|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 100)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
Finally, a clip that leaves out the bigotry, racism and propoganda and gives the plight of the Arabs a human face.
It's very brave of them to speak out like that. As you can see, Jews who disagree with Zionism are ridiculed and verbaly dehumanized by Zionists. :( |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| Also the phrase "self hating" pops up once in a while on forums regarding those that speak against zionism. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Here's an excellent read I found today which pretty much sums up the situation.
| quote: |
August 08, 2006
Apocalypse Near
By Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Merav Yudilovitch
Last week, a group of renowned intellectuals published an open letter blaming Israel for escalating the conflict in the Middle East. The letter, which mainly referred to the alignment of forces between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, caused a lot of anger among Ynet and Ynetnews readers, particularly due to its claim that the Israeli policy's political aim is to eliminate the Palestinian nation.
The letter was formulated by art critic and author John Berger and among its signatories were Nobel Prize winner, playwright Harold Pinter, linguist and theoretician Noam Chomsly, Nobel Prize laureate José Saramago, Booker Prize laureate Arundhati Roy, American author Russell Banks, author and playwright Gore Vidal, and historian Howard Zinn.
Prof. Chomsky, you claimed that the provocation and counter-provocation all serve as a distraction from the real issue. What does it mean?
"I assume you are referring to John Berger's letter (which I signed, among others). The "real issue" that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources, leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley.
"This program of realignment cynically disguised as "withdrawal," is of course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it spells the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for 30 years - matters that are so well documented that I do not have to review them here.
"To turn to your specific question, even a casual look at the Western press reveals that the crucial developments in the occupied territories are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction in Gaza - which was rarely seriously reported in the first place - has largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover of the West Bank has virtually disappeared.
"However, I would not go as far as the implication in your question that this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect. We should recall that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that if resistance to Israel's destructive and illegal programs is legitimate within the West Bank (and it would be interesting to see a rational argument to the contrary), then it is legitimate in Gaza as well."
You claim that the world media refuses to link between what's going on in the occupied territories and in Lebanon?
"Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be leveled against the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the Berger letter.
"Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured, eliciting huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza, supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be punished.
One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language Israeli press, basically IDF handouts. And there were a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US.
Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, and no call for military or terrorist attacks against Israel. A Google search will quickly reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.
"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with harsh clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population.
"As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations.
The same elementary moral principles carry over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long periods.
Truly disgraceful
"Over the many years in which Israel carried out these practices regularly, even kidnapping on the high seas, no one ever argued that these crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous - hence suppressed.
"All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases, revealing that they consider kidnapping a matter of no significance when carried by US-supported Israeli forces.
"Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are 'Hamas militants' or were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful."
You are talking first and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian nation, but will it solve the "Iranian threat"? Will it push Hizbullah from the Israeli border?
"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred of Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds - and far beyond, as international polls reveal. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism.
"On Iran and Hizbullah, there is, of course, much more to say, and I can only mention a few central points here.
"Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.
"In June 2006, Ayatollah Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei.
"Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.
"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty.
"ElBaradeiR17;s proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: The growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of 'apocalypse soon' (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course.
"The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community". These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.
"It is commonly said that the 'international community' has called on Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define the "international community" as Washington and whoever happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action, international polls reveal.
"The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world.
"As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.
"It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tyrant installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States - including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others - strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians, just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help in developing the chemical weapons that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
Peaceful means
"There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests that the governments fear that they may be serious.
"I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law, and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel do regularly.
"On Hizbullah too, there are hard and serious questions. As well-known, Hizbullah was formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role in driving out the aggressors.
"The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel regularly bombed Lebanon, trying desperately to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the ludicrous pretext that Ambassador Argov had been wounded (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out.
Shameful pretexts
"It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hizbullah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had similar pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.
"The problem of Hezbollah's arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes Hizbullah's military wing as "resistance rather than as a militia, and thus exempt from" Resolution 1559.
"A National Dialogue in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its main purpose was to formulate a "national defense strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel), but it remained deadlocked over Hizbullah's call for "a defense strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep its weapons as a deterrent to possible Israeli aggression," in the absence of any credible alternative. The US could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee against an invasion by its client state, but that would require a sharp change in long-standing policy.
"In the background are crucial facts emphasized by several veteran Middle East correspondents. Rami Khouri, now an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes that "the Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services."
You are not referring in your letter to the Israeli casualties. Is there differentiation in your opinion between Israeli civic casualties of war and Lebanese or Palestinian casualties?
