January 19, 2007
The Blitzing of Haret Hreik
HARET HREIK, LEBANON – I have been to Haret Hreik, Hezbollah’s dahiyeh and de-facto “capital” south of Beirut, many times. But I didn’t expect to see it on my most recent trip. Every Lebanese person I know warned me to stay out of there. The destruction from the summer war is severe and Hezbollah’s fear and loathing of visitors, especially Americans, is even more so. The most paranoid party in Lebanon is more paranoid than ever before. Best to steer clear of their base.
That was before I met the resident moderate Shia cleric Sayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini, an outspoken enemy of Hezbollah from within the community. I interviewed him in his modest apartment, and afterward he showed me around the bombed out parts of his neighborhood.
“You can take pictures,” he said. “Don’t worry. No one will do anything or say anything to you if you are with me.”
This was important. Hezbollah’s media relations office explicitly warned me never to take pictures in the dahiyeh. Even local people aren’t allowed to take pictures. You never know who might be working for the CIA or the Mossad. Lebanon has more Israel supporters and “collaborators” than any other Arab country by far.
Husseini is a Sayyed, which means he is supposedly a descendent of the Prophet Mohammad. He can take pictures if he damn well pleases, and so can anyone who is his guest. He is as close to untouchable as a person can be in an assassination-plagued country like Lebanon.
So we went downstairs and hopped in his sporty SUV outfitted with tinted black windows.
Our first stop was only a few streets from his house. Whole blocks of towers were missing.
“Did you stay here during the war?” I said and shuddered at the thought of hunkering down while whole towers exploded just down the street.
“No,” he said like I was crazy for asking. “No one could stay here. Everyone had to leave.”
The Israeli Air Force dropped leaflets over the neighborhood warning residents to get out of the way of the incoming air strikes. Many times more people would have been killed if they hadn’t done this.
Haret Hreik is vertically packed with civilians, including the liberal cleric who was my guide and who is completely innocent of this war. Tens of thousands of people live in the area. Some of their homes were destroyed. Those whose homes weren’t destroyed now fear theirs could be next.
Haret Hreik also is packed with the infrastructure of a warmongering militia that unilaterally instigated the conflict on purpose. That’s why it was hit harder than any other urbanized section of Lebanon.
Some Lebanese Shia support Hezbollah because they actually want war with Israelis.
Others (wrongly) believe that Israel will continue to invade and attack even if Lebanon and Hezbollah sign a peace treaty. Hezbollah, in their view, is their only defense. These people have not, apparently, noticed that Israel has had no military trouble with Egypt or Jordan since peace treaties were signed. The price they paid for this misunderstanding was a grave one, indeed. The last war will more likely prolong that misunderstanding than counter it. The cause-and-effect relationship between Hezbollah’s casus belli on the border and the Israeli reaction has been lost in Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s bombastic pronouncements.
I have been to Israel four times in the last nine months and I know very well that Israelis, left-wing and right-wing alike, overwhelmingly prefer peace to war. But when your only exposure to Israelis is through racist and phantasmagoric Hezbollah propaganda, and when that propaganda is underscored by air raids with blockbuster bombs, it can be a bit hard to believe that Israelis would rather leave you alone.
The Israeli government hoped the destruction in Hezbollah strongholds would deter any plans for future attacks. Perhaps Hezbollah has quietly decided not to provoke Israel from now on. Anything is possible, but there is little or no evidence that this is the case. Hezbollah has restocked its weapons supply from Iran via Syria. Hassan Nasrallah insists the “resistance” will continue. His supporters applaud him for that even though huge numbers are homeless or live next to piles of rubble.
I was in Northern Israel in August while Hezbollah bombarded the area with Katyusha rockets. I returned to the city of Kiryat Shmona the day after the war ended so I could survey the damage slowly, carefully, and in safety.
Katyushas are World War II era rockets that only do serious damage when they strike a single location in a barrage. Hezbollah packed these rockets with shrapnel (the better to kill you with, my dear) and fired them randomly at civilian population centers.
Kiryat Shmona was sprayed with hundreds of rockets and tens of thousands of shrapnel holes, as though machine gun battles had erupted everywhere in the streets. It’s right on the border, too, so there was no time to get to a bomb shelter when incoming rockets were picked up on radar. The air raid sirens came on and the rockets exploded at the same instant.
The city was a ghost town during the summer, almost completely emptied of people. I didn’t dare spend much time there. It was a perilous place for human beings. Katyusha shrapnel will tear you apart. But the physical damage was limited. It would take years for Hezbollah to physically destroy that city with the arsenal they currently have. And Katyushas are useless against armies. They can’t slow the Israeli Defense Forces for even a second. In the modern era they only work well as terrorist weapons.
Meanwhile, the Israelis dropped tower-busting bombs on Haret Hreik.
They could have flattened all of Haret Hreik in a day if that’s what they wanted to do. There is nothing Hezbollah can do to stop that kind of assault.
Hezbollah’s supposed “victory” is a Pyrrhic one, if even that. And it should serve as a warning. Military historian Michael Oren explained it to me this way at the end of the war: “If [Nasrallah] has enough victories like this one, he’s dead.”
If Hezbollah ever acquires the ability to do to Israel what the Israelis did to Haret Hreik, Hezbollah and the strongholds they control could very well cease to exist. Hezbollah can’t win a total war. They can only “win” if the Israelis don’t feel like they have to fight to the finish. I would not want to be anywhere near South Lebanon or Beirut’s southern suburbs if Hezbollah decides to launch skyscraper-shattering missiles at Tel Aviv instead of long-range souped-up hand grenades at Kiryat Shmona.
This is what scares the Israelis, after all – that missile war may be replacing terrorist war. Their ability and willingness to launch an overwhelmingly disproportionate response means Hezbollah had better not dare ramp it up.
None of this means Israelis won the last round. Hardly any of their war objectives were met. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may end up the most internally despised leader in Israel’s history. But they only actually lost if different standards of winning and losing are applied to each side.
Hassan Nasrallah says Hezbollah won because they survived. Well, Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces survived. By that standard of winning, Israel won.
No one, though, seems foolish enough to believe that both Israel and Hezbollah won. Destructive and inconclusive wars are never win-win. They are always lose-lose.
My guide Sayyed Husseini’s gas was running low, so we pulled into a station to fill up the tank. We stepped out of the SUV as the attendent inserted the pump. A group of children ran up to Husseini and excitedly yelled “Sayyed! Sayyed!” as though he were some kind of black-robed Santa Claus figure. The attendent smiled as though he felt lucky to be in the presence of a great man. If anyone who recognized him detested him for his stance against Hezbollah, it didn’t show.
The gate that lead to what was Hezbollah’s Al Manar TV station headquarters still stands. Attached to it is a poster thanking Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for his support.
Chavez could, like most of the rest of the world, support Lebanon’s elected government instead of the illegal militia that unilaterally – and at the height of tourist season, no less – strapped a suicide-bomb belt around the waist of the country. But that would mean siding with the United States, the country he most loves to hate. So there he is, hanging up in the dahiyeh along with the Baathist Assad and the theocratic Khomeini.
Facing the Al Manar gate is the remains of Hezbollah’s “Security Square.” The hole in the ground pictured below is where their media relations office once stood.
