BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Israeli terrorism in Lebanon

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 11

 
 
illmatic
11:18 / 20.07.06
Actually, with reference to Pingle's post, can anyone inform me what Hisbullah’s strategic aims are or were when they started the attacks? I'm not saying they didn’t have any (or that they did) but I suspect that their illegitimacy as a terrorist organisation might lead to any stated aims not being reported. Any comments?
 
 
illmatic
11:29 / 20.07.06
Tariq Ali suggests this is all about isolating Syria.

And Flyboy, I'd be interested if you could find that quote.
 
 
diz
11:46 / 20.07.06
Unfortunately though, the only faction in the world that the Israeli government is likely to listen to about this, the US Republican party, is also the last one that's going to tell it what it badly needs to hear. Which is something like, 'any more of this insanity, and we're cutting you off.'

Israel, as a highly developed economy, could probably do without the money for a while, but it would struggle a bit without the implied military support. As the right wing elements in its government well know - they're at best going to stall a Democrat administration, until a more amenable character's in the Oval office, so the only way round this, it seems, is for the Republicans to be quite clear (behind the scenes, obviously) about the penalties they'd be prepared to impose as a result of any further attempts to derail 'the road to peace.'

And it's difficult to picture that happening at the moment - diverging slightly from the topic at hand, it does seem as if, unless a vaguely sane Republican is the next US president, the rest of the world is going to be sitting round waiting for the next neo-con backlash, and not paying its Democrat predecessor too much mind.


It's completely naive to think this is a Democrat vs Republican thing. In fact, unquestioning support of Israel is one of the biggest points on which the two major parties agree wholeheartedly.

Sure, the Democrats might be a little more active in pushing for another round of peace negotiations, but they're not going to cut off the massive US funding that makes Israel so much more powerful than its neighbors.
 
 
Ticker
12:34 / 20.07.06
thank you Haus, that helped quite a bit.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
13:32 / 20.07.06
they're not going to cut off the massive US funding that makes Israel so much more powerful than its neighbors

Is there any generally accepted idea of how far Israel can take things before the U.S. disavows them? I have a feeling that up to and possibly including lobbing nukes willy-nilly around the rest of the region, whoever is in the Oval Office will keep ending text messages to Israel with UR #1FREND4EVA KTHXBYE.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:35 / 20.07.06
Actually, with reference to Pingle's post, can anyone inform me what Hisbullah’s strategic aims are or were when they started the attacks?

Did Hezbollah start attacks? I was under the impression that although they kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, they only started firing things when Israel started blowing up Lebanese civilians. In which case, I'd suspect their aims, would be similar to those stated by Israel in excuse for its own actions: "Stop blowing us up!" and the "right to defend ourselves" stuff.

As to Hezbollah's aims more generally, I've not really read enough to be sure specifically. I Googled "hezbollah aims" and came up with this Al-Jazeera article, which states that Hezbollah won't disarm as long as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict persists. So if that's representative, it suggests that they're effectively the equivalent of Hamas in Lebanon, whose aims and motivations I assume are already pretty well established. Does anyone else know any better?
 
 
grant
13:53 / 20.07.06
Was an interesting thing on the radio yesterday evening pointing out that Hamas is a Sunni group and Hezbollah a Shi'ite group, and thus the current conflict is having a unifying effect on groups in places like, oh, Iraq.

Interested to hear more on that.
 
 
grime
15:00 / 20.07.06
hi sleazenation, i think you're totally right. the weakness and fragility of the lebanese government is one the central issues here.

bringing hizbollah into the democratic process was a great idea, but letting them keep their weapons was a big mistake. they became neither a real underground terrorist orginization, nor a real political party equal to all the others. all you get is this vague entity that some people like and other people hate and is impossible to control.

strengthening the lebanese govt, with a focus on a modern, nationalist military, should have been a no-brainer for western powers, especially since they got rid of the syrian occupation.

it's even possible that this whole thing is part of syria's long game or re-occupying lebanaon. not that i can figure why they'd even want it.
 
 
sleazenation
22:32 / 20.07.06
I think that any idea that the actions of Hizbollah are the direct wish of syria is crediting Syria with much more influence than it really has...

bringing hizbollah into the democratic process was a great idea, but letting them keep their weapons was a big mistake.