"That is not accurate. John Berger's letter is very explicit about making no distinction between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states: "Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment."
"You claimed that the world is cooperating with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon and is not interfering in the events Gaza and Jenin. What purpose does this silence serve?
"The great majority of the world can do nothing but protest, though it is fully expected that the intense anger and resentment caused by US-Israeli violence will - as in the past - prove to be a gift for the most extremist and violent elements, mobilizing new recruits to their cause.
"The US-backed Arab tyrannies did condemn Hizbullah, but are being forced to back down out of fear of their own populations. Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's most loyal (and most important) ally, was compelled to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire."
"As for Europe, it is unwilling to take a stand against the US administration, which has made it clear that it supports the destruction of Palestine and Israeli violence. With regard to Palestine, while Bush's stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real break in US rejectionism in 30 years.
"The US also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression when atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.
"Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the world below through a bombsight." Much the same is true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners, despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view of the world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual monopoly of the means of violence, with consequences that we need not review."
What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?
"I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history."
"We can expect with confidence that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That may not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They are even facing the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi'a alliance controlling the world's major energy supplies, and independent of Washington - or even worse, establishing closer links with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council.
"The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, the leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hizbullah, and a harsh critic of the organization, describes the current conflict in "apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All hell would be let loose" if the outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which "the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer.
"It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihad terror. The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about it by Western intelligence agencies, and by the leading specialists on these topics.
"One can bury one's head in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus" that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never be guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even 'apocalypse soon.'" |
Source: ZNet |
|
|
| Abhay |
That's it....
Everything i wanna say, this guy's basically said everything i thought about this conflict in 10 minutes, it's like he read my mind! Most importantly, he points out that israelis still occupy the south of lebanon after the israel-lebanon war a while back.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Wdwk1dp-uU |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Here's an excellent read I found today which pretty much sums up the situation.
Source: ZNet |
Wow and he is a Jew to boot!...
And to think one of his heroes is Castro!! One hell of a guy there, I mean with all that knowledge of the inner workings of the hidden agendas of the western governments. :rolleyes:
Please Z, do not be swayed by this guy's tripe, he is I will admit a great mind, in academia, but as a person and a political activist, he is a low life and and a hack...You are a smart person and I respect you highly, so I tell you, keep an open mind, and take what Chompsky says with a grain of salt.... I speak from experience, I too fell under his spell back in my college days.. ;)
| quote: | | What can one say about Chomsky? As a scholar and shaper of young minds he is deplorable. He is a Jew-hating Jew who views the Israelis as Nazis and believes their behavior will result in “a final solution from which few will escape.” His country has made him rich and famous, although he discerns no good in the sea of prosperity around him. His is a most disturbed, jealous, and depressed mind. Chomsky has tied his life’s disappointments to officials in Washington. If the linguist would merely be content to hate himself rather than project his feelings upon the government, we would all be much better off. |
|
|
|
| Purple |
| Move Israel to EU and problem solved. JUST DO IT! |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Move Israel to EU and problem solved. JUST DO IT! |
Well could have been worse - could have been Alaska... :rolleyes:
Have you considered getting a brain transplant?:clown: |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Well could have been worse - could have been Alaska... :rolleyes:
Have you considered getting a brain transplant?:clown: |
Ok 'brain transplant' what is that? I have heard of Liver and Heart; but they do 'brain transplant' in your country too?
You need to get that Einstein Ava back .. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| I would like to extend my most heart-felt expressions of gratitude to Israel for precipitating the eventual Hizballah-zation of Lebanon. Thank you for paving the road of Hizballah's transformation from a "state within a state" to the state, while simultaneously transforming Nasrallah into a cult-icon across the Arab world and ruining the dreams of all liberal-minded, secularly-oriented, democracy-loving Lebanese who will now have to deal with the emboldened and delusional machinations of a megalomaniacal fundamentalist. Your magnanimous spirit will be fondly remembered, as always. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
I think Israel might use this oppurtunity and return the gratitude for six years of Lebanese shrugging and silent accepting of growing Hezballah presence in Southern Lebanon, the continuous armament alongside the border to Israel, non-stop agitation against the "Zionist Entity", neverending support/cooperation from Iran and Syria, constant violent provocations (thereby violating UN resolution 1559) and traditional humiliation of Palestinian refugees.
