So here's the deal. Israel claims that Syria is giving Hezbollah Scud missiles that can hit pretty much all of Israel. And the State Department is very concerned -- concerned about the safety of Lebanon.Goldberg points out that looking at the full transcript of the daily press briefing does not make you feel any more assured that the US is concerned about Israel's security:
American and French officials have both said that they were aware of the Israeli concerns but did not know whether the missiles had actually been delivered. “If such an action has been taken, and we continue to analyze this issue,” the State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said on Wednesday, “clearly it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk.” [emphasis added]Now I have considerable sympathy for Lebanon. And obviously it would get caught in the crossfire since Hezbollah is based there and, if the claims are true, the Scuds would be launched from Lebanese soil. But this is the State Department's first concern?
QUESTION: Yeah, on the Middle East. Again, these reports about the Syrians moving Scud missiles into southern Lebanon and are giving them to Hezbollah have emerged. Senator McCain raised the issue at the hearing on Iran this morning and Under Secretary of Defense Flournoy said that the U.S. is very concerned by these reports. Do you have anything to add to that? And – well, that’s the end of the question.Finally, someone in the press finally recalls that Israel is in the area:
MR. CROWLEY: We are concerned about it. And if such an action has been taken – and we continue to analyze this issue – it would represent a failure by the parties in the region to honor UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And clearly, it potentially puts Lebanon at significant risk. We have been concerned enough that in recent weeks, during one of our regular meetings with the Syrian ambassador here in Washington, that we’ve raised the issue with the Syrian Government and continue to study the issue. But obviously, it’s something of great concern to us.
QUESTION: Well, the Syrians deny that they have any – (a) that this is happening, but (b) that they have anything to do with it. Do you accept that denial?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s – I mean, there’s a broader issue here. Regardless of the issue of Scuds, we are – we remain concerned about the provision of increasingly sophisticated weaponry to parties in – to Hezbollah. And this is an issue that we continue to raise with Syria, other parties in the region. And this is a clear threat to Lebanon’s security.
QUESTION: But you don’t – you’re not afraid that this could jeopardize Israel’s security? I mean, you’re talking about Lebanon.Pity that someone had to drag this 'admission' out of Mr. Crowley--and even then, Israel is only one of the countries that would be threatened by Hezbollah. No mention, though, of what those other countries are that Hezbollah has been threatening to attack.
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it’s a clear risk to a number of countries in the region, given the range – and again, I’m not confirming anything.
QUESTION: Well, and given the mission of Hezbollah, right?
MR. CROWLEY: But given the range of those particular systems, if that report proved to be true, that would be a threat to a number of countries in the region, including Israel.
This from the US, which is promising to.guarantee Israel's security--how does the US plan to do that when it apparently does not know who Israel's enemies are?
Technorati Tag: Israel and Lebanon and Hezbollah.
26 comments:
yes Lebanon. Because we saw what happened to Lebanon (and its civilian infrastrucute) few yrs ago.
This is pure stupidity the Lebanese government has declared months ago that it will no disarm Hezbollah and since Hezbollah is also active in the government coalition with a veto on every decision that is made by the Lebanese government this clearly a Threat by the Lebanese on Israel since no other country is enemy to Lebanon.
Only good thing about the current situation is that in any future conflict Israels knows now that its fighting against a country and not a rogue suicidal group and countries can be defeated!!!
Yes, countries can be defeated--but historically, in the wars that Israel has fought against the Arab countries, when has the West ever allowed Israel to actually defeat an Arab country that has attacked it?
Lebanon is currently not permitted to defend itself. This power vacuum is filled by Israeli aggression (not just 2006 but daily jet fighter violations of Lebanon's border) and by Hezbollah's private army.
If Lebanon's security were guaranteed, this unhealthy situation would be improved for everyone. Hezbollah would have less reason to seek offensive arms, Israel would have less reason to pressure Lebanon, troublemakers would have fewer opportunities to work their mischief. Regional security would be enhanced.
