All right. Seeing as how I'm in Israel and it's the middle of the night I'm gonna go to bed, but I look forward to responding to anyone else's ideas when I get up in the morning. Please feel free to post in my absence.
I'm just shocked that a discussion on this board didn't turn into a rant of name calling and accusations. Thanks for sharing your opinions even though we disagree.
You can bomb the world into pieces but not into peace.
You can't ever expect to live in peace by killing your neighbors. You are only bringing more violence upon yourself for years to come. Since this strategy is obviously not working, how about changing plans, learn from your mistakes and try a new approach? I don't think things could end up much worse.
Yes, but what would that change in plan look like, taking into account that Israel must continue to protect its civilians in the here and now?
Yes, but what would that change in plan look like, taking into account that Israel must continue to protect its civilians in the here and now?
Give back the occupied land and lay of the offensive. Don't give land back in one area then take more in another. I'll leave the maps and whatnot to the pros but I'm sure they could reach some sort of compromise. Afair offer from both sides is possible, imo.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think one of the problems is Israel is not learning from past mistakes, living in the present and only thinks about the near future, while Palestinians are still living in the past, don't think about today (=reality) nor the future. Don't laugh, but a peace process is the same as love goes - full with compromises on both sides. Lets face it, Palestinians were never willing to compromise. Sure, Ariel is on their land, but its now a city, a big city. Why can't they accept another pice of land in exchange? And about their people right to return to Palestain: sure, I personaly think their people have every right to come back, but look at the reality - Israel itself is has one of the highest number of residents per square, and its a very small country. Now think about the future country of Palestine, it's gonna be smaller, much smaller than Israel. There are millions of Palestinians who actually want to come back here (I'm not talking about potential) where will they be? There is not enough room for everybody, and that's why the solution gotta be something else than letting everybody the right to come back. For example, restricted quantity of people per year (the same thing happens naturally with jews who come to settle in Israel). But they don't want to even hear about it.
And what about us? Why can't we return all the prisoners who sit here without a trail, we don't even use them as a negotiative means, they only cost us more money and more problems. And the road-blocks? Clearly unnecessary in any way you'll look at it. Hamas? sure, it is a HUGE problem to talk to someone who don't think you got the right to exist, but we didn't even tried to.
I can go on and on with examples but I think you're getting the point: As long as Israe's/Palestain's way of thinking stays the same, I don't see any solution in the near future no matter how many withdrawal we're gonna pull off.
Inductive rather than deductive reasoning, maybe: a rightfully paranoid sense, that your apparent allies are your inevitable, and most decisive, enemies. :(
I think that Israel should prepare for its destruction.
Consider that no one seems too concerned about Bin Ladin and Al queda in the Mountains of Pakistan. Consider also that the Taliban is regaining control in parts of Afghanistan. Next, consider that Al Queda has many sympathizers in Pakistand, and Musharaff hangs onto power by a thread.
A few small terror attacks here and there to keep the "Axis of Justice" on their toes while Al-Queda solidifies its operations in Pakistan. Once Al-Queda has that, they will lead a coup to overthrow Musharaff, and take possession of Pakistan's nukes. I doubt that the Taliban will help them...they simply complicate things. they are the red herring in all of this.
You can figure out the rest. Starting with buhbye Israel.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So I've been reading a lot about how terrible Israel's actions have been in Lebanon on all sorts of different threads on this site. And I am willing to give many people (although not all of you) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your anger grows out of a genuine horror at the loss of human life, and not out of a hatred of Israel itself. I accept that the death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. My question is what would you have Israel do? And this is a political question. Please think politically when answering. As a sovereign state Israel's first priority must be to protect its citizens. How would you prefer that Israel fight Hezbollah, a group religiously committed to Israel's destruction, that hides among civilians while attacking Israel? I am not interested in hearing how morally wrong it is to kill civilians. I know this already. I want to know if anyone can actually give me a well thought out political alternative to what Israel is now doing.
In the short term, while Hezbollah missles are raining down, target the enemy with minimum possible collateral damage. But there is no precedent for a large offensive millitary action destroying an organization like Hezbollah. It should be clear to the deciders, if they want peace, that this tactic doesn't work by now.
It seems there is an of action-movie sort of fantasy idea that affects people's minds in these situations. That if only we "get tough" with these terrorists they will roll over. In fact, terrorist actions are designed to provoke exactly the type of incompetent, heavy-handed approach we are seeing from the Israelis.
The more force you apply, the more innocent bystanders get killed, and the more recruits join the terrorists. That is happening as we speak in Lebanon. Israel is radicalizing the whole country against them. Hezbollah will move into power vacums created by the bombing. Hezbollah is going to be a significantly larger player than it is now. And even if Israel were able to kill every one of them, Syria or Iran or both would then create afreash a new terror organization to destabilize the region.
There are precedents for destroying such groups through diplomacy, economic redevelopment, popular protest, external pressure from moderate players nominally supportive of the terror group's goals, and time. It does take a lot of time, and patience. But there isn't any alternative. This was essentially the route Lebanon was on. The Israelis just set them back to square one.
Give back the occupied land and lay of the offensive. Don't give land back in one area then take more in another. I'll leave the maps and whatnot to the pros but I'm sure they could reach some sort of compromise. Afair offer from both sides is possible, imo.
You say a fair offer from both sides, and yet you only give an outline of what Israel should give up. What about the other side? Also, again, how can Israel lay off the offensive entirely in the face of repeated attacks on its citizens? Are you suggesting that Israel simply turn the other cheek while its citizens are killed?
Inductive rather than deductive reasoning, maybe: a rightfully paranoid sense, that your apparent allies are your inevitable, and most decisive, enemies. :(
Ok, but you still haven't offered any concrete plan of action. If Israel were to think as you do, what would they then DO?
I think that Israel should prepare for its destruction.
Consider that no one seems too concerned about Bin Ladin and Al queda in the Mountains of Pakistan. Consider also that the Taliban is regaining control in parts of Afghanistan. Next, consider that Al Queda has many sympathizers in Pakistand, and Musharaff hangs onto power by a thread.
A few small terror attacks here and there to keep the "Axis of Justice" on their toes while Al-Queda solidifies its operations in Pakistan. Once Al-Queda has that, they will lead a coup to overthrow Musharaff, and take possession of Pakistan's nukes. I doubt that the Taliban will help them...they simply complicate things. they are the red herring in all of this.
You can figure out the rest. Starting with buhbye Israel.
I'm not really sure how this answers the question, except to suggest that Israel might want to start thinking about pre-emptively striking Pakistan's nukes if it looks like Al Queda might be about to take control.
In the short term, while Hezbollah missles are raining down, target the enemy with minimum possible collateral damage. But there is no precedent for a large offensive millitary action destroying an organization like Hezbollah. It should be clear to the deciders, if they want peace, that this tactic doesn't work by now.
