Hizballebanon Update. "Lebanon to legalize Hizbullah militia," by Brenda Gazzar and Herb Keinon for the Jerusalem Post, August 4:
A draft policy statement that could secure Hizbullah's existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to "liberate or recover occupied lands" is expected to be approved by the Lebanese council of ministers on Monday before being presented to the parliament in the coming days.
Some observers in Lebanon see the clause on "resistance" as a significant victory for Hizbullah, which has long resisted giving up its arms in its fight against Israel.
"Lebanese officials from the president down had always legitimized Hizbullah's resistance as a national cause," Timur Goksel, a former senior UNIFIL adviser/spokesman who now teaches in Lebanon about Middle Eastern conflict, told reporters on Sunday.
"This time, a vehemently anti-Hizbullah government - led by a majority that has significant Western support - has put its signature to a clause that allows Hizbullah to take actions in the fields listed without seeking government approval," Goksel said.
"It also puts an end to any dreams of disarming Hizbullah. It secures Hizbullah's armed existence."
Government sources in Jerusalem said the decision would make the government in Beirut an accomplice to any Hizbullah aggression and give Israel the right to hold it responsible.
During the Second Lebanon War, Israel came under international pressure not to harm Lebanon's infrastructure because it was Hizbullah, not the Lebanese government, that killed several IDF soldiers and supposedly kidnapped reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in a cross border raid in July 2006.
The argument that the Lebanese government should not be held accountable for Hizbullah provocations would lose all weight if the government decision is approved, the sources said. The sources added that the pending decision was also an indication of Hizbullah's strong position inside the Lebanese government.
The sources said that while it was unlikely that the decision would have any immediate operative significance for Israel, it could lead Jerusalem to launch a diplomatic campaign explaining to the international community that it meant the Lebanese government could be held responsible for Hizbullah aggressions.
No decision to launch such a campaign had yet been taken, the sources said.
According to the Lebanese draft statement, its government emphasizes "the right of Lebanon, its people, army and resistance to liberate or recover the occupied Shaba Farms [Mount Dov], Kafr Shuba Hills and the Lebanese sector of Ghajar village; and to defend Lebanon against any aggression... by all legitimate and available means," according to the Lebanese news site Naharnet.
The "resistance" clause minimizes pressure on Hizbullah's weapons and legitimizes resistance as a national cause instead of a purely Shi'ite one, which had been two goals of Hizbullah during negotiations....
Lebanon : a country dedicated for its suicide!
Lebanon is no longer a country. It's a joke. It seems clear now it never deserved to be a country. Might as well be part of Greater Syria or some such rot. How pathetic.
Sheba Farms never, ever existed as an issue until the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah needed a new pretext to continue its war against Israel. Meanwhile, the fact that the Sinora government capitulated must be seen in the context of the following circumstances...
a) In its violent confrontation with Hezbollah earlier this year, the government's allies in the West - France and the USA - passed the buck, ensuring Hezbollah's victory
b) With Israel and France currently engaged in dialogue with Syria, that country's diplomatic isolation appears to be at an end; the anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon feel effectively abandoned and have calibrated their policies to survive Syria's international rehabilitation.
Moral? There ARE repercussions to talking to dictators.
Good post Cornelius. Thanks.
You chose poorly, Lebanon.
Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama is surely working on a new inspiritional speech, to end the hostilities in the Middle East by "lifting up" the people and "bringing them together" with hope and change for all...oh Lord, Kum-by-yah.
Lebanon never made peace, not in the 60 years since they attacked the nascent Jewish State; so now, let the Lebanese have all the fruits of war and emnity that they have sown.
The always-tacit approval of Hizbullah by the Lebanese Government and their denial of such, only serves as yet another example of inherent Muslim untrustworthiness, via their sly practice of taqiyya.
The Lebanese Government now seen for what they have always been, supporters of terrorists, will hopefully treated as such after the next Hizbullah engagement.
