French loosers defend Hezbullah terrorist leaders

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I agree with Arian

Me too.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Drogue
Surely what a sovereign, democratic nation should be doing is up to the people of that nation. While Hezbollah members are on French soil, it's up to the French whether or not to arrest them, or take any other action against them. End of story. The French aren't defending anyone, though they are allowing them a contraversial platform to speak.

Pretty much what LOTM said.

The french have declared, as far as I know, the military wing of Hezbullah to be a terrorist organization.

I think that the French defense of Hezbullah leaders is atrocious, just like the asylum they gave Khumeini in the 70s. We all know how that went.

[GePap]

The French realize that hizbullah is an integral political player in a coun try they want to maintain a strong influence in. It serves French interests to talk to Hizbullah.

As for the artcile linked to by LoTM, Lebanon's problem is not just the Hariri assassination and attempts to get or prevent the court created by the UN to investigate it.

Lebanon's problem is being a disnfuctional state in which politics is about secetarian and denominational politics dressed up in the flowery language of national unity, and the fact it is surrounded by neighbors who want to use that disnfuction for their own gain.

Any country that can't hold a freaking national census for fear of upsetting one of more groups by revealing the true secterian makeup of the state is not a state that will be stable. And I see no end that that situation.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think that the French defense of Hezbullah leaders is atrocious,

I don't see what defense they're doing. However in trying to broker a peace in Lebanon, you have to include Hezbullah. They're too powerful and well-supported among parts of Lebanese not to. Just like in Northern Ireland Sinn Fein needed to be involved in peace talks despite terrorist activities of the IRA.

While we don't negotiate with terrorists when it comes to individual acts, if the terrorists are supported by many people, in order to get peace you have to involve them. Power-sharing in Lebanon without Hezbollah will cause more violence as that sect of the population goes unrepresented.

The problem, IMHO, is not Hezbollah, or Fatah, or Hamas, or any other terrorist groups, it's that large swathes of their population support them. That's what needs to change.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The French realize that hizbullah is an integral political player in a coun try they want to maintain a strong influence in. It serves French interests to talk to Hizbullah.

As for the artcile linked to by LoTM, Lebanon's problem is not just the Hariri assassination and attempts to get or prevent the court created by the UN to investigate it.

Lebanon's problem is being a disnfuctional state in which politics is about secetarian and denominational politics dressed up in the flowery language of national unity, and the fact it is surrounded by neighbors who want to use that disnfuction for their own gain.

Any country that can't hold a freaking national census for fear of upsetting one of more groups by revealing the true secterian makeup of the state is not a state that will be stable. And I see no end that that situation.

In fact the Lebanese state made tremendous progress since the Taif accords, IIUC, and Hariri was part of that progress. In fact the Maronites no longer were taking the lead in Lebanese politics, but were making broad intersectarian alliances. That process has been opposed by Syria, Iran, and their Lebanese allies, an opposition that culminated in the Hariri assasination.

Lebanon is surrounded by two neighbors, and the sea. One neighbor, Israel, has been harmed by the weakness of the Lebanese state - while Lebanon was at peace and had strong state, Israel had a de facto peace with Lebanon. After the Lebanese state fell apart, the PLO used south Leb as base for attacking Israel, as Hezbollah has done since.

Only one neighbor has an interest in a dysfunctional Leb state, that is the neighbor which has never recognized the legitimacy of Lebanons independence.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

I don't see what defense they're doing. However in trying to broker a peace in Lebanon, you have to include Hezbullah. They're too powerful and well-supported among parts of Lebanese not to. Just like in Northern Ireland Sinn Fein needed to be involved in peace talks despite terrorist activities of the IRA.

While we don't negotiate with terrorists when it comes to individual acts, if the terrorists are supported by many people, in order to get peace you have to involve them. Power-sharing in Lebanon without Hezbollah will cause more violence as that sect of the population goes unrepresented.

The problem, IMHO, is not Hezbollah, or Fatah, or Hamas, or any other terrorist groups, it's that large swathes of their population support them. That's what needs to change.

Part of the reason that Hezbollah has so much support among the Shia of S Lebanon, is that they virtually control the area as a state within a state. And through the conflict with Israel, a conflict they continue to provoke. Its not clear that they would maintain that level of political support if they were disarmed, and could neither use force to maintain local dominance, nor provoke interstate violence.

Its also not the case that they are the only party supported by Leb Shia, though Amal is an ally.

I would also suggest, that if Sein Fein had denied the right of the United Kingdom to exist, the govt of the UK would have been VERY troubled by any third party holding conferences involving Sein Fein.

[TheStinger]

The UK govt was very troubled by the way our supposed No 1 ally the US was the major source of funding for the IRA.

But hey they were freedom fighters wern't they

[MOBIUS]

Just like Hizbollah and Hamas.

[Flhaus]

LOTM's comments make the most sense of any arguement on this forum. I vote he wins.

[MOBIUS]

Why? You have not given any supporting argument as to why you think so - except that he does so in your lofty opinion, which some people round here might consider a rather arrogant tone to take.

[Flhaus]

[Straybow]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The UK govt was very troubled by the way our supposed No 1 ally the US was the major source of funding for the IRA.

But hey they were freedom fighters wern't they

It was and remains illegal in the USA to raise funds for foreign organizations deemed terrorists by the USA. I don't know that individual contributors were ever prosecuted, but iirc fundraising organizations were investigated, shut down, and officers were indicted.