I wish I could show you a “before” shot as well as the “after” photograph. But there was no way I could take pictures of the Security Square the first time I went there. I had no protection, and that place had more surveillance than the Panopticon.
Here, though, are satellite photographs showing the center of Haret Hreik before and after July. I pulled the first off Google Earth. The second is from Amnesty International.
My old nemesis Hussein Naboulsi worked there, in that Security Square office that now is a crater, before Hezbollah fired him after the war. At least I heard from my fixer that he was fired after the war. For all I really know he was killed in the air strike.
He was Hezbollah’s media relations liaison, the guy who set up interviews for journalists, who creepily kept photocopies of our passports on file, who monitored everything we published and wrote, who threatened me with violence for cracking a joke about “the party” on my blog, and who infamously led CNN’s Nic Robertson around by the nose in the dahiyeh during the Israeli bombardment.
I can’t help but wonder: What do you do after being downsized by a terrorist organization? Do you work at the local CD store? Al Jazeera? Perhaps the Syrians will have something for him, though the pay grade may be a bit lower.
Even before the war broke out in July I marveled at Lebanon’s ability to hold itself together when no common values unite the people who live there. Lebanon belongs to the Arab world, and also to the Mediterranean world. It is Eastern and, in some ways, it is Western, as well. French- and English-educated Christians look to the US, France, and the West. Most Sunnis take their cues from the wider Arab world, though they also are a part of the broader Mediterranean culture with its open and tolerant ways. Many, if not most, Shia look to Persian Iran.
Enormous forces pull this tiny country (only half the size of tiny Israel) in violently opposing directions at the same time. Lebanon cannot be in the Western and moderate Arab orbit and be absorbed into the Syrian/Iranian axis. Civil war, as well as war with their southern neighbor, will hang like the Sword of Damocles over the country until this is resolved.
Since the war in July the Shia experience in Lebanon is even farther removed than it was from that of the Sunnis, Christians, and Druze.
Haret Hreik, like much of the South, has been devastated. Rubble abounds. The economy, which wasn’t much to begin with, is as broken as the harsh urban landscape.
Meanwhile, downtown Beirut looked better than it did last time I saw it in April of 2006.
Lebanon’s capital is in the midst of a boom, even if it’s dampened now because of the war and the ongoing instability. But the “capital” of Hezbollah looks like World War II just blew through there.
The two Lebanons are moving, at great velocity, in opposite directions physically and economically as well as culturally and politically now. “National unity” is a castle in the air, more so than at any time since the civil war ended 16 years ago.
The Shia have always been the poorest and most marginal of Lebanon’s sects – and not just in Lebanon, but elsewhere as well. Fouad Ajami aptly describes them (and he is one of them, too) as the stepchildren of the Arab world. They need and deserve better than this, as all human beings do. Hassan Nasrallah has promised to lead them out of the darkness. Instead he brought ruin and a violent catastrophe down on their heads.
The Shia of Lebanon must find another way, if not with Sayyed Husseini then with someone who is very much like him, someone who can help them lead lives of dignity and prosperity and of normal relations with others. Instead of bringing Haret Hreik to Beirut they need Beirut in Haret Hreik. As Abu Kais, himself a Shia who grew up in the South, said during the summer war on his blog: Iran’s Shia farm must be shut down, and its residents set free.
Post-script: If you like what I write, please click the Pay Pal button and help make it happen. These trips are expensive, and I have to eat and pay bills. Your donations are the only thing that makes my work possible. I would do this for free if I could, but we don’t live in a Star Trek money-free universe yet.
If you would like to donate money for travel expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, you can send a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 02:45 AMI wonder what it will take for the Shia of Lebanon to eschew the politics of hate, racism and warfare, and embrace love, life, tolerance and modernity.
Another must-read entry on my biggest must-read site. Thanks, Mike.
Posted by: Nate at January 19, 2007 06:24 AMWow! Great picture essay.
By the way, did you see any signs that rebuilding has begun? It seems that even the half destroyed buildings have still remained instead of being demolished.
Saifi Village looks beautiful.
From February 2005:
In a defiant response to US pressure, Hussein Nablousi, a spokesman for Hizbullah, said: "We are a sword that prevents Israel attacking Lebanon. Without Hizbullah, you would see the Israelis back in downtown Beirut."
Um, no. Because of you, the Israelis destroyed much of Beirut.
Without you, Beirut would have been left completely alone.
These people are deluded.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 19, 2007 08:43 AMDo not be surprised that the re-construction is verrrry slow in happening. In the south, pertaining to residential mainly. The photos tell the story right away. Commercially based rebuilding is well on its way because it brings in revenue. That means hotels, upscale residential, and retail operations. The devastated south? Where's the money to made? I doubt there's a lot of rent money involved in that area. Who has the money to loan, or rather, donate? Which is more valued at present from the perspective of Hizb and Iran, weaponry or housing? Important questions one would think. Iran may have lots of oil money now, but they will want some sort of return in exchange regardless. What would that be?
And something else to think about is whether it's in Iran's best interests to fund productive ventures over political ones. Is it better in their eyes to allow the southern inhabitants to endure the devastation for an indefinite time to allow bitter resentfulness to fester even more? One of those cliched win-win deals it seems.
Posted by: allan at January 19, 2007 08:51 AMI expect the (comment section) attacks from Hezbollah supporters to come quickly now and to be completely incoherent. How can Hezbollah's ideology survive if people look at those pictures and talk honestly about what they mean?
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 09:30 AMJordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel and oppressive authoritarian governments necessary to implement these unpopular treaties.
Saniora is clearly less popular in Lebanon than Nasrallah. You don't like Nasrallah and can give every reason you want that Lebanese should agree with you, but you don't vote there.
Lebanon's governmental structures have within their constitutional powers the ability to meet Hezbollah's demands, which include that the Shia have representation in cabinet reflective of their population.
The non-violent steps Hezbollah is taking to pressure Lebanon's governmental structures to meet its demands are legitimate democratic actions, despite the fact that you, a non-Lebanese voter, hope they fail.
The main argument of this essay, that might makes right, that Israel can destroy Arab countries and Arab countries cannot destroy Israel so Arab countries have to do whatever Israel wants not only insults the dignity of Arabs but is not stable.
You say the right course for the Arabs is to acquiesce. The Arabs say the right course is to neutralize Israel's military advantage. That's not what you'd vote for, but you don't vote.
Fortunately for Israel and you, unfortunately for the Jordanians and Egyptians, the populations of those countries do not have a voice in what course their countries choose. You also want to deny that choice to the Lebanese people.
**This is officially a pro-Hezbollah comment. Feel free to delete it. I honestly hope you do because the laughter I would get from seeing it deleted would be more valuable to me than anything I could get from actually reading through and shooting down the rationalizations of your hostility towards democracy in countries whose populations do not accept Israel.
Posted by: Arnold Evans at January 19, 2007 09:33 AM"You say the right course for the Arabs is to acquiesce. The Arabs say the right course is to neutralize Israel's military advantage. That's not what you'd vote for, but you don't vote"
If that is what the Lebanese want, then Israel is justified in conducting a preemptive attack on Lebanon. If that is what the Lebanese want, then why are they complaining about Israel's actions during the war? You both want to allow HA to start a war AND decide how the opponent will react? In what dream world do you live?
