Hizbollah declares victory and goes . . . stays home

[bigtree]

Fascinating to see Hizbollah declare victory and gloat as Israel's Olmert begins a forced defense in his own country against his legislature's backbiting political self-flagellation over his inability to strike a knockout blow to Hizbollah. The excuses are pouring out of his regime like milk out of a saucer.

With over a thousand dead Lebanese - most of them civilians, many of them children - you would think that Nasrallah would be the one humiliated before the Lebanese, but there he is offering to rebuild Lebanon as he has in the past in the wake of Israel's destruction. He's mostly just deflecting the anger many must feel over his muckraking militarism, made without the consent of the majority of Lebanese, which has caused so much death and destruction from Israel's predictable reprisals. But he's also riding a wave of anti-Israel opinion among the Lebanese victims of Israel's 'collective' defense against Hizbollah's indiscriminate shelling across their border.

I still think Hizbollah will be mostly disarmed, through diplomacy. I'm growing less and less concerned that Hizbollah will be drawn into a resumption of their shelling by the provocations of Israel as they continue to prosecute their 'defenses' within Lebanon. I think that by declaring victory over Israel, and having that view affirmed by the majority of the Lebanese who intend to live amongst the Hizbollah, Nasrallah is well positioned to transition from the conflict to an increased involvement in Lebanon's political future, much like Sadr has done in Iraq.

I wonder if he actually realizes the opportunity that now exists to turn from the bullet to the ballot. Perhaps someone should tell him.

[Schema Thing]

1. Are you kidding?

The US democratic party could take lessons from that guy.

[bigtree]

2. there's nothing in Nasrallah's posture, character, or actions

that should be emulated by anyone.

[Schema Thing]

9. mmmhmm... Bigtree has spoken!

[Spazito]

3. By all measures, Israel did lose and lose dismally in this latest

action. Nothing that was considered the reason for beginning the attack on Lebanon (Hezbollah)was achieved even though the reasons kept changing. Israel did not rescue the two captured soldiers, did not stop the rockets being fired into Israel, did not defeat Hezbollah in any way. The failed militarily and, in world opinion, their failure was even more spectacular, imo. Hezbollah gained support in the Arab world, Israel was seen as the aggressor and indiscriminately killing innocent Lebanese citizens and is no longer viewed as the "David" in the Middle East but rather the "Goliath", no longer the underdog to be sympathized with and supported.

[pelsar]

4. some arabs disagree...

starting with the kuwait times

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=1242

PEOPLE of Arab countries, especially the Lebanese and Palestinians, have been held hostage for a long time in the name of “resisting Israel.

While the people of Palestine and Lebanon are paying the price of this bloody conflict, the main players, who caused this conflict, are living in peace and asking for more oil from Arab countries to support the facade of resisting Israel. With the Palestinian Authority close to collapse and the Lebanese government beginning to give up responsibility for what is happening in its territory, Saudi Arabia has been forced to come out of its diplomatic routine and indirectly hold Hezbollah responsible for what is happening Lebanon.

[bigtree]

5. while I agree with the author's sentiments about Hizbollah and Hamas

I think the rest is an amazing surrender of his people's lives and livelihoods to Israel's scattershot destruction, devastation, and death to innocents caught in the middle.

[Spazito]

6. LOL, sorry but this is an Op-Ed piece by one person reflecting, not the

opinion of the people but, rather, solely his own take. It carries no more/no less credibility than any letter to the editor, imo.

Oh, and you might want to check his previous op-eds, they are very interesting, if only to see where this guy gets his "opinion" from.

[countryjake]

10. Wealthy Arabs who believe that our prez is a "Man of History"?

Man of History by Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=547

~snips~

WE are with President Bush who has said, "I am the man who makes history." Who, other than President Bush, can launch a war against terrorism? Who else will come to the rescue of people suppressed by dictators? Who else was there to build and develop nations? and above all who made democracy the new international system for all the people in this world?

President Bush has the right to say "I am the man who makes history" because he is fighting aggression against modern civilisation. He is creating countries which enjoy democracy, peace, stability and security. These countries are now able to be a part of the international community sharing their traditions and culture with the rest of the humanity. Bush is the President of not only the United States but the whole world for he is making history on this small planet.



ya, I'm sure plenty of Arabs agree with this guy! LOL!

[Little Star]

25. Is this guy's name Lieberman? LOL n/t

[breakaleg]

7. Agree. Israel has lost more than it's gained in this war of theirs.

[hogwyld]

12. Not only did israel lose dismally

Hezbollah showed the entire Arab world how to defeat them militarily. The proverbial death by a thousand paper cuts.

[izzie]

15. But I am sure Bush will say Israel won.

--

[Spazito]

17. LOL, yep, he just did, how did you know???

He is so hard to predict eh, roflmao!

