Yes quite clearly. If Israel failed to achieve this goal during all the years it occupied southern Lebanon its difficult to see how it could with a brief bombing campaign and incursion…
On the other hand, if Israel can essentially make Hezbollah existence in Lebanon unpalatable to the Lebanese, the Lebanese may do it for them.
The question is whether the hatred of Israel will outstrip the Lebanese people’s self-interest. It does in the Palestinian territories, because the Palestinians are completely radicalized and feel they have nothing to lose anyway.
But the people of Lebanon don’t want war with Israel. They don’t want to be bombed by Israel. They’d rather get on with building a country and leading their lives. If they realize that allowing Hezbollah a seat in the government and free reign over the south of the country means period death and destruction, perhaps they’ll smarten up and decide they’d rather have peace, and kick the bums out.
On the other hand, an attempt to do that could lead to civil war, because Hezbollah isn’t going to go gently into that good night. So the question then becomes, “Can Israel weaken Hezbollah enough that it can be rooted out and defeated by the Lebanese people, perhaps with the aid of the international community?”
Hezbollah has some representation in the government because it has some popular electoral support. The government can’t just “kick the bums out,” not while they’re trying to build a democracy.
Yes, I know. My point was that this may erode Hezbollah’s electoral support. It’s one thing to make noises and support the leaders of ‘resistance’ against the evil Jews. It’s another to have them engage in rash acts that cause a rain of destruction on the country.
On the other hand, maybe Hezbollah will emerge the heros and gain even more support. Frankly, I have a hell of a time understanding the Arab mindset sometimes. Lebanon has exactly zero to gain from its continued aggravation of Israel, and a lot to lose. Why they tolerated Hezbollah in the first place is a mystery. Did they think those rockets were defensive? Did they honestly believe that Israel was preparing an invasion for no reason? Or do they really believe that they are going to wipe out Israel one day, and this feeds into the support Hezbollah has? Or perhaps Hezbollah has support because it has done all kinds of good things for the people to build that support (Hezbollah is smart that way. When they aren’t starting wars, they build hospitals and schools, and generally act like the nice guys on the block).
It’ll be very interesting to see how this all comes out in the wash.
From the occupation of southern lebanon up until just a few months ago. I believe I’ve already provided cites for the Lebanese military’s position via the government’s orders that Hezbollah was a ‘resistance organization’, and not a milita. And the President’s position that Hezbollah wouldn’t be cracked down on as long as they were at war with Israel and that ‘resistance’ was the only way to overcome Israel. (this was before the current outbreak of hostilities.) Check post 19 of your other thread here in GD.
Or is this a Brutus-esque quibble?
No, I just assumed you were talking about Lebanon’s present government, which dates from the May 2005 elections. It’s not fair to hold anything against Lebanon that was a pronouncement of its old Syrian puppet-government.
Luckily, so do the quotes I already provided you.
I’m sure I could track down quite a few more if you require. Because virtually every time they’re refused to act against Hezbollah, they did it while citing Hezbollah being a ‘resistance group’ rather than a milita as the reason for non-compliance with the UN SC resolution. And that includes, of course, post 2005.
Hezbollah is not stupid. They provide water, food ,help fix up homes. and supply hospitals. They are involved in the life of the people of Lebanon. most of what they do has a positive spin. They are not looked at as ememies laying in the bushes. They are going no where. the Israelies have to give up force and legitimately seek an equal peace. They have never shown desire for real negotiations. I missed where Hizbollah ran over Israelis with bulldozers. Also when they destroyed the lives and homes of families of suspected terrorists. The terrorists in the minds of most of the middle east is the Israelies. Until they face up to force not working ,this will play out another 50 years.
People aare visualizing an armed band running around terrorizing the Lebonese and endangering the well being of the neighborhood. It is just not the case.
If you’re referring to this:
Certainly they (the government) shouldn’t have allowed that, and I bet they’re heavily regretting it now. OTOH, I don’t read it as the minister claiming “Hezbollah is one of [Lebanon’s] tools against Israel.” The Lebanese government (except for its Hezbollah element) has absolutely no interest in making war on Israel and no reason to feel hostile to Israel. Their problem is, they had to comply with this UN resolution to disband all the religious-partisan militias, and WRT to the military arm of Hezbollah they couldn’t – it’s too strong, and too popular, and they can’t even rely on their own army to follow orders to disband it. They might find themselves between a rock and a hard place if they even tried to stop the arms shipments (though this new war may well change that particular political circumstance). So all they can do is fall back on weasel-words. “It’s not a militia, its a . . . erm . . . it’s a resistance group! Nothing to see here, no sir!” [tugs collar]
If you have to have any particular feeling towards the Lebanese government right now, it should be pity, not anger.
I don’t think your gloss is fair.
How would you describe President Lahoud? I’m asking honestly, do you describe him as part of the Hezbollah element?
[
](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5027602.stm)
To a degree, true. But, as well, various politicians and members have publically stated that Hezbollah is not a militia, and is a valid ‘resistance organization’. Now, I see no reason to assume that they were anything less than serious, as not only did they act on this rhetoric, but there are those in Lebanon who have opposed Hezbollah. Pr’aps this boils down to interpretation, but I find it hard to believe that this is ‘just’ rhetoric.
Perhaps… but the international community was firmly against Syrian meddling. Couldn’t the Lebanse governemnt, instead of sending those weapons to Hezbollah, give them to their own soldiers instead after confiscating them? Or destroy them? Or bring it to the UN’s attention?