It seems there is an of action-movie sort of fantasy idea that affects people's minds in these situations. That if only we "get tough" with these terrorists they will roll over. In fact, terrorist actions are designed to provoke exactly the type of incompetent, heavy-handed approach we are seeing from the Israelis.
The more force you apply, the more innocent bystanders get killed, and the more recruits join the terrorists. That is happening as we speak in Lebanon. Israel is radicalizing the whole country against them. Hezbollah will move into power vacums created by the bombing. Hezbollah is going to be a significantly larger player than it is now. And even if Israel were able to kill every one of them, Syria or Iran or both would then create afreash a new terror organization to destabilize the region.
There are precedents for destroying such groups through diplomacy, economic redevelopment, popular protest, external pressure from moderate players nominally supportive of the terror group's goals, and time. It does take a lot of time, and patience. But there isn't any alternative. This was essentially the route Lebanon was on. The Israelis just set them back to square one.
Ok, well said. What are some examples of such groups being dismantled in the manner you describe? I've heard people talk about the IRA, but I don't think the two groups are really comparable, given the religious nature of Hezbollah (and Hamas as well) and the entirely different cultural phenomena surrounding the group's origens.
Ok, well said. What are some examples of such groups being dismantled in the manner you describe? I've heard people talk about the IRA, but I don't think the two groups are really comparable, given the religious nature of Hezbollah (and Hamas as well) and the entirely different cultural phenomena surrounding the group's origens.
I hope not to go out of topic, I write this quite as a summary.
I think that it is interesting what is going on in Spain right now: both the spanish government and ETA are willing to go to negotiations. The ceasefire is working and it seems that they will agree for a disarmament. Of course, like you said, the cultural background is different, but it is worth to see what will happen. This is just an opinion.
About IRA, I hope that this ceasefire will be stable, but still the Orangists are continuing their marches. In this case it is striking how the leaders of the the govermnet and of Sinn Fein are acting more wisely than the people...
A total different phenomenon, so i don't report it here as a comparison, is Mafia in Italy. In that case the popular protest is making a difference.
Unresolved situations: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Aceh... the list is long...
I'm not really sure how this answers the question, except to suggest that Israel might want to start thinking about pre-emptively striking Pakistan's nukes if it looks like Al Queda might be about to take control.
That would start WWIII.
Israel needs to return to its 1948 borders. That is a start...and it might even be too late for that.
I hope not to go out of topic, I write this quite as a summary.
I think that it is interesting what is going on in Spain right now: both the spanish government and ETA are willing to go to negotiations. The ceasefire is working and it seems that they will agree for a disarmament. Of course, like you said, the cultural background is different, but it is worth to see what will happen. This is just an opinion.
About IRA, I hope that this ceasefire will be stable, but still the Orangists are continuing their marches. In this case it is striking how the leaders of the the govermnet and of Sinn Fein are acting more wisely than the people...
A total different phenomenon, so i don't report it here as a comparison, is Mafia in Italy. In that case the popular protest is making a difference.
Unresolved situations: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Aceh... the list is long...
So my question is this. It seems that in many of the cases you mentioned there is some sort of internal change in thinking within the terrorist group and their supporters. Either the group itself has changed its thinking and is pulling its more radical supporter along behind it (this I think is the rarer occurence), or the population that supports the terrorist (Mafia) group has changed its thinking and is forcing the group to change moderate as well. The thing is I see neither of these things happening in the Arab world. Hezbollah and Hamas are certainly not moderating. The belief that entering the political realm, by becoming members of their respective people's governments, would force these groups to moderate has proven entirely false. And the local populations are certainly supportive of these groups. Lebanon, perhaps, is a little different, in that there are large non-muslim populations there that are not supportive of Hezbollah. However, it seems the more radical and violent these groups are the more popular they become with the Arab street. Given that I don't see how the models that have and are working elsewhere can simply be imported to the Middle East. It would take, in my opinion, a massive about face in popular thinking in the Arab-Muslim world to have any chance of pushing these terrorist groups towards moderation.
So my question is this. It seems that in many of the cases you mentioned there is some sort of internal change in thinking within the terrorist group and their supporters. Either the group itself has changed its thinking and is pulling its more radical supporter along behind it (this I think is the rarer occurence), or the population that supports the terrorist (Mafia) group has changed its thinking and is forcing the group to change moderate as well. The thing is I see neither of these things happening in the Arab world. Hezbollah and Hamas are certainly not moderating. The belief that entering the political realm, by becoming members of their respective people's governments, would force these groups to moderate has proven entirely false. And the local populations are certainly supportive of these groups. Lebanon, perhaps, is a little different, in that there are large non-muslim populations there that are not supportive of Hezbollah. However, it seems the more radical and violent these groups are the more popular they become with the Arab street. Given that I don't see how the models that have and are working elsewhere can simply be imported to the Middle East. It would take, in my opinion, a massive about face in popular thinking in the Arab-Muslim world to have any chance of pushing these terrorist groups towards moderation.
I see what you mean.
In my little knowledge, believe in what Shiraz stated before, that is that a change in way of thinking must be made, maybe by both sides.
An example of what could happen through legal suppression of non-moderate groups is Algeria, where the cancellation of the regular 1992 elections created the well-known civil war.
Israel needs to return to its 1948 borders. That is a start...and it might even be too late for that.
I think that for a country like Israel, which is too small to survive even one nuclear strike, let alone a strike involving multiple nukes, (one nuke in Tel Aviv would wipe out the Israeli economy, cripple the military, and kill a huge % of Israel's population) precipitating WWIII might be a price they are willing to pay. After all, given your scenerio with al Queda, it is a choice between starting a war that can be won, and simply rolling over and dying. That said, I'm not actually sure that a pre-emptive strike on a country that may imminently nuke you would cause WWIII to begin with. I think that much of the world may, if their sane, understand such an action. In fact, if al Queda were about to take control of Pakistan's nukes I'm sure that Israel would not be the only country to be rushing to attack Pakistan. You can be sure that American, British, and probably even French and German pilots would be right up their in the sky with them.
Now, why do you say that Israel should return to its 48' borders? I've already addressed this issue with regards to someone else's post. I'm looking for people to put themselves in Israel's shoes and suggest a realistic political answer. So far people have given some interesting thoughts, but more often than not it seems that people are offering answers that are unrealistic politically for Israel, but which suit people's moral sense of what they would ideally want Israel to do. This was not my question. Leaving your sense of justice aside, what do you think a realistic political solution might look like?
In the current situation, Israel should stop its atrociously disproportionate attacks on Lebanon and accept the 48 hour ceasefire that they apparently agreed to, yet still ignore. That'd stop hostilities short term. This is a wise step for Israel as what they are doing in Lebanon right now is losing them ALL favour within the international community (besides the US and UK) and noone can really justify what they are doing........