You phrase this proposition as if the newly elected Lebanese government had the power and influence to disarm Hizbollah - Hizbollah are better armed than the Lebanese Army, and this is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the whole conundrum of political movements that have both a political and a non-political wing...
 
 
illmatic
01:23 / 21.07.06
Also, it's only ever the "illegimate" groups - in the eyes of the Western media - that statements about disarming are made about. Why would Hizabollah disarm with a neighbour with politcal aims running counter it's purpose and vastly superior firepower right on it's border? Would you make the same statement about Israel?
 
 
Dead Megatron
01:27 / 21.07.06
Actually, I would, but that may be utopic
 
 
whothehell@where?
10:40 / 21.07.06
even if we could disarm both sides they'd just resort to bashing each others heads in with rocks
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:03 / 21.07.06
Well, quite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hezbollah got to where they are now through both armed resistance and terrorist assaults. They're now part of a coalition government and are recognised by the current Lebanese president, who claimed to speak for the majority of the Lebanese population, as being essential to their liberation of their land - and as a national resistance movement. That's a hell of a lot of positive reinforcement towards retaining arms. What do we have against? A UN Resolution (they should start renaming these things UN Equivocations) that states they should, and the continuing representation of their organisation as a terrorist group by the Western and Israeli governments and pundits. Not a difficult decision.

Regarding the current crisis, I think I'm with Haus on this. After all, Hezbollah tried the whole kidnap/prisoner swap thing a couple of years ago with excellent results following negotiation, so it's always been likely they'd try it again. It's just a shame that Olmert seems to have felt that he needed to step up and show everyone how big his cock is.

Regarding whether the IAF is deliberately targeting civilians... well of course they are. If they use explosives in areas with a civilian populace, they're going to kill civilians. I think the point is that they do not actually mind. Just as Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians aren't made with a concerted effort to avoid non-military casualties. I don't agree that state terrorism is worse than stateless terrorism. There's a fairly simple dictionary definition of the word which hasn't been shown to be invalid, even after the world allegedly changed in September 2001, and despite the Bush II Government's efforts to NewSpeak the word's signifier into oblivion. Terrorism is terrorism. A criminal act.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:16 / 21.07.06
Israel prepares for ground invasion of Lebanon.

The UN estimated that about a half a million people had been displaced in Lebanon, with 130,000 fleeing to Syria and about 45,000 believed to be in need of assistance.

A World Food Programme official in Lebanon, Amer Daoudi, expressed concern about getting food to the displaced, saying "damage to roads and bridges has almost completely disrupted the food supply chain, hurting large numbers of the displaced".

The Lebanese prime minister, Fuad Saniora, said more than 55 bridges across the country had been destroyed, and that Israeli forces had also targeted ambulances and medical convoys. "This attack is no longer against Hizbullah; it is an attack against the Lebanese and Lebanon," Mr Saniora told CNN.

With the Israelis blockading ports and bombarding roads to Syria, it has been almost impossible to replenish Lebanon's food and fuel supplies. The cost of goods was therefore rising steeply, with the price of cooking gas nearly doubling to $20 (£11) and that of some vegetables nearly quadrupling.

The UN and Red Cross said the humanitarian situation in Lebanon was deteriorating rapidly as the country became more isolated.


Blair dismisses request from the Archbishop of Canterbury and senior Labour MPs to back a UN call for an immediate ceasefire.

Downing Street has been highly supportive of Israel's right to defend itself aggressively against Hizbullah rocket attacks in northern Israel and the kidnapping of two soldiers.

Earlier Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury urged the US and UK government to "change their minds" and back Kofi Annan's demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities which has killed over 300 people in the region.
The archbishop's comments echoed those of many Labour MPs, including three former ministers, in the Commons yesterday who were angered at the government's refusal to take a tougher line against Isreali military action.

Today, Mr Blair's spokesman said Britain would not ask Israel to stop its attacks against Hizbullah positions without the militia group halting their rocket attacks and releasing the captured Israeli soldiers. The spokesman said: "The prime minister has made it clear right from the beginning that he wants the conflict to end. What, however, people appear to want him to do is to call for a unilateral ceasefire.

