Good reasons to eradicate Hezbollah

brianjd

wikidpedia "Ideology

In 1985, Hezbollah's founding manifesto[34] [9] laid out the goals and ideology as follows:
The solution to Lebanon's problems is the establishment of an Islamic republic as only this type of regime can secure justice and equality for all of Lebanon's citizens.
The Hizbullah organization views as an important goal the fight against 'western imperialism' and its eradication from Lebanon. The group strives for complete American and French withdrawal from Lebanon, including all their institutions.
The conflict with Israel is viewed as a central concern. This is not only limited to the IDF presence in Lebanon. Rather, the complete destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of Islamic rule over Jerusalem is an expressed goal."

dg1979us

Hizbollah should be abolished because they are more or less a state within a state that is funded by 2 separate countries and operate by their own accord. They are basically a more established version of the taliban and play their part in ruining the most progressive country in the middle east.

brianjd

agreed

rebornFixer

The military arm of Hezbollah needs to be dismantled, and the political faction needs to disavow violence and terrorism and if they want, become a legitimate political party in the Lebanese system.

Commy

reborncareerist wrote:

The military arm of Hezbollah needs to be dismantled, and the political faction needs to disavow violence and terrorism and if they want, become a legitimate political party in the Lebanese system.

Shouldn't the same demands be made of Israel?

dg1979us

Commy wrote:

Shouldn't the same demands be made of Israel?

YOu cant compare Hizbollah to Israel. And this isnt defending Israel and I certainly think they over reacted, but they are a recognized nation and nations are allowed to have a military and defense. Hizbollah is not a recognized nation and doesnt even operate in the same country that funds it. There is absolutely no defense you can give to legitimize Hizbollah as a military unit.

wolfamongwolves

dg1979us wrote:

Hizbollah... are more or less a state within a state

absolutely incorrect - they are a non-state actor, like every "terrorist" group

dg1979us wrote:

They... play their part in ruining the most progressive country in the middle east.

Progressive in what way? Because they're a supposedly Western-style democracy? Lebanon is one of, if not, the weakest nations in the Middle East. Lebanon is a country with a poor freedom of the press and high censorship. How exactly is it a progressive country?

dg1979us

wolfamongwolves wrote:

absolutely incorrect - they are a non-state actor, like every "terrorist" group Progressive in what way? Because they're a supposedly Western-style democracy? Lebanon is one of, if not, the weakest nations in the Middle East. Lebanon is a country with a poor freedom of the press and high censorship. How exactly is it a progressive country?

I said progressive within the middle east, which it most certainly is much more progressive and a part of the modern world than many middle eastern countries. I didnt say it was perfect, but it certainly isnt on the level of Saudi Arabia or Iran for example.

And i was correct. Hizbollah is a powerful organization that more or less operates on it's own accord inside another nation. They are more or less their own state, that happens to be within the borders of another.

wolfamongwolves

dg1979us wrote:

I said progressive within the middle east, which it most certainly is much more progressive and a part of the modern world than many middle eastern countries. I didnt say it was perfect, but it certainly isnt on the level of Saudi Arabia or Iran for example.

There may be something to that. You're right, it's probably a far better situation than anything in Saudi Arabia or Iran. But it remains one of the weakest and least influential states in the region, so I'm not sure how meaningful that is.

dg1979us wrote:

And i was correct. Hizbollah is a powerful organization that more or less operates on it's own accord inside another nation. They are more or less their own state, that happens to be within the borders of another.

Hizbollah does not operate "within the borders of another" state. It is a non-state actor. It does operate of it's own accord but it is not by any means "a state within a state". As such, it is completely illegitimate - if not illegal - (as it was in Afghanistan) to launch a war against a state in order to retaliate against a super-state actor that may operate within the borders of that state but is in no way controlled by or tied to that state.

dg1979us

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Hizbollah does not operate "within the borders of another" state. It is a non-state actor. It does operate of it's own accord but it is not by any means "a state within a state". As such, it is completely illegitimate - if not illegal - (as it was in Afghanistan) to launch a war against a state in order to retaliate against a super-state actor that may operate within the borders of that state but is in no way controlled by or tied to that state.

It does operate within the borders of another nation, and it is funded and supported by Iran and Syria and more or less gives radical Islam a powerful voice inside of a moderate Muslim nation. I am not saying that they technically are a state, I am saying they more or less act as their own state, and have everybit as much power as the official government itself. And they have that power because of support from Iran and Syria.

wolfamongwolves

dg1979us wrote:

It does operate within the borders of another nation, and it is funded and supported by Iran and Syria and more or less gives radical Islam a powerful voice inside of a moderate Muslim nation. I am not saying that they technically are a state, I am saying they more or less act as their own state, and have everybit as much power as the official government itself. And they have that power because of support from Iran and Syria.

It does not operate within the borders of a single nation. Also, as you say, it receives and depends upon operational support from at least two other nations. This makes it a super-state actor and means that it is false to say it operates solely within the borders of a particular state. It is not a state-within-a-state but an independent non-state actor, and acts as such, certainly not as a state.

dg1979us

wolfamongwolves wrote:

It does not operate within the borders of a single nation. Also, as you say, it receives and depends upon operational support from at least two other nations. This makes it a super-state actor and means that it is false to say it operates solely within the borders of a particular state. It is not a state-within-a-state but an independent non-state actor, and acts as such, certainly not as a state.