To an enduring Israel.
To an enduring Israel.
The devolving of Lebanon into a fragmented, factionalized, failed state should serve as a contemporary example to the world illustrating what happens to pluralistic societies that allow Muslims to act, unchecked, pursuing their agenda of subjugation and supremacy. The Christian population of Lebanon, shrinking as many flee to safety in the wake of Muslim hegemony, appears doomed; their future of those who remain will be one of Shari'a, dhimmitude, and all its attendant humiliations, marginalization, and vulnerability: the inevitable result of this internal jihad, which was not stopped when it might have been easier to do so, but now seems no longer feasible. Too many of the Christian Lebanese were too acquiescent, too willing to allow their country to fall into Hezbollah's hands, probably thinking that Uruba, or pan-Arabism, would predominate, and not religion. Let this, again, be a lesson for Europe, the USA, Canada, and the rest of the infidel world which so thoughtlessly, and with foolish, self-destructive benevolence, allows Muslims to emigrate, reside, and become citizens.
Would that make an act of war performed by Hizbullah an act of war of all of Lebanon? I mean, if passed, then such acts would be sanctioned by the Lebanese government.
OT
Muslims attack Chinese border post, kill 16 police officers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7540138.stm
when Hiz attacks Israel, Lebanon is now a whole target. The Leb. gov't need to think this out before signing this into law.
Let this, again, be a lesson for Europe, the USA, Canada, and the rest of the infidel world which so thoughtlessly, and with foolish, self-destructive benevolence, allows Muslims to emigrate, reside, and become citizens.
commonsense
This important point cannot be emphasized enough. The best defense that we have at the present time is to slow the progression of Islam.
I wish someone who has researched the history of "Islam on the March to Victory" and the current set of conditions in the West, both military and political, would publish a book which clearly shows the military strategy of Islam as it is in use today. Our military is not doing this. I believe that if this were done by the right person, it would have an impact which could only be very beneficial to all in the West.
Spot on,
You're right that such a book needs to be written, but I'm not sure many people would read it.
So many folks these days don't read, even for pleasure. My sister is one of these, and it's shocking--she's better educated than I am, but has no appetite for books.
I can't imagine many of the people I know, reading such a military strategy tome. Only my stepfather, who hates fiction and prefers non-fiction, might be liable to do so. That makes him one in about 150 people in my own acquaintance who would so much as look at it.
For the masses, of whom I am one, I have more faith in the interactive forums of the internet.
"This time, a vehemently anti-Hizbullah government - led by a majority that has significant Western support - has put its signature to a clause that allows Hizbullah to take actions in the fields listed without seeking government approval,"
Cornelius,
Just what were Western leaders supposed to do? A VEHEMENTLY anti-Hizbullah government is doing this. Their opposition doesn't seem so vehement today. Their actions belie their words. That majority "with significant Western support" just stabbed us in the back.
Let's get past the idea that we owe Lebanon anything. It's their country. Either they FIGHT for it or they LOSE it.
Not everything is the fault of the West.
abscedere
Your probably right. There may not be much of a market for such a book. But if such a book existed, it could be referenced all over the place and would help further our credibility on the subject of Islam as a threat. It could provide facts to further the argument that Islam, itself, is the danger.
The more primitive military methods were usually copied from preditory animals. This basically involves sneaking up on the prey and devouring it. Or analysing the preys defense system and getting around it somehow. Starving or denying the enemy water.
I am by no means an authority on military strategy, but it looks like we as a society would be pretty easy to sneak up upon. Asleep may be a better word for it. And our present military efforts are involved with "fighting the last war". Someone needs to get into the "Head of the beast" from a military point of view. This is normally done by the military but Islam is not their thing. They are too PC.
PMK,
We had a pro-Western, anti-Syrian government in power in Lebanon...with its individuals being murdered, one-by-one, via a sinister plot by Syrian intelligence. The Lebanese needed our help; we looked the other way. Now, their instinct for self-preservation compels them to accommodate the Syrians and Hezbollah.
