...but it's not every day that a group of Americans gets to argue with someone like him.

Ah--HEM!

What, only Americans get to discuss the state of the Middle East?

Joking!

Ok, Mr. Canadian. Sorry for leaving you out!

(We all know Canada is just a suburb of America anyway, ha ha. )

Just to inject some Canadian content that most likely most people are not interested in, our centrist Liberal Party (deal with it) is currently picking a leader, and the quite-intelligent and until-recently-American front runner just pooched his chances by stating that he thought Israel committed war crimes in Lebanon.

Too bad, because they guy seems a lot like a new Trudeau

Okay, back to no-Canadian coverage.

Double-Double (you have In-N-Outs in BC?), hey, I'd like to compliment you for helping keep the tone down on the last thread. The Hizbollah guy laid out some very frank comments that we may have never learned about otherwise. Straight from the South, as it were.

And MJT, what a lucid and thoughtful package of reason you wrote up there. It's guys like you I wish I could have voted for on Tuesday.

I have to admit that I'm surprised at his "war as soccer match" idea: that using planes and such is somehow "unfair". I thought only American peaceniks had such silly notions.

We all want Peace Now. Even the most flaming right-wing nutjobs in America would rather see a peaceful Middle East than a Middle East that explodes.

For a while I've been thinking that there's at least a 10% chance that the middle east won't be inhabited by the end of the century... But somehow it never really sunk in until today when it suddenly started to occur to me the likely effects of gas suddenly jumping to $10 or $15.

In the long run, I'm sure there's no reason that any quantity of oil couldn't be synthesized from plant material or even sewage (as a scientist once told me, the world will never run out of organic chemicals). And of course the world isn't really short of energy sources, just ones that have been developed.

But in the short run I'll bet that 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans would find that they can do their jobs just fine from home. We all have access to broadband, we have high quality phone lines. Really, cubicles just make our work harder by placing us in noisy, annoying environments. We might find that productivity improves if we all stay home.

Of course most of the rest of the people too poor to afford $10 gas can still use public transport, and rich people will hardly notice that anything changed.

Another point is that a place with great internet and phone infastructure like the US will have something of an advange while the world scrambles to adjust.

Heating oil, and gas powered electrical plant will be more serious problems, but ones that I'm sure that a first world country like the US can surmount, if we have better people in charge than Michael Brown.

So while we will mourn the loss of life, and many fortunes will be lost, I think the middle east blowing up won't bring life to a halt. We'll adjust quite easily I suspect. Besides it won't really be a surprise. There's that principle where in economics where people have already prepared for the disasters they're expecting before hand.

Great choice in promoting AlGali's thread; no surprise that this is the best English language exchange about Hez w/ a Hizbuli (??) on the web.

And my sincere thanks to AlGhaliboon, whoever he is, for the best propaganda/ history/ perspective/ rationalization/ justification about the S. Leb Shia struggle for "group self-respect".

Yet this fine summary left off at least one big AlGali post, where he answers specific questions. His answers include:
The bases of our fight were honourable and just; those of our enemy were not. ... We adhere to justice, but our responsibility and holy duty to protect our people from further harm necessitates that we take the road that has been imposed upon us. ...
You seem less "freedom fighters" than a power-hungry faction.
We do not seek power; we seek justice. That justice often cannot be achieved except by holding power is why we have entered the Lebanese political scene and run in elections. We are, unlike all other parties in Lebanon, a party that provides extensive social and health services to the local population (irrespective of sect or support for the Resistancee); we, unlike all other parties in this country, have coupled our coming to power with many benefits to our people. The regions that we are present in are the poorest of the poor in Lebanon. There is almost no government presence there, and this is not because we exist to begin with, but because they do not care, never did so; ... 11:40 AM

I notice the huge importance of "justice". Every justice system requires force, and most users of force, even criminals, 'justify' their own use as a justice-based exemption to the usual guideline of peace.

But there is also the confusion of honor with justice, and especially group honor.

Group honor, group respect, and group rights are incompatible with (individual) human rights. This is a basic group-social vs individualism dynamic. The US individualistic based ideals, which I have, are being imposed, thru globalization and modernization and cell phones/ TV/ air travel, on non-individualist societies.

But what I want to support AG on is the basic unaddressed issue of the original creation of the state of Israel. This 1947-1948 action, like the creation of virtually all states, was not done in a just fashion.

But the Arab attack on Israel, which included Lebanon and ended with the Lebanon Ceasefire of 1949, was also unjust. My point is that since that time, both Arab and Israeli sides have legitimate injustice complaints about the other side.

The use of group force to rectify an injustice of the past almost always creates a new injustice of the present.

What Arabs need to learn is that peace/ forgiveness means accepting prior injustices and trying to build a just and peaceful future without using force justified by the past injustice. (This is the huge power of Christian forgiveness in practice -- it is always forward looking for the survivors.)

Finally, if the Hez leaders were more busy in business and wealth creation thru production and commerce, the local Shia would not be so poor.

I suggest laughing at them for being so stupid to think efforts at war, rather than at business, will help their people get respect.

Ha Ha Ha! (sad laughs) You Hez are so silly. Don't you know if you just make good, cheap products the greedy Jews & Americans and Europeans will be happy to give you their money and put Shia to work? Be CEOs of small companies instead of terrorists! It really IS that simple (although creating a successful company isn't all that simple). The Grameen bank shows a way -- get small loans and start small businesses.

...But somehow it never really sunk in until today when it suddenly started to occur to me the likely effects of gas suddenly jumping to $10 or $15.

Basically, the modern nations would be somewhat disrupted but would adapt.

The third world would be utterly screwed, and any hope of modernizing this century would be gone. They don't have the resources or infrastructure to do it themselves, and the resources the western states might use to help them would be used helping our own economies adjust.

Personally, I would dearly love to invent an alternative to the stuff- hydrogen, electric, whatever. It would be so nice for the middle east to be Europe and China's problem instead of America's problem.

This is a very interesting thread and, as usual, Mr. Totten, you make good points. I thought you were more touchy-feely over Lebanon. I apologize for the mistake. That is a unique world view that AG has, but all too typical of 'honor/face based societies'. They place too much emphasis on 'justice' and 'honour'. Somehow they themselves are never, ever to blame for the circumstances they perpetuate in their societies.

BUT, (now the punch line) as a recovering addict who has had a lot of bad things happen to him, I can tell you that...

NO ONE EVER DID ANYTHING TO ME THAT I DID NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO.

Sorry about the internet version of shouting. There is this truth to be said, we all are responsible for our own circumstances and that goes for Hizbollah and AG. Thye must stop looking at others as the cause of their woes, their woes are theirs alone.

I have NO patience for their moral equivalence. AG you are indiot, grow the f**k up. Quickly. Or your time on earth will be short and miserable.

The Hobo

I thought your commenter did a pretty darned good job! Gave you a run for your money, he did!

How cool it would be if the two of you could cut out the rhetoric and get down to discussing some of the genuine issues you both sidestepped. Still, hats off to both of you for an illuminating exchange. Hezbollah may be terrorists, but the whole thing is a lot more complicated than that.

Our enmity towards America stems from our hatred of its policies, which have left our people everywhere, in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere among ruins. We hold no grudges towards the average American citizen, but towards the general American policy, which treats us as unimportant, as merely puppets and machines to be manipulated for their interests. We reject and fight any attempt to subjugate us and take our dignity and honour away.

If you are unable to see that it is the Husseins, the Mubaraks, the Khameneis & Ahmadinejads, the Abdullahs, and the Assads of the region, and their countless henchmen, who are treating you as "unimportant, as merely puppets and machines to be manipulated for their interests" -- if you cannot grasp that it is they who "attempt to subjugate you and take your dignity and honour away" -- then you are indeed mentally ill -- delusional -- or supremely dishonest.

It is a pathetic little puppet indeed whose master can so easily make the puppet see the strings as coming from across the ocean while they dangle in full sight right above his head.

be careful, michael. you're a marked man by hezbollah.

The man talks a good talk, but there is no depth. He recycles mostly the same line and deals in moral equivalency. I salute you, Mike, for giving him a chance; its more than I would have given him (I would have banned him.)

He's trying to appeal to our sense of moral superiority, of wanting to be righteous on all counts; but it is a lost cause at this point.