[izzie]

49. I sometimes recall reading 1984

And we know Bush never tells the truth, It is hardly an educated guess.

[barb162]

19. Is Hezbollah occupying one square inch of Israel? Hezbollah lost

bigtime. And whose army is in southern Lebanon right now? The country's name begins with the letter "I"

[Spazito]

Hezbollah has never wanted to occupy Israel so to say because they

don't occupy any land in Israel is a sign they lost is ludicrous, imo. Israel is in Lebanon right now but was unable to even achieve the most basic of their goals and now has to leave by way of the resolution passed. Are you saying Israel is not going to leave, is going to ignore yet another resolution? If they don't ignore the resolution and leave, does that mean they lost then but not now?

Oh, Israel stated many times their goal was not to occupy Lebanon so why would you tout their current occupation as a win?

I must admit I find your logic to be somewhat confused.

[barb162]

32. Israel got to the river, they seriously weakened Hezbollah, etc

The UN will now come in and hopefully the Lebanese army.

Hezbollah won nothing other than a lot of dead Hezbollah, current occupation of its "territory" by Israel, and later the UN etc.

That's a Hezbollah win or an Israeli loss? I think not. I can't imagine what you're confused about

[Spazito]

36. Let's look at the goals, various as they were, Israel set when

this began:

The rescue of the two captured Israeli soldiers, was that accomplished?

Stopping Hezbollah's rockets from reaching northern Israel, was that accomplished?

Disarming Hezbollah, was that accomplished?

Turning the Lebanese people against Hezbollah, was that accomplished?

Making Hezbollah a pariah in the eyes of the world, was that accomplished?

It seems to me, were one to answer these questions honestly, one would have to say none of the above were accomplished. What criteria are you using to determine Israel didn't lose as it seems you are not using the criteria Israel itself set.

[barb162]

42. Hezbollah's goal was to destroy Israel

Again, do you see one Hezbollah fighter holding down any inch of Israeli territory? Hezbollah won NOTHING.

[Spazito]

44. Hezbollah has never tried to invade Israel, only to remove the IDF

from Lebanon as occupiers which they succeeded in doing the last time Israel occupied Lebanon and Israel, if they adhere to the recent resolution passed, will be leaving again. You didn't answer my question re which of Israel's stated goals were accomplished? It would be helpful to the debate if you would.

[barb162]

45. You obviously have never heard Nasrallah say he wanted

to destroy Israel? He didn't do that, did he? Not even close.

As to Israel, they wanted to reach the river and they did. They wanted to detroy Hezbollah but only severely weakened them. However, let the UN and Lebanese take care of Hezbollah, then Israel won't have to do any more of their dirty work. Remember, Lebanon was supposed to disarm its terrorists a while back and never did. Now they will get their second chance with help from the UN.

[Spazito]

47. Reaching the Litani was never a STATED goal by Israel...

if that was, indeed, a goal then they lied to their citizens and to the world about their supposed goals, that's what I am hearing you say, wow!

[hogwyld]

57. This was one battle in a long war

Hisbollah came out of this pretty unscathed, and made the IDF and the israel govt. look like genocidal monsters in the process.

[Igel]

8. Hezb started the transition to the ballot box in the '90s.

Of course, when you have imams and shi'ite tribal leaders saying how to vote, even if a lot of people ignore you you still get a hefty turnout.

I doubt Hezb will be disarmed by their own volition, at least not without the price being that they get the Lebanese Army in exchange. In which case there's a relabelling, not a disarming.

They had a few opportunities. In one case, they manufactured and excuse for not disarming. In another case, they decided that if it was a choice of allowing the Lebanese government to call for disarming them, or toppling the Lebanese government, they'd go for the latter. The government backed down, and decided that the minority's wishes trumped the majority's will. Everybody is equal, but those with the guns are more equal.

You assume that Nasrallah, in a position of greater power, will reverse his previous policies, the ones that have earned him greater power. If he sees no benefit from disarming, he won't.

[bigtree]

13. I agree that Nasrallah needs an incentive to disarm

But, I think we would be mistaken to discourage any move toward the political arena by the tribal leader. Lebanon's government is ultimately going to reflect the will of the people if the political process proceeds without corruption or outside interference. That government will always have an element which resists Israel and their influence. But these ideologues and 'spiritual' leader's participation in an accountable government beats a rogue band of militants any day. We have to be careful not to impose our own interests on Lebanon as we abhor the imposition of other outside influences on the direction of the military and other levers of legitimate government.

[daydreamer]

11. But do you think Israel would have withdrawn from Lebanon 5 years ago if

there were no Hizbollah resistance?