Posted by: e at January 19, 2007 09:42 AMA quibble:
Katyusha's can destroy cities, but you have to use all of them at once. They are designed to be fired en masse, not en dribble. Firing them en dribble is a method developed during the Cold War to stretch the effect of a individually ineffective weapon.
When used 20,000 per war, Katyusha's are incapable of stopping anything. When they are used 20,000 per hour or per minute, they can break modern armored forces. The idea is that modern counterbattery fire makes traditional tube artillery, like the Israeli's use, a sitting duck target. You get one shot off and before it lands, harm is returning to you.
With a Katyusha battery in a mechanized and supplied army, three soldiers can shoot 60 rockets twice in a minute and then run like hell in the truck that launched them. When you multiply this by 60 trucks, or 6,000, a considerable amount of hell is going downrange before you can shut any of them down. An hour later when all the trucks are reloaded, you can do this again ten miles away...with the 30-50 trucks that survived. Katyusha's are designed to punch a great big hole in the front of one army, but only when they are used en masse.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at January 19, 2007 09:46 AMIt's ironic that Evans whos argument seems to be that it's morally wrong to consider consequences - ie. to take reality into account - calls his blog "middle east reality"
His view of the rest of the situation and its morality is extremely biased, but there's nothing remarkable about that.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 09:52 AMA better explanation for this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21
Please note that everybody used to use them in WWII.
The main argument of this essay, that might makes right, that Israel can destroy Arab countries and Arab countries cannot destroy Israel so Arab countries have to do whatever Israel wants not only insults the dignity of Arabs but is not stable.
I didn't read it that way. MJT wrote that Israelis on the left and right prefer peace with Lebanon over war. For whatever reasons that is not the case with Hezbollah, who successfully dragged the entire country into a confrontation with Israel this summer.
What is "it" that Israel wants the Arab countries to do that you are so worried about? Answer: Make peace with Israel. Unfortunately people like yourself consider peace with Israel to be an insult to your dignity.
Posted by: Zak at January 19, 2007 09:54 AMZak, take a look at Evans' blog before you waste too much time arguing with his like. Lots of apologism for the Ahmadinejad (and even for his "Holocaust conference") etc.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 10:06 AMI really don't want to do this. This debate has been done before, by me, by people smarter than I am, against people brighter than you, against people less bright than you. There is nothing new. At this point this debate bores me.
The only interesting feature here is that Totten promised to ban pro-Hezbollah posters and delete their comments. I really want to see that. Really for the laugh.
But "it" is that every Arab population wants Israel to accept the refugees even if the effect of that acceptance is that Israel stops being a Jewish state, the way what would become Israel did not have a Jewish majority in 1895 when political Zionism was born.
(I don't feel like debating you on how voluntary the expulsion was or any other aspect of the validity of Zionism, but I've always won that debate in the past when I used to engage it. Maybe you are the brilliant rhetoritician who would win against me on these points. I don't care.)
It doesn't matter what "it" is though. You can disagree with "it". You can say "it" is any foul characterization or mischaracterization you'd like - the point is that you advocate authoritarian dictatorships, or at least removing foreign policy from democratic control - rather than allow Arabs to vote for "it" no matter what "it" is.
Posted by: Arnold Evans at January 19, 2007 10:08 AMMike, I thought this was one of your best. Wish I had time to say more.
Posted by: glasnost at January 19, 2007 10:11 AMthe point is that you advocate authoritarian dictatorships
Ah yes, to oppose Hezbollah, a militia, using its arms to ursurp the authority of police, army and goverment thus destroying a democracy is to "advocate authoritarian dictatorships" and your proof for this is that Michael says that war isn't viable...
Given what passes for reasoning in your arguement, I'm sure that you do win all of your debates, in your own mind.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 10:16 AMI also noticed a number of key lies about Ahmadinejad's statements on your blog. When you're willing to simply lie, no doubt it is easy to win all of your arguements.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 10:18 AMThe personal attacks have started. Not by the Hezbollah supporter. Maybe the solution is for the Hezbollah supporter to be banned and his comments deleted.
I just want to see it. Please Michael Totten, ban me and delete my comments. Now I'm directly asking.
Posted by: Arnold Evans at January 19, 2007 10:36 AMArnold Evans is banned for supproting terrorism and fascism.
Laugh all you want, Arnold. You're a sick person, and I'm finished with you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 10:37 AMAh, poor Arnold, another Martyr for the cause. There's nothing like a good banning for the sake of one's dignity.
Posted by: mertel at January 19, 2007 10:42 AMYes!
Posted by: Arnold Evans at January 19, 2007 10:45 AMAE can say all the crap he wants on his own blog, which we can all then proceed to ignore. Franky, this 'I'm being opressed' routine gets old very quickly.
Posted by: Bruno at January 19, 2007 10:46 AMFuture comments will be deleted, Arnold.
Obviously anyone who wants to be banned has nothing of value to contribute around here.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 10:49 AMWell that was pointless.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 10:59 AMGuys, don't waste your time with him. He is beyond hope. After all, what do you expect? As an official Hezballah supporter, he is fed and sheltered bu Hezballah...
What? you didn't know? 30 USD a day for being in downtown Beirut, and puking the crap he is telling us here.
Posted by: don't waste your time at January 19, 2007 11:00 AMArnold brought up a good point. Jordan and Egypt are dictatorships with very hostile populations. Egyptians were involved in 9/11 and Jordan is a major route for sunni insurgents attacking the US.
US gives billions to Jordan and Egypt yearly to keep the systems in place so perhaps it might be more cost effective to simply add Lebanon to the bribe list, especially since Iran's financial support of Hezbollah is a mere pittance compared with the money Egypt receives from the US.
Posted by: NM at January 19, 2007 11:42 AMNM: Arnold brought up a good point. Jordan and Egypt are dictatorships with very hostile populations. Egyptians were involved in 9/11 and Jordan is a major route for sunni insurgents attacking the US.
Yes, but my point in mentioning Egypt and Jordan is that Israel hasn't gone to war with them after peace treaties were signed.
Israel has only invaded Lebanon when Israel is attacked from Lebanon. The cause-and-effect relationship here is extremely straightforward and obvious.
Anyway, bribing Lebanon won't work. The Lebanese government can't forge a separate peace with the Israelis without Syria going first. And Hezbollah doesn't want peace.
Maybe Hezbollah could be bribed (I doubt it, but maybe), but bribing Seniora won't do anything. He would make peace if he could. I'll be writing more about this later on the main page.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 11:50 AMIm just currious to ask:
When is a hizbollah supporter never a brainwashed and a bigot living in propaganda-abundant worlds?
Such as the many arabs who support hizbollah.
Or the many europeans and considerebly alot of other people from other countries.
Or the many, many asians who identify with and accept the cause of hizbollah.
Or the EU parliament which doesn't think hizbollah is a begoted, fascist, racist nor terrorist entity...
I prefer the answer to be clear and straightforward please...
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 11:52 AMPowerful and important as usual. Thank you Michael for your reporting!
Posted by: zellmad at January 19, 2007 11:59 AMSayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini
I won't pretend to know more about this topic than I really know. I'm tired of internet bullshitters and smart asses.
Sayyed Husseini is a landed baron with no land. He has position but no power and he's thirty years late to the party.