If he wants his 'honor' and 'dignity' he needs to fight for them like a effing man. If he wants to run and hide and disguise himself as a civilian, then he has no honor or dignity.

He and his kind will be slain in the streets until they realise this. This is part of being part of a larger thing in the world. My own kin (the scots) were beaten and stomped by each other and England until we realised that we had to work together, and that we had to stop calling pride 'honor' and 'dignity' and get on with building something that lasts.

Your pride will continue to be wounded as long as you hold onto it. Al, you might be familiar with the statement of what you would so-call a 'prophet'.

Jesus said: "Whomever saves his life shall lose it, but whomever loses his life for my sake shall be saved."

There are several non-conflicting things that Jesus is saying. One of them is, 'Get over yourself, you pricks.'

Its a lesson that everyone, myself included continually has to learn. And you too.

I suppose its all my fault for being confrontational! I hurt your dignity. Let me get you a wet nap.

Get a life, buddy. Or do you enjoy getting bombed halfway to the moon by the Israelis?

There you have it....The secret enjoyment of oil loving Americans and their armchair general propensity to ignore history.

RiverCocytus,

I do not see why anyone would not give anyone with opposing views - but who nevertheless respects the unwritten rules of dialogue or written rules of commenting - the chance to challenge and discuss issues raised in one's blog. What is the use of comments? Merely to boost one's ego? I am not aware what Mr. Totten's commenting policy is or has been, as I have never posted and have always limited myself to reading his posts rather than the comments. At any rate, if it has to do with banning people who post a lot, or who post things that most commenters disagree with, then I must say that I don't quite get this concept. If it has to do with not wanting to overload the comments section, then I can say that there are more suitable candidates for banning or censoring.... I realize that this is not a forum, and a personal space where personal policies can be applied when it comes to commenting, etc., but again, it beats the purpose of having a comments section if one does not want to hear critical feedback, or see things that would ruin one's happy post-electoral mood.

AlGhaliboon makes one thing very clear - he is fighting for his so-called "honour".

However he does not use the term in the way it is used in civilised society - to represent that which is right, and honourable. Rather he uses it in the archaic, medieval sense - the "you insult me and I'll kill you" sense. This is the honour code of gangstas, street gangs and prisoners. It is the honour code of fanatical elements in the Middle East. It is the honour code that leads to fathers murdering their daughters for hurting their "honour and dignity".

Thus when he says he is fighting for his "honour" what he really means is he is fighting for his "ego" or for "revenge". Why else would anyone consider fighting over the Shebaa Farms - a tiny piece of land that the whole world agrees does not belong to Lebanon? What other sort of warped value system would consider that getting yourself killed in war will restore ones worth?

If only he would realise that REAL men don't have their "honour" or "ego" defined by others. That it takes REAL dignity to make compromises and to acknowledge your own wrongs and the legitimacy of others. That there is no "honour" in firing missiles at civilian population centers. That there is nothing dignified about hiding behind women and children as human shields.

There was a recent NYT op-ed about this disastrous and deadly Hezbollah honour-code. I'll try and copy it into another post.

Another Man's Honor
By JOHN TIERNEY
July 25, 2006

To Hezbollah, there is no such thing as ''collateral damage'' from its missiles. Israel keeps telling the world that its army aims only at military targets, but Hezbollah doesn't even pretend to. Its soldiers proudly fire away at civilians.

These terrorists consider themselves men of honor, and unfortunately they are -- by their own definition. We in the West can call them barbaric, which they also are, but they're following an ancient social code, even if we can't recognize it anymore.

The best guide to this code is James Bowman's new book, ''Honor: A History,'' which is not a quaint collection of stories about dueling noblemen in Heidelberg. If the obsession with defending one's honor seems remote now, it's not because the urge has disappeared. We've just forgotten how powerful it is.

In the West we've redefined ''honorable'' as being virtuous, fair, truthful and sincere, but that's not the traditional meaning. Honor meant simply the respect of the local ''honor group'' -- the family, the extended clan, the tribe, the religious sect. It meant maintaining a reputation for courage and loyalty, not being charitable to enemy civilians. Telling the truth was secondary to saving face.

This ''tyranny of the face'' continually frustrates Westerners trying to understand the Middle East. When I interviewed villagers in Iraq, I discovered we usually had separate agendas: I wanted the facts, but the villager wanted to avoid embarrassing either of us. So he would tactfully search for the answer that would both please me and not dishonor his family.

When American tanks rolled into Baghdad, Western television viewers were astonished at the sight of the Iraqi information minister steadfastly denying that anything was going wrong. But it made sense from a traditional honor system. The only thing worse than being defeated is the shame of admitting defeat.

He was just following the strategy of Sir Lancelot when the knight was accused of adultery with Guinevere, King Arthur's wife. Everyone, including Lancelot, knew the accusation was true, but Lancelot insisted on fighting his accusers -- and after he defeated them, he proclaimed that his victories proved his innocence. He had saved face; therefore he must be honorable.

Lancelot's strategy, as Bowman explains, ultimately didn't work because his traditional view of honor was going out of fashion, made obsolete by the influence of Christianity. Instead of might-makes-right, Christianity preached turning the other cheek. Instead of according special honors to an elite class of men, it preached egalitarianism and love toward strangers. It emphasized inner virtue, not outward glory.

The result was a new honor system in the West, chivalry, that was an uneasy combination of Christian virtues and knightly violence. Eventually, with the decline of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeois and democracy, the system evolved into what Bowman calls honor-by-merit, epitomized by the Victorian ideal of the gentleman who earns his reputation by working hard, playing fair, defending the weak and fighting for his country.

The problem today, as Bowman sees it, is that the whole concept of defending one's honor has been devalued in the West -- mocked as an archaic bit of male vanity or childish macho chest-thumping. But if you don't create a civilized honor culture, you risk ending up with the primitive variety.

''The honor system in Arab culture is the default honor system, the one you see in street gangs in America -- you dis me, I shoot you,'' says Bowman, a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. ''We need a better system that makes it honorable to be protective of those who are weaker instead of lording it over them.''

When you're confronted with an honor culture like the one in the Middle East, there are two rules to keep in mind. One is that you are not going to placate the enemy with the kind of concessions that appeal to Western diplomats. ''Hezbollah is fighting for honor, to humiliate the enemy, not for any particular objective,'' Bowman says. ''Israel has no choice in what it's doing. Nothing short of victory by either side will change anything.''

The other rule is that you're not going to quickly transform an honor culture. The Iraq war was predicated on the assumption that democracy would turn Iraqis into loyal citizens with new civic virtues. But for now the old loyalties to tribes and sects still matter more than any universal concept of justice. The men would rather have honor than peace.

Why else would anyone consider fighting over the Shebaa Farms - a tiny piece of land that the whole world agrees does not belong to Lebanon?
I presume the same would not apply to the tiny piece of land that was Gaza? Or the tiny piece of land that Israel allegedly wants ("for security reasons") in order to finally leave the West Bank?

I would say that the rest of your assumptions about what I mean by honour and what honour means for me, are not worth responding to for the very reason that they are merely claims, and unverifiable at that. That is to say, you can accuse me of hiding my intentions till time eternal, and I can assure you that I am not hiding anything, but at the end of the day no one will win. Because you are making an unverifiable claim, which has no place in factual discussion of the very valid reasons why we have chosen the path of resistance against Israel.

You talk about "real" honour and manhood, and refer to acknowledging one's mistakes, and the legitimacy of others' claims. Yet where have I delegitimized others' claims? If you would read back a few posts, in my last response to Mr. Totten, I went out of my way to point out that the argument is not about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Jews' claims to the land.

But I guess it's a habit for some to assume and accuse without reading.

AG:"I do not see why anyone would not give anyone with opposing views - but who nevertheless respects the unwritten rules of dialogue or written rules of commenting - the chance to challenge and discuss issues raised in one's blog."

AG, I agree. But you must admit you were given this chance. You adhered to these "rules", and presented your views and criticism in a reasoned way. MJT and others replied in kind and challenged your views, in the same spirit. As far as the conducting of the debate goes, I can't find fault in either side.

I am baffled by your position on an eventual peace with Israel. Do you think it is desirable? Do you accept that Israeli civilians have exactly the same right to peace and tranquility in their own land as Lebanese or American ones?