[bigtree]

14. I'm more of the belief that all of that could have been avoided

if certain parties on either side had not sacrificed Lebanon to their own ambitions for power and influence.

I'm not much a believer in militarized resistance. Everything settling and diplomatic that has occurred after the violence subsided and the smoke cleared could have been pursued without the abhorrent acts on either side. I think the violent thrashing of these 'leaders' 'followers against each other is a tragic waste. Nothing lasting of any real value has been achieved through violence in that region. Its in the peaceful settlements that true progress is made. I just don't see conflict as inevitable so much as I blame the predictability of our weak and cowardly 'leaders' to abandon us to our worst instincts.

[endarkenment]

16. You didn't answer the question.

Would israel have withdrawn five years ago without Hezbollah's resistance?

I think the obvious answer is no they would not have. You may not be a believer in militarized resistance, but you get to say that from the comfort of a nation far removed from world conflict and not under an on again off again 20 year occupation. Do you think the French ought to not have militarized their resistance to the German's? That the Vietnamese ought to not have militarized their resistance to French, Japanese, French, and American occupation forces?

The muslim people of the region would differ with your assesment that "nothing lasting of any real value has been achieved through violence", they would point to Israel and say "really?".

I am not in favor of violence either, but neither am I going to judge those who decide to violently resist a military occupation of their lands. That is their decision and the justness of their cause is somewhat separate from the means that they use to resist and undo the injustice.

[pelsar]

20. israeli withdrawl without hizballa...

the answer lies in the Lebanese army....since they werent willing to come down south to the israeli border, israel stayed in lebanon with its "security zone".....and though they were pushed out 6 years ago, it seems the principle was correct.

without the lebanese army on their own border, israels northern border was not secure......the 6 years of attacks by Hizballa showed that to be true.


so the answer to your question, is that had the lebanese army taken control of the south, israel would have withdrawn years ago, with hizballa they were driven out temporary...and now if the lebanese army cant control the border, no doubt we will see yet another invasion by israel into lebanon in the years to come.

[Little Star]

28. If the US and Israel would have helped the Lebanese army,

country and government to become strong maybe this would have never happened. Israel could not disarm Hezbollah with all their might and backing of the USA. Give me a break! How was the Lebanese army going to disarm them when we could not. Jeesh!!!!

[barb162]

43. Hezbollah ministers are dictating to the Lebanese army

from what I read yesterday. Fascinating stuff, the Lebanese "government"

[bigtree]

54. maybe you think they should reflect OUR beliefs and interests

instead of the interests and beliefs of the Lebanese? These ministers, who are often accused as being mere puppets of Iran or Syria, in fact, live in Lebanon. To ignore their own stake in the political future of Lebanon makes no sense at all. The Lebanese army and the Lebanese govt. distinguish themselves from Hizbollah in their accountability to the Lebanese people through the political process. That would seem to be the best we can hope for from a government representing a nation inclined to support whoever pleges to actively resist the US, Israel, and our interests and allies.

I doubt the veracity of the assertion, though, that 'Hezbollah ministers are dictating to the Lebanese army.' The political landscape is much more compex than that.

[bigtree]

21. I will judge their 'leader's' willingness to set them against each other

when dialogue is always favorable to violence and killing in my opinion.

I abhor violence, except in cases of legitimate self-defense. All of that blather about my 'comfort' won't change that belief. I just don't see violence as an inevitable, unassailable response to outside aggression, and I didn't in that case.

'Lasting real value'

Israel has achieved something of value through their militarism? Are they not defensively insecure? Are they not unable to live in peace with their neighbors? Is their country not under threat from those who would actively and violently resist their militarism and expansionism? Where's the value in all of that?

[endarkenment]

23. Oddly enough

While bitterly attacking Israel here and elsewhere for its stupid loathsome behavior, much of my anger is motivated precisely because I do think that Israel is something of lasting real value despite having been born of violence.

[bigtree]

26. interesting

I agree that Israel is of lasting value. I'm not so certain that it needed to be 'born out of violence.'

But, for the purposes of this question today, my assertion should stand.

[endarkenment]

30. Now you have added another qualifier.

" I'm not so certain that it needed to be 'born out of violence.'" it may very well not have been the only way Israel could have been created, it just happened to be the actual way Israel was created. You appear to be adding yet another qualifier to your assertion. I think it is time to admit that it is not such a good assertion, it is more like a wish.

[bigtree]

35. No. Born of violence was your phrase. I disagree that Israel needed to be

'born of violence'

Where is 'my' qualifier in this? I'm just responding to your own assertion.

[Spazito]

18. Without militarized resistance, the US of A would still be a colony of

the United Kingdom. The very foundation of your country is based on militarized resistance. Do you believe it was wrong then as you seem to think it is now?