I wish him luck because men like him seem to get dead fast.
Posted by: Cal at January 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Arnold, you're banned. Get out and stay out. I deleted your last comment (without reading it), and I'll delete all your future comments as well.
Anyone who wants to talk to the creep can do it as his site.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 12:39 PMI just noticed something,
Whatever you may think, it seems that throughout history the sunni's have had the dictatorships, the tyranny of the minority and the internal terrorism as well as international terrorism to no avail or any decisive victory or even achievement.
Meanwhile, in other headlines, the Shi'a have proved to be by far the most oppresed people but have come from under the rubble to become now one of the most feared powers in the middle east, the most democratic and by far the most peaceful.
In Iran, it was a bloodless revolution powered by the people, rather than leaders since khaminei was in exile, In lebanon their is the democratic hezbollah party as well as the government-legitemised (in 2004-05) shia resistance which has achieved much more than any other sunni resistance/militia/terror group i.e. taliban and al-qaeda as well as fatah and hamas, and their is now Iraq, which also to a certain extent, is led by the shia and is a democracy.
But what do i know, im just another christian 'Aoun supporter...
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 12:41 PM+1 to Bruno's comment about the tedium of martyr complexes by pantywaisted arguers.
On the other hand, NM makes an interesting point that I hope Michael fully explores in his promised forthcoming comments; the question being, in light of the purported hostility of the countries' citizenry towards their regimes, given that Egypt and Jordan haven't waged war on Israel since signing their treaties, how much of this is attributable to the US/western "bribe" of those two countries' regimes, and how much of it reflects the genuine will of the people (considering the stuff in their textbooks, media, etc.)?
Asking that reasonable question does not make one a Hezbo lover, terrorist sympathizer or anti-semite, as I'm sure Michael and others commenting here understand. This disclaimer is only included as against flaming by illiterate nincompoops who spoil for fights by ignoring the meaning of what's written.
I'll look forward to hearing what Michael has to say about this, as I enjoy and find very valuable all of the work he's doing.
p.s. the piece on Libya that was in LA Weekly a few years ago was one of the finest things I've ever read; I really lived the experience of the country through your eyes and pen. Thanks!
Posted by: vic s at January 19, 2007 12:42 PMDearest Uncontested:
The followers of fools are rightfully referred to as foolish. There is no place on Earth that does not have at least a few of those—although some places have greater numbers than other places. Imagine a deck of cards consisting of nothing but Jokers, who in reality are warlords whose belligerence is sure to isolate followers from the rest of the economic world order. Name one? Hezbollah.
Is that clear and straightforward enough for you?
Posted by: JAS at January 19, 2007 12:43 PMOOOps. I posted this on the wrong thread - here is where it belongs (with some editing and more thoughts):
A pity Evans was banned as he could probably answer a question that has been bugging me for a while that at first I thought was stupid but now think is not. There are enough critics of Israel and Arabs and Muslims on this board that could still, I hope, give me a thoughtful answer. I really want the non pro-Israel perspective.
The question is: Why exactly to the Arabs care about the Palestinians? Is it because they are fellow Muslims? Is it because they are fellow Arabs? Why, especially, do the Iranians care about the Palestinians? They are not the same ethnicity (Persian v. Arab) or the same religion (Sunni v. Shia)? The question first occurred to me as I was lining up the players in this conflict in mind, and, initially, the teams were obvious. The Arabs are all on the Palestinian side and it is stupid to question further. But then I thought "Why?" Arabs have suffered tremendously in the Middle at the hands of parties other than Israel (usually each other) without the same attendant fixations and certainly without the same pan-national/ethnic fixation. Why rally around the Palestinians? And if the Palestinians are so important to the Arab world, why are they otherwise treated so badly and locked in to suffer in the refugee camps instead of just being free to walk into the neighboring countryside and become a local citizen? To make a crazy analogy, it is sort of like driving in your car and seeing your neighbor beaten and homeless because a street gang took over his house and instead of inviting him in, you let him sleep in your yard (but he can't come in to pee) and occasionally toss him some food through the window, all the while telling him how much you hate that street gang and occasionally encouraging him to attack the gang and reclaim his house even if it only results in him getting beat up again. You never help him find his own house or get a job and encourage him to stay where he is (although you get strong locks on your own house because you saw him looking in the window). Eventually, there are three generations living on your lawn so you build a cage around them saying they can't leave except to get their house back.
Perhaps the answer is as simple as blood ties - we can treat our people like XXXXX, but if Israel or the Jews do, we will rally around them? That must be a big part. But somehow, the fixation on Israel seems bizarre to me in the context of the rest of the region. I always assumed the issue for the Arabs was the Palestinians, but it seems more likely that the issue for them is really Israel. If the Arab world spent as much time and money on the Palestinian refugees as they do on hostility with Israel, the issue would probably vanish. Certainly, Evans made it seem like "it" is the return of refugees to Israel. I don't understand why that would be the case if the issue was really the refugees - there are easier ways to solve that problem than this 50 year war.
So why exactly do Arabs care about the right of refugees to return to Israel but not about their lives in general? How do they see the refugee issue? Is it the heart of the matter? Would there be peace with Israel if the residents of the refugee camps all said they were happy where they were (wherever that was)?
Posted by: dontgetit at January 19, 2007 12:44 PM"The followers of fools are rightfully referred to as foolish."
That didn't answer my question. You are now saying that every government in the world is foolish exept that of 6 countries, excluding the UN (which isn't a country anyway)
And thats, in my p.o.v, i dunt know about anyone else, what you just said is an insult to millions and millions of arabs across the arab world.
Anyway, it wasn't very wise of me to ask that question in this blog anyway.
SO! Tell me what you lot think about Aoun and his followers + what you think of the choice he made + what his followers make of that choice.
I love hearing other people's p.o.v's
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 12:50 PMUncontested: the Shi'a have proved to be by far the most oppresed people but have come from under the rubble
It looks to me like they're back in the rubble.
They deserve better than rubble. It seems we agree on that much at least.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:00 PMArnold Evans said:
"Egypt and Jordan would do such things if they were democratic. They would definitely make life more difficult for Israel. Would Israel go to war over them? Maybe. But the repressive dictatorships remaining repressive dictatorships is absolutely part of the agreement, part of the peace."
This is clearly not true. Natan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror" is evidence that people in even the highest levels of Israel's government want a democratic Middle East. If the Arabs got a true democracy they would want jobs, paved roads, good schools, lower taxes etc. These are the things on people's minds everywhere in the world; people always think of themselves first, and I am glad they do.
Posted by: Keith at January 19, 2007 01:02 PMUncontested,
I agree with much of what Aoun says about corruption in the Lebanese government, and I wish him well on cleaning it up if that's possible.
Aligning himself with Hezbollah, though, was very foolish I think. Hezbollah's is the root cause of Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
Aoun would be wiser to fix that problem first and then deal with corruption.
The Shia, especially, would be better served by leadership that does not make them a target for air strikes.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:06 PM"The main argument of this essay, that might makes right, that Israel can destroy Arab countries and Arab countries cannot destroy Israel so Arab countries have to do whatever Israel wants "
No, not "whatever Israel wants", just "Don't attack Israel." Neighbors that attack Israel get poinded. Neighbors that don't attack Israel don't attack Israel get left alone. Learn from experience already.