Long term? Well the whole Middle East is so screwed up on both sides that any one solution would be difficult to achieve. In my opinion, however, Israel SHOULD return the land they have taken from Palestine in the past and definately get rid of their aggressive foreign policy, that would be a start, Islamic terrorist organisations should also be replaced with proper diplomacy, is this likely to happen? Sadly not......
I see what you mean.
In my little knowledge, believe in what Shiraz stated before, that is that a change in way of thinking must be made, maybe by both sides.
An example of what could happen through legal suppression of non-moderate groups is Algeria, where the cancellation of the regular 1992 elections created the well-known civil war.
That's a great example, since it is often cited, especially by Hamas, as an example of the repression of democracy in the Arab world when the results are not what was wanted. I don't think that this should be the norm. Legal and physical suppression of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are very popular, and which are organic outgrowths of their communities, would indeed lead to civil strife. What I am saying is that the Arab world needs to develope a civil society and reject the fundamentalist, violent, undemocratic thinking that defines groups like Hezbollah. I am talking about a popular rejection, not heavy handed government repression, which only makes such groups stronger. The problem is that these groups have such massive popular support. They have succeeded, and are still succeeding, to Islamisize their societies, and scuttle chances for the creation of truly democratic civil societies. What I'm saying is that the Palestinians and the Lebanese, (and others) need to wake up and realize that Hamas and Hezbollah are ruining their societies and leading them away from any sort of progress.
In the current situation, Israel should stop its atrociously disproportionate attacks on Lebanon and accept the 48 hour ceasefire that they apparently agreed to, yet still ignore. That'd stop hostilities short term. This is a wise step for Israel as what they are doing in Lebanon right now is losing them ALL favour within the international community (besides the US and UK) and noone can really justify what they are doing........
Long term? Well the whole Middle East is so screwed up that any one solution would be difficult to achieve. In my opinion, however, Israel SHOULD return the land they have taken from Palestine in the past and definately get rid of their aggressive foreign policy, that would be a start......
And what if accepting the cease-fire entirely does not lead to a stop in hostilities? What if Hezbollah, as I believe is likely, would continue to launch attacks at Israel knowing that a continuation of Israel's current offensive against them hurts Israel's image, and that if Israel doesn't respond and holds by the cease-fire they can claim victory since they "repelled the Israeli aggression" and even managed to get in the last punch? This would be a disastrous outcome for Israel, but it might be even worse for Lebanon. A victorious Hezbollah will be that much harder to dismantle, and that much more emboldened to extend its control over Lebanon.
As for ditching its aggressive foreign policy, Israel is in the Middle East, is surrounded by hostile states, and is under constant terrorist attack. They don't have the luxury of conducting their foreign policy as Norway does. I wish they did, but they don't. That is simply not a realistic political action. So what should they do that would be politically realistic?
And I should add ... Pertaining to the current crisis, Israel should cease airstrikes on any target that a) is not a known Hizbollah position, and b) that is known to contain a large number of civilians. This may not be ideal from a military standpoint, but I believe it necessary. I also feel that Lebanon is entitled to some compensation for damages sustained in areas that are not dominated by Hizbollah. I make this last statement loosely ... I am not entirely sure what form this compensation should take.
Sieze all assets of Hezbollah, since they operate within Lebanon's borders, and seemingly with their approval if not indifference. Let Hezbollah make reparations, or even work as laborers once they're done losing. Theres your compensation.
Sieze all assets of Hezbollah, since they operate within Lebanon's borders, and seemingly with their approval if not indifference. Let Hezbollah make reparations, or even work as laborers once they're done losing. Theres your compensation.
I agree with your sentiment that Hezbollah should share in the responsibility for the damage done to Lebanon, but I'm trying to keep this thread civil and on topic, so if you could please tone down the rhetoric and adjust your tone. I welcome your opinions, but please don't turn this thread into a forum for mud-slinging.
I took this off wikipedia just so we all have a clear idea of what Hezbollah is committed to. I've seen people saying elsewhere that Hezbollah acts in the interest of protecting the Lebanes people from Israeli aggression. I think this is very clearly false, as these examples should show, and as their actions with regard to attacking Israel should prove. Remember that Israel was in no way involved in attacks on Lebanon before Hezbollah's attack on Israel three weeks ago. I think a proper understanding of what Hezbollah is about is important for our current conversation given that many people are talking about negotiation with Hezbollah, which assumes that they can be negotiated with. Here's the quotes from wikipedia:
"An anonymous page on Hezbollah's website marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism. It sees the rejection of Zionism as an attitude hold across "races, religions, and nationalities". It likens Zionism to "the concept of creating 'Israel' by the use of force and violence, by stealing the Arabs’ lands and killing Palestinians". "[O]pposing the Zionists ideology is not opposing setting a home for Jews".[59]
In a 1999 interview, Nasrallah stated "Three things comprise our minimal demand: an [Israeli] withdrawal from South Lebanon and the Western Bqa’ Valley, a withdrawal from the Golan, and the return of the Palestinian refugees. On the future of the State of Israel he expounds: "Everybody talks nowadays about accepting the reality and coexistence, or any other form of settlement with Israel." However, he views "realism in a different way". To him, "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival."[60]
Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[61][62] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[63], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[64] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[65] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[66]"
I took this off wikipedia just so we all have a clear idea of what Hezbollah is committed to. I've seen people saying elsewhere that Hezbollah acts in the interest of protecting the Lebanes people from Israeli aggression. I think this is very clearly false, as these examples should show, and as their actions with regard to attacking Israel should prove. Remember that Israel was in no way involved in attacks on Lebanon before Hezbollah's attack on Israel three weeks ago. I think a proper understanding of what Hezbollah is about is important for our current conversation given that many people are talking about negotiation with Hezbollah, which assumes that they can be negotiated with.
Here, this is the fourth time I'm posting that recent interview with Hizbullah men. This is the state of mind we have to deal with:
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, south of Tyre
Saturday July 29, 2006
The Guardian
An injured Lebanese boy holds his mother after their van was attacked by Israeli aircraft as they fled their village in Tyre, Lebanon
An injured Lebanese boy with his mother after their van was attacked by Israeli aircraft as they fled their village in Tyre, Lebanon. Photo: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty
Inside a well-furnished apartment in a village on the outskirts of Tyre, with shelves of books piled from floor to ceiling, a black turbaned cleric and three men sit sipping bitter coffee. By the door is a pile of Kalashnikovs and ammunition boxes; handguns are tucked into the men's trousers. The four are Hizbullah fighters, waiting for the Israelis.