The idea that to protect Israel the US has to sacrifice the security of its neighbors is exactly backwards. Security is a common good.
Lebanon is currently not permitted to defend itself.
That by itself is a loaded statement--just who is preventing it?
If you agree it is Hizbollah, then the following sentence ("This power vacuum is filled by Israeli aggression") makes no sense.
So who?
daily jet fighter violations of Lebanon's border
Daily?
And just why do you think Israel has concerns about Lebanon to begin with, considering UNIFIL's record.
) and by Hezbollah's private army.
Hezbollah would have less reason to seek offensive arms
So Hizbollah's position is purely defensive?
And just how do you see Hizbollah's relationship with Iran?
The idea that to protect Israel the US has to sacrifice the security of its neighbors is exactly backwards.
It is also non-existent.
William deB. Mills is actually right. Sure, Hizbollah's position is defensive in the first place. Even Lebanese president knows that Lebanon needs Hezbollah to defend the country and it did in the last war with Israel.
Even Lebanese president knows that Lebanon needs Hezbollah to defend the country and it did in the last war with Israel.
Besides the Lebanese president, I'm sure all of Lebanon is grateful to Hizbollah for defending them against the war that they instigated.
And I'm sure they appreciate it even more that Hizbollah has to grab more and more control in order to continue to defend Lebanon.
Impeccable logic!
Oh please. First of all, if there had been no 1982 Israeli invasion, there would be no Hezbollah today. Secondly, Lebanese president don't love Hezbollah, but he's a realist and he simply knows the country needs it. Thirdly, Israel has continued to violate Lebanese sovereignty so Lebanon still needs Hezbollah to defend their south. Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. Bottom line, Lebanon also has the right to self defence against Israel. As we've seen, Hezbollah didn't lose the last war with Israel and its fighters are better than Lebanese regular soldiers. Sure, Hezbollah has been grabing more and more control (and it's also becoming more popular) which may not please Lebanese leadership. But on the other hand it would be stupid for Lebanon to fight Hezbollah or try to disarm them - all that would not be good for the country and its security.
Oh please?
Let's look at some of the problems with what you write:
1. You don't know for a fact that Hizbollah exists only because of Israel.
2. Your complimentary description of Hizbollah omits the fact that until 9/11, Hizbollah had murdered more Americans than any other terrorist group--a detail that goes against you claim that Hizbollah is a purely defensive group.
3. You say that Israel flies over Lebanon, but give no context--or do you think Israel is doing this for fun.
4. You also omit the fact that they serve as puppets of Iran
5. You omit the fact that these brave defenders of Lebanaon are also drug dealers-another indication that this is more than an issue of defending Lebanon
6. Hizbollah is becoming more popular? Where is your source?
7. Hizbollah won the war? Michael Totten, who knows the area, writes:
I doubt most residents of South Lebanon believe in their bones that they won the war against Israel in 2006. I’ve been down there several times since. Entire neighborhoods were utterly pulverized.
8. Secondly, Lebanese president don't love Hezbollah, but he's a realist and he simply knows the country needs it.
You write that as if Lebanon has a choice. As if Hizbollah is actually good for Lebanon.
Nonsense.
Wait a minute. Looks like you misunderstood some of my thoughts. Let go step by step:
1. "You don't know for a fact that Hizbollah exists only because of Israel."
Come again? Then why would I wrote: "if there had been no 1982 Israeli invasion, there would be no Hezbollah today"? Of course Israel is their main enemy. It's Israel who attack and even occupied Lebanon in the past and Hezbollah was created to resist them.
2. Again, I never said Hezbollah is a PURELY defensive group. I said their position is defensive in the first place, but hey, that doesn't mean they have no other goals or activities. I don't know much about their killings of Americans, but it seems to me that the only one who has problem with them is Israel, not America.
3. I'm sure Israel is not doing this for fun, but it is still a violation. Let me ask you this way: Israeli leaders have been talking tough about Iran and threatening possible military action. Now, let's assume for a second that Iran begin violating Israeli airspace in a way Israel does in Lebanon. Would you in that case also ask yourself if Iranians are doing that just for fun? See my point?