And yes, I know you've lost some territory to them. Realistically, you're gonna get it back about when the Japanese get Etorofu back from the Russians (i.e. never.) You don't see them picking fights they can't win and getting their country wrecked over a war they lost 60 years ago. You see them building the worlds best cars and electronics and getting stinking rich doing it. One thing they learned from their contact with Americans: "living well is the best revenge."
Again, watch and learn.
Posted by: Ralph Phelan at January 19, 2007 01:06 PMDo not respond to Arnold Evans. He is banned from this forum and all his future comments will be deleted.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:07 PM"how much of this is attributable to the US/western "bribe" of those two countries' regimes, and how much of it reflects the genuine will of the people"
It may be that the will of the people is that they hate Israel, but don't hate it quite enough to get pounded into rubble.
From Israel's point of view, that's sufficient.
Posted by: Ralph Phelan at January 19, 2007 01:12 PMThe Shia of Lebanon must find another way, if not with Sayyed Husseini then with someone who is very much like him, someone who can help them lead lives of dignity and prosperity and of normal relations with others. Instead of bringing Haret Hreik to Beirut they need Beirut in Haret Hreik. As Abu Kais, himself a Shia who grew up in the South, said during the summer war on his blog: Iran’s Shia farm must be shut down, and its residents set free.
That's very true.
Great description of Hussein Naboulsi's former career - and nice aerial shot of Saifi Village.
Posted by: mary at January 19, 2007 01:12 PMWhen is a hizbollah supporter never a brainwashed and a bigot living in propaganda-abundant worlds?
When that hizbollah supporter has a definite and workable plan to disarm hizbollah.
As it exists now, Hizbollah isn't just a political group, it's a state within a state whose existence threatens the sovereignty of the elected government of Lebanon. That's why nearly every government on the planet wants Hizbollah to disarm. So does the UN. So do the majority of Arabs.
Do you?
Posted by: mary at January 19, 2007 01:15 PMArnold Evans, you will not come in here and post under somebody else's name and get away with it.
You are out and you will stay out. Good riddance to you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:17 PMVery true, they sure do deserve much more.
As a lebanese christian who has observed her country very well, my sympathy goes very much to the shi'a decision, whatever it is, as well as my understanding to their choices.
This may seem strange to say this, but i say it because i understand what they have gone through. They were the only people/religion to be under war and occupation circumstances for 40 years whithout being looked at by neither France, the "mother" of lebanon, nor the international community.
But believe me Mr. Totten, if you actually live in lebanon and were here during the immigration of the shi'a (mostly) from the south and dahiyeh into the jbeil (including rweis where i live), you will not believe their high spirits, their willingness to sacrifice and their desire for recognition of the international and muslim and arab community of being as human as everyone else and that enough is enough.
They have endured very difficult circumstances, more than i could imagine. If i was so effected by the lebanon war without a bullet being fired into my town, how about the shia who are already poor and in bad circumstances made worse by IDF.
That is how i see things and that is why i respect and admire their choices.
As well, believe me that the power and capability as well as popularity of hizbolah is far from under the rubble and the same goes for Iran...i hope you understand and see my perspective when looking from my angle.
NOTE: Some say hizbollah is sectarian because it is shi'a. I would like to say 1) All sunni (with all due respect and no offense or racism intended what so ever, i consider all people my brothers and sisters + try to understand them as much as i can) parties and military forces have never been able to penetrate nor deter any israeli attacks.
PLO for example had a force of 40,000 fighting at one time and were taken out as well as kicked out from lebanon in a few weeks/months.
2) nearly all christian and druze resistance groups start as resistance, first week 2nd week 3rd week, they're OK. After that, their self-interest blinds them, makes them all turn guns against each other and then depend on the target enemy i.e. israel in the middle of war. Therefore they turn from resistance into militias in a matter of days.
3) Amal tried to not become sectarian by recruiting sunnis+christians+druze (believe it or not, it did happen in 86 to counter hizbollah+call it sectarian) but ended up as the biggest corrupt party + military and ended up becoming a militia too.
Hizbollah, being shi'a, have made mistakes, big mistakes in the past and maybe also in the present. One must remember that they in effect have learnt from their mistakes big-time, have learnt what is good and what is bad for lebanon, they have moderated themselves to suit lebanese interests such as dropping the manifesto of an islamic state in lebanon and instead joining mainstream politics in lebanon. They are not infallible, but are more correct and just than any other military presence ever in lebanon, including the army which fought itself in its last stages of neutralisation.
Hizbollah has proved itself to all of lebanon, especially the shia, that they are the only capable force to deter israeli attacks. More than any other military. They have unified, from my p.o.v, than split. This is seen through their social activity, if you follow lebanese knews you would know.
Please understand + post back if you can. I nor support nor hate. Also what are your views of the stand of aoun and his supporters from the christian block.
thnks
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 01:19 PMUNcontested: they are the only capable force to deter israeli attacks.
Um, no. Hezbollah is the cause of Israeli attacks. Why can't you see this?
If Hezbollah did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Lebanon.
Believe me, Israelis never want to go to Lebanon again. They don't understand your country, and every time they get involved it is a disaster for them.
But they will hit back if they are attacked, and next time they will probably hit back much harder.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:24 PMMary - "Do you?"
Personally...No. But what i do want is that Hizbollah be allowed to become an independent defense division within the lebanese army - something which was offered by the Hezbollah leadership in the past and has been rejected by the current government.
This is in no way a crack in lebanese sovereignty - it's what the french did to their national resistance Le Resistance and some other resistance party (forgot the name) whom led military campaigns against the Nazi's after the liquidation of the French army. They still exist this days, this time they are not independent from the army but have their own commander and division within the french army's ranks.
What do you think? Good or bad idea?
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 01:28 PMThis article points out in an unintended way something that has been a tough nut to crack in Baghdad, Iraq. That is that Muqtada al-Sadr is also a Sayyed. Just as Sayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini in Lebanon can speak out against Hezbollah and remain unharmed, so can al-Sadr do pretty much whatever he wants without being touched. For us to kill him would cause a cultural explosion that I don't think we would ever recover from ... just as if Hezbollah were to harm el Husseini in Lebanon, Hezbollah would probably not recover.
But I hope that pointing this out puts why we are concentrating on the people around al-Sadr rather than al-Sadr himself into a better perspective.
Posted by: crosspatch at January 19, 2007 01:35 PM"But they will hit back if they are attacked, and next time they will probably hit back much harder."
I regularly follow israeli media, and i personaly believe that is not the case especially after israel admitted it had lost the war, olmert admitted nasrallah was the bravest man in the world, and peretz admitted israel is incapable of another war for at least another year or so.
And im sorry if im clogging up your blog im just new and really excited to comment on alot of things i read earlier on :(
hehehehe
Oh ye, and the problem with lebanese with the israelis is, after being hailed as liberators when they first came in, they not only overstayed their visit, but also decided to occupy land, abuse citizens for no reason, create the most apartheid military regimes in the south, ie SLA, build the most horrific prisons in marjayoun and khiam as well as humiliate alot of innocent people by improsenment + torture + beatings and killings.
The lebanese problem with the israeli, is that we believe from thei actions, they pretend to care about lebanon, but their actions prove otherwise.