It's very easy to solely blame the Israelis. From their perspective it was a lose-lose situation, whereby the lesser evil was chosen. After witnessing the horrible reaction to the one-sided withdrawl in 2000, further appeasement would have only kept motivating Heballah radicalization. You have to understand that Israel as perhaps the only country worldwide, constantly fears for its existence: It simply cannot afford the luxury of patiently relying on other parties' good will. Even if the political climate has indeed improved and the government was about to emancipate from de-facto Syrian occupation, the Hizballah "issue" was still unsolved and would have stayed this unacceptable way, for the very reason you kept mentioning in this thread: the ultimate fear of a new civil war. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
I think Israel might use this oppurtunity and return the gratitude for six years of Lebanese shrugging and silent accepting of growing Hezballah presence in Southern Lebanon, the continuous armament alongside the border to Israel, non-stop agitation against the "Zionist Entity", neverending support/cooperation from Iran and Syria, constant violent provocations (thereby violating UN resolution 1559) and traditional humiliation of Palestinian refugees.
It's very easy to solely blame the Israelis. From their perspective it was a lose-lose situation, whereby the lesser evil was chosen. After witnessing the horrible reaction to the one-sided withdrawl in 2000, further appeasement would have only kept motivating Heballah radicalization. You have to understand that Israel as perhaps the only country worldwide, constantly fears for its existence: It simply cannot afford the luxury of patiently relying on other parties' good will. Even if the political climate has indeed improved and the government was about to emancipate from de-facto Syrian occupation, the Hizballah "issue" was still unsolved and would have stayed this unacceptable way, for the very reason you kept mentioning in this thread: the ultimate fear of a new civil war. |
6 years? You must be kidding me. Lebanon was occupied by Syria till April 26th of 2005. At least acknowledge the fact that Hizballah and their weapons weren't exactly priority numero uno for the Lebanese populace. Anyway, my comments were an expression of my frustration.
Here are some preliminary exerts of the piece I'm currently writing for the local press that'll hopefully shed some light on the domestic Lebanese situation and the alternative solution to war that Israel should have taken. It's far from finished, and will surely need some refining, but I promise I'll post it in its entirety when's it done and discuss it extensively when the time comes (that being when I graduate in a little over a month). Until then, think about the following and I'll get back to you eventually.
After former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri’s assassination on February 14th of 2005, which was widely blamed on Syria and its Lebanese agents, huge anti-Syrian demonstrations were organized in the heart of Beirut. Syria, which had maintained a military presence in Lebanon since 1976, bore the brunt of protesters’ anger as tens of thousands of people, on February 21st and 28th of 2005, demanded that Syria withdraw from Lebanon [ ]. This was countered by a Hizballah organized demonstration on Mach 8th of 2005 numbering over 500 000 people, supporting Syria and accusing the U.S. and Israel of interfering with Lebanese national affairs [ ]. This finally led, on March 14th of 2005, to over one million anti-Syrian protesters from different creeds to flock to Beirut’s Martyr Square from around the country and to demand Syrian withdrawal [ ]. On April 26th of 2005, the last Syrian soldier in Lebanon crossed the border, and general elections were called for the period between May 29th and June 19th of 2005 after Prime Minister Omar Karami’s government fell. Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former PM, led the anti-Syrian Rafiq Hariri Martyr list (also referred to as February 14 or March 14 forces), which included current PM Fouad Siniora and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, to a parliamentary majority by winning 72 of 128 available seats in the unicameral National Assembly. The Pro-Syrian Resistance and Development bloc, led by Hizballah and Amal (another Shia party), gained 35 seats, while “Generale” Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement led the Aoun alliance to 21 seats [ ].
The euphoria surrounding the “Cedar Revolution” and Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, as well as the first Syrian-free elections in over 30 years, was quickly tempered. Between June and December of 2005, several prominent anti-Syrian figures were assassinated by car bombs, including Samir Kassir, a founding member of the Democratic Left Movement, George Hawi, the former Secretary of the Lebanese Communist party, and Gebran Tueni, editor-in-chief and CEO of one of Lebanon’s most respected newspapers, An-Nahar [ ]. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government, finally free of its Syrian yoke, was finding it difficult to govern as Lebanese “president” Emile Lahoud, a puppet installed by the Syrian regime and whose mandate was unconstitutionally extended into 2007 [ ], refused to resign. March 14 forces, who were calling on the populace to revolt against Lahoud in order to force his resignation, were opposed by Hizballah, who supported Lahoud because of his Syrian taskmasters in Damascus, and the predominantly Christian Aoun alliance in conjunction with Maronite Patriarch Boutros Sfeir, who believed that any future president needed to be elected by parliament as mandated by the Lebanese constitution, and not by popular revolt [ ]. It was argued that unconstitutionally toppling the presidency, historically a position reserved for a Maronite Christian candidate, set a dangerous precedent for Lebanon’s future, although many pundits wondered aloud whether Aoun, who was at odds with March 14 forces, was benefiting solely himself by eyeing the presidency [ ]. Aoun and his alliance finally joined ranks with Hizballah and Amal’s Resistance and Development bloc on February 6th of 2006 by signing a mutual agreement termed “paper of understanding”, thus forming a coalition that opposed the March 14-led government [ ]. Many pundits were shocked at such a development, as Aoun, the former commander in chief of the Lebanese army who waged a war of liberation against Syria in 1989 and who was vehemently anti-Syrian in 15 years of exile, had now joined a coalition that was blatantly pro-Syrian. Needing a two-thirds majority to elect a new president (86 out of 128 seats), the government was paralyzed.
