[Politics] A picture is worth a thousand words..

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

@Skybird you pose a false dilemna: either one unconditionally supports Israeli actions in Lebanon anad Gaza or else they are on the side of Hezbollah and Hamas.

I support neither, but what I am doing is calling it as I see it and believing there had to have been a better way than this.

the world would apply uniform pressure to end terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, this would probably quiet the Israelis.

[Skybird]

Unfortunately, that uniform pressure of the world will not happen, and even lesser chances that Iran will stop funding Hezbollah, which very much is it's own legion etranger.

[SUBMAN1]

Hezbollah is not going anywhere. Its Irans trump card to get Isreal to do what it is doing. They are trying to follow through with wiping Isreal off the map, and right now it is purely a strategic game of chess. Iran is waiting for a mistake so that it can unite the Arabs to crush Isreal. Hezbollah might as well just be a pawn in the game that has crossed the board to start the war.

-S

[Skybird]

Iran cannot unite Araba nations, for it is Persian, and shia (not sunni). Arab nations would be happy to get rid of Hezbollah, for it represents the influence of the shia rival, Iran.
Also, there is a UN resolution already that demands the disarmament of Hezbollah (interesting that none of those people accusing Israel of violating resolutions, do not complain about this one not being obeyed). So ironically we already have consenus of the UN, the Arab states and Israel that Hezbollah must be disarmed. The only one complaining that this now is being done by force is - not the Arabs, but the UN. If that is not a joke.

[August]

July 25, 2006 No.1211

Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: I Told Lebanese Political Leaders We Would Abduct Israeli Soldiers

On July 24, 2006, Al-Jazeera TV aired an interview with Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1200.




We Did Not Expect the Arab Regimes "To Participate in Spilling the Blood of the Victim, and to Provide Cover for the Crimes of the Hangman"

Hassan Nasrallah: "The international community has never been with us, for us to claim that 'today it is not with us, it is besieging us, abandoning us, and neglecting us.' It has never been with us. On the contrary, it has been against us in the things that matter. For example, we have been on the American terrorism list since... since they began the terrorism list. We were among the first to be included in the terrorism list. Some European countries also include us in their terrorism lists. The position of the international community is clear, and therefore, we are not surprised by the international community, and we have never pinned our hopes on it."

[...]

"As for some of the Arab positions - this is, of course, something new. True. In the past, some of the Arab regimes renounced the resistance and its men. Today, we would accept it if the Arab regimes - I am being very objective and realistic... We would accept it if they were neutral. That's it. In the past, too, we accepted this from them. If you examine the rhetoric of Hizbullah... Maybe the rhetoric of our Palestinian brothers is different, and this is their right, because their circumstances are much harsher than ours. They always attack, accuse, and denounce the regimes and the rulers. This is not part of our rhetoric or writings. Why? Because we have forgotten about them. There is no need for it. If you assume someone exists, you can attack him, but if you feel that he does not exist, by attacking him, you would be aggravating yourself for nothing.

"Once we used to ask the international community to denounce the hangman and to have mercy on the victim. Then we got to the point where we said we would accept it if they denounce the hangman and the victim alike. This has become what we could expect from them. If a resolution denounces both the hangman and the victim - fine. As for the Arab regimes - all we expect from them is to be neutral. And if they do not want to be neutral - brother, let them treat Israel and us equally. We would even accept it if they treat the hangman and the victim equally. But for them to participate in spilling the blood of the victim, and to provide cover for the crimes of the hangman - I tell you that we did not expect this. This was indeed a surprise."

[...]

"I say categorically that the Israeli response to the capturing operation could have been harsh, but limited, if not for the cover provided by the Arabs and international community. It is not that Israel got the green light from America, Ghassan. Israel received an American decision that said: 'Go on and finish that business in Lebanon.'"

[...]

"In addition, some of the Arabs provided a cover, and encouraged Israel to continue the battle. Israel was told that this is a golden and historic opportunity to annihilate the resistance in Lebanon. They don't want to annihilate only the resistance of Hizbullah in Lebanon. They want to annihilate any motivation to conduct resistance in Lebanon, whether by Hizbullah or anyone else. They want to bring the country to a situation in which the word 'resistance' is considered derogatory. Martyr, jihad, wounded, steadfastness, challenge, liberation, freedom, power, honor, nobility, dignity - all these words must be removed from the vocabulary of the Lebanese, from the press, the political writings, from the political thinking, from the popular conscience. This is what Israel is doing. America needs this if it wants to reorganize the region."