I think we are more or less arguing semantics. But my point is, they are an organization that more or less operates the way they want, despite the fact that they arent the official government, yet at least militarily, have as much power as the official government.

wolfamongwolves

dg1979us wrote:

I think we are more or less arguing semantics. But my point is, they are an organization that more or less operates the way they want, despite the fact that they arent the official government, yet at least militarily, have as much power as the official government.

Sometimes semantics are important. But this at least I agree with.

brianjd

you are arguing semantics. but good semantics i must say. finally some well reasoned posters on this board. thanks for the forward thinking thought on this thread

OutOfBreath

reborncareerist wrote:

The military arm of Hezbollah needs to be dismantled, and the political faction needs to disavow violence and terrorism and if they want, become a legitimate political party in the Lebanese system.

I like this. talk of "eradicating" opposition never sit right with me. Hizbollah needs to be moderated and made into a pure political party.

Peace
Dan

dg1979us

OutOfBreath wrote:

I like this. talk of "eradicating" opposition never sit right with me. Hizbollah needs to be moderated and made into a pure political party.

Peace
Dan

I agree with that, but the military faction of Hizbollah does not need to exist. I dont see a real chance in moderating a group built around instilling Sharia law and violence.

OutOfBreath

dg1979us wrote:

I agree with that, but the military faction of Hizbollah does not need to exist. I dont see a real chance in moderating a group built around instilling Sharia law and violence.

Happens all the time. Such groups may be heavy on religious symbolism, but history shows that they are pragmatic brokers in power-politics and realpolitik. IRA has moderated for instance, which was based on religious sectarianism from the outset. Don't confuse religion for the main issue, violence is always about power primarily, anything else secondarily.

Hizbollahs military wing needs dismantling, I ain't arguing that. But I doubt that the way to go about it is full-scale war and bombardment, as this summer's debacle has indicated.

Peace
Dan

VivaPalestina

I agree with OutofBreath/Dan, eradicating is just not the right word. It reminds me of "regime change" at the beginning of the Iraq war, and that has turned into a very bad situation for all. Hizbollah is a political party that is not going away, or going to be "eradicated" especially after the war with israel. Support for them has increased, while in the Mideast, I had a chance to witness that firsthand. Name the country, including our allies such as Saudi Arabia, the people have voiced their support for Hizbollah. They are seen as heroes for defending their country (for where was the Lebanese army during this war?) and they are now helping rebuild, which will further increase support for the group. I don't see them going them away anytime soon. Israel wants them destroyed, they call for the UN resolution to disarm all militias, specifically Hizbollah, but yet refuse to adhere to UN resolutions themselves. This is not the Mid-east according to Israel. They are democratically elected party with seats in the Lebanese Parliament and can not be eradicated, removed, destroyed as Israel has failed to do, so now it is going for international help, the UN,to help do its dirty work and for the first time and yet very surprisingly the UN has told them NO.

Byrnzie

dg1979us wrote:

Hizbollah should be abolished because they are more or less a state within a state that is funded by 2 separate countries and operate by their own accord. They are basically a more established version of the taliban and play their part in ruining the most progressive country in the middle east.

The same could be said of Israel. They are more or less an offsore U.S military and strategic base within the Middle East who operate by their own accord at America's bidding. They are basically a more established version of the taliban - I.e, a lawless terrorist state - and play their part in ruining the middle east.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Hezbollah is of no help to the Lebanese as long as they turn to terrorism and violence. Israel will ALWAYS use terror and violence, even in the case of 2 soldiers being kidnapped (an action not even the U.S. would take), and it will gain support as long as Hezbollah reacts in the same manner. Hezbollah will also gain support by acting this way, but in the long run, there will be too much death and destruction. I think the Lebanese prime minister is on the right track with what he said last week:

"Israel has to accept the peace initiative of the Arab Summit of 2002 and return all the occupied territories and renounce all acts of aggression and then sign the peace treaties with all the other Arab countries and create the state of Palestine and give the (Palestinian) refugees the right of return. Yes, (then) Lebanon will sign the peace treaty, when everybody signs a peace treaty."

The problem is, Israel will never sign something that renounces their own acts of aggression. I think Lebanon, and every other state in the region, should simply say "sign the initiative of the Arab Summit of 2002". That plan outlines it very clearly.

Israeli action items:

"I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon."

"II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194."

"III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital."

Arab action items:

"I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region."

"II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."

dg1979us

Byrnzie wrote:

The same could be said of Israel. They are more or less an offsore U.S military and strategic base within the Middle East who operate by their own accord at America's bidding. They are basically a more established version of the taliban - I.e, a lawless terrorist state - and play their part in ruining the middle east.

How is Israel ruining the middle east anymore than Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria? And Israel is a recognized government by the UN, so you cannot compare them to Hizbollah. Israel certainly can and should be criticized for many things, but Hizbollah is an organization with basically one purpose.