You also said:
"We will make peace with it when the time is right for our people to come to terms with the crimes committed against them"

If I understand you correctly this means you choose to be at war with Israel until you can get around to forgive it. Which makes me wonder:
Why is it so hard to forgive the Israelis in particular for the crimes they committed, even as you forgive other Lebanese factions and the Syrians (at least to the extent you are not advocating war with either), who also committed atrocities in Lebanon, often at a far greater scale?

Also, if you are at war with Israel, then Israel is at war with you, which in practice means lots of Lebanese will die. This to me means that achieving a just peace is a moral imperative, not something to be countenanced only after you come to terms with past wrongs. War is not psychotherapy.

My last two questions are practical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issues HA claims are unresolved (and must therefore be resolved by the force of arms) are some small uninhabited disputed bits of land and a handful of prisoners. Shouldn't you try to negotiate first? I mean sitting down with Israelis openly, and trying to come up with some peace deal acceptable to both sides. Do you oppose such negotiations in principle?

Finally, as MJT pointed out Israel can kill 1000 random Lebanese in 5 minutes if it chooses to. Its F16 can turn southern Lebanon literally uninhabitable (why bombing with F16 is cowardly but firing Katyushas is not?). Don't you think there is something flawed in a military strategy that relies on the relative restraint of your enemy, an enemy that moreover you hold to be evil and without scruples?

"Yet where have I delegitimized others' claims?"

How about here:
"I cannot possibly sympathize with their cause (which is phrased in a way as to be perceived and practiced as a zero-sum game) and cannot but consider them my enemies."

What double-speak. If their claims are legitimate then you should have sympathy for them. If you want to make peace one day, then I'm afraid you'll have to consider them something other than your enemy.

But you're not interested in peace. You're only interested in your "honour" and "dignity". And you want to restore them by killing or getting killed.

Pathetic.

AlGhaliboon, the problem is not that we expect you to cheerfully suffer humiliation, it's that we expect you to address your anger in peaceful ways. See the American civil rights movement for how this can be done. Or if you find it impossible to make progress peacefully, then we expect you to fight with honor, not by randomly bombing innocent people. Any of us would be angry to be stepped on, and resentful of not being the top dog in our own land. But that does not justify terrorism. If you stop the terrorism, you will find that many of us are very sympathetic to your situation. If you do not, you will find the same ones of us to be merciless enemies.

"Yet where have I delegitimized others' claims?"

Well, Lordy me, I just realised you deligitimized Israel's claim in the preceeding paragraph:

"Or the tiny piece of land that Israel allegedly wants ("for security reasons") in order to finally leave the West Bank?"

OK. If you want to proove yourself, let's hear you admit that Israel has legitimate security concerns that would be threatened by a complete withdrawal from the West Bank.

Michael:

Thank you for engaging this man in a civil, on-going conversation.

I am encouraged by the tone. It is a beginning.

I have read your blog for some time and I have been affected by your love and support for Lebanon.

My family has many Christian Lebanese friends who long to be able to return home to visit old places and old friends but don't feel they can do so now.

Keep up the good work. Keep talking. Keep taking photos. The good news is if we are talking to each other then we probably aren't shooting at each other at the same time.

I feel sad that the situation with Israel seems unfixable. How many generations will it take for the hate to die?

I come from a military family so I probably could be considered a member of the "rightwing nut jobs"; but as most people who are familiar with the military know---the military is the last group of people agitating for war. It is usually the politicans not the soldiers.

Don't get tired, don't get depressed--keep up the good work.

Mertel,

I sympathize with what the Jews went through, and do see why they would want to have a state of their own; however, what I do not sympathize with is the way they have gone about it, and the things they have justified in its name.

Moreover, the possibility of peace does not eliminate the presence of enemies. In other words, just because we might and probably will have peace in the future does not mean that I should not consider them my enemy today; they are my enemy today. They may be my best friends tomorrow; that's if they change their behaviour, and see my people's rights as equally legitimate as theirs.

--

Bruno,

Yes, I admit I was given the chance, but the point I raised was not about that, but about the qualification of this chance by many commenters.

Regarding peace with Israel: we are not war-mongers. We do not go out of our way to wage war. Whatever wars we have waged, have been imposed upon us. Our very existence has been the product of war and occupation. Peace is of course very desirable. I accept every human being's right to peace and tranquility in their own land, including the Israelis; this should not be at the expense of others, however.

Forgiveness does not happen overnight, nor does it happen on its own; it is a long process, and reconciliation takes a lot of effort; first the genuine desire on both sides to talk about the past with the intention of determining an equation that would include definite answers and steps (including compensation/reparation, return of lands, return of refugees, etc. - but the latter is part of the Palestinian issue). Anyway, this is what is chiefly missing in this region, because people (some sides more than others) are more willing to shoot than talk, because they believe that the other side only understands the language of force. At any rate, before we conducted the operation and captured the 2 soldiers, we warned a number of times that unless negotiations resume, we would take such action. Unfortunately, no one listened to us or took our words seriously (hence our operation name pointing out exactly this: "true promise/vow"). Even after the soldiers were captured, we again called for negotiations, and this was rejected out of hand. We told the Israelis that no matter what they do, at the end of the day they will not get their soldiers except through negotiations. We were true to our promise. At any rate, I presume some people will criticize the point in which I said that after we captured the soldiers we also called for negotiations, and they might say, after killing so many soldiers and violating Israel's sovereignty, you expect it not to retaliate? But I tell them, history does not start on July 12, 2006, so if we are going to take this issue to that level, then the operation was not only necessary, it was also completely justified and legitimate. As for a "peace deal", I already said this is out of the question until the Palestinian issue is settled, because you have 500,000 Palestinian refugees who will be lost in the Lebanese limbo, just so that Israel may close yet another front and concentrate its full strength on ethnically cleansing West Bank & Gaza of the Palestinians (the so-called disengagement does not mean Gaza is forever out of bounds for Israel). We cannot separate our conflict with Israel from the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. But we are willing to negotiate a truce and other details, indirectly of course.

Regarding the comparison between Lebanese criminals, Syrian criminals, and Israeli criminals, I do not think you can compare; but you are right, all are criminals - but to varying degrees. I do not accept nor recognize the legitimacy of the Lebanese criminals, indeed I call for their incarceration and trial for crimes against humanity. As for Syrian criminals, may I remind you that we have suffered also at their hands, for example, in 1993, many of our supporters were killed by the army on orders from the Syrians, because we openly defied Syria. However, the importance of the resistance to Israeli occupation, and our absolute preoccupation with it meant that we would not be able to open another front, whoever that front might've been. Moreover, Assad himself is not the one who was behind much of the crimes that the Syrians committed against our people; rather, people like Ghazi Ken'an, Rostom Ghazale, & co., were the ones who had the keys to Lebanon, and in many cases Assad was not even aware of what was going on, as he was deliberately kept in the dark (also provides clues as to who might've been behind the Hariri assassination if it was indeed Syrian elements - Khaddam, Ghazi Ken'an, etc. - the old guard).

Please do not compare bombing with F-16s to firing Katyushas, especially that our Katyushas were fired merely in RETALIATION for the cowardly F-16 attacks on our people; it says quite a lot that the Israelis, with all their guided missiles of F-16s have killed more civilians than we have, even though as I have stated earlier we could DEFINITELY have exacted heavy civilian casualties.

We do not rely on the restraint of our enemy; rather, we take it pretty much for granted. The only thing that we assume is that the enemy would not be stupid enough to massacre our people in broad daylight whereas we hit its battleships, helicopters, and tanks (I see why apologists for Israel never actually bring up these hits). Even then, we cannot provide shelter to civilians, as that would not be feasible; that is the task of the government anyway (they are desperately trying to frame the state-within-a-state argument in terms of the endless chicken-or-the-egg game, but this is not really the case; Hizbullah rose from the absence of the state and its authority and services, and the state continues to be absent, and by state I do not refer to the army, but the institutions).

Finally, as MJT pointed out Israel can kill 1000 random Lebanese in 5 minutes if it chooses to. Its F16 can turn southern Lebanon literally uninhabitable (why bombing with F16 is cowardly but firing Katyushas is not?). Don't you think there is something flawed in a military strategy that relies on the relative restraint of your enemy, an enemy that moreover you hold to be evil and without scruples?

Rest assured, however, when rebuilding our villages, we will take the things we learned from the July war, and put them into constructive use.