[...]


"I Say to the Arab Rulers... Remain Neutral"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I am convinced that even the sons, daughters, and wives of some Arab rulers are with us. But I say to the Arab rulers: I don't want your swords or even your hearts. All I want is for you to leave us alone, as we say in colloquial Lebanese. In other words, remain neutral. We are fine with that. You've said what you said - you can relax now, thank you very much. Today there is a war that was imposed on Lebanon. Its purpose is to eliminate anything to do with the resistance or its fighters in Lebanon, and to punish Lebanon for defeating Israel. The truth is that the goal of the war against Lebanon is to eliminate the Palestinian issue. Everybody knows that the widespread Intifada in Palestine broke out following the victory in Lebanon. What is happening in Palestine is a similar and improved version of the Lebanese model. If today we destroy the Lebanese model, the message to the Palestinians would be that they should despair."

[...]


"The [Lebanese] Government Statement Says That [the Armed Resistance] has the Right to Liberate the Land and the Prisoners"

Hassan Nasrallah: "This thing you asked me about - that I didn't inform or ask [the Lebanese government]...

"First of all, the government statement, on the basis of which we joined the government, says that the Lebanese government adopts the resistance, and its natural right to liberate the land and the prisoners. Okay, how is the resistance supposed to liberate the prisoners? It should go to George Bush? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you say 'the right of the resistance,' you are not talking about the foreign ministry. You are talking about the armed resistance, and the government statement says that it has the right to liberate the land and the prisoners. I am a resistance movement. I am armed. That's one thing. This is the government statement, on the basis of which the government won the parliament's vote of confidence.

"Second, during the [Lebanese national] dialogue... Some people are now saying that I did or didn't say certain things... There are recordings. Yes, I did tell them that we are keeping the border calm, because this was our policy. But there are two issues in which we cannot tolerate this calm. I raised four issues. Two issues can bear delays, procrastination, postponement, and reminders. No problem. The first is the continued occupation of the Shab'a Farms. Never mind, we can take our time on this. This is a small and limited piece of land. We will not start a war over the Shab'a Farms. I'm referring to the kind of war we have now. The second issue was the aerial and naval violations [of sovereignty], and even violations by ground forces. We can tolerate this. True, violations of our sovereignty are deplorable. But are we supposed to destroy the world because of it? No. Two issues cannot tolerate any delay. One is the issue of the prisoners, because of the human suffering. The second issue is any attack against civilians. I told them on more than one occasion that we are taking the issue of the prisoners seriously, and that abducting Israeli soldiers is the only way to resolve it. Of course, I said this in a low-key tone. I did not declare in the dialogue: 'In July I will abduct Israeli soldiers.' This is impossible."


"I Told Them [Lebanese Political Leaders] That We Must Resolve the Issue of the Prisoners, and That the Only Way to Resolve it is by Abducting Israeli Soldiers"

Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: 'If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?' I said that it was logical that it would. And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world - show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country - and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing."

[...]

"If 60-70 people know all the details of an abduction operation, can it possibly be successful? No, it cannot. All the more so if I inform a government, which has 24 ministers, the heads of the three government branches, political forces, and coalitions. When we held the national dialogue, we talked and discussed things, and an hour later, the protocols of the meetings reached the embassies. Do you want me to tell the entire world that I am about to carry out an abduction operation? It's not logical."

[...]

"It is true that I did not inform the Lebanese government, but I did not inform my closest allies either. Syria and Iran did not know. No Syrian or Iranian knew. They did not know, and I did not consult any of them."

[...]


How Can the War Affect the Iranian Nuclear Dossier?

Hassan Nasrallah: "On the Iranian issue... Now there is a war in Lebanon. In one, two, or three months it will end. How long can it possibly last? Once the war is over, in what way will it affect the Iranian nuclear dossier? What effect will it have on it? On the contrary, if this is in any way connected to the Iranian nuclear dossier, the war being waged against Lebanon does not serve its interest. The Americans and the Israelis have always taken into account that if a confrontation breaks out with Iran, Hizbullah might intervene in Iran's favor. So striking Hizbullah now would weaken, rather than strengthen, Iran on the nuclear issue."

[...]