"That may make people feel good for a few hours but a) it's unlikely to have any impact; and b) a quick fix will not deliver a sustainable peace in the Middle East. We do support the UN in calling for an end to the conflict on all sides and that is why we have put forward - and Kofi Annan believes it is a good idea - the idea of a stabilisation force.

"But this is not going to end so long as Hizbullah is firing rockets into Israel, so long as soldiers are kidnapped and not released."



Has the word 'sustainable' ever been more abused?
 
 
grant
13:21 / 21.07.06
MattShepherd: Is there any generally accepted idea of how far Israel can take things before the U.S. disavows them?

Sorry I missed this before, but here: The U.S.S. Liberty. In other words, pretty damn far.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:45 / 21.07.06
Wow. I had no idea about that one.
 
 
bacon
15:28 / 21.07.06
it's scary that nobody knows about the liberty incident, like "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", aluminum hat scary

but i get the feeling israel gets to set it's own boundaries as far as washington policy goes
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
18:07 / 21.07.06
To pick up on Giant Haystacks question: "can anyone inform me what Hisbullah’s strategic aims are or were when they started the attacks?"

Johann Hari wrote a very good piece in yesterdays Independent which covered Hezbollah’s aims:

"Hezbollah is at its core a self-defence organisation, however ugly, and its recent operations have been limited largely to this function. It was formed to expel Israeli troops who mounted an unprovoked invasion of Lebanon in 1982 in order to crush the Palestinian groups operating there. By the time the Israeli forces finally left in 2000, they had killed 17,000 Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees. Since the end of the occupation, Hezbollah had only fired across the border once, until Israel began its aerial bombardment last week. It was when the Israelis blew up Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, outraging the world. (It is also worth remembering that half a million people in Lebanon get their drinking water from tanks provided by Hezbollah. At least 100,000 people depend on the hospitals and health clinics they run.)

There was always a way for Israel to put Hezbollah’s rockets beyond use without a single innocent Lebanese child being bombed. Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, has been asked repeatedly if he would accept a two-state solution. He always replies that he will never sabotage “an internal Palestinian matter,” and that if Israeli and Palestinian leaders negotiate a settlement both sides can accept, Hezbollah’s missiles will never be used across the border again. Hezbollah will be reduced to a local Lebanese problem. Revolting though he is, Nasrallah has always kept his word on these matters: he even explained to Sharon back in 2004 that at some point in the future he would kidnap more soldiers in a bid to reclaim the remaining fighters Sharon clung onto."


It seems cruelly ironic that Israel is trying to destroy a group that emerged as a result of Israeli aggression towards Lebanon, by further aggression against Lebanese people. Although I despise what the Israelis are doing, I can understand that it is driven by a warped sense of self preservation, fear and maybe even persecution/revenge (although I believe that if there were any serious threat to Israel, they would be strongly defended by the US and EU). What seems worse to me are the actions and inactions of the US and Britain. I don’t know about the boundaries Israel sets with Washington policies, but I think that the US>UK may be using this conflict in setting the boundaries of the fight against terrorism i.e. anything is justified in fighting terrorism.

I ask myself how i can support the Lebanese during this conflict. I have been so moved, saddened and disgusted by this conflict and disgusted with the politicians who supposedly represent my country, I will be going to my first demonstration and hopefully do a little bit to show my support for the Lebanese people.

End Britain's Complicity in Israeli War Crimes

Assemble at 12/noon in Whitehall Place, between Withehall and Victoria Embakment, London.

Nearest tube: Embankment and Charing Cross.

National Demonstration called by Muslim organisations, Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War Coalition.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:10 / 21.07.06
I don't get it. I haven't read all the links in the USS Liberty site, but why the heck would the Israeli attack an American ship? Did they fear they would take the other side or something?
 
 
grime
18:24 / 21.07.06
hi sleaze, thanks for pointing out my potentially misleading choice of words, and for elaborating on my earlier point.

some may disagree with labelling hizbollah an "illegitimate" group needing some disarming. but as sleaze pointed out, having a political and military orginization operating in a country in parralell with it's democratically elected government is a big problem.
 