I meant to say,

"We take it pretty much for granted that they would defy all reasonable restraints."

Michael,

Sincere thanks to you for providing a forum to talk about these issues. I'm sure that the reason why a Hezzbolah supporter/activist/militiaman/terrorist would choose to post on this site is a reflection of the work that you've personally done to raise awareness about the Lebanon issue and the wider Middle East conflict. Bravo to your excellent work!

I do wonder though whether your postings on this site and other publications is going to get you in trouble should you choose to return to Lebanon. It is obvious that you are a marked man by Hezbollah and that despite your denials, you have been lumped into the same category as other Zionists and oppressors, (i.e. the Enemy).

Having said all that, I must return to the discussion at hand. There is obviously a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the discussion and it also obvious that both sides claim to have the truth and the facts on their side.

I was reading a book review in the Economist the other day (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8103621) about an Israeli historian who writes about the (possible) ethnic cleansing committed by the Haganah during the lead up to the 1948 war. The fact that a discussion about these issues can even be held in Israel, and that the author is a political scientist at the University of Haifa, is a testament to the strength of democracy in Israel and to the tolerance of ideas that is so sorely lacking in other parts of the Middle East. It is for these reasons why I support Israel, (in general), and can never reconcile my beliefs with the autocratic, tyrannical ideas of Hezbollah, the mullahs in Iran, or the Islamist Shias of Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq.

AlGhaliboon ("the winners", in your own mind).

You keep arguing for Israel to fight you with "equal" weapons. What planet do you live on? This is war, every side will use whatever they have. Usual Arab crazyness, you want to pick a fight and then set your OWN conditions?

If HA had something better than F16 would you guys refrain from using them? What a nutty argument.

How about HA on the Lebanese scene? Are you guys not flexing your weapons that the others do NOT have? Is that "nice" or fair?

Re blanket

JoseyWales,

Where did I say the Israelis should use "equal" weapons?

How does talking about Israel's crimes against humanity (referring to civilians, not fighters!!!) mean that we are crazy?

Certainly we do not set any conditions. However, as I said above, how does that mean that Israel can use its F-16s to wage indiscriminate attacks, especially so on targets that have no obvious strategic importance, which makes it illegal to target these areas even if we are indeed hiding amongst civilians (untrue, unsubstantiated!!!)?

If we had F-16s, we would definitely not commit massacres against civilians like the Israelis did twice in Qana and elsewhere. We cannot do what they did to our children.

We are flexing our muscles internally? How so? And where does that put the Palestinians, the Salafis up in the north, and practically anyone in Lebanon with a hunting rifle (basically 99% of the population) and other such paraphernalia? Ironic no one talks about the Salafis, and ironic that the war criminal Samir Geagea would be the last to demand that the Palestinians be disarmed. How the tables turn. Anyway, I would prefer not to discuss the Lebanese internal politics for the simple reason that it would bore most of the readers here to death (unless you insist on it).

Alasdair,

You talk about freedom of thought/speech, AS IF we have banned anything!!! There are many who criticize us in Lebanon (including some within our sect and in our regions); there are many opposing views in Lebanon; people (some extremists) even go about defending Israel and calling for the massacre of "those Muslims"; there aren't even incitement laws in Lebanon; it's the perfect situation for those of you who are obsessed with freedom of thought. I find it surprising that you cite only Israel; in Israel those who dare speak out are usually marginalized, take Ilan Pappe as an example; or Amira Hass as another example; in Lebanon you have people not only saying things that oppose us, but coming up with new and ingenious ways to do so. At any rate, I realize it might be irrelevant to point this out, as you seem decided on your categorization from the start (and that's your choice and I respect that).

What I find ironic is that you missed the book-burners of Al-Azhar as the biggest threat to freedom of thought in the region; you missed the Saudis who have banned even the Bible & Torah; you refer to the "Islamist Shias of Muqtada al-Sadr", but you make no mention of the Wahabi Sunnis of Bin Laden & Zarqawi in Iraq. I am baffled by this strange choice of allies in the stranges of times...

"In other words, just because we might and probably will have peace in the future does not mean that I should not consider them my enemy today; they are my enemy today. They may be my best friends tomorrow; that's if they change their behaviour..."

You can only make peace with your enemy (Israel) if you first agree they have a right exist.

At the moment you are not asking Israel to change its behaviour, you are asking it to disappear.

So, if you are really interested in peace, as you sometimes claim, do you accept Israel's right to exist?

Most political discussions online are all about the recent election, and when my net access went down, I wasn't sorry to have missed them.

But I am sorry I missed this one! Michael, this is a very interesting debate.

AlGhaliboon, you said but you make no mention of the Wahabi Sunnis of Bin Laden & Zarqawi in Iraq

..do you know if most of the foreign fighter in Iraq are "Wahabi Sunnis"?

OK Ghaliboon,

Thx for your reply. OK Leb politics out and I don't want to get to all the arguments discussed in this thread.

But again, one of my beefs with you here and Arabs in general, is if we are at war with Israel then anything goes.

Let's be clear either make total war, build an army, spend 50% of GDP on it, and accept the consequences of war. Or else, we should shut up and go about our business.

The other Arabs/Iranians can go baa-baa-baa with no consequence because they are far away and/or get us Lebanese idiots to go to war.

I don't care at this point if Israel is right or moral or whatever. I want my country's legal authorities to protect its citizens. PERIOD (and please leave Shebaa out)

Enough please! (and we have not even discussed how many Lebanese would choose to go to war and how such a decision should be taken).

Alghaliboon,

Why are we wasting time with all these hair-spliting details?

You are a loyal soldier of Hezbollah. You have no choice but to argue as you do.

I respect your loyalty to your chosen cause, but your logic is faulty and the reasons are clear.

You are ordered to prevent peace and agreement at all costs. Peace would allow the people of Lebanon to vote and choose their leaders.

Ararfat would speak peace in english and killing in your language. Your present leadership orders you to do the same today.

You can not think to yourself that bombing back and forth for 35 years now has gained you and Israel NOTHING.

Is it logical then to do as Iran orders you to do and just keep smashing rather than building?

If attacks on Israel stopped today, you understand there would be no rocket from Israel to worry about.

If Israel did fire on you un-provoked, the world would be at their throat.

But, Alghalboon, while that IS what you want, it is not what Hezbollah wants.

You are in a difficult place in life. I was in the military during the Cuban missle crises. No bullets flying, however, because the public had no idea of the details and pressures, there were times that many of us wanted to leave.

There was no point though. In nuclear war you would have to move to another planet to escape nuclear poisoning.

You do see the logic of negotiation, agreements and peace don*t you? Anything else is suicide. But that is the new hobby of some groups.

Oh well, we all need hobbies, I guess. = TG

AlG,

You are correct in that I omitted the Wahabi Sunnis. I was not attempting to provide a complete list of tyrannical groups in the region. My point remains that the type of deomcracy practiced in Israel deserves my support.

Oh, one more thing, if as you really claim, you hope for peace one day, then I assume you'll be launching a campaign to have your leader and followers stop using the slogans "Death to Israel" and "Death to America"?

Successfully eliminating that rhetoric might do wonders for your sense of "honour", "dignity" and self esteem.

So much eloquence for someone who seeks the release of Samir Kuntar. Taqiyya indeed!

AG,

The view from Israel (and if you read Haaretz as you say you do you'd know it by now) is: take your Schebaa farms and your prisoners (even the horrible Sameer Quntar who broke open a living child's skull), and get out of our lives. We don't even hate you. You are nothing to us.

The reason why such a deal has not been done is that we don't trust you that this is all you want. Even if you, personally, are sincere, your leaders are not; and even if they were, their puppet masters in Tehran want to drink our blood.

You are ordered to prevent peace and agreement at all costs. Peace would allow the people of Lebanon to vote and choose their leaders.
First claim, unsubstantiated. Second claim, utterly untrue, because we and our people (and all the Lebanese people) vote and choose their leaders.

Is it logical then to do as Iran orders you to do and just keep smashing rather than building?
We do not take our orders from Iran. If I wanted to read what the White House has to say about it, I think I would not be here.

