Progressives and The Lebanon Conflcit

[oberliner]

Every person of good conscious cannot help but feel deep sorrow for the tragic deaths of hundreds of Lebanese. One of the reasons that I am proud to call myself a progressive is that on our side we don’t hear cries of “kill them all!” and other such hateful comments that one sees on right-wing websites and one hears from Ann Coulter and her ilk.

There is a diverse range of opinion within the Democratic Party and among progressives in general as to what action should be taken to end this crisis. Many progressive Democrats, such as John Conyers, believe that there should be an immediate cease-fire. Other progressive Democrats, such as Russ Feingold, do not currently share that view.

There is agreement, however, on assigning responsibility for how this conflict began.

“I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.”
-Russ Feingold

“We all agree that actions of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah that sparked the present conflict were reprehensible”
-John Conyers

And while Conyers did not support the House resolution regarding the conflict. In promoting a ceasefire, he did make clear the following:

“None of us condone terrorism in any way, shape, or form, and I believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that was, is, and remains a threat to peace in the Mideast, and must be dismantled and disarmed.”
-John Conyers

In order to help discuss this issue civilly and work to find constructive solutions to this crisis, it is important to seek some areas of consensus among progressives.

Again, to quote Senator Feingold:

“The first steps toward establishing peace must begin with the unconditional and immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers.”

Is that idea not something with which there is widespread agreement here? Is it not critical to recognize the importance of that issue to the conflict?

To quote General Wes Clark:

“Israel was attacked. Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack.”

Aren’t the statements of these respected Democrats worth considering?

Many have pointed out that the U.S. seems to be standing alone in its support for Israel in this conflict. Clearly, there is no doubt that virtually every other country that has weighed in on the matter has called for a cease fire while the U.S. has not. However it is also important to point out, that many countries while condemning the Israeli response, do place responsibility for starting the conflict on Hezbollah and do demand that the kidnapped soldiers be set free.

Here are some statements from UN Representatives of countries from Europe to North and South America to Africa:


The escalation of violence and its extension in Lebanon had been provoked by Hizbollah’s attack, which had given rise to Israel’s military reaction in Lebanon.

OSWALDO DE RIVERO
Peru UN Representative

The crisis had been caused by Hizbollah. It had been a calculated attempt to further destabilize the region, without any regard for the people of Lebanon or in the region. The quickest way to end the crisis would be the release of the soldiers.

KARYN PIERCE
United Kingdom UN Representative

The Hizbollah abduction of Israeli soldiers had been both reckless and senseless, and must be condemned,. In the highly tense climate of the Middle East, that act was tailor-made to provoke a response from Israel, which it had done.

ROBLE OLHAYE
Djibouti UN Representative

The key to ending the senseless violence laid with Hizbollah. It must stop the rocket attacks and release the abducted soldiers.

JOHN MCNEE
Canada UN Representative

Of course, these comments were made within the context of condemning Israel’s disproportionate response. It is important, though, to note that these representatives all make mention of Hezbollah’s taking of soldiers.

My goal in presenting all of this information is really to make an attempt to discuss this conflict within a few basic parameters that we can all agree on. Claims that Israel invaded Lebanon as part of a neocon plan for world domination or in order to steal Lebanon’s water or worst of all simply because Israelis desire Arab genocide should fall outside of those parameters.

Discussing Israel’s lack of restraint and its role in creating this tremendous humanitarian disaster is important. As is critically examining the tactics used by Hezbollah and how those tactics also play a role in creating said disaster.

As progressives we should be looking for ways to stop the fighting and also looking for ways to ensure that when the current crisis is over, there is a chance for a lasting peace. That is the dream that sometimes can seem so far off as to make the very idea a metaphor for the unattainable: Peace in the Middle East.

To quote another progressive Democrat:

“Now is the time to reaffirm our support for Israel by showing leadership in diplomacy.”
-Dennis Kucinich

Let us move beyond the vitriol and the hyperbole and move towards working for lasting peace!




Sources:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/07/20060714.htm
http://www.house.gov/conyers/Lebanon_PC.htm
http://securingamerica.com/node/1243
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8782.doc.htm
http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/

[theoldman]

1. Hezbollah was created because Israel is an occupier.

If it were not for the occupation of Palestinian land there would not be a Hezbollah, PLO or Hamas.

[porphyrian]

3. Not everyone agrees that it is "occupation."

The establishment of Israel in its current location is due to England owning the region as war spoils. The original "displacement" occurred because the indiginous nomadic peoples didn't fully understand the European concept of land ownership, much as occurred here in America with the Indians. The further "occupied" territories were added only after unprovoked attacks by surrounding Arab nations spurred Israel to drive them back beyond their pre-war borders. In any other instance, those territories would have been considered war spoils and there would have been no further discussion on the matter. However, this matter has progressed far beyond rationality.

[oberliner]

6. also

I would also note the PLO was founded before the Occupied Terroritories were occupied.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Hezbollah was created and continues as a surrogate for Iran and Syria

Cut the external support and it will wither away.

[porphyrian]

9. Good point. - n/t

[BillZBubb]

2. Israel is a greater threat to innocent lives than Hezbollah.

Your "balanced" piece is pure bullshit. The problem is not Israel attacking Hezbollah, the problem is Israel's heavy handed treatment of Lebanon.

Hezbollah has been made the Israeli strawman in this as they destroy most of Lebanon. How many of the dead are Hezbollah?

[porphyrian]

4. It's disingenuous to single out either side.

At this point, both sides are guilty of multiple atrocities. The only innocents in this conflict are the majority of its casualties. It's ridiculous to argue who is to blame, as ridiculous as it is to say that Dahmer was more of a serial killer than Gacy.

[oberliner]

5. Questions

I don't know how many of the dead are Hezbollah.

Is Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians?

Do you think Israel is deliberately killing Lebanese civilians and not attempting to attack Hezbollah?

If so, why are they doing that?

[porphyrian]

7. I guess that was short lived... - n/t