"Hizbullah has Always Placed Lebanese National Interests Above any Other Interest"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Hizbullah has always placed Lebanese national interests above any other interest. During the national dialogue, I said to them: You have known us for 23-24 years. I am ready to tell each and every one of them which battles he has fought - some of them, not all of them... I am ready to tell some of them which battles they have fought for the sake of foreign, rather than Lebanese, interests. Tell me when we, Hizbullah, did anything to Lebanon, or led it into war, for the sake of foreign, rather than Lebanese, interests. They could not give me a single example."

[...]

"Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine, and liberate Nahariya, Haifa, and Tiberias. This is not one of our slogans. This is a long process, which pertains to the Palestinians and to the nation. This is another issue. The victory that we are talking about - If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory. If Lebanon is not humiliated, if its honor and dignity remain intact, if Lebanon continues to face all alone the strongest military force in the region, and if it perseveres and refuses to accept any humiliating terms in the settlement of this issue - this will be a victory. If we are not militarily defeated, this will be a victory. As long as a single missile is launched from Lebanon to target the Zionists, as long as a single fighter fires his gun, as long as someone plants an explosive device for the Israelis, this means that the resistance still exists."

[...]

"Today, we Shi'ites are fighting Israel. Our fighting and perseverance ultimately serve our brothers in Palestine, who are Sunni, not Shi'ite. In other words, we, Shi'ites and Sunnis, fight side by side against Israel, which is supported and strengthened by America. I'm telling you that if [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert reaches a point at which he says to the Americans, 'I cannot complete this,' Bush will say to him, 'You go on, and if you encounter a problem, I will resolve it for you.' This is what I meant when I talked about 'a battle of the nation,' and I saw [on TV] that you commented on this. I am not fighting on behalf of the nation. But I say that the outcome of the battle that Hizbullah is fighting in Lebanon, for better or worse, is an outcome for the nation. Defeat in Lebanon is defeat for the nation, and victory in Lebanon is victory for the nation, just like in 2000."

[...]

"For 23 years, we have been talking to our people, motivating them, talking about martyrdom, the honor of martyrdom, and the place of the martyrs. Do the Zionists, or those who encourage them, believe that I, or anyone in the Hizbullah leadership, fears martyrdom? We love martyrdom. We take precautions in order to prevent Israel from making any gains. But on the personal level, and as a personal aspiration, each and every one of us hopes to be destined to martyrdom at the hands of those people, the killers of the prophets and the messengers, and most hostile to the believers, as it says in the Koran."

[don1reed]

...interesting perspectives.
However, looking at a bombed out building, as was mentioned earlier, how does anyone count or score the slain as either:
a) civilian, or
b) Hezbollah?

Thats always fascinated me how the MSM instantly know how many civilians were killed.

Do the guerrilla fighters have identifiable uniforms so that they're easily identified at the scene that separate them from the others?

What is their formula? Every 4th body is a guerrilla, the other three, his wife and two kids, or, mother, father, aunt, uncles, nieces and nephews.

I don't know, but if I was stupid enough to yank the Bull's tail, I shouldn't be surprised that he'd start kickin' my arse.
I guess we shouldn't be surprise either, when the tail pullin clown starts yelling for help when the Bull's got the advantage.

:hmm:

Not according to the Geneva Convention last time I checked. Fire bombing Germany, or blowing up Horoshima was not a nice thing to do, but you are right, they did it. As a human upon this Earth however, it is your responsibility to avoid innocent casualties in wartime in my book. THis is not entirely possible when attacking someone like Hezbolah, or the local Iraqi terrorist gangs, but you should at least try.

I think western nations try to limit non-combatant casualaties. Because their militaries are controlled by the legitimate authority (read political). To do otherwise is to commit political suicide. Our problem is that groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, the PLO, IRA, SLA, Taliban, any group without legitmate political autority, have nothing to loose.

It is interesting that no other legitimate (read elected) Gov't in the region has pushed mightily for a cessation of hostilities. Probably because those Gov'ts do not exist. For the most part the Middle East is dominated by dictatorships.

Until the Middle East is made up of people who have self directed Gov'ts the slaughter of people will not end. It is not until people feel that they have a legitimate voice that they will be at peace both internally and with their neighbors.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Okay, then show us that better way. We have the ability to learn so we could adapt. You just need to convince us. Do not expect us to simply believe this... or that... and hope... and pray... and wish for the better... any maybe... or not?... who knows... The dilemms I pose is real: fight Hezbollah and limit it, do not fight it and accept beeing assaulted by it again and again. that is their declared, admitted, propagated pollicy - and they do not hide it, and say it at every opportunity, and have given a multitude of evidence that they mean it exactly as they say it. So why do you know better than they do themselves what they want and what they are about?

