My understanding of the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict
I intended to post this a week or two ago, but the Syria/Lebanon/Israel/iran issue is rather complicated. It's taken me a lot of reading to untangle the threads and make sense of what's going on over there. Incidentally that's my major problem with almost every opinion piece I've seen written about the issue: there are many uncomfortable truths
( Read more... )
In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.
Hezbollah's goal is to send rockets into Israel. Israel's goal is to not let them get away with it. Unlike a dispute over land or resources that's not really a negotiable situation, where Israel agrees to tolerate up to one dozen rockets per week or something. So they're fighting to resolve this disagreement.
Hizbullah started as a resistance movement against the last invasion of Lebanon by the IDF. They would say they're stockpiling weapons on the border with Israel because that's where the attack came from the last time Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon. And they're doing it because the Lebanese army can't. I'm sure they'd say they're responding to violations of they're country by an aggressive, well-armed bully (with an even bigger, badder US brother) who'll back them up no matter what they do. Why should they disarm and let Israel run around and do whatever they like in Southern Lebanon?
UNFIL has reported near daily violations of the "Blue Line" by Israeli jets from 2001-03, including low-level, sound-barrier breaking buzzing of civilian areas:In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation." [Monbiot]
I'm really starting to believe that Jerusalem's Neo-Cons are doing what DC's Neo-Cons did in Iraq: start a pre-planned, pre-emptive war on a shakey premises with the goal of re-making the Middle East at gun-point.
Reply
This is what Israel meant by calling it an "opportunity". For years they've dealth with an irregular gang of armed civilians that's been taking potshots at them from across the border. Imagine if the Minutemen had rockets and IEDs and RPGs and they ducked into Nogales every few days to kill some Mexican cops or mortar a shopping mall and our government let them get away with it. Mexico would be itching for an excuse to deal with them.
Hezbollah are into this conflict as well. For the past year Hezbollah have been in an uncomfortable position. They've had to abandon their demands for a theocracy and moderate other positions to participate in Lebanon's democracy. Getting their asses handed to them in the 2005 election and getting out-demonstrated in the Orange Revolution didn't help either. The future is more moderate than they're comfortable with becoming, so they're happy to help make it extreme.
Why should they disarm and let Israel run around and do whatever they like in Southern Lebanon?
Because they're not Lebanon's legitimate army. They're a band of self-appointed vigilantes who have been ordered to dissolve by the UN. If Hezbollah's members want to defend Lebanon they should join the Lebanese army, where they will be under the command of the legitimate government and their actions can be made legitimately in the name of all Lebanese people. Politically, the Lebanese Army is far better equipped to defend Lebanon against Israel, and they'd be better equipped *militarily* as well if Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran weren't trying to undermine them.
Don't get me wrong - I think Lebanon has every right to defend itself against Israeli aggression - I just don't think Hezbollah are the ones who ought to be doing it. And I'm certain that there would be far less Israeli aggression if the Lebanese military were guarding the border instead of Hezbollah.
Reply
Fair enough. But then that raises the point, do they owe their alegience to Lebanon first or Sheikh Nasrallah? Given the fractious history of civil war between the communities in Lebanon, I wonder if they'd be interested in that. This is a country where the religion of the President is written into the constitution. But then again, lots of European nations don't brand Hiz. proper as a terrorist organization, but just the External Security wing (seems kinda like the IRA/Sinn Fein relationship).
I'm descended from Filipinos on my Dad's side. My great grandfather fought against the Spanish and then the Americans. My grandfather fought the Japanese and was sworn into the US military (even if Congress did a 180° retcon and denied the vets benefits after the war). But I come from a line that has a history of slitting the throats of invading soldiers, so I have little problem with the locals rising up and doing that. I think it's not only a moral right, but a duty to kill foreign soldiers who're occupying your city.
But I think Hiz. has gone far beyond the Red Dawn-style defense of the nation. The whole Shebaa Farms thing is a premise for them to keep fighting Israel. I'm not sure why they weren't disarmed with the rest of the militias, except for maybe they were butch enough to not have to give over their weapons and the Lebanese Army couldn't make them. But that goes to motivation, not
Yes, the international community definetly needs to step in and disarm Hizbullah and strengthen the Lebanese national Army. And there needs to be a negotiated, just peace.
But then I don't think the forces in power in DC and Jerusalem are interested in that. I think they're angling for a combined US/Israeli military domination of the region. THAT'S the "New Middle East" Condi was talking about.
The subject of "Israel's right to defend itself" often gets brought up. Sure they have that right. But do not the Palestinians have the right to a nation instead of a series of bantustans under Israeli Apartheid?
A lot of people whose job it is engage this stuff for a living are saying that The Israeli/Palestinian situation is the power-fan on the regional coals, turning the barbrque into a blast furnace, and that it's impossible to disentangle Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, from the Palestinian issue.