I think we disagree on the interpretation. The way I see it, Hezbollah’s function of threatening Israel factored into the Lebanese calculus of statecraft.
Depends on which part of the Lebanese government we’re talking about. Sovereign nations are responsible for their actions. Even thoug, for instance, the war in Iraq is largely in the hands of Bush and a Republican dominated Congress, that doesn’t mean we can say that America isn’t occupying Iraq, the Republicans are.
So I guess my answer would be something like ‘yes, and no’. The Christian, Druze, and moderate members of the government certainly got the short end of the stick. But at the same time, a nation is responsible for the choices its government makes. And if it can’t be, then it’s essentially a rogue state, and needs to be cracked down on, hard.
Perhaps the UN should’ve been more proactive. Perhaps instead of sipping tea with Hezbollah, they should’ve been trying to disarm them. There are many possibilities involved, and at the end of the day it sucks to be a non-supporter of Hezbollah if you’re Lebanese, or part of the Lebanese government…
But if Bush, backed up by Congress, authorized an invasion of Canada tomorrow, it would fall at the feet of all America. The only other option, as I see it, is to forcibly dismantle the parts of a sovereign government that you don’t like. I’m not sure that can even be accmoplished when dealing with sovereign states.
From right here in this very thread, just a liiiiiiittle bit above (I’ll condense it even more, so perhaps it’s clearer. Also, emphasis mine). . .
The Lebanese government – the present one, post May, 2005 elections – considers the “resistance” (aka Hezbollah) to have a “natural” and “honest” right to “liberate their land” against Israel. How do you not read that direct quote by the newly elected Prime Minister as “Hezbollah [being] one of [Lebanon’s] tools against Israel”?
Easy. It’s said in a purely defensive setting. The “land” they speak of “liberating” is Lebanese territory, not Israel itself, nor even the West Bank. The Lebanese still have bitter memories from 1982, and besides they just got rid of the Syrians. If I were Lebanese (even a Druze or Christian Lebanese) I probably would be watching the news and cheering on Hezbollah to kick some Israeli ass, and could you honestly blame me?
As I sit here and try to decide whether the Lebanese govt. supports Hezbollah or not I consider the following (in addition to your and FinnAgain’s quotes:
-
Every show I’ve seen where people debate this issue (the intelligent PBS type shows, not the group of clowns all shouting at each other), they seem to be in consensus on the fact that the Lebanese govt. does not support Hezbollah.
-
I would assume that a Lebanese politician making public statements must have to worry about appearing pro-Israel, and thus would probably lean the other direction. In addition, regardless of whether it’s Israel or any other country, they have just crossed the Lebanese border and no leader of any country wants to appear to allow that, even if it helps solve a problem.
So, to me at least, it seems like the question is still open.
I’d say it’s a safe bet Lebanon is swinging in that direction without a foreign-controlled peacekeeping force more-or-less permanently stationed within missile firing range of the Israel-Lebanese border.
Here’s an article speculating on why Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, decided, after things were relatively quiet for so long, to start lobbing shells into northern Israel, precipitating a predictable military response. The author thinks Nasrallah is partly just rendering service to his backers in Iran and Syria, but mainly, he acted out of desperation to prevent Hezbollah in Lebanon from being disarmed and reduced to just another political party.
What would the United States do if a political faction based in Canada or Mexico started lobbing shells into the US? Let’s say under a reasonable President and not the Chimp in Chief we have at present.
Wait for them to run out of shells and then sell them some more.
Lahoud is a Maronite Christian with no personal reason to support an anti-Zionist agenda. I think most Lebanese feel the same way: They don’t want to destroy Israel but they sure as Hell don’t like having it for a neighbor, and there’s no reason why they should. (See post #32.)
If true, that would be a perfectly valid calculus so far as it goes. Hezbollah (until it started acting crazy for its own reasons – see post #35 and article linked therein) functioned as first line of defense against Israel – an extra army costing the government nothing, and with all its weapons aimed south, not north at other Lebanese factions.
Of course Israel would have no obvious interest in aggression against Lebanon (that is, Lebanon the Syrian-puppet-no-longer) if Hezbollah were not there in the first place, but that’s a chicken-egg problem. One Lahoud inherited when he took office. The Lebanese people (the ordinary people, the voters) remember and resent the presence of Israeli troops in their country in 1982 – you can’t reasonably expect them to think too clearly or deeply about why that happened. They must resent it even more than they resented the recently-departed Syrians, who at least were fellow Arabs and spoke the same language.
BrainGlutton:
It is not a “chicken-egg” problem. You solve it by making the Hezbollah militia part of or subordinate to the official Lebanese army. If Hezbollah is part of the country’s government, its army can be part of the country’s army. That way, if the government of Lebanon does not want to attack Israel, it does not tell its army to attack Israel. If a rogue element (i.e., the Hezbolla militia) attacks Israel despite such orders, they get court-martialed and punished like any soldier who disobeys his commander.
Tell me, if the Arizona National Guard launched kidnaping raids against Mexico, do you think the U. S. Army would not take them to account for it?
I know what I would do.
I’d get in immediate communication with the head(s) of that country and inform them of what is going on. If they didn’t take IMMEDIATE action to bomb/silence the attacking force, I would do it. Once the government of Canada/Mexico was able to take over the suppression, I would stop trying to silence the attackers and monitor the actions of Canada/Mexico.
If they looked like they were doing a good job, all is well. If they are not, I would offer support. If they balked…then I would consider there to be a state of war between our countries and and accordingly.
That is my first reaction. I think it is reasonable.