The Middle East Continues...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Extorsion, Spiff. I don't think we wanna get into which country threw the first stone.

Agreed. I think those debates are the most pointless ones I ever underwent.

As for 'justice' or 'punishment', yes it can be debated. That was my point. It isn't as cut and dried as GePap would appear to want it to be.

Oh, ok. I thought you actually wanted "justice", which has been the most consistent fuel of hatred and war in the area for the past 60 years IMO.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You think NGO's arming themselves and attacking other people and other states is 'reasonable'?

No, but neither are agressive governments.

When an organization reaches its goals by force and extorsion, it is going to be resented, whether the organization is governmental or not.
Now, one might agree with these goals (or benefit from them), and will thus be supportive of the organizations, whether they're governmental or not.

Their status as governmental entities contributes little (if at all) to their legitimacy.

And as you might have gathered since we've been OT-ing together, I tend to be against the use of force. And I'm not the kind to whitewash any side that abuses force, whether it's governmental or not.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, bad wording. I meant I wondered why you mentioned the Shebaa farms.

That should be the only "legal" reason to fight israel since it's the only potential lebanese soil that israel is on.

Syria was quite cool with Hezbollah, which remained the de-facto power in the Shiite areas. Things could have been different if Hezbollah had been Lebanese-nationalist (and thus at odds with Syria), but it isn't. It's Shiite-nationalist.

I quite agree - syria was probably very satisfied by having control of central and northern lebanon and leave the "problematic " south to hisb. (problematic in the sense that it boardered israel)

"Best defense is offense".
I recall that most pro-Israelis argued that Israel had the "right to defend itself" while it exerted its offensive might on Lebanon.
I don't remember having seen you oppose Israel "defending itself" by attacking a neighbouring territory. I can only suppose that you feel Israel has used valid tactics to defend its territory. Why then do you hold double standards for the Hezbollah?

In my pow, then the israelis doesn't have any interest in attacking lebanon except for one thing - and that is hizb because they attack israel. Hizb on the other side claims that they are only defending lebanon and they only fight against israeli attacks.

[solvingworldproblems]
If I ever get around your place, then what about sort this thing out over several beers ? You are of course also welcome if you should come to Copenhagen
[/solvingworldproblems]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No, but neither are agressive governments.

When an organization reaches its goals by force and extorsion, it is going to be resented, whether the organization is governmental or not.
Now, one might agree with these goals (or benefit from them), and will thus be supportive of the organizations, whether they're governmental or not.

Their status as governmental entities contributes little (if at all) to their legitimacy.

And as you might have gathered since we've been OT-ing together, I tend to be against the use of force. And I'm not the kind to whitewash any side that abuses force, whether it's governmental or not.

I grant that you are more pacifistic than I, and I can agree that we disagree. It's better than jumping down random rabbit holes chasing red herrings.

I am speaking of what states do, and I do think a state is much more legitimate than any NGO when it comes to the use of force.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That should be the only "legal" reason to fight israel since it's the only potential lebanese soil that israel is on.

... but then, Labanese soil isn't the end of it for Hebollah, is it?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither


... but then, Labanese soil isn't the end of it for Hebollah, is it?

That is the common theory amongst GePap et al.

[notyoueither]

Perhaps GePap can tear his eyes away from his research and read more obscure sources, like the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Thursday, 4 April, 2002, 11:04 GMT 12:04 UK
Who are Hezbollah?

By Kathryn Westcott
BBC News Online

Hezbollah - or Party of God - emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s and became the region's leading radical Islamic movement, determined to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon.

In May 2000 - due partly to the success of the party's military arm - one of its main aims was achieved. Israel's battered and bruised army was forced to end its two-decade occupation of the south.

Hezbollah now serves as an inspiration to Palestinian factions fighting to liberate occupied territory.

The party, in turn, has embraced the Palestinian cause and has said publicly that it is ready to open a second front against Israel in support of the intifada.

Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution, the party also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-confessional state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Although this idea was abandoned and the party today is a well-structured political organisation with members of parliament.

Terror

Hezbollah's political rhetoric has centred on calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Its definition of Israeli occupation has also encompassed the idea that the whole of Palestine is occupied Muslim land and it has argued that Israel has no right to exist.

The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.

In its early days, Hezbollah was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.