"Patience is our main virtue, we can wait for days, weeks, months before we attack. The Israelis are always impatient in battle and in strategy," says the cleric, Sayed Ali, who claims to be a descendant of the prophet. "I know them very well."
As if to make his point, the sound of Israeli shells blasting the surrounding hills shakes the door and shutters every few minutes. Ali does know the Israelis. He started fighting them at the age of 17 when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. Three years later he was arrested with two of his comrades and spent a few months in an Israeli prison. Within weeks of his release he was fighting them again.That's what he did for the next six years.
For the last five years he has been finishing his theology studies in Tehran. A month ago, he was asked by Hizbullah to return to southern Lebanon. He arrived a week before the fighting began.
Standing at the window, he points to the banana plantations between us and the blue Mediterranean. "I have fought for years in these groves. We used to sit and wait for them [the Israelis] to make a move and then we would hit. They always moved too quickly, too soon."
All over the hills of south Lebanon hundreds of men like Sayed Ali and his comrades are waiting - some in bunkers, some in farm houses - for the Israeli troops to arrive. Sayed Ali and his men spend most of their time in the building where his apartment is, moving only at night.
"We stay put and we don't move till we get our orders, and this is why we are not like any other militia. A militiaman will fire whenever he likes at whatever he likes," explains one of the men, who says he has been involved in firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. "We have specific orders. Even when we fire rockets we know when and where [to fire] and each of the men manning the launchers runs to a specific hiding place after firing the rockets."
He says Hizbullah fighters expect the site of a rocket launch to be hit by an Israeli airstrike or shell within 10 to 15 minutes.
Another of the men, who says he is Sayed Ali's brother, explains how Hizbullah teaches its fighters patience: "During our training we spend days in empty buildings without talking to anyone or doing anything. They tell me go and sit in that building, and I go and sit there and wait."
According to Ali, Hizbullah operates as "a state within the state", with its own hospitals, social organisations and social security system. "But we are also an Islamic resistance movement, an indoctrinated army," he adds. "I would go and knock the door at someone and say we need $50,000, he would give me [that] because they trust us."
The fighting force of the organisation is divided into two: the "active" group, whose task is to serve in Hizbullah, and the reserve, or Ta'abi'a, as it is known in Arabic. The active fighters get monthly pay. The reserves are called on only in time of war, and receive bonuses but no regular pay. A third section, the Ansar, comprises people who support or are supported by the organisation.
Ali, the commander of Hizbullah in his village, and his men are part of the active force, and their orders are to wait for further orders. "Hizbullah hasn't even mobilised all its active fighters, and the Israelis are calling their reserve units," he said.
Hizbullah prides itself on its secretiveness and discipline. "We don't take anyone who knocks at our door and says 'I want to join'. We raise our fighters. We take them when they are young kids and raise them to become Hizbullah fighters. Every fighter we have believes that the ultimate form of being is martyrdom." The three men nod their assent
Shia symbols and mythology play a big role in the ideology of Hizbullah, especially the tragedy of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet who in the 7th century led a few hundred men against the well-organised army of the caliph in Damascus. He was slain in Karbala, and Shia around the world commemorate these events in Ashura.
"Every one of those fighters is a true believer, he has been not only trained to use guns and weapons but [indoctrinated] in the Shia faith and the Husseini beliefs," Ali says.
He and his fellow fighters have been preparing for the latest conflict with the Israelis for years and he acknowledges the support received from Iran
"When we defeated them in 2000 we did that with [Katyusha] rockets. We had six years to prepare for this day - the Americans are sending laser-guided missiles to the Israelis, what's wrong if the Iranians help us? When the Syrians were here we would get stuff through their supply lines, now it's more difficult."
The TV is blaring patriotic songs and pictures of destroyed bridges, houses and buildings. The men are feeling confident - only a day earlier the Israelis suffered heavy casualties in the village of Bint Jbeil.
"Our strategy is to hit the commandos and the Golani units like we did in Bint Jbeil," Ali says. "Those are their best units. If they can't do anything, the morale of the reserve units will sink."
For Ali and his comrades, the latest conflict is a war of survival not only for Hizbullah but for the whole Shia community. It is not only as a war with Israel, their enemy for decades,but also with the Sunni community. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have all expressed fears of Iranian domination over the Middle East.
"If Israel comes out victorious from this conflict, this will be a victory for the Sunnis and they will take the Shia community back in history dozens of years to the time when we were only allowed to work as garbage collectors in this country. The Shia will all die before letting this happen again."
He says that even if the international community calls on Hizbullah to disarm as part of a peace deal, he and his men will not lay down their arms. "This war is episode two in disarming Hizbullah. First they tried to do it through the Lebanese government and the UN. When they failed, the Americans asked the Israelis to do the job."
Despite Israel's claims to have inflicted heavy losses on Hizbullah, Ali insists his side is in a strong position. "Things are going very well now, whatever happens we are winning. If they keep bombing us we will stay in the shelters, and with each bomb more people support the resistance. If they invade they will repeat the miserable fate they had in 1982, and if they hold one square foot they will give the Islamic resistance all the legitimacy. If they want to kill Hizbullah they have to kill every Shia in the south of Lebanon."
And even when the battle with the Israelis is over, he adds menacingly, Hizbullah will have other battles to fight. "The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let's finish with the Israelis and then we will settle scores later."
Op-Ed Contributor
Peacekeepers Are Not Peacemakers
E-MailPrint Save
By NANCY SODERBERG
Published: August 2, 2006
Jacksonville, Fla.
AS the death tolls in Lebanon and Israel rise, calls for a robust international peacekeeping force are increasing. But history should serve as warning. As we all know, the United States and France learned the cost of a poorly planned presence in 1983 when Hezbollah suicide bombers blew up their barracks, killing 300 troops.
More to the point, there has been a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon since 1978 (paradoxically named the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil) charged with confirming Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, restoring “international peace and security” and helping the Lebanese government restore its authority. The force, 2,000 strong, has failed in all but the first task, instead focusing on humanitarian aid.
The Lebanon mission is the most deadly United Nations operation, with some 260 personnel killed over 28 years. The most recent deaths came last week, when four peacekeepers were killed by Israeli fire, outraging Secretary General Kofi Annan. Regrettably, instead of bringing these lame-duck troops out of the fray, the Security Council chose to extend the mission’s mandate, which was to have expired Monday, until the end of the month.
Now the United Nations and European Union officials are urging a strengthened force to “sort out the question of disarmament of the militia” in southern Lebanon and “guarantee sovereignty and freedom for Lebanon.” These are goals so ambitious that no peacekeeping force, not even NATO, could achieve them.
In any case, one cannot deploy a peacekeeping force until the questions of disarmament and sovereignty have been addressed. Unless the path forward is agreed upon, the peacekeeping troops are at best without a clear mandate and at worst can become pawns in the negotiations.