You, like so many others here, seem to see the Middle East and the broader Muslim world strictly through an idealogical prism: "we don't owe them anything."
I happen to see it all through the prism of statecraft: we can influence events in the region if we're willing to employ the resources at our disposal, be they military, diplomatic, or economic. An anti-Syrian regime in Lebanon was/is preferable to a pro-Syrian one, certainly for the security of Israel....and for the broader alignment of forces.
Had France and the USA made even a minimal attempt to arm the anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon when Hezbollah challenged the government earlier this year, the outcome of the confrontation might have ended very differently. Instead, we caved.
You, Hugh, and many others here seem to be advocates of withdrawal from the entire Muslim world...in the hopes of creating a "separation" that will somehow cleanse the infidel world of its "Muslim problem". I don't see such a solution as feasible or even possible. I believe that we have to engage the Muslim world, sometimes with aid, sometimes with violence, always with the intention of furthering our vital interests in a world where Muslims and Islam are not going to just disappear, however much we would like them to.
"Too many of the Christian Lebanese were too acquiescent, too willing to allow their country to fall into Hezbollah's hands, probably thinking that Uruba, or pan-Arabism, would predominate, and not religion."
commonsense,
You can't save people who don't want to be saved. The Lebanese Christians didn't see their Muslim countrymen as something they needed to be saved from. Experience is a bitter teacher.
As for this being a lesson to the West about the dangers of Muslim immigration, that's another lesson that won't be learned until it's too late. Unless Europeans are willing to kick them out, a la 1492 Spain, they won't leave and will outnumber Europeans before long. It's too late for Europe. It's not too late in America but we pride ourselves on our history of immigration and assimilation and have convinced ourselves that Europe just didn't know how to do it right and we do. We are complacent. We are smug. Some of us just have blinders on. No one can teach us this lesson because we, as a nation, don't think we need to be saved.
If we did, we'd have different leaders in Congress and 535 different members. All have come up for reelection at least once since 9/11.
'You, Hugh, and many others here seem to be advocates of withdrawal from the entire Muslim world..."
-- from a poster above
No. You continue to misread or wilfully misunderstand, so much of what I write, and have done so quite often, for a long time.
When I suggest that America has a responsibility to bomb or otherwise severely damage Iran's nuclear project, that is not "withdrawal." When I suggest that the Americans should demand that the Saudis and lesser sheikdoms -- that is, the ruling families -- should not be allowed to take American support for granted, but might be offered, for tens of billions of dollars annually, a kind of insurance policy by American troops and sailors in the Gulf, that is not "withdrawal." When I suggest that there are two main, unsentimental, reasons for supporting the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, one being the Demonstration Project of a non-Arab Muslim people throwing off, with success, the Arab Yoke, and bringing the whole matter of Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism, into public discussion, among Infidels and then, one hopes, among the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arab (especially, to start with, Berbers in Morocco, Algeria, and France), that does not constitute "withdrawl." When I suggest that an independent Kurdistan, or its inhabitants, could be persuaded to channel their claims on Kurdish-populated regions toward Iran and Syria, and that this would or could unsettle the Alawite regime, forcing it to limit its foreign adventurism, and unsettle the Iranian regime by offering other minorities -- Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs -- the spectacle of Kurds in Iran making trouble for eh Islamic Republic of Iran, and with the Americans running diplomatic interference for the Kurds with Turkey, and also supplying them -- or leaving behind for them in Kurdistan alone -- American weaponry -- that does not constitute "withdrawal."
When, finally, I have suggested there were good reasons, given the hopelessness of the African Union troops, and the cover of a "humanitarian" enterprise, for the Americans to set back Arab and Muslim plans to push the further islamization and arabization not only of the Sudan, but of Ethiopia and countries along the coast of East Africa right down to the big prize of South Africa, by destroying, overnight, the Sudanese air force, and seizing both southern Sudan and Darfur, and holding them until a referendum on independence can be held, that does not constitute "withdrawal."