This impasse finally led, on March 2nd of 2006, to what was called “The National Dialogue”, a series of talks aimed at airing out differences between the various factions and settling the most pressing issues facing the Lebanese nation. These issues included the dispute over the presidency and the selection of a “consensus candidate”; the implementation of UNSCR 1559 which calls for the deployment of the Lebanese army across all Lebanese territories and the disarming of all militias in Lebanon (which would include Hizballah and all Palestinian factions inside the camps); the normalization of Lebanese-Syrian relations, which were then at an all-time low, including the demarcation of the Lebanese-Syrian border along the Shebaa farms; and uncovering the truth about Rafiq Hariri's assassination, including a U.N. investigation into the 2005 assassination of the former PM [ ]. Although initially promising, the talks stalled numerous times and were continuously interrupted and postponed for various reasons. The participants did however manage to agree to certain points, including the need to normalize bilateral relations with Syria and to establish Syrian and Lebanese embassies in Beirut and Damascus, respectively, as well as collecting Palestinian weapons outside of the camps and setting up an international tribunal to try Hariri’s murderers. They also agreed to discuss a “replacement candidate” for incumbent pro-Syrian “president” Emile Lahoud, although no candidate as of yet has been agreed to [ ]. The thornier issues of Hizballah’s disarmament and the deployment of Lebanese troops in the South, though extensively discussed, were never resolved, as Hizballah, along with Amal and Aoun’s alliance, successfully and continuously blocked March 14 forces’ attempts at dealing effectively with these issues. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, an influential figure of the anti-Syrian camp, insisted that the "defense of southern Lebanon should be the sole prerogative of the Lebanese state and that “Hizballah fighters should be integrated into the armed forces”. But Nasrallah retorted that only a paramilitary structure like his group's military wing -- which he claimed has more than 12,000 rockets -- could protect Lebanon from mighty neighbor Israel [ ].
Some argue that the government made a strategic mistake by linking Hizballah’s disarmament issue with the Shebaa farms, instead of pushing for the implementation of UNSCR 1559 and resolving the Shebaa farms issue independently of the latter. In order to appease Hizballah, March 14 forces, ironically on March 14th of 2006, agreed to the Lebanese identity of the Shebaa farms, thus making Hizballah’s disarmament contingent with Israeli withdrawal [ ]. The logic is as follows: “should Syria cede Shebaa and the territory become “Lebanese,” it will immediately be incumbent on Israel to withdraw. After an Israeli withdrawal, so the argument goes, Hizballah will lose its raison d’etre as a “resistance” organization, disarm, and become solely a political party” []. The problem with this strategy, they argue, is that Syria refuses to demarcate their border along Shebaa (as previously discussed), and agree to do so only after Israeli withdrawal from the farms. Israel, however, refuses to withdraw because it does not consider the territories as Lebanese. Thus, they argue, the Lebanese government had effectively put its own security in the hands of Syria and Israel, since the latter indirectly controlled the fate of Hizballah’s arms.
Others argue that the government’s hand was forced by Hizballah’s intransigence, and that linking the Shebaa issue with Hizballah’s disarmament was needed in order to move forward in the National Dialogue, not to mention the fact that the Shebaa farms are indeed Lebanese land, regardless of who administers it. They argue that there was no other choice, as disarming Hizballah by force through the Lebanese army would be futile and unwise because of the army’s military weakness and its confessional composition that risked splintering it along sectarian lines if forced to fight Hizballah. They argue that instead of facing the ominous risk of yet another civil war, Siniora could at least now use diplomatic channels to lobby the US to put pressure on Syria and / or Israel in order to resolve the Shebaa issue.