Think of what happened in Bosnia in the 1990’s: the initial United Nations peacekeeping force in the Balkans, called Unprofor, was powerless to stop the fighting and had its troops used as human shields by the combatants. Its successor, a NATO-led force called IFOR, was far more effective — largely because the Dayton Accords were agreed upon before it went in.
The way forward in Lebanon is clear. First, the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Iranians must give up the fiction that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah justifies its terrorist attacks by claiming that Israel never withdrew from a small area called the Shebaa Farms.
In fact, however, the Shebaa Farms area is not in Lebanon; all international records clearly show it is part of Syria. When it was clear in 2000 that the Israelis were going to withdraw from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials circulated in the United Nations a crudely altered map purporting to show the area in Lebanon. The Security Council rejected that claim and confirmed the Israeli withdrawal. But myths have a way of surviving in the Middle East and the Arabs continue to use it as a justification for attacks.
Second, no cease-fire will hold unless the root cause of the current crisis is addressed: the continuing presence of armed Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon. Any solution will require a new security arrangement that not only disarms the Hezbollah militia but also mandates the deployment of Lebanese forces to the south, as well as a return of prisoners on both sides. Without such a deal, it would be folly to send in peacekeepers.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces a tough challenge in Lebanon, especially given that the key players, Syria and Iran, are not even in the room. Success will take more sophisticated diplomacy than we have yet seen from her or from President Bush. In the meantime, Lebanese and Israeli civilians, along with blue-helmeted peacekeepers, are paying the price for the West having ignored the rising threat of Hezbollah over the last six years.
Nancy Soderberg, the author of “The Superpower Myth,” was, from 1997 to 2001, a United States ambassador to the United Nations, where she negotiated the Security Council’s endorsement of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
So my question is this. It seems that in many of the cases you mentioned there is some sort of internal change in thinking within the terrorist group and their supporters. Either the group itself has changed its thinking and is pulling its more radical supporter along behind it (this I think is the rarer occurence), or the population that supports the terrorist (Mafia) group has changed its thinking and is forcing the group to change moderate as well. The thing is I see neither of these things happening in the Arab world. Hezbollah and Hamas are certainly not moderating. The belief that entering the political realm, by becoming members of their respective people's governments, would force these groups to moderate has proven entirely false. And the local populations are certainly supportive of these groups. Lebanon, perhaps, is a little different, in that there are large non-muslim populations there that are not supportive of Hezbollah. However, it seems the more radical and violent these groups are the more popular they become with the Arab street. Given that I don't see how the models that have and are working elsewhere can simply be imported to the Middle East. It would take, in my opinion, a massive about face in popular thinking in the Arab-Muslim world to have any chance of pushing these terrorist groups towards moderation.
It seems to that after the first few bombs fell on Lebanon the people were blaming Hezbullah for starting it. But by the time the 100th bomb fell, people were starting to blame the ones bombing them. I more proportional response would have been appropriate to help swing the public's mind. At this point, you even have the Lebanese government saying they "respect Hezbullah." I know you are asking for a solution to the problem, but do you think the current Israeli strategy is helping or hurting their cause? Its also very hard to negotiate any kind of peace when you refuse to talk to the ones you're going after. I know this is not a very good example, but it wasn't until England actually spoke with the IRA before any kind of settlement could be formed. They were not worried about giving the IRA "status." The argument about not wanting to talk because it gives a group (Hezbullah, Iran, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, etc.) a certain amount of credability is not a very plausable argument. Like I said in an earlier post, if it doesn't work no one is stopping you from using all force necessary in the future. But eventually peace will only be achieved through compromise and negotiation, not through missel strikes and suicide bombings.
It seems to that after the first few bombs fell on Lebanon the people were blaming Hezbullah for starting it. But by the time the 100th bomb fell, people were starting to blame the ones bombing them. I more proportional response would have been appropriate to help swing the public's mind. At this point, you even have the Lebanese government saying they "respect Hezbullah." I know you are asking for a solution to the problem, but do you think the current Israeli strategy is helping or hurting their cause? Its also very hard to negotiate any kind of peace when you refuse to talk to the ones you're going after. I know this is not a very good example, but it wasn't until England actually spoke with the IRA before any kind of settlement could be formed. They were not worried about giving the IRA "status." The argument about not wanting to talk because it gives a group (Hezbullah, Iran, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, etc.) a certain amount of credability is not a very plausable argument. Like I said in an earlier post, if it doesn't work no one is stopping you from using all force necessary in the future. But eventually peace will only be achieved through compromise and negotiation, not through missel strikes and suicide bombings.
I'm a little short on time but I'll offer a short response to your question. I think Israel's military response was correct in theory, but was carried out in a bad way. I think the IDF relied on air power too heavily so as to save soldiers lives. Had they, and Israel's civilian leaders not been so casualty averse it would have been better to launch a major ground offensive which would have been more effective in combating Hezbollah, and less damaging to Lebanon and its civilians.
I'm a little short on time but I'll offer a short response to your question. I think Israel's military response was correct in theory, but was carried out in a bad way. I think the IDF relied on air power too heavily so as to save soldiers lives. Had they, and Israel's civilian leaders not been so casualty averse it would have been better to launch a major ground offensive which would have been more effective in combating Hezbollah, and less damaging to Lebanon and its civilians.
Why does Israel have to sacrifice its soldiers lives for those civilians? Israel's first priority is to protect its own citizens. The Israeli soldiers aren't robots - they're people with families. Had Israel launched a ground offensive prior to launching the air strikes, they would have suffered devastating casualties. It's a war, and it's unfortunate that Lebanese civilians have been killed. However, that isn't Israel's fault. Israel is acting like any other country would - protecting its own people first and foremost, whether they be soldiers or civilians.
Comments
My pleasure.
Yes, but what would that change in plan look like, taking into account that Israel must continue to protect its civilians in the here and now?
Give back the occupied land and lay of the offensive. Don't give land back in one area then take more in another. I'll leave the maps and whatnot to the pros but I'm sure they could reach some sort of compromise. Afair offer from both sides is possible, imo.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And what about us? Why can't we return all the prisoners who sit here without a trail, we don't even use them as a negotiative means, they only cost us more money and more problems. And the road-blocks? Clearly unnecessary in any way you'll look at it. Hamas? sure, it is a HUGE problem to talk to someone who don't think you got the right to exist, but we didn't even tried to.
I can go on and on with examples but I think you're getting the point: As long as Israe's/Palestain's way of thinking stays the same, I don't see any solution in the near future no matter how many withdrawal we're gonna pull off.