4. Pupets of Iran...well, we could discuss that for hours. Let's just say they surely have some interests in common and that Iran is backing and supplying them, but I wouldn't call them puppets nevertheless. They have their own leadership, their own problems and their own interests as well.
5. I'm not sure if those report about drugs are correct. Hezbollah already denied it (although I know it proves nothing). But it's funny how you believe that kind of reports, while on the other hand you are so sceptical about some others (Goldstone or HRW reports). And even if those rumours about drug dealings are true, what's your point anyway? BTW, have you ever heard about CIA drug trafficking? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
6. I have no source, I just heard it on TV news the other day.
7. I never said Hezbollah won the war, I said it didn't lose it. And I'm pretty sure Israel didn't win it either.
8. "You write that as if Lebanon has a choice. As if Hizbollah is actually good for Lebanon."
There's some truth in your words. It's hard to say what is actually good for Lebanon. But in my opinion in current situation Lebanon needs Hezbollah. If nothing else, their fighters proved they can resist Israeli army. Don't you think Lebanon is way stronger (in case of war) with Hezbollah than without it?
Step by step it is, then:
1. Why would you write that Hizbollah came about because of Israel? I don't know--that's your problem. The fact is that you don't know that Hizbollah would not have come about anyway even without Israel. If not in response to Israel, then in response to the US, or would have found some other excuse to seize power.
2. I don't know much about their killings of Americans, but it seems to me that the only one who has problem with them is Israel, not America.
Do you notice the contradiction in what you wrote?
3. I'm sure Israel is not doing this for fun, but it is still a violation.
I'm not impressed. If you don't know why Israel is doing this, then your claim that this is a violation doesn't carry much weight.
4. Iran is backing and supplying them, but I wouldn't call them puppets nevertheless
And you still don't think they are a puppet of Iran? You don't think Iran has any ulterior motive? I suppose you think Iran's only interest in nuclear power is for the benefit of its people too, huh?
5.But it's funny how you believe that kind of reports, while on the other hand you are so sceptical about some others (Goldstone or HRW reports).
Funny? The fact is that the Goldstone Report is full of factual errors and biases--and these have been outline extensively in a number of places:
In addition to a website that is dedicated solely to rebutting the claims of the report--Understanding the Goldstone Report--here are some links that deal with the content of the report head-on:
o Trevor Norwitz's Open Letter to Judge Goldstone
o CAMERA's A Formal Letter to Judge Goldstone
o CAMERA's The Goldstone Report: A Study in Duplicity
o Israel's Initial Response to Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza
o Israel's The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects (Israel's analysis of the Operation itself)
Now, if you can show me similar critiques of the drug claim, go for it.
I'm ready to back up what I say with online resources.
Please feel free to do the same.
6. 6. I have no source, I just heard it on TV news the other day.
Oh! Well that settles that, doesn't it!
7.I never said Hezbollah won the war, I said it didn't lose it.
I doubt if the South Lebanese would be amused with your clever distinction.
8.But in my opinion in current situation Lebanon needs Hezbollah. If nothing else, their fighters proved they can resist Israeli army. Don't you think Lebanon is way stronger (in case of war) with Hezbollah than without it?
You do realize, of course, that you are overlooking the fact that Hizbollah started the war? So you are saying that Lebanon needs Hizbollah to protect it from the wars it starts with Israel???
That's your logic?
Let's see:
1. "The fact is that you don't know that Hizbollah would not have come about anyway even without Israel. If not in response to Israel, then in response to the US, or would have found some other excuse to seize power." --- That's not a fact, that's pure speculation. How can you be so sure about it anyway?
2. Oh, forget it. It's not that important anyway.
3. What kind of logic is this? It is pure violation no matter what. Or perhaps do you think it isn't? Of course I know why Israel is doing this, but I'm not impressed and I wouldn't try to excuse them as much as you're trying to do. Again, think about Iranian example I wrote about earlier. What's more, with such violations of Lebanon, Israel is actually giving Hezbollah one more reason not to disarm itself.
