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: 1 ... 678910(11)

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:55 / 14.08.06
Not al muslims are created equal. There are many varieties. The 'weird' varieties are what I would call extremists. Maybe this article will be helpful to your enlightenment of what I mean. I think radical or extremist Islam is a disortion of what it should be.

And just think of what might happen if one of those crazy death-obsessed Middle Eastern religions took hold here!
 
 
Francine I
01:51 / 15.08.06
"I think Pape's research indicates more that suicide bombers claimed by Hizbollah are not necessarily (or usually) members of fundamentalist Islamic groups. It's tricky, of course, because Hizbollah means "God's army", but then isn't the US often referred to as "God's country" (well, the US and Wales)?"

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, I find the more accurate depiction even more fascinating and a better challenge to the xenophobic worldview in question, since suicide bombers are commonly viewed as the gold standard by which Islamic extremism can be judged.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
11:47 / 15.08.06
Passing note: on the CBC (Canadian public radio, essentially our BBC) this morning, they reported on the conflict, and that (I'm paraphrasing) "Israeli bombing of Lebanon resulted in infrastructure damage estimated at $2.5 billion. Israel reports losses in tourism and trade totalling over $1.5 billion."

So, you know, both sides have lost, right? Billions! So they've both suffered! Pity them both! But hang on... we're tallying infrastructure damage on one side, and tourism on the other. Are there no tourists in Lebanon? No visitors? Lebanon has no trade?

The CBC is usually pretty solid when it comes to reporting, but even there, there's a subtle bias.

See also the Israelis Killed, Lebanese Die headline examination on Language Log, where they come down on the non-biased side, but it's still an interesting look at the subtler ways that reporting can colour how people view the situation.
 
 
Francine I
14:05 / 15.08.06
"Are there no tourists in Lebanon? No visitors? Lebanon has no trade?"

Good point. I'm having trouble finding a good source at the moment, but if I heard correctly, Lebanon's tourism market was just beginning to recover after trouble in 2005, with very optimistic projections for this season. Obviously, that's a thing of the past.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
05:56 / 16.08.06
See also the Israelis Killed, Lebanese Die headline examination on Language Log, where they come down on the non-biased side, but it's still an interesting look at the subtler ways that reporting can colour how people view the situation.

I'd just like to point out that the writer of that link is quite patently pro-Israel, so saying he "comes down on the non-biased side" doesn't really mean much when his "proof" is essentially, "Nah! They mean the same thing!" (Not to mention the fact that he doesn't mention the obvious point that a large headline saying "12 killed" and a small one saying "16 [killed]" shows some disparity between which lives are more highly valued.)

(And his co-poster goes on in a further post to defend the reporting by effectively wheeling out the "well, Hizbollah are murderous terrorists, so what do you expect?" line: Hezbollah does not restrict itself to targetting legitimate military objectives - it is just as happy to kill civilians as to kill soldiers or destroy military installations and equipment. This is in line with its policy, which is genocide... In contrast, Israel is targetting legitimate military objectives: rocket launchers, headquarters, and means of transportation. It is not targetting civilians, and indeed is taking measures to avoid civilian casualties, such as dropping leaflets in advance warning civilians to evacute the area. Which I'd hope everyone here can agree is utter rubbish.)
 
 
Chiropteran
13:42 / 16.08.06
Speaking of reporting, I noticed something both odd and disturbing about the relationship between headlines and pictures on MSNBC and several newspapers (probably using the same wire service), on at least a couple occasions (I didn't take the time to copy links at the time, and I don't remember specifically which days, so I suppose this counts as hearsay):

On the front page, a large picture showing survivors and rescue workers holding each other and weeping over battered bodies in the rubble, a compelling picture of human misery - above the picture, a large headline saying something like Rockets Continue to Pound Israel - and, under the strikingly tragic picture, the small-print caption which indicates that this scene of graphic destruction (seemingly accompanying the headline, yes??) is actually in Beirut after an attack by the IDF, and the grieving relatives (and the dead) are in fact Lebanese.