Either way, one thing is clear: Hizballah was facing enormous pressure to disarm, as their arms were not sacred anymore and were on the table for discussion. Furthermore, they were facing massive public pressure from Lebanon’s March 14 supporting-population to disarm, who viewed Hizballah’s inflexibility with regards to this issue as dangerous and potentially destabilizing [ ].
[...]
I examine now the second point of the argument that I have advanced, notably whether, in any reasonable scenario, Israel’s stated goals could have been achieved through less bloody means at least as effectively as through its chosen path of death and destruction. Ironically, the path to be taken in order for Israel to recover their soldiers and to secure their northern border was delineated by Hizballah themselves. Hizballah’s official claims for holding on to their weapons are threefold: the Israeli occupation of the Shebaa farms; the detention of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails; and the presence of mines in Southern Lebanon. I consider the two last points to be rather minor relative to the first, and believe that they can be packaged together with any solution to the Shebaa farms dispute. Thus, I focus my attention on the latter point, since I believe it to be the key obstacle in disarming Hizballah.
The alternative scenario I have in mind involves an Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa farms in exchange for the deployment of Lebanese troops along the border and the disarming of Hizballah, coupled with a prisoner exchange between the two warring parties. Israel recognizes that the land is not Israeli and in fact claims that it is Syrian. Thus, in principle, Israel recognizes that the land is occupied, which implies that Israel will have to cede the land eventually, though probably under some land for peace agreement. Whether it cedes it to Lebanon or Syria is ultimately completely irrelevant from Israel’s perspective. It would still retain the Golan Heights and could use the latter as a bargaining chip to broker an eventual peace deal with Syria. Furthermore, Israel has, time and again, claimed that Hizballah’s true aim is the destruction of Israel and that the Shebaa farms dispute is a pretext for Hizballah to continue bearing arms. Indeed, as I showed in the first part of the article, I believe both claims to be true. Withdrawing from the Shebaa farms, in exchange for the deployment of Lebanese troops along the border and Hizballah’s disarming, would have then denied Hizballah their main pretext for bearing arms, and furthermore thwarted their larger aim of attacking Israel. Such a move would have also weakened Syria and Iran’s hand in Lebanon, which is good for Israel, since both countries use Hizballah as a proxy-force to wage their war against Israel.
There are several arguments that can be made against this proposed alternative, and I attempt to address them here. Arguments against withdrawal include claims that Israel would be “displaying signs of weakness” and “appeasing terrorists” by balking at their demands. These objections completely miss the point. Far from “appeasing terrorists”, Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa farms would be a strategic move designed to disarm Hizballah and stop attacks on Israel by removing any pretext for doing so. Contrary to it being a sign of weakness, Israeli withdrawal in exchange for disarming Hizballah would be a sign of wisdom.
Other arguments include claims that Hizballah would simply find yet another pretext to continue bearing arms, just like it did after May of 2000 after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. This argument, though stronger than the previous one, fails to recognize the following points. First of all, the domestic Lebanese situation on the eve of July 12th of 2006 is much different than that after May 25th of 2000. As I discussed in the first part of this article, the topic of Hizballah’s disarmament was being discussed both by the government and by the Lebanese public. Hizballah’s arms were not sacred anymore, and they were facing enormous pressure at all levels to disarm, especially from March 14 supporters amongst the Lebanese populace. Prime Minister Siniora himself was lobbying Washington to exert pressure on Israel and/or Syria to settle the Shebaa dispute in order to dissolve Hizballah’s pretext for bearing arms. The point is that Hizballah was facing enormous domestic pressure to disarm and would have certainly been cornered into disarming had their main justification for bearing arms disappeared. Second of all, I take it for granted that any Israeli withdrawal would have had to be brokered under the auspices of the international community, including a leading role by the United States who has good ties with both governments, with guarantees to disarm Hizballah in return for Israeli withdrawal. These guarantees could have come in many forms, including the threat of a U.N. “Chapter 7 resolution”, under which the U.N. would authorize military action in case of non-compliance.
The alternative path, then, for Israel to achieve their dual goals without bombing and invading Lebanon did indeed exist. Furthermore, though not full-proof, the bloodless, diplomatic alternative was indeed reasonable and had a fair chance of succeeding. Israel, however, never gave diplomacy a chance, which simply makes their response that much more unjustifiable. Israel chose to completely ignore diplomacy and instead immediately engaged in their barbaric campaign of collective punishment. The obvious question that begs to be asked then is: Why?
to be continued... |
|
|
|
|