4. Not so fast. The U.S. is backing and supplying Israel - would you call Israel a puppet? Again, it would be a grave exaggeration to claim that Hezbollah is merely a puppet of Syria or Iran. While Iran surely had influence during Hezbollah's early years, the organization has since developed its own elected council and command structure to make political and military decisions. It is unlikely that it would risk dissipating that popular support by seeming to favor its foreign benefactors to the detriment of its domestic constituents. What's more, Hezbollah is viewed as a legitimate national resistance organization, among Shia and non-Shia, throughout much of Lebanese society and Arab world.
5. "The fact is that the Goldstone Report is full of factual errors and biases" --- Over the past few months I've been listening to both sides - Goldstone and his critics - and in the end I decided to believe Goldstone and his team.
7. I don't know for them, but what about you? Would you say Hezbollah lost the war ( which means Israel won)?
8. Hezbollah captured soldiers; that could be seem to be fair play under the rules of guerilla warfare. Sure, one could argue that it was a tactical error. Hezbollah's leaders even admitted they didn't expect Israel to react so strongly. But all the same, Hezbollah has come out of this conflict even stronger than before. And it showed the world they can resist larger and better equipped Israeli army. By the way, it's not just about the 2006 war; Hezbollah already kicked the Israelis out in 2000. Now, would you - as Lebanese president - say 'no' to such a millitary force?
1. That's not a fact, that's pure speculation. How can you be so sure about it anyway?
Which is exactly my question to you.
3. Of course I know why Israel is doing this, but I'm not impressed and I wouldn't try to excuse them as much as you're trying to do.
And yet you have not made mention of the reason, even once.
4. Not so fast. The U.S. is backing and supplying Israel - would you call Israel a puppet?
You call that a comparison? No one following the news and reading about the current relations between the 2 and the fact that Israel has defied Obama would think that Israel is a puppet of the US.
Can you name any examples where Hizbollah argued with Iran?
5. While Iran surely had influence during Hezbollah's early years, the organization has since developed its own elected council and command structure to make political and military decisions. It is unlikely that it would risk dissipating that popular support by seeming to favor its foreign benefactors to the detriment of its domestic constituents.
Having an infrastructure is totally irrelevant to the question of influence.
Your last sentence is of course begging the question, since you have no resource to refer to.
6 Over the past few months I've been listening to both sides - Goldstone and his critics - and in the end I decided to believe Goldstone and his team.
Fine. So you haven't actually read the item by item rebuttals. Just noting.
7. No.
8. Hezbollah captured soldiers; that could be seem to be fair play under the rules of guerilla warfare.
Or terrorism--what they did was a war crime.
But all the same, Hezbollah has come out of this conflict even stronger than before. And it showed the world they can resist larger and better equipped Israeli army
Sure, by hiding among civilians, who died because of them. I see you're impressed.
1. I'm afraid you can't change the fact that Hezbollah was created in response to Israeli occupation. But I see we're running in circles here...
3. Why should I mentioned it, again? Would the reason behind it actually allow Israel to violate Lebanon's sovereignty?
4. I know all that, I know Israel is not a puppet. That was my point. But hey, I totaly understand those who claim that Hezbollah is a mere proxy for Iran and Syria - it seeks to hide the reality that Hezbollah represents the leadership of a genuine resistance force against the Israeli aggresion. Additionally, it provides yet another pressure on Iran as it defends its absolute right to develop nuclear technology. Great tactic.
6. That's true, I haven't read those links. As I said, I already made my mind and for me the issue is closed.
7. I'm glad we agree here.
8. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers is a war crime. However, its indiscriminate use of rockets that bomb civilian areas probably is a war crime.
