for organized efforts to destroy the buffer zone and for people to return to and rebuild their villages. Israel's plan is a sure recipe for further violence and needs to be expressly condemned in the Security Council resolutions now being drafted

Third, unless the international force pays as much attention to protecting the sovereign territory of Lebanon as it does to meeting Israel's security concerns, the force risks being seen as a mere extension of American and Israeli hegemonic ambitions. Only if the force is robust in its capability and fair-minded in practice will it avoid becoming part of the problem.

Much depends right now on the commitment of the belligerents to restoring stability and calm to the South, as well as on the behavior of mentors like the US, Iran and Syria. I have no doubt that the repercussions from this war will reverberate in Lebanon and in Israel, and across the Middle East in ways that that cause chagrin and regret on all sides, notwithstanding halcyon rhetoric from this or that house.

Augustus Richard Norton is a professor of international relations at Boston University. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.