The Middle East Continues...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I consider myself pretty enligthened and don't know about any proof that supports your pow - that is proof that makes sense.

The Hezbollah was created during the Lebanese Civil war, to repel the Israeli invader. At its heart, it is a resistance movement with a strong political message, and a strong religious-ethnical basis (which is unsurprising, considering that the Lebanese civil war was between factions divided both on politics and religion-ethnics)

If you look at Hezbollah from withn Lebanon (which is essential to understand where its local support comes from), you need to see that it has two purposes, which are the main purposes in daily Lebanon:
1. To care for the needs of the Shiite minority. Government intervention is thoroughly lacking in Shiite areas, and the Hezbollah picks up the slack. Many children are literate thanks to hezbollah-sponsored schools. Many lives have been saved thanks to hezbollah-sponsored medicine. Etc.
In short, for many Lebanese Shia, Hezbollah is what made it possible for them to have a dignity. It is unsurprising that they have a staggering support among this articular population.

You might understand this better if you know a bit of Lebanese history: before the civil war, the country was Christian-ruled, by law. And the law didn't adapt to demographic changes. Even though the civil war eventually ended, old habits die hard, and the government intervention is still very unequal, discriminated on religious-ethnical factors. The Shiite are on the wrong end, and that's why Hezbollah's charities and social programs are essential to a functioning Shiite society.

2. The second main role of the Hezbollah is to defend against Israel. Just as the government is useless to develop the Shiite society, it is useless to defend them as well. This conflict has shown it quite clearly: while the government could only whine about the Israeli attack and then invasion, those who actually fought back are Hezbollah. For example, there's a scandal right now about a Lebanese-army general who was taped having a pleasant chat with the Israeli officer who besieged his barracks. Considering that the Israelis were destroying the country and killing fellow Lebanese at the same time, this tape further shows the population who fights, and who caves.


If you do not understand this, you cannot understand that the Lebanese Shiite owe their dignity to Hezbollah. And your understanding of the Hezbollah will be dastardly limited.

[RGBVideo]

VJ, why don't you dare to make your own point of view ? Why do you need to suck up to GP and kiss his ass ?

You miss the point of my reply entirely: Why do you post if you have nothing to say?

[BlackCat]

Thanks Spiff - I'm quite aware of the history of Lebanon and the reasons for the existance of hizb, but one thing is the historical reasons, another is the current situation.

Please explain to me the reason to stockpile 13.000 rockets to get back those farms. An area that I guess that none of the parties actually has a clear view about the legalities.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by VJ

You miss the point of my reply entirely: Why do you post if you have nothing to say?

What the fck are you doing here ? If there is someone that doesn't have anything to say, then it is you.

Express your opininon or stfu.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Please explain to me the reason to stockpile 13.000 rockets to get back those farms. An area that I guess that none of the parties actually has a clear view about the legalities.

That's very simple.

Hezbollah de facto controls the border-region with Israel. Hezbollah hates Israel, and Hezbollah has the balls to actually fight. As a result, Hezbollah can only be an asset to the enemies of Israel. Just like the autonomous Kurds were an asset to the US against Saddam. Just like the UCK was an asset of NATO against Serbia.

It is thus unsurprising that foreign powers would arm Hezbollah. Hezbollah benefits from it, as it contributes to make them a military to be reckoned with. The Lebanese army can do nothing against them, and even the Israeli army couldn't destroy them either. They can both fill their role of defenders of Lebanon, and they can bully the Lebanese government into doing nothing against them.

In turn, a heavily-armed Hezbollah is very positive to the foreign powers in question, because it contributes to their deterrance against the Israeli menace.

The Shebaa farms are an excuse, on the same par as taking back the two captured Israeli soldiers. I even wonder why you mention them


As you can see, the reason why Hezbollah is heavily armed is quite different from "they only aim to destroy Israel".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Hezbollah was created during the Lebanese Civil war, to repel the Israeli invader. At its heart, it is a resistance movement with a strong political message, and a strong religious-ethnical basis (which is unsurprising, considering that the Lebanese civil war was between factions divided both on politics and religion-ethnics)

If you look at Hezbollah from withn Lebanon (which is essential to understand where its local support comes from), you need to see that it has two purposes, which are the main purposes in daily Lebanon:
1. To care for the needs of the Shiite minority. Government intervention is thoroughly lacking in Shiite areas, and the Hezbollah picks up the slack. Many children are literate thanks to hezbollah-sponsored schools. Many lives have been saved thanks to hezbollah-sponsored medicine. Etc.
In short, for many Lebanese Shia, Hezbollah is what made it possible for them to have a dignity. It is unsurprising that they have a staggering support among this articular population.

You might understand this better if you know a bit of Lebanese history: before the civil war, the country was Christian-ruled, by law. And the law didn't adapt to demographic changes. Even though the civil war eventually ended, old habits die hard, and the government intervention is still very unequal, discriminated on religious-ethnical factors. The Shiite are on the wrong end, and that's why Hezbollah's charities and social programs are essential to a functioning Shiite society.

2. The second main role of the Hezbollah is to defend against Israel. Just as the government is useless to develop the Shiite society, it is useless to defend them as well. This conflict has shown it quite clearly: while the government could only whine about the Israeli attack and then invasion, those who actually fought back are Hezbollah. For example, there's a scandal right now about a Lebanese-army general who was taped having a pleasant chat with the Israeli officer who besieged his barracks. Considering that the Israelis were destroying the country and killing fellow Lebanese at the same time, this tape further shows the population who fights, and who caves.