"Sure, by hiding among civilians, who died because of them. I see you're impressed." --- it's not that simple. Otherwise Hamas would have won the last war, wouldn't it? Ever heard of IDF tactical mistakes (in 2006)? Israeli political establishment was shocked by the failure of its forces to accomplish its first military goals in the war. Initially relying on air power, the IDF ignored the basic military principles of surprise. Israel's targeting has also been poor. Not to mention so-called media war. Hezbollah also surprised its opponents by using new weaponry and battlefield tactics. So yeah, it's not that simple as you may have thought.
OK
3.Why should I mentioned it, again?
Don't be ridiculous--you haven't mentioned it at all. In all of your apologetics for Hizbollah, you have given no indication for the reason for those flights.
4. the reality that Hezbollah represents the leadership of a genuine resistance
Considering its murder of Americans and dealing in drugs, you seem to have no problem defining "resistance" down--or are you merely defining terrorism up? In any case, you take for granted that Israel is a threat to Lebanon, something you have not proven.
6. That's true, I haven't read those links. As I said, I already made my mind and for me the issue is closed.
Thank you for admitting your biases so openly.
8. it's not that simple as you may have thought.
Neither is using human shields, which you gloss over. Where do you think that "new weaponry" was located?
3. Perhaps because I felt it wasn't a necessary thing to do. Sure, there are reasons behind those flights, but for me, it is still pure violation of Lebanon's sovereignty. Laws are laws. One should not take law in his hands or justify those who do so. By the way, It's funny how Israel cries foul when the other party is not honoring the UN resolution but its ok for it to break it... And it's not just about those flights. A top UN envoy (Michael Williams) said the running of spy networks by Israel in Lebanon is considered a serious violation of the country's sovereignty. Ban Ki-moon also expressed concern about reports about Israeli spy cells operating in Lebanon.
4. So you think Israel is no threat to Lebanon? I bet most of residents of Lebanon would disagree.
6. Biases? Ah, come on. I said I listened to BOTH sides. There were plenty of critics (mostly Jewish or republicans) and I read many of their reports (I can't say I read all of them, of course). But in the end, you have to decide what and whom to believe. I already made my mind. Period.
8. Here you go again...blaming the other side only. I don't think that those human shields were that crucial. There were other reasons. If nothing else, the IDF was asked to accomplish strategic aims that were unrealistic and hastily considered by their leaders in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, don't you think so? IDF promised to destroy Hezbollah, rescue the hostages and end rocket attacks on northern Israel. Would you say they didn't accomplish those goals just because of those "human shields"? Even Israeli leadership wasn't that desperate to claim they didn't win because of that. What's more, IDF officials admitted that the biggest surprise of the 2006 war against Hezbullah was the ease by which Hezb fighters have destroyed Israeli tanks. About one-half of the military personnel killed in southern Lebanon were said to be those inside tanks. It is also clear the IDF was not well prepared for the war. Those are real reasons.
3. I was waiting to hear if you knew the context. I still am.
4. Some may very well see Israel as a threat, with Hizbollah having to defend their refusal to give up their arms. Others may note that Israel responds to Hizbollah's threats.
So you're claiming that Israel is what--out to annex Lebanon?
6. Listened to both sides--you mean the sound bites on TV?
7. My original point still stands.
3. Ok, so be it. In my opinion there are two main reasons behind those flights:
1.) To gather some information (not available to Israel's satellites).
2.) To terrorize Lebanon's population by showing them that Israel violate their sovereignty whenever they want.
In any case, Israel is breaking international law and agreements. That's a fact.
4. But even those "others" are probably aware of the fact that Hezbollah is pretty strong millitary force in the region and that Lebanon is much stronger (in case of any war) with Hezbollah than without it.
I'm not claiming Israel is about to annex Lebanon. But it's the fact that Israel was involved in conflicts (war, occupation) with Lebanon many many times in the past. So Lebanese people probably see Israel as an enemy. And I think they have every reason to think so.
6. Let's say I read some reports (critical of the Goldstone Report), listened to some interviews with those critics and also took a look at Israeli response. However, as I said, in the end they didn't convice me they're right and Goldstone is wrong. Having said that, I'm not claiming the report is perfect. But neither are its critics or Israel herself.