Let them release all prisoner (lebanese) and all lands (lebanese) and stop threatening sovereignty and let us do what we wish with our own water. I don't see any reason for hizbollah to exist nor will any other lebanese and that will be the end of that. Hizbollah will leave israeli's alone, in return with israeli's leaving them and their country alone. PS Your explanation above doesn't explain why israel took the Sabi' Qura in 1948 (the seven villages).
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 01:40 PMTo dontgetit,
to understand what is going on in the near east take these steps; Follow the history of the Koran, the Hadiths, etc, mix in the 1000 years of the Byzantine civilization (remember them?) go to the muslim brotherhood from before the Egyptian and Stanford university graduate Sayid Qutb, backtrack to Iraq in the 1930s when the arabs have sided with the Nazis and are murdering 1000s of Jewish arab citizens in Baghdad at the instigation of the sheihk al-amin al-huseini of Jerusalem and the Nazi Himmler, fast forward and research a USSR communist meeting in Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Brezhnev first made anti-semitism a part of USSR foreign propaganda, now shift to moscow's oriental university where you will see a youthful abu mazen (the so-called moderate president of FATAH) writing his then doctoral thesis called 'the other side' in which abu mazen supports Brezhnev's propaganda that the holocaust didn't happen (Abu mazen is a documented holocaust denier and his book 'the other side' was published in Jordan in arabic)now move sideways to the good old USA in 1977 and you will come upon Edward Said's orientalism,(which was nothing more than a plagiarism of the French book 'the oriental renaissance' written by a jewish cultural critic forty years before Ed Said's book came out) mix in anti vietnam war leftists, review the anti-american crowd, remember the 1967, 73 wars, don't forget ma'alot, kiryat shemona when the PLO murdered a lot of young girls, throw in southern babtist christian hippocrites like Jimmy carter, Jews who hate Jews, the angryarab (a hizbollah sleeper teaching political science at csustanislaus) and you will get the idea how people who have fear and loathing of Jews don't need any evidence to support their prejudices against them. Just trying to help, anti-semitism has a big history all its own, nothing in the world like it at all.
Posted by: james Just at January 19, 2007 01:42 PMAh so that's why the Iraqi government noted that al-Sadr was guilty of murder early on, saw his millitia grow, and did nothing at all, except maybe surrender.
If the middle east has a class of nobility, the "Sayyeds" who simply can not be touched, then there can be no rule of law, ever and the middle east is doomed to be a sewer forever.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 01:43 PMIf the middle east has a class of nobility, the "Sayyeds" who simply can not be touched, then there can be no rule of law, ever and the middle east is doomed to be a sewer forever.
That wouldn't be true if all the Sayyeds got their act together like Husseini has.
If they were all like, say, the Pope, this wouldn't be a big deal. The Pope is untouchable, but he isn't a fascist. So who cares?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 01:55 PM"angryarab (a hizbollah sleeper teaching political science..."
LOL. This guys a self proclaimed anarchist as well as an athiest after unconverting, if you like, from islam to athiesm. Hizbollah would never accept him what so ever lol.
And you should check out his blog now, see what he said in two comments yesterday (or before, something like that).
"And in other news, hizbollah invites saudi arabia to invite hizbollah to a new conference" - angryarab
hahahahah
UNcontested, do you really think the revolution in Iran was bloodless? What happened after the islamists were in power? If I were a christian Aoun supporter I would take a closer look at post-revolution Iran.
Posted by: mikek at January 19, 2007 01:59 PM"If they were all like, say, the Pope, this wouldn't be a big deal. The Pope is untouchable, but he isn't a fascist. So who cares?"
LOL, as a christian i can tell you it's known these priests and popes are some of the most corrupted people to ever roam earth. Especially this benedict guy, i never likes him. Go wikipedia and research relationships between catholic church and jews + see how past popes and priests have covered the crime of the nazis so that they are no endagered.
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 02:02 PMI think UNcontested may actually be "Hezbollah Lover." He is making the exact same arguments, and no Lebanese Christian talks like this that I've ever met, Aounist or not.
Also, Hassan is a Shia name, not a Christian name, in Lebanon. The guy's email address says his name is Hassan.
If I'm wrong, UNcontested, give me some evidence, please, and I'm sorry if this is offensive.
If I'm right, I'll figure it out for sure soon enough.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 02:04 PMYou're talking about post-revolution and different people show different facts and opinions. I personally don't care, it's iranian business and what they do about it is upto them. Im talking about in-revolution. It wasn't a very peaceful revolution, considering it wasnt a democratic country, ruled by a maniac who often ent on tv to teach the "white man" about principles and talk about his popularity (???), but it ended without bloodshed...
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 02:05 PMWhich country are you in, UNcontested?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 19, 2007 02:07 PMNo, i'm a christian lebanese, from Rweis, my names ronya and my husbands name is hassan and that above is his email, not mines, i don't like giving my own personal e-mail online. You know, just security and comfort reasons.
I dont know why i sound like "Hizbollah Lover". I did read some posts. He started off pretty well in older stories, but kind of went mad on the jewish thing....
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 02:08 PMBut what i do want is that Hizbollah be allowed to become an independent defense division within the lebanese army - something which was offered by the Hezbollah leadership in the past and has been rejected by the current government...
What do you think? Good or bad idea?
Like the United Nations, most of the countries on the planet and most of the world, I don't think Hizbollah's offer is such a great deal.
Resolution 1559 called upon Lebanon to "establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon "foreign forces" (generally interpreted as referring to Syria) to withdraw from Lebanon and to cease intervening in the internal politics of Lebanon. The resolution also called on all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias to disband and declared support for a "free and fair electoral process"."
To function, nation/states require a monopoly on the use of force.
The UN has its faults, but it is very concerned with the issue of nation/state sovereignty. They recongnize that Hizbollah's military strength is a threat to the state of Lebanon, and they also recognize that every demand that this state within a state makes is de facto extortion.
Posted by: mary at January 19, 2007 02:09 PM
Totten:
So...? Am i a "Hizbollah Lover"? Lol
Josh said:
"Ah so that's why the Iraqi government noted that al-Sadr was guilty of murder early on, saw his millitia grow, and did nothing at all, except maybe surrender."
Yes, that is pretty much the case. In addition to being a Sayyed himself, he is also the son of a very much loved and respected Grand Ayatollah and son-in-law of another. It isn't exactly "untouchable" but in practice, is nearly so. It would probably take a fatwa from someone very high up or more likely a council of very high people (to include the current Grand Ayatollah Sistani) to arrest him, let alone harm him.
Sistani is probably the only one who can put the hammer on al Sadr and probably already has to some extent by a tacit agreement not to balk at the government stopping the protection of his militia.
That guy in Lebanon is allowed to exist because he is just one person without any kind of organization or access to the media. al Sadr in Baghdad may soon end up the same way.
Of course, al Sadr could be convinced to leave the path of evil and join the path of good but the Iranians will probably convince him that he is on the right track as they have with Hezbollah.
Posted by: crosspatch at January 19, 2007 02:34 PMI don't think UC = HL, based on a look at rhetorical and grammatical style and specific spelling errors -- however if, as some here suggested, HL was not a 17-yr-old jerk but was by 'committee' -- and there were some inconsistencies in style to support that -- then all bets are off.