If attacks on Israel stopped today, you understand there would be no rocket from Israel to worry about.
Need I remind you of the 15-year-old shepherd who was shot & killed by Israelis on the border while he was INSIDE Lebanese territory? Oh, sorry, now you will claim he was spying for Hizbullah. After all, everything that Israel does needs to be explained and justified somehow, until we are disarmed and defenseless, for Israel to do to us what it is doing to the Palestinians - if Beit Hanun, the wiping-out of an entire family on a Gaza beach, etc. are any indication. Yeah, I can see how the whole world is at Israel's throat for firing those shells and massacring that family while picnicking on the beach. Almost chocked Israel to death. OK.

Oh, please AlGhaliboon,

My aim was not irritate you personally but rather to outline an general overview.

There are elections and there are free elections, but getting mired in a quicksand of detail does not change the principle outlined above.

Iran does not want Hezbollah to stop shooting and this is what irritates you. = TG

If you want to proove yourself, let's hear you admit that Israel has legitimate security concerns that would be threatened by a complete withdrawal from the West Bank.
You make an unsubstantiated claim, then you say if I want to prove myself I should admit something? How does that work, really?

I do not recognize that Israel has "legitimate" security concerns that would be threatened by a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. There. You can now seal your "victory".

Al G. You are a member of an organization that is an enemy of my nation.

As such, I consider you a liar and dangerous. This is not my blog.

Blog discussions are game. We are at war.

That is all I have to add.

BTW ALGH,

Israel is no saint, and I never said it was, but you will admit that it is under a declared threat of a nuclear attack.

Backed into a corner, you can be sure Israel will likely make more mistakes.

Desperation does that. = TG

There are elections and there are free elections, but getting mired in a quicksand of detail does not change the principle outlined above.
Yes, and there are real democracies, and then there are Jewish-only "democracies".

Iran does not want Hezbollah to stop shooting and this is what irritates you.
Way to go with your ingenious psychological analysis. The west thinks it understands our psychology and our perceptions. The west has a lot to learn. The west and all its representatives in the region will continue to lose one after the other in the face of indigenous resistance for this very reason. You have exported your world wars to our countries, so that you yourselves can live in peace and consume our resources. It is then easy to philosophize about what people living in war zones, and what people having their lands occupied should and should not do. Your countries' performance in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran, etc., is quite telling.

Regards,

Gally will always find a pretext...

He doesn't want peace, though he will lie about that to save face in this forum. Just as he lies that Hezbollah doesn't and will not target civilians. We can stop praising this "civilized tone" now, the tone is only civilized because he is saying nearly nothing of what he actually means. The truth is not civilized at all, he wants war till ethnic cleansing, he slaughter without limit. There's nothing to be gained by amusing a monster by hanging on his every lie.

Let's be clear either make total war, build an army, spend 50% of GDP on it, and accept the consequences of war. Or else, we should shut up and go about our business.
Building an army is not our responsibility; it should be the responsibility of the authorities. But they are busy subsidizing their trips to the Bahamas rather than thinking about ways to build a national army that can defend Lebanon.

I don't care at this point if Israel is right or moral or whatever. I want my country's legal authorities to protect its citizens. PERIOD (and please leave Shebaa out)
"Your" country's authorities are more than welcome to upgrade the army's French mandate era equipment.

Enough please! (and we have not even discussed how many Lebanese would choose to go to war and how such a decision should be taken).
We have not discussed anything, period. We have not discussed what the responsibilities of the govrnment towards its citizens are. We have not discussed what citizens can and cannot do in the absence of state authority and failure to remain true to responsibilities. We have not discussed what foreign policy direction we want to take as a nation (is such a thing even possible?). We are willing to discuss these things but not with the war criminals Geagea & Jumblatt, and thieves like Hariri that you guys have given the mandate to (although we have called on them to to take a national stand rather than take their orders from embassies and foreign capitals in their numerous, almost-weekly shuttles between Paris, Washington, and Riyadh). The only salvation is through a FPM-Hizbullah government and the incarceration and trial of all war criminals. But I got carried away into Leb. politics...

AlGhaliboon,

There's a job for you at the BBC. That way, we can all ignore you.

I agree, Josh Scholar. He is full of rhetoric, and propaganda and cleverly worded statments. But his ommissions speak louder than his words.

Therefore I repeat my question:
So, if you are really interested in peace, as you sometimes claim, do you accept Israel's right to exist?

And:
Will you renounce Nasrallah's slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"?

It is then easy to philosophize about what people living in war zones, and what people having their lands occupied should and should not do. Your countries' performance in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran, etc., is quite telling.

AlGhaliboon - Your psychology and your perceptions are very easy to understand. Your attempts to disguise your warmongering efforts by calling them a "struggle", calling your Iran-financed war "indigenous resistance" is just reheated marxism, nothing new.

Your motives are old too - you want more money, power and land, just like everyone else who has ever waged war.

Our motives, however, are so complicated, they're a mystery even to us. The best way to fight an asymetric war is asymetrically. The only mystery is - why don't we do that?

In your educated opinion, why haven't we figured that out yet?

AG, thank you for your reply. I appreciate your willingness to talk and listen, especially on such a charged subject. I have given up in frustration on discussions with people whose views I found far less extreme than yours, simply because they could not engage in honest debate.

You said:
"Forgiveness does not happen overnight [...], and reconciliation takes a lot of effort [...]"

I accept that. But forgiveness won't happen when both sides are still fighting either. Some 100.000 people died in the civil war, most of whom were not killed by Israelis. I don't know of any of those responsible, many of whom still hold leadership positions, apologizing. Lebanese of all sects suffered, and I'm sure not all is forgiven. Your country is still recovering from the carnage, and of course that takes time. Bur crucially, you have agreed to stop killing each other, and I think we can all agree that was a good thing. Why should the Israelis, uniquely, be excluded from this process whereby cessation of violence leads to acceptance, and acceptance leads eventually to forgiveness?

"[as for] Lebanese criminals, indeed I call for their incarceration and trial for crimes against humanity"
Agreed! But you are not at war with the factions they lead either.

Even if at some stage it was necessary to focus solely on the Israeli occupation, it ended in 2000 (except, possibly, in the SF). Surely from then on Syria became the main oppressor of the Lebanese? Damascus ruled over your country, assassinated people who dared to disagree, and to this day holds an unspecified number of Lebanese prisioners, and refuses to demarcate your common border (a step that could easily solve the Sheeba controversy in your favour). And yet HA not only failed to object (let alone oppose these things militarily), it allied with Syria agaisnt those who did!

I don't buy this 'Assad did not know' thing. But even if this is true, the fact remains that the real rulers of Syria are going around murdering Lebanese. Whether Assad is counted among their number or not is immaterial.

"because people (some sides more than others) are more willing to shoot than talk"

I agree! I would just add that there seems to be plenty of those on HA. The fact that HA feels it needs to kidnap Israeli soldiers to trade for prisoners and the SF is evidence that there is nothing else it is willing to offer. If HA (or, more appropriately, the Lebanese government with HA support) offered a permanent cease-fire, recognition of Israel right to exist, and accepted the UN demarcation as the border between both countries, I'm sure Israel would agree to give up the SF and to exchange all prisoners (even Samir Kuntar, though that creep does not deserve to be freed). Even if you disagree with my assessment of Israel's intentions, surely it is worth trying.

"But [HA is] willing to negotiate a truce and other details, indirectly of course"
Why indirectly? If you can get all you want from negotiations, why not do it openly? I always assumed this was the because because neither HA nor Israel was willing to accept the other's legitimacy. But surely if such a truce is worth the paper it would be written, surely HA must accept Israel's right to exist south of the Blue Line and west of the Green line? Israel likewise must accept HA as a legitimate Lebanese party.

"[...] our Katyushas were fired merely in RETALIATION for the cowardly F-16 attacks [...]"

The F16 attacks were also retaliation for
something else. Which was in its turn retaliation for some other thing. And so on and so forth.

In any case, firing Katyushas indiscriminately against built up areas is immoral. The fact that Israelis also comitted crimes is no excuse. In practical terms, the Katyushas

"[...]it says quite a lot that the Israelis, with all their guided missiles of F-16s have killed more civilians than we have, even though as I have stated earlier we could DEFINITELY have exacted heavy civilian casualties."

How? Could you fire more missiles than you did? They were too imprecise to aim for anything smaller than a city, how could you improve their letality?

"We take it pretty much for granted that they would defy all reasonable restraints."