8. Mine too. Again, would you say Israel didn't accomplish those 3 goals and lost number of tanks just because of those "human shields"?
1. Of course, I was not asking for your opinion. I just wanted to know if you were aware that contrary to UN Resolution 1701 Hizbollah had both gone back into South Lebanon and had rearmed--to the point that it now had more arms than when it started the war.
Like I said, I was just curious why you left out the context.
Now I know.
4. Lebanon is much stronger (in case of any war) with Hezbollah than without it
Unless of course the enemy is Syria, which--unlike Israel--claims Lebanon for itself and had been occupying it. That is now a job that Hizbollah can do for them.
6. "Let's say?" Sorry, no time for games. If you cannot come out and say what your sources are that you "listened to"--that's fine by me.
8. Just because of "human shields"? No, but just as you try to play that point down, I believe it is important.
1. Oh, so that's what you call a context. Sure, I know all that stuff. But I'm afraid it doesn't change the fact that Israel is violating Lebanese sovereignty and breaking laws. And that was my point.
4. So you think a war with Syria is actually more possible (for Lebanon) than a war with Israel?
6. With "Let's say" I didn't mean any games. But yeah, unfortunately I didn't write a list of all the authors and sources I've read and listen to in past months. I'm just not used to do that. :) Anyway, this issue is already closed for me.
8. I never said it's not important. I'm just saying it's not that crucial. Otherwise Hamas (you claim it used human shields) would not lose the last Gaza battle.
1Sure, I know all that stuff.
Oh? So far all your talk about Israel breaking laws, you glibly ignore what Hizbollah as doing?
4. So you think a war with Syria is actually more possible (for Lebanon) than a war with Israel?
Let's just say that with your friends at Hizbollah around, Syria won't have to take the trouble.
Just why do you think that Hariri and Jumblatt--both of whose fathers' murders have been tied to Syria and have harshly criticized Assad--now have visited Assad in Syria?
6. Yes, I know.
8. I never said it's not important. I'm just saying it's not that crucial. Otherwise Hamas (you claim it used human shields) would not lose the last Gaza battle.
Not that crucial? Gazans may disagree. But then again, having a terrorist group in charge of one's government makes disagreement difficult.
I claim? So you don't believe the videos on Youtube of Gazan terrorists running through the street with a gun in one hand and a kid in another?
Or have you closed your mind to that too?
Otherwise Hamas...would not lose the last Gaza battle.
Some Gazans may see things differently.
1. I didn't ignore anything. It's just that you usually never mention Israel's violations of international law that's why I (and William deB. Mills) mention it. The UN Resolution 1701 was not a clever one anyway. I think Hezbollah never ever said it tends to keep those arms forever. But - did anyone seriously expect Hezbollah to disarm in situation like that? It is unrealistic to expect that. Considering the threat of Israel and knowing Lebenese army's limited power, if you were a Lebanese would you be so eager to throw down your weapons?
4. It's still highly unlikely to happen. Not in near future. In fact, another Israeli attack is far more possible.
8. Well, I believe Hamas used human shields in the last war. I also believe that it wasn't the only one that used them - as it seems, both sides comitted war crimes.
"Some Gazans may see things differently." --- what do you mean?
1. I didn't ignore anything. It's just that you usually never mention Israel's violations of international law that's why I (and William deB. Mills) mention it.
My point is that from the beginning you made the point of Israel's flights without giving any reason for them doing so. Every time I asked you what the reason was, you avoided the question.
I think Hezbollah never ever said it tends to keep those arms forever.
Wow. So Hizbollah is going to be the first terrorist group to ever voluntarily disarm itself!
Thanks for the tip.
Considering the threat of Israel
And you haven't spelled out just what the Israeli threat is. You already said it wasn't annexation--so just what is it?
4. It's still highly unlikely to happen.
That's what I said--unlikely, because unnecessary. Syria assassinates leaders, they have killed thousands of Syrians--but they don't make war when they have Hizbollah there to do their dirty work for them.