MJT, this essay is even finer than the preceding articles, and that's really impressive.
Having visited Israel in June (and going back soon) it became clear so quickly that most Israelis, even in IDF, would all but break themselves in two for a true, sustainable peace on all sides that safeguards a Jewish nation. How so many people simply will not even consider that the vast majority of Israelis just want peace and a place to finally be safe as Jews bewilders me.
I have no idea what Carter's problem is, but I assume Arabs can't get their heads around it because they typically ARE after territory or hegemony. Thus they can no more grasp Israel's fairly modern, Western point of departure, than we (or Israel) can fully grasp the Arab's rather tribal, outcome-only psychology.
I thought it very telling that some Egyptian officials took it upon themselves last summer during the early Shalit affair to try to 'translate' to other Arabs about 'Israel-think.' One guy made the point that if Israel doesn't get a clear, firm statement of cause-and-effect that is quickly backed up by concrete or official action, they become anxious and mistrustful! Therefore, the offical advised, do not bother with vague, wide-open discussions of multiple players and possibilities and an array of potential outcomes. All that might seem like a good opening position to an Arab, but it will just make the Israelis confused, and then they get paranoid and mad and stubborn.
I forget who the US envoy was that got praised because he could sit in Damascus sipping coffee and talking about nothing substantive for days, then land in Israel and have a fifteen minute loud discussion with the Israelis, and both were considered highly successful trips by the respective hosts.
Pam the Arabs can't get their heads around peace (with the Jews) because such a peace would be considered sinful, and the religous fanatics will always make up new (or more likely old) lies and fill the heads of another generation with those lies. In other words the problem is hate, hate, hate, hate, hate and hate.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 03:29 PMMichel,
Your dispatches from Lebanon are some of the best Mid East reporting work that I have ever read. Kicks ass over the mainstream media reporting. Keep up the great work, and keep safe.
If there was no powerful Israeli military right next door to act as a deterrent, I truly believe that Hezbollah would have no qualms trying the cleanse Lebanon of its Christian, Druze and Sunni populations. In their 'open letter' of 1985, Hezbollah makes no secret of its true goals for Lebanon (i.e. its demand of total subservience by Christians, its desire to create an Islamic fundamentalist state, etc.). I sincerely hope the majority of Shia wake up before it is too late.
Posted by: Philip Sommers at January 19, 2007 03:33 PMOops, Hezbollah is planning to harrass UNIFIL.
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/392.htm
Hizbullah forces were closely monitoring UNIFIL to learn about their scope, location, and logistical activity; the information gleaned is to be used as incitement or as preparation for activity.
The sources predicted that in the coming days, the campaign of raising doubts about UNIFIL would be stepped up, and by Hizbullah's political allies as well, in advance of striking them on the ground.
"Incitement," that sounds like Hezbollah.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 03:35 PMIn other Memri news, http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD143107
Former Hizbullah secretary-general Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufeili is attacking Hezbollah as a tool of Iran for destabilizing Lebanon. His solution? That Hezbollah focus all of its attention on liberating Jerusalem. That'll help! Though since he did say that abducting the Israeli soldiers was REALLY STUPID that leaves me wondering, if attacking Israel is stupid, how does he plan to liberate Jerusalem without attacking Israel?
These people make no sense.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 03:44 PMWhat does Lebanon possess that could possibly interest Israelis ?
99.999% of them would hardly miss a step if Lebanon were to detach itself one day, and drift towards Cyprus.
Posted by: Ron at January 19, 2007 04:12 PMWhat does Lebanon possess that could possibly interest Israelis ?
Water (claim the usual suspects who are always looking for a reason to slam Israel/excuse Hizballah).
Scroll down for:
Annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, the waters of which Israel has long coveted, could also be undertaken with no consequences, they probably think, once Hizbullah in Lebanon could no longer count on Iranian support.
Since you have an American "history" professor proclaiming that disarming Hizballah will lead to the annexation of Southern Lebanon by Israelis, it's no wonder that conspiracy-prone types in the region feel the same way.
Pretty sad.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at January 19, 2007 04:27 PMONE THING WE CAN DO IS FIND HIZBULLA WEAPONS OURSELVES: Set up a web site showing where Hiz has hidden weapons in Lebanon. Use free sat photos to locate, get witness reports from Israelis, Lebanese, tourists, anon UNIFIL soldiers, anyone, who has seen anything. Use web site maps to verify and cross check GPS locations. Ask every web site visitor to contact their elected leaders to act on this info. Ask big blogs to help.
http://www.strategypage.com
/htmw/htintel/articles/20070102.aspx
"Its demand of total subservience by Christians, its desire to create an Islamic fundamentalist state"
Im not sure about the accuracy of this statement,
1) They allied with Aoun (woohoo, go aoun lol) in order to unify the lebanese from all sects, to sidestep any criticism of it being a sectarian group as well as accusations of looking for shi'a dominance.
2) They explicitly overthrew Tufeili for the same reason...because after finding out lebanon is no way compatible with an islamic state, and the ignorance shown by tufeili because he thought otherwise, left hizbollah ditching one of their sub-creators.
Also hizbollah sent a letter to khomeini in i think 94 to ask permission for hizbollah to join mainstream lebanese politics and i think to stop all foreign manipulation of the party, i.e. i guess iran, and was accepted by the ayatollah. Therefore, their very participation in the lebanese politics, which far from guarantees any shia majority in govmnt or parliament, shows they have abandoned such ideology (the islamic state - very old fashioned excuse to be against hizbollah and very rhetoric).
No-one get me wrong please, i am not a hizbollah fanatic, maybe a aoun fanatic and franjiyeh. I have sympethy for the group, i believe they are also very honest and intent only good-will on the lebanese, though i disagree with them being a sectarian party. Then again, i don't see one party in lebanon not being sectarian, including my own party lol. Hizbollah would be perfect if they integrated into the army, that way they are legitimate, but they should be able to keep their generals and secrets, because thats the power of being hizbollah - they're hidden (BOO)
Posted by: UNcontested at January 19, 2007 04:33 PMThe "sayyid" title doesn't actually mean much, at least in Iran anyways.
Posted by: NM at January 19, 2007 04:34 PMOh no, not again
Excerpt from an A.P article:
(Nasrallah) said the resignation of Israel's military chief proved that his group had won the July-August war with Israel, and forecast that the country's prime minister and defense minister would also have to resign.
"It is natural and logical," he said, for Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz to quit. "I expect him to resign. He will be the next victim.
He predicted that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would also pay the price of Israel's failure to crush Hezbollah and secure the release of its soldiers in the 34-day war.
"In the end, (Olmert) will either resign or be overthrown," Nasrallah said.
The chief of Israeli armed forces, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, resigned Wednesday, saying he had to take responsibility. Internal inquiries by the Israeli military found widespread problems in the forces' performance during the conflict.
His resignation generated Israeli calls for Olmert and Peretz to step down as well. The three leaders were widely blamed for the war's shortcomings.
Nasrallah said that Halutz's resignation showed that Hezbollah achieved a "historic, strategic victory" in the war.
"What is happening now confirms that," Nasrallah said, adding that when he heard of the resignation, "I felt happiness."
He said the deterrent power of the Israeli armed forces had "collapsed."
"There is a crisis of confidence in the Israeli army, unprecedented since its inception," he said.