Inductive rather than deductive reasoning, maybe: a rightfully paranoid sense, that your apparent allies are your inevitable, and most decisive, enemies. :(
Consider that no one seems too concerned about Bin Ladin and Al queda in the Mountains of Pakistan. Consider also that the Taliban is regaining control in parts of Afghanistan. Next, consider that Al Queda has many sympathizers in Pakistand, and Musharaff hangs onto power by a thread.
A few small terror attacks here and there to keep the "Axis of Justice" on their toes while Al-Queda solidifies its operations in Pakistan. Once Al-Queda has that, they will lead a coup to overthrow Musharaff, and take possession of Pakistan's nukes. I doubt that the Taliban will help them...they simply complicate things. they are the red herring in all of this.
You can figure out the rest. Starting with buhbye Israel.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Is that a typo?
Or do you really call it Palestain?
It should be Palestine, It was a typo error.
In the short term, while Hezbollah missles are raining down, target the enemy with minimum possible collateral damage. But there is no precedent for a large offensive millitary action destroying an organization like Hezbollah. It should be clear to the deciders, if they want peace, that this tactic doesn't work by now.
It seems there is an of action-movie sort of fantasy idea that affects people's minds in these situations. That if only we "get tough" with these terrorists they will roll over. In fact, terrorist actions are designed to provoke exactly the type of incompetent, heavy-handed approach we are seeing from the Israelis.
The more force you apply, the more innocent bystanders get killed, and the more recruits join the terrorists. That is happening as we speak in Lebanon. Israel is radicalizing the whole country against them. Hezbollah will move into power vacums created by the bombing. Hezbollah is going to be a significantly larger player than it is now. And even if Israel were able to kill every one of them, Syria or Iran or both would then create afreash a new terror organization to destabilize the region.
There are precedents for destroying such groups through diplomacy, economic redevelopment, popular protest, external pressure from moderate players nominally supportive of the terror group's goals, and time. It does take a lot of time, and patience. But there isn't any alternative. This was essentially the route Lebanon was on. The Israelis just set them back to square one.
You say a fair offer from both sides, and yet you only give an outline of what Israel should give up. What about the other side? Also, again, how can Israel lay off the offensive entirely in the face of repeated attacks on its citizens? Are you suggesting that Israel simply turn the other cheek while its citizens are killed?
Ok, but you still haven't offered any concrete plan of action. If Israel were to think as you do, what would they then DO?
I'm not really sure how this answers the question, except to suggest that Israel might want to start thinking about pre-emptively striking Pakistan's nukes if it looks like Al Queda might be about to take control.
Ok, well said. What are some examples of such groups being dismantled in the manner you describe? I've heard people talk about the IRA, but I don't think the two groups are really comparable, given the religious nature of Hezbollah (and Hamas as well) and the entirely different cultural phenomena surrounding the group's origens.
I think that it is interesting what is going on in Spain right now: both the spanish government and ETA are willing to go to negotiations. The ceasefire is working and it seems that they will agree for a disarmament. Of course, like you said, the cultural background is different, but it is worth to see what will happen. This is just an opinion.
About IRA, I hope that this ceasefire will be stable, but still the Orangists are continuing their marches. In this case it is striking how the leaders of the the govermnet and of Sinn Fein are acting more wisely than the people...
A total different phenomenon, so i don't report it here as a comparison, is Mafia in Italy. In that case the popular protest is making a difference.
Unresolved situations: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Aceh... the list is long...
www.amnesty.org.uk
That would start WWIII.
Israel needs to return to its 1948 borders. That is a start...and it might even be too late for that.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
So my question is this. It seems that in many of the cases you mentioned there is some sort of internal change in thinking within the terrorist group and their supporters. Either the group itself has changed its thinking and is pulling its more radical supporter along behind it (this I think is the rarer occurence), or the population that supports the terrorist (Mafia) group has changed its thinking and is forcing the group to change moderate as well. The thing is I see neither of these things happening in the Arab world. Hezbollah and Hamas are certainly not moderating. The belief that entering the political realm, by becoming members of their respective people's governments, would force these groups to moderate has proven entirely false. And the local populations are certainly supportive of these groups. Lebanon, perhaps, is a little different, in that there are large non-muslim populations there that are not supportive of Hezbollah. However, it seems the more radical and violent these groups are the more popular they become with the Arab street. Given that I don't see how the models that have and are working elsewhere can simply be imported to the Middle East. It would take, in my opinion, a massive about face in popular thinking in the Arab-Muslim world to have any chance of pushing these terrorist groups towards moderation.
In my little knowledge, believe in what Shiraz stated before, that is that a change in way of thinking must be made, maybe by both sides.
An example of what could happen through legal suppression of non-moderate groups is Algeria, where the cancellation of the regular 1992 elections created the well-known civil war.
www.amnesty.org.uk
I think that for a country like Israel, which is too small to survive even one nuclear strike, let alone a strike involving multiple nukes, (one nuke in Tel Aviv would wipe out the Israeli economy, cripple the military, and kill a huge % of Israel's population) precipitating WWIII might be a price they are willing to pay. After all, given your scenerio with al Queda, it is a choice between starting a war that can be won, and simply rolling over and dying. That said, I'm not actually sure that a pre-emptive strike on a country that may imminently nuke you would cause WWIII to begin with. I think that much of the world may, if their sane, understand such an action. In fact, if al Queda were about to take control of Pakistan's nukes I'm sure that Israel would not be the only country to be rushing to attack Pakistan. You can be sure that American, British, and probably even French and German pilots would be right up their in the sky with them.
Now, why do you say that Israel should return to its 48' borders? I've already addressed this issue with regards to someone else's post. I'm looking for people to put themselves in Israel's shoes and suggest a realistic political answer. So far people have given some interesting thoughts, but more often than not it seems that people are offering answers that are unrealistic politically for Israel, but which suit people's moral sense of what they would ideally want Israel to do. This was not my question. Leaving your sense of justice aside, what do you think a realistic political solution might look like?
Long term? Well the whole Middle East is so screwed up on both sides that any one solution would be difficult to achieve. In my opinion, however, Israel SHOULD return the land they have taken from Palestine in the past and definately get rid of their aggressive foreign policy, that would be a start, Islamic terrorist organisations should also be replaced with proper diplomacy, is this likely to happen? Sadly not......
That's a great example, since it is often cited, especially by Hamas, as an example of the repression of democracy in the Arab world when the results are not what was wanted. I don't think that this should be the norm. Legal and physical suppression of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are very popular, and which are organic outgrowths of their communities, would indeed lead to civil strife. What I am saying is that the Arab world needs to develope a civil society and reject the fundamentalist, violent, undemocratic thinking that defines groups like Hezbollah. I am talking about a popular rejection, not heavy handed government repression, which only makes such groups stronger. The problem is that these groups have such massive popular support. They have succeeded, and are still succeeding, to Islamisize their societies, and scuttle chances for the creation of truly democratic civil societies. What I'm saying is that the Palestinians and the Lebanese, (and others) need to wake up and realize that Hamas and Hezbollah are ruining their societies and leading them away from any sort of progress.