The Israelis could have destroyed every power station, every dam and water treatment plant, obliterated the airport terminals and knocked down every high rise in Beirut. Think Hama 82, or Grozny 95, or even Caen 44. There would have little you could do if these things happened. This of course is no excuses for some of the things they effectively did, but they could do much worse, and chose not too. However imperfect, the Israelis had some restraints, on which HA bet the very physical existence Lebanon.

"Even then, we cannot provide shelter to civilians, as that would not be feasible"

You could spare some of your state-of-the-art bunker-building abilities to get them some proper shelters. It surely beats dying in stairwells.

"Rest assured, however, when rebuilding our villages, we will take the things we learned from the July war, and put them into constructive use."

Please do. But learn the right lessons. The last thing your countrymen need right now is another victory like that.

Good one, Mary.

And while we're at it, here's a 4th question:

You claim that Hezbollah does not target innocent civilians. Will you therefore publicly condemn anyone who deliberately targets innocent civilians?

Regards,

We're getting into circulat arguments here.

Criticizing HA gdoes not mean I am with March 14.

You are disingenuous when you say the state is free to build up its armed forces. Your main ally, to this day, Syria would not and never did permit the army to build up (fearing another Aoun like attach on its invading forces). So don't claim HA is innocent of the state's weakness etccc

Furthermore you guys were very happy with the Syrian invasion or whathe

his ommissions speak louder than his words.
I am taking on dozens of responders, and I am but one person. Patience is a virtue.

So, if you are really interested in peace, as you sometimes claim, do you accept Israel's right to exist?
Israel's right to exist is a vague concept. Please define Israel to me. Is it only about a Jewish state? Is it about borders? What is it about? My answer would depend on certain aspects of your definition; if it is about the concept of Israel as a place where Jews can practice self-rule and sovereignty, I do not have a problem with that, and I accept their right to do so. If it is about the concept of Israel with some sort of pre-requisite borders, it would depend on what these borders are. Again, none of the issues that are core to the Arab-Israeli conflict would be resolved if I say that I do accept Israel's right to exist, because you will have the issue of refugees and not even just borders.

Will you renounce Nasrallah's slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"?
When America apologizes for its injustices against our people, commits to taking a neutral stand on all issues except existential ones for all groups who are under threat, and when it stops shipping bombs to Israel and supporting dictators in our own countries to kill us and/or keep us down. YES, if America does these very reasonable things, we would renounce fully and completely any and all statements against America, including that slogan.

Pretty much same thing for Israel.

Your main ally, to this day, Syria would not and never did permit the army to build up
Syria has been out of the country since --???

Syria was not our "ally". Anyone who says so has no grasp of our VERY tense relationship with Syria. Please revise your facts. We have clashed with Syria on a number of occasions, during the civil war and AFTER it. Calling us their allies is what is disingenious.

However, allow me to say that if it is true that we are their allies, what does that make Hariri, Jumblatt, and Geagea? The people have decided, the two parties that have given martyrs for Lebanon are those that have the popular mandate to lead the country.

Anyone know what percentage of the hezzbbollah are Iranian?

The people have decided, the two parties that have given martyrs for Lebanon are those that have the popular mandate to lead the country.

Ahh yes, death equals mandate. So much for the people having a say through elections.

So much for freedom.

So much for peace.

barbarian

AliG - you said that you do not want war.

However, until the kidnapping of the soldiers there was relative peace in Lebanon.

Ok, so a tiny scrap of land, Sheba Farms, that actually belongs to Syria is still held by Israel?

Ok, so Israel has a few prisoners (one of whom is a cold-blooded child-killer).

Do these issues really justify starting up another round of F-16 and Kayatusha attacks?

Lebannon could have peace with Israel, open borders, and a booming economy tomorrow if Hezb just said "Ok, we think that you've done bad, you think that we've done bad, let's just bury the hatchet and move forward."

American just cannot comprehend the grudges that the rest of the world nurses for so many generations. Why waste the time, life, and money?

Anyone know what percentage of the hezzbbollah are Iranian?
Practically nil.

In the 80s there used to be the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) for training purposes, with the major training area being Ba'albak.

AlGhiboon,

I am reading you carefully and picking up much between the lines.

You are well educated and very good at debate. I thank you for taking the time to exchange views with me.

The West does have a lot to learn. The advances of Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Taliban owe very much to the sleeping un-informed liberal left of the EU and North America.

As a Canadian I will not try to claim exemption from the US policy as we are pulled along more or less willingly.

You know it is not as simple as exporting wars as there have been exchanges from well before the 241 marines killed in Lebanon in 1983.

I seem to recall that Kuwait was swarmed sometime ago leading the US to help. Not exactly export.

The West may be suggesting what you should do, but I could not do that with my limited education. I have only common sense to go on.

My point was only an overview where 35 years of warring between Lebanon and Israel has rewarded no one.

Seems logical to take a breather and negotiate for a few years and enjoy life a little.

You could be enjoyable if you left your rifle at home. = TG

"Al Ghaliboon" means "The Winners" and the email address "muqawama islamiyya" means "islamic union". What if this person is not really a member of Hezbollah; is not Shia; not even an Arab. Heck, how do we know we're dealing with a man.

Folks, Taqiyya (deception) is not just practised by the Shiites. We should be careful about our assumptions.

Do these issues really justify starting up another round of F-16 and Kayatusha attacks?
Your question would be better placed to Israel.

People are accusing us of CHOOSING war when we can choose peace in all instances. If war is a choice ALL the time, then the same should also apply to Israel. Israel was in front of 2 very clear and very diverging choices: talk, or bomb. We told them that if they choose the latter they would eventually come back and choose the former, so let us not take things to hysterical heights. They chose bombing. 34 days later, they had no choice but to accept talking (who was victorious and who was defeated, if anyone, is another issue completely, and I will not even go there). So, who chose war? If we were the ones choosing, this means we know Israel had no other choice, which means people would be accepting the premise that not all wars are by choice, which actually legitimizes our very operation to capture these soldiers, because the Israelis imposed war on us by REFUSING TO TALK about our remaining prisoners.

So, who chose war? Either way, Israel chose bombing not talking, war not peace.

"muqawama islamiyya" means "islamic union".
Muqawama Islamiyya does not mean "Islamic union".

There are two phrases on Hizbullah's flag:

"Fa'inna Hizbullah Hum al-Ghaliboon" (from the Holy Qur'an) (translates to: The Party of God are the victors)

and the 2nd:

"Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya Fi Lubnan", translating to: "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon"

Muqawama Islamiyya translates to Islamic Resistance. ("al" in Arabic means "the").

AlG - one last point. I think you both do this (Israel and the "muslims") where you ask the other side to essentially surrender before you will even talk. It is nuts.

You say that if the US stops shipping arms to Israel then you will stop chanting death slogans about us.

Israel says they will negotiate with the Palestinians after a period of peace (a month, a day, it doesnt matter as it wont happen).

We wont stop supporting Israel because as soon as their military strength dips the Muslim world will try to annihlate them.

The PA or Hezb wont stop fighting Israel because they believe that their violence is the only thing bringing the Israelis to the negotiating table.

Listen, you each have to pony up inspite of a lack of concession by the otherside. Somehow you have to break the cycle.

As for moral superiority, let me restate an old saying that works still:

"Israel could kill everyone in [the West Bank, Gaza, or Lebanon] but wont, Hamas or Hezb would kill every Jew in Israel but cant."

Until this statement ceases to be true American support for Israel will not waver.

This does not mean that we cant see the Arab/Muslim perspective in this situation and wish everyone well.

I think this is an important point that you, as Hezb, are missing.

You will NOT succede in changing our sympathies by violence and threats, the chants and the slogans only make us recoil from the monstrousity we see on tv.

But if Hezb made the first big geasture, if they cleaned up their logos and slogans, if they offered to make a deal {do business, whatever) with the West you would find a flood of support (especially from Liberal Democrats).

I am always amazed at how poorly the East understands the West (just as vice versa).

You say that you came here and didnt like what you saw, but you probably misunderstood a lot of what you saw... and the rest was simply from such an alien perspective that you were never going to find yourself comfortable with it... but that doesnt make it, the West, wrong.

When we see television images of enraged crowds chanting anti-US slogans this does not encourage us to see your point of view.

When Osama said about the 9-11 attacks that the US feared a coup or a civil war and was afraid from the East to the West coast he proved how very little he understoond the US (we certainly NEVER thought of a coup or a civil war and never would, and we were angry from east to west, not afraid).