Alright then, let's go back to when last year's new government was elected in Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution. The Lebanese had finally managed to kick the Syrians out of Lebanon - no small task - and the anti-Syrian bloc won a majority of seats in Parliment, which meant their pro-American leader would be PM. At the same time, Hezbollah still won 14 out of 128 seats in Parliment and there still lingered some remnants of support for Syria and likely some Syrian operatives within the country as well, having left very reluctantly and with their feet dragging the whole way.

The new government was fairly weak, after decades of civil war, assasination, terrorism, and occupation, and the Lebanese army terribly so. A weak central government can only do so much, to do more, like efffectively police its Southern border and reign in Hezbollah militants, it requires international help - but could the new, and still weak, PM ask for this help when he had no idea what was coming? Would any country at peace ask for foreign peacekeepers to patrol its border when it had just thrown the Syrian army out? No, but it was still possible for this to happen.

Unfortunately nobody, not Israel, not anyone suggested that the Lebanese needed help securing their border with Lebanon and offered assistance in doing so and in disarming Hezbollah. When the current crisis came, it was still possible, however.

Turning the clock back in Lebanon has not gotten Israel back its 2 captured soldiers, it has only killed several more and destabilized and brought massive destruction to a country that was on the right path but needed a hand to go the distance.

Thus, why could not Omert open dialogue either directly with the Lebanese PM or through proxies, dialogue that would get the soldiers back and a joint force of some kind, either joint Lebanese-Israeli or a more broadly international force, to begin disarming Hezbollah, patrolling the border, and ensuring that Hezbollah remained toothless. If necessary this could be backed up with coercion and threats, but the idea is to get a peacekeeping force in there while there is still a peace to keep.

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace, and it is much easier to do when there is already peace and a working infrastructure and government to coordinate with.

But Israel did not even try this approach. It saw one approach and one approach only, and not only has it not accomplished the stated goal of returning the captured soldiers, it has destabilized the country and made it prey once more to Syria and to radical militants. Moral issues aside, this is counter productive and totally self-defeating.

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace

Name one.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Name one.

I could name more than one. Canada has led the international peace keeping force in Afghanistan at various points, and despite retaining a 2,000 man force there still has the capacity to at least contribute forces to Lebanon. France also has had a long interest in Lebanon and is sympathetic to that country, which is two. The UK might be willing as well, having a strong and impartial interest in peace in the ME and in that region in particular.

That is only only 3 but I think many more would not have minded putting a few of their troops into a peaceful and stable Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and undermine Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

The US has the capacity but I don't think the domestic will, being commited already on two fronts as it is and having a bit of a dark history in Lebanon (the bombing of the marine barracks back in the 70s) that they might not wish to dredge memories up of again - but all they'd have to do is greenlight it.

[August]

Pallywood productions, or how to fake the news:



People tend to take what they see on the news as truth, but is it? Watch this and learn.

I could name more than one. Canada has led the international peace keeping force in Afghanistan at various points, and despite retaining a 2,000 man force there still has the capacity to at least contribute forces to Lebanon. France also has had a long interest in Lebanon and is sympathetic to that country, which is two. The UK might be willing as well, having a strong and impartial interest in peace in the ME and in that region in particular.

That is only only 3 but I think many more would not have minded putting a few of their troops into a peaceful and stable Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and undermine Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

The US has the capacity but I don't think the domestic will, being commited already on two fronts as it is and having a bit of a dark history in Lebanon (the bombing of the marine barracks back in the 70s) that they might not wish to dredge memories up of again - but all they'd have to do is greenlight it.

Then where were they? If they were able, then, why didn't those countries do the 'right' thing and put peace keeping forces along the border? I'm curious.

[aaken]

I'm guessing ... because nobody asked?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Then where were they? If they were able, then, why didn't those countries do the 'right' thing and put peace keeping forces along the border? I'm curious.

Because it requires either the request of the Lebanese government or a UNSC Mandate. Neither was forthcoming, and I've already speculated further upstream as to why.

Because nobody asked? Are you kidding me? Being the people of such great concience and forsight, not to mention humanitarianism, why do you need to be asked?