You can comment on what you read, and on what you understand. But if you fail to read, or forget what you have read, or wilfully refuse to understand, kindly refrain from comments such as the one above.
At this point, after years of my enduring this stuff, and finding it often necessary to waste time to reply, it's beginning to annoy.
Cornelius,
We can't do it alone. The US and France can't do it alone. The people have to want it. If they don't want to fight for their own freedom then we can't help them. Just voting isn't enough.
How does a "VEHEMENTLY anti-Hizbullah" government do this? It means they're full of it.
We're being bankrupted in Iraq, an effort of which I was a reluctant supporter, but a supporter nonetheless. I didn't sour on Iraq for a long time. I finally realized it was pointless.
The individual leaders were being murdered one by one and the people just caved. Give me liberty or give me death isn't part of the Lebanese thought process. That's not our fault.
Are they ready to go to war with Syria? NO! Are they ready to defend their government against Syria? NO! Are they ready to defend their government against any and all infidels? YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT!
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Too many Muslims and Arab Christians answer: YES.
As long as that is their mindset then we will never be able to help them.
'Hizballebanon?'
Not bad. I prefer Hizbullastan, though.
Great post, Hugh. The essence of what US-politics should be.
Allright Hugh,
My apologies for simplifying your advocacy...it's a lot more nuanced than to just "withdraw".
In my opinion...
1) your position on Iran is solid
2) your position on Iraqi Kurdistan is fraught with naivety and surrealism
3) your position on Darfur is interesting, but there are certainly problems with it
--------------------------------------------------
PMK: "We can't do it alone. The US and France can't do it alone. The people have to want it. If they don't want to fight for their own freedom then we can't help them. Just voting isn't enough."
RESPONSE: Chistian and Druze militia have fought and died trying to protect their turf from Hezbollah. Had we shown some back-bone in giving them moral and material support, they might have continued to do so.
PMK: "The individual leaders were being murdered one by one and the people just caved."
RESPONSE: That's not fair at all. It was the Lebanese leadership who caved...at the point of a gun.
PMK: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Too many Muslims and Arab Christians answer: YES.
As long as that is their mindset then we will never be able to help them."
RESPONSE: Tens of thousands of Lebanese have been killed fighting for their freedom over the last 33 years. And to suggest we in the West are helpless in helping them is to ignore 1958, when US marines prevented the Muslims from taking over Lebanon.
PMK: "We're being bankrupted in Iraq, an effort of which I was a reluctant supporter, but a supporter nonetheless. I didn't sour on Iraq for a long time. I finally realized it was pointless."
RESPONSE: You write this without the benefit of hindsight, having no clue about what repercussions might result from a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq.
Cornelius is right that the so-called "Sheba Farms" issue is just a pretext. In fact, it was not Lebenese before the Six Day War, nor was Ghajar [Rajar] village part of Lebanon. They were both parts of Syria with which Israel is at war. After Ehud Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon the UN certified that Israel had completely withdrawn from Lebanese territory. This after surveyors working for the UN had so reported. To be sure, Ghajar and the so-called "Shaba Farms" are on the western slope of Mt Hermon adjacent to Lebanon but not part of it. So the whole issue is a red herring just meant to keep the warfires burning while Assad Junior is reluctant to go to war against Israel directly, at this time.
Cornelius is also right that the Western powers did not come to Lebanon's aid. The US presidential candidates did not complain about this harmful failure. Of course some may see it as a natural result of the idiotic Israeli govt of olmert and his gang of crooks and fools having started "talks" with the Syrian Nazis. However, olmert and gang were well asware of Jim Baker and Zbig brzezinski's sympathy for the Assads. Olmert may have wanted to crawl on this issue of his accord before he was asked to do so.