And what if accepting the cease-fire entirely does not lead to a stop in hostilities? What if Hezbollah, as I believe is likely, would continue to launch attacks at Israel knowing that a continuation of Israel's current offensive against them hurts Israel's image, and that if Israel doesn't respond and holds by the cease-fire they can claim victory since they "repelled the Israeli aggression" and even managed to get in the last punch? This would be a disastrous outcome for Israel, but it might be even worse for Lebanon. A victorious Hezbollah will be that much harder to dismantle, and that much more emboldened to extend its control over Lebanon.
As for ditching its aggressive foreign policy, Israel is in the Middle East, is surrounded by hostile states, and is under constant terrorist attack. They don't have the luxury of conducting their foreign policy as Norway does. I wish they did, but they don't. That is simply not a realistic political action. So what should they do that would be politically realistic?
Sieze all assets of Hezbollah, since they operate within Lebanon's borders, and seemingly with their approval if not indifference. Let Hezbollah make reparations, or even work as laborers once they're done losing. Theres your compensation.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I agree with your sentiment that Hezbollah should share in the responsibility for the damage done to Lebanon, but I'm trying to keep this thread civil and on topic, so if you could please tone down the rhetoric and adjust your tone. I welcome your opinions, but please don't turn this thread into a forum for mud-slinging.
"An anonymous page on Hezbollah's website marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism. It sees the rejection of Zionism as an attitude hold across "races, religions, and nationalities". It likens Zionism to "the concept of creating 'Israel' by the use of force and violence, by stealing the Arabs’ lands and killing Palestinians". "[O]pposing the Zionists ideology is not opposing setting a home for Jews".[59]
In a 1999 interview, Nasrallah stated "Three things comprise our minimal demand: an [Israeli] withdrawal from South Lebanon and the Western Bqa’ Valley, a withdrawal from the Golan, and the return of the Palestinian refugees. On the future of the State of Israel he expounds: "Everybody talks nowadays about accepting the reality and coexistence, or any other form of settlement with Israel." However, he views "realism in a different way". To him, "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival."[60]
Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[61][62] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[63], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[64] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[65] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[66]"
Here, this is the fourth time I'm posting that recent interview with Hizbullah men. This is the state of mind we have to deal with:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...832931,00.html
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, south of Tyre
Saturday July 29, 2006
The Guardian
An injured Lebanese boy holds his mother after their van was attacked by Israeli aircraft as they fled their village in Tyre, Lebanon
An injured Lebanese boy with his mother after their van was attacked by Israeli aircraft as they fled their village in Tyre, Lebanon. Photo: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad/Getty
Inside a well-furnished apartment in a village on the outskirts of Tyre, with shelves of books piled from floor to ceiling, a black turbaned cleric and three men sit sipping bitter coffee. By the door is a pile of Kalashnikovs and ammunition boxes; handguns are tucked into the men's trousers. The four are Hizbullah fighters, waiting for the Israelis.
"Patience is our main virtue, we can wait for days, weeks, months before we attack. The Israelis are always impatient in battle and in strategy," says the cleric, Sayed Ali, who claims to be a descendant of the prophet. "I know them very well."
As if to make his point, the sound of Israeli shells blasting the surrounding hills shakes the door and shutters every few minutes. Ali does know the Israelis. He started fighting them at the age of 17 when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. Three years later he was arrested with two of his comrades and spent a few months in an Israeli prison. Within weeks of his release he was fighting them again.That's what he did for the next six years.
For the last five years he has been finishing his theology studies in Tehran. A month ago, he was asked by Hizbullah to return to southern Lebanon. He arrived a week before the fighting began.
Standing at the window, he points to the banana plantations between us and the blue Mediterranean. "I have fought for years in these groves. We used to sit and wait for them [the Israelis] to make a move and then we would hit. They always moved too quickly, too soon."
All over the hills of south Lebanon hundreds of men like Sayed Ali and his comrades are waiting - some in bunkers, some in farm houses - for the Israeli troops to arrive. Sayed Ali and his men spend most of their time in the building where his apartment is, moving only at night.
"We stay put and we don't move till we get our orders, and this is why we are not like any other militia. A militiaman will fire whenever he likes at whatever he likes," explains one of the men, who says he has been involved in firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. "We have specific orders. Even when we fire rockets we know when and where [to fire] and each of the men manning the launchers runs to a specific hiding place after firing the rockets."
He says Hizbullah fighters expect the site of a rocket launch to be hit by an Israeli airstrike or shell within 10 to 15 minutes.
Another of the men, who says he is Sayed Ali's brother, explains how Hizbullah teaches its fighters patience: "During our training we spend days in empty buildings without talking to anyone or doing anything. They tell me go and sit in that building, and I go and sit there and wait."
According to Ali, Hizbullah operates as "a state within the state", with its own hospitals, social organisations and social security system. "But we are also an Islamic resistance movement, an indoctrinated army," he adds. "I would go and knock the door at someone and say we need $50,000, he would give me [that] because they trust us."
The fighting force of the organisation is divided into two: the "active" group, whose task is to serve in Hizbullah, and the reserve, or Ta'abi'a, as it is known in Arabic. The active fighters get monthly pay. The reserves are called on only in time of war, and receive bonuses but no regular pay. A third section, the Ansar, comprises people who support or are supported by the organisation.
Ali, the commander of Hizbullah in his village, and his men are part of the active force, and their orders are to wait for further orders. "Hizbullah hasn't even mobilised all its active fighters, and the Israelis are calling their reserve units," he said.
Hizbullah prides itself on its secretiveness and discipline. "We don't take anyone who knocks at our door and says 'I want to join'. We raise our fighters. We take them when they are young kids and raise them to become Hizbullah fighters. Every fighter we have believes that the ultimate form of being is martyrdom." The three men nod their assent
Shia symbols and mythology play a big role in the ideology of Hizbullah, especially the tragedy of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet who in the 7th century led a few hundred men against the well-organised army of the caliph in Damascus. He was slain in Karbala, and Shia around the world commemorate these events in Ashura.
"Every one of those fighters is a true believer, he has been not only trained to use guns and weapons but [indoctrinated] in the Shia faith and the Husseini beliefs," Ali says.
He and his fellow fighters have been preparing for the latest conflict with the Israelis for years and he acknowledges the support received from Iran
"When we defeated them in 2000 we did that with [Katyusha] rockets. We had six years to prepare for this day - the Americans are sending laser-guided missiles to the Israelis, what's wrong if the Iranians help us? When the Syrians were here we would get stuff through their supply lines, now it's more difficult."