8. I'd discuss the point, but you already said you have a closed mind on the issue.
"Some Gazans may see things differently." --- what do you mean?
Some Gazans might argue that Hamas did not win the war.
1. Ok, I see what do you mean. Sure, the context is important, but at the same time it should not be an excuse for violating another country's sovereignty.
Is Hezbollah really a terrorist group? It depends whom you ask and where are you coming from.
Regarding "Israeli threat"... do I really need to elaborate on that? I think you well know the history of Israeli conflicts with Lebanon in the past. Not to mention weekly violations of Lebanon's border. Do the math. If you lived in Lebanon, wouldn't you consider Israel as threat?
8. I'm sure you would, but yeah, I'm done with it. I feel I've already spent enough (if not too much) time on this "Goldstone's report" case anyway.
As for the last Gaza war, i think it's clear to almost anyone that Hamas surely didn't win it. But it wasn't destoryed (nor removed from the power), so if some Gazans call it a win, fine :)
1. Kidnapping 2 soldiers and killing them is also violating another country's sovereignty. Since Hizbollah is not abiding by UN Res. 1701 and UNIFIL is helpless while Hizbollah rearms, Israel is looking after its interests.
You give 2 reasons for the flights:
1.) To gather some information (not available to Israel's satellites).
But you don't explain just what information you think Israel wants and why.
2.) To terrorize Lebanon's population by showing them that Israel violate their sovereignty whenever they want.
Just what is Israel supposed to gain by that--other than strengthen Hizbollah???
Is Hezbollah really a terrorist group? It depends whom you ask and where are you coming from.
Cop out.
do I really need to elaborate on that?
Yeah, you do.
8. so if some Gazans call it a win, fine
I'm more concerned with those who see it as a loss, but have no way out.
1. So you think there was no flights before the 2006 war? As for mentioning UN resolutions, do you know that Israel itself has defied many UN resolutions? Bringing up just one (1701) would be ridiculous under such terms.
Now, regarding my 2 reasons for the flights, the first one is obviously clear enough and you've already elaborate a bit on it. As for the second one, have you ever heard of Psychological Warfare?
I never said Israel is spying on Lebanon and violating its sovereignty just for fun. But speaking of the context, one should also look at Lebanese side. Try to consider the Hezbollah question from a different angle, and see that they are part of Lebanon, no matter you like it or not. Just like there are reasons behind those Israeli flights, there are also reasons why Hezbollah doesn't want to disarm itself (and neither wants Lebanon). Few thoughts:
- first of all, let's ask ourselves who are Hezbollah fighters? Hezbollah fighters are people from the South who armed themselves against Israel. That's why they exist. Hezbollah is a PRODUCT of Israeli occupation. We all need to recognize that before any further debate.
- the lebanese government has elected that Hezbollah is their national resistence movement.
- Lebanese people know what Hezbollah have done for the South, and they fear that losing them will give them nothing to defend themselves with in the future. Who will protect Lebanon from further Israeli agression, especially if a pro-syrian becomes the next president? Knowing the history (Israel had invaded Lebanon in the past) and given the fact that Israel decided to drop cluster bombs just few days before the UN ceasefire was to take effect, it's not hard to understand why some Lebanese would be so distrustful. Some people are even suggesting that (with disarming Hezbollah) Israel (and perhaps the U.S.) wants to take Lebanon back to 1982...
- there's also a question of foreign interference. If Hezbollah was disarmed, Lebanon would only become weaker and everyone (not just Israel) would be interferring even more easily.
- I know not all Lebanese like Hezbollah and I think the end goal of many Lebanese is to see it disarmed once in the future. But not in current situation. It's too risky.
8. "I'm more concerned with those who see it as a loss, but have no way out." --- True, their situation is really bad. But do you think there's only Hamas to be blamed for that? You know how they say... it takes two to tango. I think that expression describes Israeli-Palestinian conflict at its best.
Post a Comment