To anyone skimming the front page on the newsstand, or simply not reading carefully, the obvious connection (and emotional response) is ISRAELI SURVIVORS CLUTCHING THEIR DEAD CHILDREN AFTER A HEZBOLLAH ROCKET ATTACK, a gross distortion of what the image actually shows. I don't know whether this was done deliberately or through gross journalistic negligence (probably the latter, but who knows), but I wonder what kind of effect this sort of thing has had on the (already) muddled American view of the war and the various parties involved?
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
14:27 / 16.08.06
I agree, Pingle, I just didn't want to get into dissecting the Language Log post dissecting the response to the newspaper headline regarding the situation in the Middle East. As much as I love Language Log for the dissection of, well, language, I think their grasp of the Israel/Lebanon situation is full of hooey.

I think the original letter-writer was on the money. "Israelis killed, Lebanese die" sums up a lot of the subtle spin I see cropping up all over the media.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
15:17 / 16.08.06
So, the new resolution is confused and badly worded (as usual), veering wildly between language invoking Chapter 6 of the UN Charter (where it makes recommendations - passive) and Chapter 7 (involving decisions - active).

In addition, speculation is mounting that the Lebanon only voted unanimously to support it because a deal has been brokered behind the scenes with Hezbollah. The Lebanese government is given sole authority to buy arms and to protect its own borders, while previous resolutions requiring Hezbollah to disarm are bolstered. Hmmm... requiring disarmament from a paramilitary group who are now far more popular than the Lebanese government they form a small part of, and who are more powerful than the Lebanese army, who now have half the responsibility for patrolling the new zone along with a multinational UN peacekeeping force empowered to take offensive action... tricky. Unless Hezbollah intend to become the Lebanese government, of course. Hard to get a guerilla to disarm when he's just joined the army.

In addition, part of the resolution calls for the Lebanese government to "exercise it's full sovereigny" over all Lebanese territory, "so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon". This is not couched as a requirement (Ch7), but a recommendation (Ch6), but nonetheless, with further recommendations such as "no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government" and "no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government" is sufficently reinforced within the resolution to make it clear that Hezbollah is on borrowed time as far as the UN is concerned. Why would the Lebanon (and by extension Hezbollah) agree so enthusiastically to such language (given that they'd been trash talking with Israel only a few days previously) unless they'd already decided it wouldn't affect them?

With Hamas now forming the Palestinian government, it seems to me some bright spark has elected to use the current situation to merge Hezbollah with the Lebanese government in full, leaving no vast paramilitary outfit per se, but still retaining all personnel and weapons... effectively legitimising and therefore further empowering the outfit while seeming to disband it.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:31 / 16.08.06
You know, I've been reading some online reports saying Hizbollah is moving into the attacked, isolated areas, and is cleaning up the rubble and the bodies, promising medical aid and even money for the civilians, and a Hizbollah official has been quoted as saying "Iran has promised us unlimited funds to rebuild Lebanon" (all links I found are in Portuguese, so I'd apreciate some confirmation on that).

So, in the end, all the Israelis may have accomplished with their "right to self-defense" is to estabish Hizbollah as the de facto power in the region, and also incresing its popularity and recrutment opportunities.

Gandhi said "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind". Wise words.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:15 / 16.08.06
Certainly, Olmert appears to have shot his credibility, by putting the IDF in a situation where it shot its credibility, by being unable to inflict the crushing defeat on Hizbollah that it may or may not have been tacitly given a month to achive by the US. As it is, the myth of Israeli military invincibility (although I think a stand-up fight with a conventional national army would be a very different matter) has been undermined, to no very great end. Hizbollah are briefly less well-armed (because many of their rockets have been launched), but I can't imagine them not being resupplied fairly shortly. Bit of a bad one for Kadima, really. So, what's the next step?
 
 
grime
22:23 / 16.08.06
well, it looks like hizbollah is primed for a huge PR win in the reconstruction! and all for the measly price of 1000 dead, pretty good deal, no?

another thought: why bother with the daunting and complicated task of disarming hizbullah, when they could just become the new lebanese army?
 
 
grime
22:52 / 16.08.06
i think you're right about kadima, haus. looks like a broken leg on the first lap.

it seems that all their credibility AND any sort of military smarts was tied up with ariel sharon.

from here, all i can see is huge crisis of leadership in israel. that and perhaps a good opportunity to draw hizbullah further into mainstream lebanese politics. if god's army can do a good job where the lebanese government couldn't, and enjoy popular support, then i say give them a chance.
 