As Hezbollah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets in southern Lebanon, its military aid from Iran increased.

The movement also adopted the tactic of taking Western hostages, through a number of freelance hostage taking cells: The Revolutionary Justice Organisation and the Organisation of the Oppressed Earth, which seized Terry Waite.

For many years, Hezbollah was synonymous with terror, suicide bombings and kidnappings. In 1983, militants who went on to join Hezbollah ranks carried out a suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut.

Passionate and demanding

The party has operated with neighbouring Syria's blessing - with the guerrilla war against being a card for Damascus to play in its own confrontation with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights.

Over the two decades, Hezbollah evolved into a movement with thousands of trained guerrillas, members of parliament and a dynamic welfare programme benefiting thousands of Lebanese.

It was passionate, demanding of its members and devoted to furthering an Islamic way of life.

In the early days, its leaders imposed strict codes of Islamic behaviour on towns and villages in the south - a move that was not universally popular with the region's citizens.

But, despite the early history of coercion, the party emphasises that its Islamic vision should not be interpreted as an intention to impose an Islamic society on the Lebanese.

Political moves

In recent years, Hezbollah has won considerable backing within Lebanon. Its social services programme was popular with the Shia community.

The group's successful hit-and-run guerrilla war on Israel's much-vaunted army assured it some support and a lot or respect from other religious communities.

While, the US listed the group as a terrorist organisation, the government in Beirut declared it a national resistance movement.

Its popularity with the Shia community - which makes up almost 40% of Lebanon's three million people - was confirmed in the 1992 parliamentary elections when Hezbollah led a successful campaign and won eight seats in parliament.

But it is not popular with all of Lebanon's different communities - the Christians, for example, have accuse it of trying to destabilise the country.

[GePap]

at NYE. Cute, but yes, I do use better sources than basic BBC stories.

Keep trying though, maybe one day you will make a point worth looking at.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
[solvingworldproblems]
If I ever get around your place, then what about sort this thing out over several beers ? You are of course also welcome if you should come to Copenhagen
[/solvingworldproblems]

With pleasure, you can always count on me for a beer

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What about a desire for justice?

Justice is a relative term, which changes with time and place. It is certainly not more important or worthy than security and peace.

What about not wanting to encourage non-governmental organisations using force to obtain their goals?

What grants states greater legitimacy than NGO's to use force? That if anything is one of the problems in the ME, the general illegitimacy of states in the ME (including Israel, for half the people who live in the old Mandate of Palestine [I include the 1 million Palestians with Israeli citizenship in that accounting])

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
at NYE. Cute, but yes, I do use better sources than basic BBC stories.

Keep trying though, maybe one day you will make a point worth looking at.

Keep looking, and maybe you'll stop ignoring half the relevant facts, the inconvenient ones, when discussing a topic.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Justice is a relative term, which changes with time and place. It is certainly not more important or worthy than security and peace.

For you, perhaps. Others might not agree with your accounting of importance.

What grants states greater legitimacy than NGO's to use force? That if anything is one of the problems in the ME, the general illegitimacy of states in the ME (including Israel, for half the people who live in the old Mandate of Palestine [I include the 1 million Palestians with Israeli citizenship in that accounting])

Are you really asking this?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I am speaking of what states do, and I do think a state is much more legitimate than any NGO when it comes to the use of force.

I don't know. I history, we've seen plenty of abuse coming from government, and the only obstacle were militias. Heck, in the US, the right to arm oneself is strongly related to that idea (that force should be used by the population against the government, if need arises)

Say, If you had to choose between the autonomous Kurdish militias, and Saddam's forces, who would you think is more legitimate?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not equating the IDF with Saddam's forces. Thankfully. However, there has been enough abuse done by governments for me not to think that a governmental army has systematically more legitimacy over an armed NGO.
Especially when the state in question attacks a neighbour, or a part of its population.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Keep looking, and maybe you'll stop ignoring half the relevant facts, the inconvenient ones, when discussing a topic.

We discussed this in the previous ME thread. Given your ability to ignore facts until its ridiculous (lets recall the Iraqi WMD issue), at this point I should not even try.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


For you, perhaps. Others might not agree with your accounting of importance.

Fine for them. Let them prove or argue their point.

Are you really asking this?

Yes.

Being a state does not inherently grant legitimacy.