[bigtree]

22. nothing achieved of lasting value "in that region" nt

[endarkenment]

24. Any more qualifiers?

That last is a real odd one. So is violence a useful tool elsewhere?

[bigtree]

31. well, that's what I said originally. It's this conflict, this region that

we're discussing, not a treaty for the rest of the world.

This skipping over my words to make your point is pointless.

As I said above, I abhor violence, except in cases of legitimate self-defense. And, I just don't see violence as an inevitable, unassailable response to outside aggression.

[endarkenment]

33. "inevitable, unassailable response"

Eh? Who is making that claim? Not I.

[bigtree]

37. must every one of my contentions be against someone else's

or do I have a right to my own opinion apart from what you or anyone else is asserting?

[Spazito]

29. Ahhh, so it all depends on "who's ox is being gored" as the saying

goes. Militarized resistance is okay depending on who's doing it and where?

[bigtree]

34. This is the case we're discussing. I don't see what the point is

in applying circumstances in completely different conflicts, in different parts of the world, involving completely different individuals and groups in opposition to each other, to this conflict and others in this region.

Why such deflection to disallow me my contention that I don't believe that violence in this region has achieved anything of lasting value? You can certainly hold an opposite view without casting every aspersion about every instance you can conjur against my views about this conflict. I'm not challenging your view in this way.

[Spazito]

38. The reason I question your contention is because your intent to

isolate your position solely to this issue and ignore all other comparisons dilutes your argument, imo. When you do that, imo, you might as well simply say Hezbollah should not be fighting Israel because it gains them nothing. Were you to say that then the debate could, indeed, stay specifically on this conflict alone, imo.

[bigtree]

39. That's not what I said at all. It's not a statement of strategy.

It's an endorsement of peaceful dialogue. No one can assert that violence isn't necessary is some cases. But, I don't see the value or the logic in applying some emcompassing doctrine that advocates violence to every conflict. I prefer to favor peaceful dialogue to violent acts. I use that as my core; not looking to size up every opponent and aggression as deserving of some violent response.

[Spazito]

40. I don't disagree at all that diplomacy should be the preferred way to

resolve conflicts, this one and any other. Sadly, we have seen what happens when diplomacy fails or is deliberately sabotaged as has happened at the UN when resolutions passed are ignored without concern that any consequences will occur.

It is a sad fact that diplomacy only works when EVERYONE at the table is looking to avoid the conflict for the betterment of all concerned and that happens very rarely. When diplomacy fails as it has, repeatedly, in the Middle East and elsewhere, militarized resistance occurs.

[bigtree]

41. true.

when diplomacy fails . . .

[daydreamer]

51. So someone occupies your house at gunpoint, you say OK, I want to

negotiate.

[bigtree]

53. I think that is a ridiculous analogy

as if the conflict in Lebanon could be reduced to such a simplistic equation.

[daydreamer]

55. Why is it ridiculous? Wasn't Lebanon occupied?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html

[bigtree]

58. I really don't believe in violence in most cases

especially when not in immediate, legitimate defense. I think there are motives from the leaders on both sides in THIS conflict which go far beyond immediate, legitimate defense.

[paparush]

27. Until he dins a flight suite and gives a rousing speach under a banner

that screams, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", then all claims of victory ring hollow.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

46. In other words, they need time to reload and resupply

Nobody expects the peace to stay, especially with an organization who charter dictates that war is the purpose of their existance.

[bigtree]

48. In Israel, politicians begin review of war's conduct

JERUSALEM - The guns had barely fallen silent Monday when a bitter Israeli postmortem began on the monthlong conflict with Hezbollah, with politicians on the right protesting that the military had stopped too soon and left-wingers complaining that the fighting had gone on too long . . .


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15273211.htm

[izzybeans]

50. Unfortunately Hezbollah may be stronger because of this action

and the only losers happen to be the millions of civilians in the way of two bullies.

[DemonFighterLives]

52. Things are bigger than who won this battle

The PNAC agenda is intact and Lebanon has been softened up and roads/bridges destroyed. dubya now comes out all wide-eyed that the Iranians have been supplying Hezbollah.
My words, no sh*t st*upid, you make war all over the world and someone is going to supply the other side. Who will supply Iran when you* attack them? Russia, China?
It is still PNAC and Nasrallah doesn't have long to cheer, I am afraid.

This ceasefire is a minor pullback before the next push. IMHO.

[Taxloss]

56. Bigtree, I think I pretty much agree with you.

Which is a positive thing, considering the polarisation of late.

I disagree that Olmert's government is a "regime" and that Israel is engaged in provocations, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

[bigtree]

59. I'll refrain from describing Olmert's government as a regime

and 'provocations' is certainly hyperbole.

Thanks for reaching out.