The TV is blaring patriotic songs and pictures of destroyed bridges, houses and buildings. The men are feeling confident - only a day earlier the Israelis suffered heavy casualties in the village of Bint Jbeil.
"Our strategy is to hit the commandos and the Golani units like we did in Bint Jbeil," Ali says. "Those are their best units. If they can't do anything, the morale of the reserve units will sink."
For Ali and his comrades, the latest conflict is a war of survival not only for Hizbullah but for the whole Shia community. It is not only as a war with Israel, their enemy for decades,but also with the Sunni community. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have all expressed fears of Iranian domination over the Middle East.
"If Israel comes out victorious from this conflict, this will be a victory for the Sunnis and they will take the Shia community back in history dozens of years to the time when we were only allowed to work as garbage collectors in this country. The Shia will all die before letting this happen again."
He says that even if the international community calls on Hizbullah to disarm as part of a peace deal, he and his men will not lay down their arms. "This war is episode two in disarming Hizbullah. First they tried to do it through the Lebanese government and the UN. When they failed, the Americans asked the Israelis to do the job."
Despite Israel's claims to have inflicted heavy losses on Hizbullah, Ali insists his side is in a strong position. "Things are going very well now, whatever happens we are winning. If they keep bombing us we will stay in the shelters, and with each bomb more people support the resistance. If they invade they will repeat the miserable fate they had in 1982, and if they hold one square foot they will give the Islamic resistance all the legitimacy. If they want to kill Hizbullah they have to kill every Shia in the south of Lebanon."
And even when the battle with the Israelis is over, he adds menacingly, Hizbullah will have other battles to fight. "The real battle is after the end of this war. We will have to settle score with the Lebanese politicians. We also have the best security and intelligence apparatus in this country, and we can reach any of those people who are speaking against us now. Let's finish with the Israelis and then we will settle scores later."
Peacekeepers Are Not Peacemakers
E-MailPrint Save
By NANCY SODERBERG
Published: August 2, 2006
Jacksonville, Fla.
AS the death tolls in Lebanon and Israel rise, calls for a robust international peacekeeping force are increasing. But history should serve as warning. As we all know, the United States and France learned the cost of a poorly planned presence in 1983 when Hezbollah suicide bombers blew up their barracks, killing 300 troops.
More to the point, there has been a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon since 1978 (paradoxically named the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil) charged with confirming Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, restoring “international peace and security” and helping the Lebanese government restore its authority. The force, 2,000 strong, has failed in all but the first task, instead focusing on humanitarian aid.
The Lebanon mission is the most deadly United Nations operation, with some 260 personnel killed over 28 years. The most recent deaths came last week, when four peacekeepers were killed by Israeli fire, outraging Secretary General Kofi Annan. Regrettably, instead of bringing these lame-duck troops out of the fray, the Security Council chose to extend the mission’s mandate, which was to have expired Monday, until the end of the month.
Now the United Nations and European Union officials are urging a strengthened force to “sort out the question of disarmament of the militia” in southern Lebanon and “guarantee sovereignty and freedom for Lebanon.” These are goals so ambitious that no peacekeeping force, not even NATO, could achieve them.
In any case, one cannot deploy a peacekeeping force until the questions of disarmament and sovereignty have been addressed. Unless the path forward is agreed upon, the peacekeeping troops are at best without a clear mandate and at worst can become pawns in the negotiations.
Think of what happened in Bosnia in the 1990’s: the initial United Nations peacekeeping force in the Balkans, called Unprofor, was powerless to stop the fighting and had its troops used as human shields by the combatants. Its successor, a NATO-led force called IFOR, was far more effective — largely because the Dayton Accords were agreed upon before it went in.
The way forward in Lebanon is clear. First, the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Iranians must give up the fiction that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah justifies its terrorist attacks by claiming that Israel never withdrew from a small area called the Shebaa Farms.
In fact, however, the Shebaa Farms area is not in Lebanon; all international records clearly show it is part of Syria. When it was clear in 2000 that the Israelis were going to withdraw from Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials circulated in the United Nations a crudely altered map purporting to show the area in Lebanon. The Security Council rejected that claim and confirmed the Israeli withdrawal. But myths have a way of surviving in the Middle East and the Arabs continue to use it as a justification for attacks.
Second, no cease-fire will hold unless the root cause of the current crisis is addressed: the continuing presence of armed Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon. Any solution will require a new security arrangement that not only disarms the Hezbollah militia but also mandates the deployment of Lebanese forces to the south, as well as a return of prisoners on both sides. Without such a deal, it would be folly to send in peacekeepers.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces a tough challenge in Lebanon, especially given that the key players, Syria and Iran, are not even in the room. Success will take more sophisticated diplomacy than we have yet seen from her or from President Bush. In the meantime, Lebanese and Israeli civilians, along with blue-helmeted peacekeepers, are paying the price for the West having ignored the rising threat of Hezbollah over the last six years.
Nancy Soderberg, the author of “The Superpower Myth,” was, from 1997 to 2001, a United States ambassador to the United Nations, where she negotiated the Security Council’s endorsement of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
It seems to that after the first few bombs fell on Lebanon the people were blaming Hezbullah for starting it. But by the time the 100th bomb fell, people were starting to blame the ones bombing them. I more proportional response would have been appropriate to help swing the public's mind. At this point, you even have the Lebanese government saying they "respect Hezbullah." I know you are asking for a solution to the problem, but do you think the current Israeli strategy is helping or hurting their cause? Its also very hard to negotiate any kind of peace when you refuse to talk to the ones you're going after. I know this is not a very good example, but it wasn't until England actually spoke with the IRA before any kind of settlement could be formed. They were not worried about giving the IRA "status." The argument about not wanting to talk because it gives a group (Hezbullah, Iran, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, etc.) a certain amount of credability is not a very plausable argument. Like I said in an earlier post, if it doesn't work no one is stopping you from using all force necessary in the future. But eventually peace will only be achieved through compromise and negotiation, not through missel strikes and suicide bombings.
I'm a little short on time but I'll offer a short response to your question. I think Israel's military response was correct in theory, but was carried out in a bad way. I think the IDF relied on air power too heavily so as to save soldiers lives. Had they, and Israel's civilian leaders not been so casualty averse it would have been better to launch a major ground offensive which would have been more effective in combating Hezbollah, and less damaging to Lebanon and its civilians.
Why does Israel have to sacrifice its soldiers lives for those civilians? Israel's first priority is to protect its own citizens. The Israeli soldiers aren't robots - they're people with families. Had Israel launched a ground offensive prior to launching the air strikes, they would have suffered devastating casualties. It's a war, and it's unfortunate that Lebanese civilians have been killed. However, that isn't Israel's fault. Israel is acting like any other country would - protecting its own people first and foremost, whether they be soldiers or civilians.