 
Quantum
10:56 / 17.08.06
Hellbunny- either I'm as cynical as you are or you're probably right, and 'Hezbollah' will be no more while the Lebanese army gets a big boost and more sovereignty, meaning more of a PR victory next time when the UN side more with Lebanon, who are breaking less resolutions than Israel.
The army just deployed in the heart of Hezbollah territory and they have pretty friendly relations with them;
Lebanese troops were greeted with cheers and Hezbollah flags as they deployed south of the Litani river this morning that from this article;
"There will be no confrontation between the army and brothers in Hezbollah. ... That is not the army’s mission," said Ghazi Aridi, the Information Minister.

On the rebuilding, Saudi King grants Lebanon's central bank $1 billion to shore up its currency, $500 million in aid to help rebuild country.
 
 
Axolotl
17:36 / 21.08.06
It would seem that Israel may have found more definite links between Iran and Hezbollah with the discovery of night-vision goggles. In a nice twist these were originally supplied by the UK to Iran as part of that other government obssession, the War on Drugs.
I guess maybe this will stop people claiming that the decision to allow US transports loaded with bombs for Israel to land means we're pro-Israel. We can point to this as evidence that we're equal opportunity arms dealers, as long as you've got the cash we've got the military gear.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:55 / 22.08.06
Not so sure, Axlotl. Think about it.
 
 
Axolotl
19:02 / 22.08.06
Are you suggesting that it's a plant? A smoking gun designed to link Iran to Hezbollah?
That seems a bit of a stretch, after all previously when the US or Israel has wanted to bomb a "hostile" country they've never really bothered with the requirement for actual proof. Plus if they were to do it there would seem easier ways to do so without embarassing the UK government by dragging them into it.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:40 / 25.08.06
Well, no, Axlotl, but don't you think there's a difference between

a) historically having supplied night vision goggles, useful in war but not an exclusively violent technology, to Iran in the past, which country then re-distributes them to Hezbollah, and

b) actively and currently allowing American planes full of bombs and ammunition, technology exclusively designed for killing, to use our airfields, when we knew full well that those bombs would be used against civilian targets, and which co-operation makes the difference between life and death for Lebanese civilians?

When you say I guess maybe this will stop people claiming that the decision to allow US transports loaded with bombs for Israel to land means we're pro-Israel, you seem as though you want to silence these voices. Well, sorry, but it's true- the government was taking the practical pro-Israeli stance behind the scenes whilst whingeing innefectually about a ceasefire up front. I don't understand why you would want to "stop" people claiming this. Are you worried about it making us a target for more terrorist attacks?
 
 
Axolotl
16:56 / 25.08.06
I think I may mis-judged the tone of my post. It was meant to be sarcastic, pointing out the absurdity of the government's position. If it helps imagine the latter half of my first post being said in a silly voice.
I have no desire to silence anyone pointing out the craven lickspittle nature of our US-driven foreign policy, and fully believe that until Israel (and the US) are held accountable for their actions there will be no end to this ludicrous War on Terror.
As for worrying about making ourselves a target, I do believe the UK's misguided foreign policy does a lot to stoke the fires of islamist terrorism and make the UK a target.
However I feel the way to stop that happening is not by curtailing civil liberties and waging war anyone who dares to disagree with us but by negotiation and dealing wth the grievances at the root of the conflict - the rights of the Palestinian people to have a viable state free from Israeli oppression.
 
 
Dutch
22:08 / 08.01.07
Scaremongering?

Now I doubt whether such plans would become so instantly known to any newspaper, but it did strike fear into my heart. The possibility of nuclear weapons being used anywhere scares me, but in the Middle East? I can understand Israel's fear of Iran, and their need to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, but this seems bordering on insanity. An immediate act of war against this nation would certainly destabilize the region even further than it already has been. Would the Israelis bring down the wrath of the entire Middle Eastern Muslim population on themselves like this?

Please tell me this is just an english newspaper looking for a scary story to tell...
 
  

Page: 1 ... 678910(11)

 
  
Add Your Reply