I guess that's becoming the lodestone I keep circling back to: That Israel needs to make just land-4-peace compromises with it's neighbors. And right now, Israel has no impetus to make real, painful compromise in exchange for peace because the Wolfowitzes and Cheneys and Rumfselds in Jerusalem don't believe in negotiated peace. They believe in Pax Americana with Israel as local enforcer. And we're backing them.
Israel will someday have to sit down with people who killied Israelis, both soldiers and civilians, and make peace with them. One of those "terrorists" will probably be Prime Minister of Palestine someday. but that's okay, Terrorism was good enough for Menachem Begin when the Irgun had to bomb and shoot the British out in order to take control of the country. He became Prime Minister of Israel. Yitzhak Shamir declared that ‘[N]either Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’ He became Prime Minister of Israel.
So they can spare me the "We will never sit down a negotiate with terrorists" bullshit. That is the only thing that's going to lead to peace and taking the wind out of the sails of violent groups like Hiz.
Reply
Reply
I think it's not only a moral right, but a duty to kill foreign soldiers who're occupying your city.
What's funny is that just last year Hezbollah massively demonstrated in favor of Syria's military occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah support Lebanese occupation, they're just backing different occupiers.
They believe in Pax Americana with Israel as local enforcer.
Hezbollah supported Pax Syriana, with Syria as local enforcer, last year when Syrian influence was crumbling. The difference is that the US and Israel do not actually want Israel to occupy the entirety of Lebanon, whereas Syria actually did - with Hezbollah's support - from 1990-2005.
Hezbollah are not freedom fighters, they are Syria and Iran's agents of occupation. The Lebanese people actively - and successfully - opposed and rejected them last year and marginalized them politically, which is why Hezbollah have turned to these extreme measures to strengthen their political clout. That doesn't mean Israel is fighting the good fight, but it *does* mean that Hezbollah is fighting the bad fight.
Reply
Reply
If they claim to fight on behalf of the Lebanese people they owe their allegiance to the democratically elected Lebanese government who those people have chosen, NOT the 11% minority leader that the majority detests.
This is a country where the religion of the President is written into the constitution.
Hezbollah want to make it *more* theocratic. They voted not to accept the secular government but were outvoted. Lebanese moderates who oppose Hezbollah are trying to separate church from state, which is why those moderates get attacked by Hezbollah, which is why Hezbollah remains an unpopular minority.
lots of European nations don't brand Hiz. proper as a terrorist organization
I've intentionally avoided using the "T" word anywhere because I don't want to get into a semantic quagmire arguing what is and isn't "terrorist". The specifics of Hezbollah's actions speak for themselves, uncategorized.
Reply
Here's the real problem: Hezbollah does not recognize Israel's right to exist or Israelis' right to live in Israel. They want to destroy Israel, reclaim its land, and drive out its occupants. Israel doesn't want to see Lebanon destroyed, they don't even want to see the members of Hezbollah destroyed, but they *do* want the Hezbollah military organization disbanded. If Hezbollah is disbanded the Israelis will have no more quarrel with the government of Lebanon. If Israel withdraws, as they did in 1990, Hezbollah will continue to attack Israel, as they have since 1990, because Israeli withdrawal is not Hezbollah's desired endgame.
The subject of "Israel's right to defend itself" often gets brought up. Sure they have that right. But do not the Palestinians have the right to a nation instead of a series of bantustans under Israeli Apartheid?
They absolutely do. But Hezbollah doesn't have anything to do with Palestine except that they use Palestine as an excuse to fuck shit up. Hezbollah and the PLO are two completely different groups. Hamas is a Palestinean Sunni political party and militant organization. Hizbollah is a Lebanese Shia political party and militant organization. Israel claims that Hizbollah arms hamas, but you can't claim that Hizbollah is defending Lebanon from attacks against Palestine. They're two different issues: Hezbollah just likes to bring up Palestine when they run out of reasons why they're justified shooting rockets into Israeli cities.
I guess that's becoming the lodestone I keep circling back to: That Israel needs to make just land-4-peace compromises with it's neighbors.
Didn't they do that in 2000 when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon? It was a huge deal. Israel *gave* land for peace, and Hezbollah took that land and prepared it in anticipation of an eventual showdown with Israel. That's because Hezbollah's goals are not to become a moderate member of Lebanese government, their goal is to destroy Israel.
That's really what it comes down to for me. If the entire IDF and the entire Hezbollah military were disbanded, all formerly armed people withdrew to their national borders, and safety of both parties were absolutely guaranteed, I think Israel would be happy with this arrangement because they'd finally get to live without suicide bombers, and Hezbollah would not be happy because Israel would still exist but they couldn't attack Israel anymore.
If I'm wrong about this: if Hezbollah recognizes Israel's right to exist and they've said that they would be satisfied with something other than Israel's destruction in exchange for ceasing all hostility against Israel I would be interested to know what those demands were.
Reply
Leave a comment