Why not try the "high road" for once? Swear off violence, clean up the tv images, and try to work with us instead of against us?

Taking into consideration the civilized restraint that even you seem to admit that Israel (or the US, for that matter) has in regards to the use of force (they could carpet bomb S. Leb or have never pulled out - either time) why not respond to them as the Indians did under Ghandi?

I ask this seriously, Ghandi's tactics would not have worked against Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam... they would simply have been killed. But they worked perfectly against the British, who didnt want to see themselves as monsters. The Israelis would respond the same way as the Brits for the same reason.

On the other hand, violent resistance will always be resisted by the west with violence. So, why not change the terms and win the contest?

Observer: "Al Ghaliboon" means "The Winners" and the email address "muqawama islamiyya" means "islamic union". What if this person is not really a member of Hezbollah; is not Shia; not even an Arab. Heck, how do we know we're dealing with a man.

He is who he says he is. I checked him out. And I'll let him wonder how I did that.

Thank you AlGhanoom. Regardless, you are a fraud!

Al,

What exactly is left for Israel to say after she asks for her soldier back and is refused?

This thread makes me think of the trading between Union and Confederate troops during lulls in fighting, or the 1914 Christmas Truce. If Al Ghaliboon is really a Hezbollim, then both he and most of the rest of us would be duty-bound to kill each other if we met in person.

But an intelligent person--even while engaged in war--can't help but be open to talking to the other side. War changes things, and each side's goals and cost-benefit calculation can and do shift as a result of political and military events. It's always good to have a dialogue, regardless of what you may think of the other person, or they of you.

In what way, Tom Grey, was Israel's declaration of sovereignty unjust? Did the Jewish Agency for Palestine not agree to the Peel Commission partition plan of 1937? Were those attempts to secure a small sovereign state unjust? Was it unjust to find some way not to be under the hand of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a man who proclaimed his intention to solve his "Jewish problem" the same way the Nazis solved theirs in Europe? Was it unjust, in the shadow of the Nurenberg trials, for the Jewish Palestinians to say they'd rather not live under a the man who helped organize the Bosnian SS? a man who had a program to extend the Holocaust to the land where the Jews were born? In what way unjust, "Liberty Dad"?

No, AlGhaliboon

When you use (and refuse to renounce) the slogans "Death to Israel" and "Death to America", when you build an arsenal of thousands of missiles, when you launch repeated cross-border attacks over 6 years, when you kill and kidnap soldiers, when you fire rockets at Israeli towns as part of your cross-border raids, when your motto is "resistance", and when you refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist behind secure borders, then YOU have chosen war.

What exactly is left for Israel to say after she asks for her soldier back and is refused?
What exactly was left for us (Hizbullah) to say/do after we asked for our prisoners back and were refused? If the 2nd (Israeli action) is legitimate based on the above, how come the 1st (our capture of soldiers) isn't?

When you use (and refuse to renounce) the slogans "Death to Israel" and "Death to America"
Israel and America predated our existence.

Our existence was the direct result of America's and Israel's actions and crimes against our people.

Israel's right to exist behind "secure" borders? There you go, the latest trend in zionist rhetoric. Secure borders from whom? The whole Arab world? The Muslim world? Iran?

Funny, since people are basing their arguments on the "goodwill" of Israel, and if Israel were as insecure and existentially threatened, why did it not nuke us? Unless you are saying that the Israelis are stupid to prefer others' lives over their very existence (since you insist that the Israelis are under existential threat).

Oh--they only kidnapped 2 Israelis! Right! I thought they killed 8 too. But since the 8 can't be brought back to life, they're just shovelled into the ground and the story is "revised" down to 2 kidnapped soldiers and an Israeli overreaction.

But there were 20,000 missiles pointed at her by an organization supported by Iran which is trying to create nuclear weaponry.

It's the elimination of Israel they want and everything else said above is a lie. All this stuff about "justice" means a restoration of so-called third generation "refugees" born on Arab nations' soils but denied citizenship, stored like so many bamboo sticks in UN "refugee camps," denied basic rights and sharpened as weapons to destroy Israel. 50 million now, it's claimed, and "justice" means overrunning Israel with enough people to destroy her demographically.

Then the revenge. And what then? A blossoming of the desert? More like what happened to the greenhouses of Gaza!

That question was not addressed to you, "AlGhaliboon". You'd be the last person I'd care to get a truthful answer on anything.

Anyway, considering the fate of Ron Arad on this the 20th year anniversary of his capture, I would have hoped Israel would make exception to its capital punishment law(s), and feed the executed remains of Jihadis in its jails to the local raptors in my home town of Haifa, Israel.

That question was not addressed to you, "AlGhaliboon". You'd be the last person I'd care to get a truthful answer on anything.

Then you're in luck. _

I know, you meant "expect" not "care".

Some filter turned my smiley into an underline.

Interesting. Yesterday you accuse Michael of using a fallacy to divert the argument about bombing civilians. You were right, too. Israel either did or did not bomb civilians, and whether or not Hizbullah has bombed civilians in the past had no bearing on what Israel did or did not do this past July as a point of fact.

Now you have committed the same fallacy. Regardless of how many Hizbullah prisoners Israel is holding, and without making any judgement as to the guilt or innocence of those prisoners, the July War was provoked by the kidnapping of Israeli military personel. There was no war on the horizon the day before the kidnapping, and it was an inevitability immediately after the kidnapping. If conversation was what you were after, or if prisoner release was what you were after, you never would have undertaken that "operation."

Funny, since people are basing their arguments on the "goodwill" of Israel, and if Israel were as insecure and existentially threatened, why did it not nuke us?

Wind currents and fallout:

Scientists have studied survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to understand the short-term and long-term effects of nuclear explosions on human health. Radiation and radioactive fallout affect those cells in the body that actively divide (hair, intestine, bone marrow, reproductive organs). Some of the resulting health conditions include:

* Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea
* Cataracts
* Hair loss
* Loss of blood cells

These conditions often increase the risk of:

* Leukemia
* Cancer
* Infertility
* Birth defects

:::::::

Nukes, especially nukes in a crowded area are de facto mutually assured destruction. That's why people don't use them.

"Israel's right to exist behind "secure" borders? There you go, the latest trend in zionist rhetoric. Secure borders from whom? The whole Arab world? The Muslim world? Iran?"

Actually it was UN rhetoric (you know the second half of UN resolution 242 that people like you always seem to forget)

And yes, exactly, borders secure from the violent extremists in the Arab world, and the muslim world, secure from Iran, Syria, and, well, from people like you.

"since you insist that the Israelis are under existential threat"

whoops, I believe it may be folks like Ahmadinejad (of lets 'wipe Israel from the map' fame), and Nasrallah (of 'Death to Israel' fame) who insist on creating the existential threat.

Sean,

1) Israel has a military industry. It manufactures weapons, TANKS, DRONES, AIRCRAFT; USA can stop providing it with bombs and Israel would STILL have military superiority for the next 100 years.

2) The statement you cite is based on an assumption that is yet to be proven. In other words, it is fancy-worded propaganda, and far from reality;

3) You paint as as complete nutcases (and the media does a good job at painting us as such), but you have not seen our true selves, our wishes, and our aspirations; we have been demonized, our struggle delegitimized, our defense portrayed as aggression, our loyalty to our country and people doubted, even our love for our families and children doubted. Yet we have come a long way, and we have done this all the time when we were at war, our fighters being killed, our people massacred time and time again. We have shown pragmatism and have been shunned in response. The west always talk about our past, but when we point out theirs, they ask us to let bygones be bygones and build from scratch. We see the west as inherently biased, and we wish to see that change; we do not do so by attacking the west. We have constantly attempted to fit into the system rather than transcend it. We have adopted more western standards than the west portrays us to have adopted; our struggle is not a clash of civilization, it is a clash of policies. And by no means do we see ourselves in any way inferior to the west, so as to give up on our right to formulate a position independent of it. We chant death to America because America has been the source of much of our suffering. Would you not chant death to Al-Qaida? The comparison of what Al-Qaida did to your people on 9/11 with what USA has done to our people is not a good one, first because people will accuse us of trying to use that tragic event to manipulate you (I assure you that I am not), second because what USA has done to us Arabs and Muslims far exceeds in magnitude from what Al-Qaida did to USA. But unlike Al-Qaida, we are not out to destroy USA or kill Americans; our chant is an expression of our wrath and a mourning for all that we have lost and all our relatives and people who have been killed. I do not deny that it comes from the bottom of my heart. I do not deny that we have issues with USA. But these issues are not between us and the American people. Our issue is with U.S policy. In this age of globalization we have wished that your people would see our suffering on your TVs and read about it in your newspapers and see our children massacred daily, and demand serious changes in U.S policy towards us. But changes have been at best cosmetic. So when you see those enraged crowds, I would ask you to actually see why these people hate America, whether they hate Americans themselves or American policy; see individuals not a faceless mob. When you see our fighters march, you should not feel a threat because our fighters are our guarantees to remaining in this land.

