A Case for Hizbollah

[StandWatie]

So here we go again, it seems. Blood-thirsty Arabs – Lebanese fundamentalists of the Hizbollah, "the Party of God" – bombed the Israeli town of Shlomi (10.8), killing a 15-year-old boy and injuring several others. Terrorist attack on civilians, three years after Israel has withdrawn its very last soldier from Lebanese soil. Isn't it the ultimate proof for the inherent terrorism of the Arabs, the decisive evidence that no peace can be made with Muslims? If you follow the media, it probably is. If you take a closer look at the facts – well, not quite.



Who's Afraid of Hizbollah?



Despite its name, the Hizbollah are definitely no saints. Mother Teresa would not have been able to drive the Israeli army out of Lebanon after almost 20 years of ruthless occupation. The Hizbollah has its own agenda and interests, political and otherwise, and a limited fighting with Israel may well be among them. (But, as analysts usually forget, Israel and its army have their interests too, and peace might not be their top priority either.) An independent militia is indeed something that no sovereign state can tolerate; Israel is right in pointing that out. This, however, is not Israel's, but Lebanon's problem – a small, weak country, torn between conflicting religious and ethnic groups (including 300.000 Palestinian refugees), and regularly invaded and terrorised by its stronger neighbours Israel and Syria. When Israel expresses concern for Lebanon's sovereignty, one doesn't know whether to weep or laugh. The existence of Hizbollah is none of Israel's business: It becomes Israel's business only if it violates the rules of good neighbourliness.



Precisely this is the aim of Israeli propaganda: to portray the Hizbollah as a terrorist group that violates the rules of the game. The facts, however, are that the Hizbollah pretty much follows the rules of good neighbourliness; it is Israel that breaches them. Since Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon, Hizbollah has been concentrating on two kinds of actions: anti-aircraft fire, and a limited fighting against Israel confined to the Shaba Farms. Let's see what it's all about.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/HaCohen_Hizbollah.htm

interesting piece, further down it mentions that Sharon was asked about the assassination bombing and neither confirmed or denied that was an Israeli hit

[papau]

1. Shaba Farms - UN says part of Israel under 1948 border - so

Hizbollah really is "Terrorist" with "attack on civilians, three years after Israel has withdrawn its very last soldier from Lebanese soil." and indeed while not a "ultimate proof for the inherent terrorism of the Arabs, the decisive evidence that no peace can be made with Muslims?", it is proof that no peace can be made with Hizbollah.

[StandWatie]

2. no, Israel says it's occupied along with the UN

they claim it's Syrian territory but Syria has ceded control of it to Lebanon, this is in the article if you would read it.

The other Hizbollah front is the Shaba Farms, a 14km-long and 2km-wide strip along the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian border. The Hizbollah claims that it is occupied Lebanese soil. Israel denies this, and is supported by the United Nations. Knockout victory for Israel, then? Not quite. Even Israel concedes the area is occupied, but it claims to have taken it from Syria, not from Lebanon, and that it should therefore be negotiated with Syria. Great excuse to keep the fighting going, isn't it. Syria, for its part, says it has given it to Lebanon. Anyway, all parties agree that the area is indeed occupied by Israel. Violent resistance to occupation is considered morally and legally legitimate; it does not matter who carries it out. (Otherwise, the liberation of the Netherlands in World War II should have been left exclusively to Dutch forces, etc. – obviously absurd.)



So if we put aside Hizbollah's problematic position within the Lebanese State, Israel's northern neighbour is in fact clearly playing by the rules. It is Israel who is breaking the rules over and over again, both by its occupation of the Shaba Farms and by violating Lebanon's sovereignty.

[papau]

3. Hizbollah says part of Leb - article notes it is a lie

"The Hizbollah claims that it is occupied Lebanese soil. Israel denies this, and is supported by the United Nations."


The article then says it was taken from Syria, not from Lebanon, and that it should therefore be negotiated with Syria.

So why is Hiz keeping the Leb fighting going?

"Violent resistance to occupation is considered morally and legally legitimate" - bullshit - that is what the UN is all about. Syria is welcome to bring it before the Security Council if they have a case (at the moment Syria CHAIRS the Security Council).

If Leb is not a war with Israel, it is obligated to stop Hiz.

They can't - because Hiz is terrorist? or just criminal? Syria does not have Hiz fighting for the Golan - I wonder why not.

such Bull.

[StandWatie]

4. such bull is right

Why the hell is Israel still there in the first place?

Violent resistance to occupation is considered morally and legally legitimate" - bullshit - that is what the UN is all about

What would Israel care one whit if they wound up with another resolution demanding they do something? What has that ever changed?

They can't - because Hiz is terrorist? or just criminal? Syria does not have Hiz fighting for the Golan - I wonder why not.

Because Syria and Hezbollah are somewhat adversarial, Shia, ideologically and financially associated with Iran and have little interest in Syrian or Palestinian issues :shrug:

[mmm]

5. It all boils down to this:

"Violent resistance to occupation is considered morally and legally legitimate; it does not matter who carries it out."

The Big H will always be
freedom fighters to me

[StandWatie]

6. I wouldn't say that is carte blanche

of course the people who skyjacked planes (proto-Hezbollah) were war criminals, but certainly shooting anti-aircraft fire at Israeli Jets is nothing but self-defense.

[papau]

7. Appears we agree as to anti-aircraft fire - but shelling villages and

killing the little girl brings us back to "terrorists" as a label that fits.

The Iranian money flows through Syria's hands, by the way. Syria is Baathist - meaning secular - but Bush will change that to religious fundamentalist with a regime change soon.

sigh

:-(

Meanwhile today's good news is that Abbas did not cave to Arafat's latest attempt to destroy him while "supporting" him - the apointmenr of a new security "head" by Arafat that would duplicate authority now held by Abbas.

Talking heads on Sunday noted that only 120 kilometers of the wall has been built and said that they "strongly doubt" that the Ariel incursion path for the wall will be "allowed to stand" and stated flatly that the Eastern Wall will never be built (my own wished for result) - so maybe behind public view the administration is laying down the law to Israel. There is like 90% approval in DC - Dem and GOP - that Israel should built the wall - but only if modified as above.

Maybe we can implement Taba in some form in 18 months - although I suspect that will require Arafat allowing Abbas to really function as PM.

[StandWatie]

8. who is your little girl?

the kid hit with anti-aircraft ordinance? I thought that was a boy but maybe you are thinking of someone else?

on edit: Money never, ever, went through Syria, arms did at one time as a weighpoint. They now go directly through Beirut Airport. The states in the region are not overly cooperative about much of anything, even Israel.

[newyorican]

9. it was anti-aircraft "shells" that hit the village

If there are enough incidents like this:

2 Israeli fighter jets violate Lebanese airspace

There are bound to be results such as shells falling on populated areas. What's odd is the IAF engaging in actions that endanger Israeli civilians, then running for cover, instead of owning up to drawing the fire in the first place. Such bravery.

[tinnypriv]

11. Thumbs up Israel!

At least they're not sonic-booming Beriut! Three cheers to the IAF :eyes:

[rini]

13. I second that!

[tinnypriv]

10. "maybe behind public view the administration is laying down the law"

"American pressure working: Ar'iel to be outside fence" (Ma'ariv)

Seems clear to me. Probably why the story was buried.

[papau]

12. That is good news - a fence that follows the Clinton line is still a

bit of a land grab (6% versus the PA offer of 3%) but it is not outrageous like the maps being floated about.

The Shells that killed the little girl were fired when no IDF aircraft were in the air - just a fun moment for someone from Hiz. - very sad.