 
Francine I
20:17 / 21.07.06
"I don't get it. I haven't read all the links in the USS Liberty site, but why the heck would the Israeli attack an American ship? Did they fear they would take the other side or something?"

False flag, perhaps?
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:26 / 21.07.06
It's the only thing I can think of, yeah.
 
 
whothehell@where?
23:02 / 21.07.06
i've read two theories on the liberty, one, since it was a monitoring vessel, an intelligence gathering vessel, they were trying to knock washingtons eyes and ears out during the whole mess, the other, a bit crazier, was they hit the liberty to give a pretext for direct american action, they weren't supposed to leave any surviving witnesses, then the blame for the attack could be layed elsewhere

these were read on nutjob conspiracy sites, by the way, full disclosure
 
 
whothehell@where?
23:04 / 21.07.06
i think the liberty thing is derailing the thread, also
 
 
Char Aina
23:41 / 21.07.06
the lebanese army will join forces with hezbollah if israel invades, says the lebanese government.

from yesterday's 'the world today', ABC.
 
 
■
14:09 / 22.07.06
Well, we've done our little bit here (so many cameras, Flickr'll be awash). Now to bother all those MPs and MSPs.
 
 
grant
17:12 / 25.07.06
i think the liberty thing is derailing the thread, also

Sorry about that -- but it might be more relevant than expected. One of the more sensible theories I've read (on wikipedia) has to do with the ship's relationship to Israel's upcoming operations in... Syria's Golan Heights:

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water tried to prove Liberty was attacked on purpose. They claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[6] They are backed in this position by some representatives of the U.S. intelligence community.


Complicated stuff, but the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights has been put squarely into the middle of the Lebanese mess by Syria's representatives -- they'll maybe broker a Hezbollah peace deal, but only if Israel talks some Golan Heights talk.

Which seems highly unlikely.
 
 
Ticker
18:14 / 25.07.06
After reading that article I was interested in this piece:

Peace talks between the two countries broke down in 2000 and have not resumed. Israel offered Syria all of the Golan Heights up to the international border, but Syria insisted on part of the shore of the Sea of Galilee and did not offer full peace in return.

Anyone care to prod that issue?
 
 
sleazenation
18:40 / 25.07.06
I believe that water access rights are what is at issue there XK...
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:04 / 25.07.06
It does look so, but that piece "and did not offer full peace in return." seem to indicate that Syria wasn't really trying to reach a deal at the time.
 
 
sleazenation
20:07 / 25.07.06
And in another interesting aside, an Israeli human right's organisation accuse the Israeli army of using Palestinian civilians as human shields...
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:15 / 25.07.06
Well, how ironically dreadfull.
 
 
sleazenation
21:34 / 25.07.06
It does look so, but that piece "and did not offer full peace in return." seem to indicate that Syria wasn't really trying to reach a deal at the time.

No it doesn't indicate any such thing, merely indicates the writer of the piece thought that full peace was not on offer, presumably because they felt that Syria and Hizbollah were synonamous.

My guess would be that the idea was that any deal with Syria that did not include promises linked to the actions of Hizbollah would equate as being 'Syria not really trying to reach a deal at the time'.

However it could equally be a valid interpretation that by insisting that the return of the Golan Heights including access to the Sea of Galilee the Syrian's 'weren't really trying to reach a deal at the time', since if they had been they would have accepted the the deal that was on the table for the return of the Heights sans water rights...
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:35 / 25.07.06
Point taken...
 
 
sleazenation
22:38 / 25.07.06
And in a fresh blow to hope in the region, no sooner has talk of some kind of international force along the Lebanon/Israel boarder been mooted than we recieve reports that an Israeli bomb has killed UN observers.

The prospect of an international force looked logistically difficult at best, what with the rules of engagement likely to be complex and that most of the military forces best capable and politically motivated to undertake such missions already overstretched in the region.

But this latest news makes matters so much worse. The best case scenario, this shows that Israeli claims to surgical strike capacity to be a bit of an exaggeration, worst case scenario, I don't even want to contemplate...
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 11

 
  
Add Your Reply