If you do not understand this, you cannot understand that the Lebanese Shiite owe their dignity to Hezbollah. And your understanding of the Hezbollah will be dastardly limited.

To where is their resistence limited?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


As part of a comperehensive peace deal? YES.

Punishment is not a goal in and of itself. Its is a means. A comprehensive peace deal is far more valuable to a society than keeping prisoners in your own prisons.

I would not be stupid or vulgar enough to perpetuate general insecurity of the population as a whole to satisfy some atavistic desire for "punishment."

What about a desire for justice?

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

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about a desire for justice?

The definition of "justice" is extremely different, depending on which side you're on.

I remeber having said that I was pro-peace in a group of pro-Palestinians, and that as such the Pals had to accept some things to reach a workable agreement with the Israelis (such as accepting that Israel will encompass many of its near-border settlements, and accepting that the refugees aren't gonna return to Israel).
I was shunned, because these pro-Palestinians didn't merely want peace. They also wanted justice, which in their mind obviously means Israel losing all of the fruits it had ill-gotten from its offenses for decades.

Edit:

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

Remove the "non-governmental", and you have a sentence that was said by the same pro-Palestinians. Everything Israel had taken since 1967, it took by force, and it should give it all back, lest we encourage the use of force to reach one's goals.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's very simple.

Hezbollah de facto controls the border-region with Israel. Hezbollah hates Israel, and Hezbollah has the balls to actually fight. As a result, Hezbollah can only be an asset to the enemies of Israel. Just like the autonomous Kurds were an asset to the US against Saddam. Just like the UCK was an asset of NATO against Serbia.

It is thus unsurprising that foreign powers would arm Hezbollah. Hezbollah benefits from it, as it contributes to make them a military to be reckoned with. The Lebanese army can do nothing against them, and even the Israeli army couldn't destroy them either. They can both fill their role of defenders of Lebanon, and they can bully the Lebanese government into doing nothing against them.

In turn, a heavily-armed Hezbollah is very positive to the foreign powers in question, because it contributes to their deterrance against the Israeli menace.

The Shebaa farms are an excuse, on the same par as taking back the two captured Israeli soldiers. I even wonder why you mention them


As you can see, the reason why Hezbollah is heavily armed is quite different from "they only aim to destroy Israel".

Minor correction - I haven't mentioned the two kidnapped soldiers - Guess a minor typing problem on your side


Besides that, I quite agree with you on most points. Hisb has become a tool of several "interessents" wich has armed them, but that really doesn't change the fact that their goal isn't any longer some "heroic" protection of lebanon. That has never been nessecary and isn't neither now. If that really had been their reason, then syria wouldhave felt their heat.

Where I disagree is about armament versus israel. Hizb for certain didn't need their current capability to maintain their control of southern lebanon. Their capability isn't in any way defensive - it's quite offensive despite it's lack of precision.

[RGBVideo]

Remove the "non-governmental", and you have a sentence that was said by the same pro-Palestinians.

That doesn't really surprise nye and make him reconsider his argument, since the whole point of the sentence lies in the word "non-governmental". Read it again and think about it: governments forming armies if they want to: ok. "Non-governmental organisations", ie. people who want to form armies forming armies if they want to: err ok ya think?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by VJ

That doesn't really surprise nye and make him reconsider his argument, since the whole point of the sentence lies in the word "non-governmental". Read it again and think about it: governments forming armies if they want to: ok. "Non-governmental organisations", ie. people who want to form armies forming armies if they want to: err ok ya think?

Yup, any dictator that is a member of UN would certainly be pissed off if the people dared to do such a thing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Minor correction - I haven't mentioned the two kidnapped soldiers - Guess a minor typing problem on your side

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

Besides that, I quite agree with you on most points. Hisb has become a tool of several "interessents" wich has armed them, but that really doesn't change the fact that their goal isn't any longer some "heroic" protection of lebanon. That has never been nessecary and isn't neither now. If that really had been their reason, then syria wouldhave felt their heat.

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.

Where I disagree is about armament versus israel. Hizb for certain didn't need their current capability to maintain their control of southern lebanon. Their capability isn't in any way defensive - it's quite offensive despite it's lack of precision.

"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?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The definition of "justice" is extremely different, depending on which side you're on.

I remeber having said that I was pro-peace in a group of pro-Palestinians, and that as such the Pals had to accept some things to reach a workable agreement with the Israelis (such as accepting that Israel will encompass many of its near-border settlements, and accepting that the refugees aren't gonna return to Israel).
I was shunned, because these pro-Palestinians didn't merely want peace. They also wanted justice, which in their mind obviously means Israel losing all of the fruits it had ill-gotten from its offenses for decades.

Edit:

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

Remove the "non-governmental", and you have a sentence that was said by the same pro-Palestinians. Everything Israel had taken since 1967, it took by force, and it should give it all back, lest we encourage the use of force to reach one's goals.

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

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.

Edit:

Originally posted by VJ

That doesn't really surprise nye and make him reconsider his argument, since the whole point of the sentence lies in the word "non-governmental". Read it again and think about it: governments forming armies if they want to: ok. "Non-governmental organisations", ie. people who want to form armies forming armies if they want to: err ok ya think?

Yup.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
That doesn't really surprise nye and make him reconsider his argument, since the whole point of the sentence lies in the word "non-governmental". Read it again and think about it: governments forming armies if they want to: ok. "Non-governmental organisations", ie. people who want to form armies forming armies if they want to: err ok ya think?

I know that full well.

I still don't understand my strange compulsion of wanting to reason with NYE...

[notyoueither]

You think NGO's arming themselves and attacking other people and other states is 'reasonable'?