Now you have committed the same fallacy.
Rather, it is called proving opponent's argument false by using the very premises adopted by the opponent.

No Josh, I really don't care what "answers", "grievances", or "arguments" our Jihadi cares to voice. I'm sure Hitler's boys had just as many grievances, and I care about those just as equally as I care about those of Jihadis. If it was up to me, I'd be quite prepared to send them all to hell.

If you wany to learn about Alghaliboon's true colors, go to www.lfpm.org and look up his postings in the political forum.

An example thread with AlGhaliboon gems: http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19827

One excerpt:

"Salam Omega80,

I was not talking about what the Israelis would let or wouldn't let, I was talking about what Israelis WILL HAVE TO "let". I am afraid they will not have any other choice. It might be hard to imagine such a situation, but if the conditions are ripe for a one-state "solution", then it will also be ripe for the return of the refugees. They WILL return. Remember, as a comparison, at the beginning of the July war, Israel had placed conditions for stopping its war, one of them was that they demanded that H.A be disarmed, the soldiers be released, and NATO control the border and the south. Which one of these happened? So it's not about what Israel wants, but what Israel will have to accept, whether it likes it or not. ;)"

AlGhaliboon wants war and in the meantime he wants to cloud the issues. The mere existence of Israel is hurting his fragile psyche. All the talk about peace is pure deception.

e

If Israel were as insecure and existentially threatened, why did it not nuke us? Unless you are saying that the Israelis are stupid to prefer others’ lives over their very existence.

This is why these people think America is weak and will fold. It has been in numerous conflicts it has chosen not to win rather than use nukes against their foes. 10,000 men lost in Vietnam alone and no nuke.

Consider what he tells us about himself and his kind: that they are not stupid, that they do not prefer the lives of the enemy to their own, that they will use nukes when they have them.

He should be thanked for waking up those of us still drowsing.

AlGhaliboon isn't familiar enough with Michael's comment section to understand the winnowing of commentors.

Almost everyone who was interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt has either given up on him or left. The remaining commentors are either just browbeating him or are partisans.

If you think you've impressed us or fooled us then the one you've fooled the most is yourself, Ghally.

Our Hiz guy in residence has a severe case of Tribalism

AlGhaliboon wants war and in the meantime he wants to cloud the issues. The mere existence of Israel is hurting his fragile psyche. All the talk about peace is pure deception.

Yes that's obvious.

Mr. "e",

You must be a genius.

You would've had a better point to make if you had stuck to the guidelines of the Israeli MFA website.

However, where in the statement of the return of refugees do you see a reference to war? The issue is about the direction that Israel is taking, which will eventually result in political suicide (nukes notwithstanding). What we are seeing today is merely a manifestation of this process.

I would say that if anything, the above post you quoted shows my principles about the fact that we have no problem with Jews, and would not mind living amongst them and interacting with them and having business/economic relations. But this does not mean that I will support Israel's justifications based on their self-determination argument. Also, my views tend to be rather moderate on this issue more often than they are not, based on political pragmatism; we wish a democratic system where everyone would be equals, but we realize that it might not be feasible. At any rate, that choice rests primarily on the Palestinians, and I would also say that the Palestinians would not accept a one-state solution after all that they have gone through and all after the consolidation of the Palestinian national identity.

Care to debate this?

Care to debate what? That you will force Israel to accept the refugees? How did you plan to do that? By using your debating skills?
e

AlG,

No one has "done you". You have done yourself.

Where is the flowering of Muslim Science and technology? Not a new problem. The Ottoman's recognized it in the 1600s. That is 300+ years ago.

The Ottoman answer (and the Saudis and others today) was to import technology and western technologists instead of creating conditions for a flowering of Islamic science and technology. You telling me that the spiritually superior Muslims with 300+ years to work the problem couldn't find the answer?

You paint us as complete nutcases… we have been demonized… even our love for our families and children doubted.

That'll happen when you dress them up in bomb-belts and rejoice at their deaths.

Actually "e" that thread is interesting, it implies that AlGhaliboon is so incredibly naive that he actually believes every bit of nonsense propaganda he spouts. I may have misjudged him, not a monster but a man with no ability to understand the world he lives in.

In our county idiots don't march around with guns, starting wars, following fools and destroying democracy. We're lucky.

you will force Israel to accept the refugees? How did you plan to do that? By using your debating skills?
No one will force Israel to accept the refugees except Israel's uncertainty about what it wants, what future it aspires to, and how it plans to go about it. So far they have taken all the wrong decisions, and have given their worst enemies - us - more than one pretext and internal political and public strength/support to keep our arms.

I find it amusing that apart from a few people (Mr. Totten, JF, Berkeley non-conformist, double-plus-ungood, and Sean, and a few I forgot about - my apologies) the rest have been jumping from one accusation to the other; when one fails, they jump to the other. and so on and so forth.

I also find it amusing that you have hailed your "find" as an achievement and posted it on both entries (this & the other). I realize that when you lack other arguments, the best way to cover up on the inability is to either use diversionary tactics or continue making preposterous assertions and unsubstantiated claims, or to give up on it altogether by shouting one last time: "liar!"

Josh,
It is quite entertaining reading his hundreds of posts on the FPM (Aoun's party) forum. He scares the shit out of the Christians because they know his attitude will lead to the destruction of Lebanon.

He also shoots down any proposal for peace or dialogue with Israel. I can dig up some interesting posts if you like.

He seems to me the kind of sort that is sent on suicide missions instead of the guy that does the sending.

e

M. Simon,

No one has "done you". You have done yourself.
Rather, it is both - and we fully accept part of the responsibility. Our position as Shi'ites in the region being very weak and us having mostly been subjects and victims of oppression, has not given us the chance to work on reviving the true spirit of Islam that so many centuries of despotism in the name of Islam have clouded. Absolutely, you are right. That is why I said our fight is as much against our own (internal) enemies as it is against our "other" enemies.

This is why these people think America is weak and will fold. It has been in numerous conflicts it has chosen not to win rather than use nukes against their foes. 10,000 men lost in Vietnam alone and no nuke.

Remember the Cuban Missile crisis? I think the world generally agreed that using nukes during the cold war would be a bad idea.

Using nukes against Hezbollah would be like using a bazooka to kill housemice. We really have lost the hang of how to play war games. Would JFK have negotiated with a cheap loser like Ahmadinejad? Would FDR have responded to the kidnapping of embassy personnel the way Carter did?

Islamofascists are the most pathetic enemy we've ever faced. We should have dealt effectively with them a long time ago. The fact that these losers are a threat says more about us than it does about them.

He also shoots down any proposal for peace or dialogue with Israel.
We do not accept Israel's concept of "peace" if that's what you mean; I thought you read my comments on this site. We base our readiness for real peace on criteria, the criteria being only fair and reasonable; as for dialogue, dialogue on what? We called for negotiations on prisoners, and all outstanding issues. This could've paved the way - and indeed we would've wished for such stability - for an indefinite truce. But dialogue on land that belongs to us, for peace that is not their right given their history of violence and terrorism against our people, is unacceptable. Period.

Algahliboon,
"No one will force Israel to accept the refugees except Israel's uncertainty about what it wants, what future it aspires to, and how it plans to go about it. So far they have taken all the wrong decisions, and have given their worst enemies - us - more than one pretext and internal political and public strength/support to keep our arms."

Explain this to me slowly. You say it is not important what Israel wants, the refugees will return. Yet now you say that Israels uncertainty will force it. I don't get it. Israel will never willingly accept the refugees. So how do you plan to make Israel accept them?

e