This is a perfect and sad example of a Middle Eastern leader mistaking Israel’s strength for weakness. The resignations are part of the process of taking responsibility for mistakes made during this summer’s war. It is clear from Nasrallah’s comments and Hezbollah sympathizers in the comments section here that they haven’t learned a thing.
The war began on July 12 after a Hezbollah cross-border raid in which two Israeli soldiers were captured. Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon and a massive aerial bombardment that destroyed huge chunks of Lebanon's infrastructure and hundreds of homes.
Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into northern Israel. More than 1,000 people were killed in Lebanon and about 160 Israelis.
Posted by: Zak at January 19, 2007 05:18 PMThis is a perfect and sad example of a Middle Eastern leader mistaking Israel’s strength for weakness.
Not exactly. In the middle east there is never any connection between what's said and reality (nor much connection between decision making and reality, unfortunately), so I'm sure Nazrallah never considered for a moment whether what he was saying was true or not. It sounded good, that's all that mattered.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 19, 2007 05:45 PMPerhaps, Josh, but as we've seen in the region before, bellicose rhetoric that may or may not be unconnected to reality can result in unwanted outcomes. Just look at how Nasser's bravado resulted in the defeat of the Arabs in the Six Days War.
Posted by: Zak at January 19, 2007 05:49 PMIn the end, (Olmert) will either resign or be overthrown," Nasrallah said.
..umm..no, there will be an election, and Olmert may win or he may lose. That's what happens in a democracy.
Nasrallah doesn't seem to get the whole 'democracy' concept at all.
Posted by: mary at January 19, 2007 06:13 PMUNcontested, I take issue with your characterization of Israel's supposed 'invincibility' prior to fighting HA. The HA fighter interviewed in the video you posted also made a similar claim. Obviously HA fought well and imaginatively, but history shows that on occasion so did other Arab forces. Note that HA talks a lot about Israeli invincibility, but Israelis never do.
Just to give a few examples, the Jordanian Arab Legion managed to surround and expel the Israelis from East Jerusalem in 1948, despite repeated attempts to lift the siege. In 1968 the Egyptians sank one of the most modern Israeli destroyers with a guided missile. The Egyptian crossing of the Suez in 1973 was brilliant, and subsequently, their infantrymen successfully repulsed Israeli armored attacks using ATGMs, fighting similarly to HA, and just as bravely. They inflicted more losses on one day in the Chinese Farm than HA did on the whole of the previous war.
Obviously Israel never lost strategically, or it wouldn't be around. But my point is that while HA (and to some extent, you) see Israel as an arrogant local superpower attacking its neighbors out of spite, Israelis sees themselves as vulnerable and under threat. It is important to realize that it is largely this self-perceived weakness, nor strength, that motivates their actions in Lebanon. If HA really wants peace (a big if IMO), it must develop an understanding of Israel that goes beyond one-dimensional 'doing evil for evil's sake' caricature.
Posted by: Bruno at January 19, 2007 06:22 PMHere's the Ynet article from yesterday which I found interesting, by contrast to Nasrallah's self-important ravings.
Dan Halutz's resignation caught the Arab world by surprise, particularly after the question of whether Hizbullah won the last war or not was ostensibly decided among the Arab public. The prevailing view today, six months after the war, is that Hizbullah did not win, and wasn't defeated. This view is largely prevalent among leaders, among the large Sunni institutions, and among the more educated strata of Arab society in general.
Then all of a sudden Dan Halutz's resignation came along and ostensibly reopened the discourse in wake of what appears to be Israel's ongoing quandary. This debate of course impacts the level of deterrence Israel creates and the questions pertaining to perceived power and weakness in the Middle East.
Formal responses are not expected to be made by key Arab leaders, who would have preferred this war had never taken place, because it strengthened their sworn enemies, so to speak – the Shiites and political Islam. Deep in their hearts, they had hoped that Israel would strike a heavy blow at these forces, and in so doing cut them down to size. This didn't happen, and therefore they would do well not to refer to the war in general or to Halutz's resignation specifically.
Hizbullah and the Islamic organizations were quick to announce Wednesday that Halutz's resignation presents clear evidence of their victory. However, it is this bragging that actually demonstrates the extent of their demise in local opinion polls, so much so that they were forced to take pride in such a belated resignation.
On the Arab Internet, visited by millions of surfers, Halutz's resignation set the stage for another development with Hizbullah regarding the arguments pertaining to its victory, and not for anti-Israeli celebration. There were, however, surfers who expressed their satisfaction at the resignation, but the lion's share of surfers visiting key news sites expressed surprising readiness for soul searching.
"Arab logic is commendable," wrote a surfer from a Cairo neighborhood. "The Israelis distanced Hizbullah from its borders, killed 1,200 of its combatants, destroyed its infrastructure and positioned the Israel Defense Force in the north. Is this deemed a victory?"
Another surfer wrote a long article in which he explained why it is Israel that won the war, later adding: "Ask the Lebanese people who lost this war. They know the truth all too well." A third surfer, apparently from Yemen, wrote that Hizbullah's popularity plummeted to almost zero in his country.
"Only Hizbullah claims that this was a divine victory," said another response.
However, an even greater surprise appeared on the Arab Internet: The majority of surfers didn't ridicule Halutz. On the contrary, they expressed understanding and support for his actions. Many wrote that this is a lesson that should be learned by the entire Arab world and that when mistakes are made they should be rectified. Another surfer wrote that the ability to recognize faults is a virtue, and another from Egypt noted: "If only the Arab leadership would learn from Israel."
"Well done to democracy and democratic states," wrote a surfer, "when will they realize here too that a failed leadership must go?" Another wrote: "What's the connection between Halutz's resignation and Hizbullah's claim of victory. Is anyone willing to explain that?" And another response: "It's about time we learned about responsibility from our enemies, no one is above the law and national interest is above any personal interest. If only this was the situation in the Arab world."
Another surfer wrote: "I respect democracy that is implemented during difficult times." Another views it as a true Israeli achievement. "If only our failed leaders would learn that when they make mistakes, they have to step down."
Uncontested: "...i am not a hizbollah fanatic, maybe a aoun fanatic and franjiyeh. I have sympethy for the group, i believe they are also very honest and intent only good-will on the lebanese..."
Nasrallah was responsible for the provocation which was both intentional and clear act of war. Where is the "good-will" in that?
Posted by: JAS at January 19, 2007 06:49 PMDoesn't look like Nasrallah will be stepping down any time soon. It's really difficult for me to fathom how so many people can be awed and inspired by this man and his policies, especially when you consider what his polcies wrought this summer.
Posted by: Zak at January 19, 2007 06:54 PMdontgetit. I am not sure what you are looking for but just in case it might be interesting to you here is "pro-Zionist" point of view:
PDF: http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf
HTML: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501222/posts
It probably touches each and every subject of contention between Jews and Arabs.
Oh, does anyone know anything of similar quality representing "pro-Arab" point of view? I am restricted to English only.
"This is in no way a crack in lebanese sovereignty - it's what the french did to their national resistance Le Resistance and some other resistance party (forgot the name) whom led military campaigns against the Nazi's after the liquidation of the French army."
Hmm... gotta love that analogy. France, of the great resistance myth, was the only country in Europe that wasn't de-nazified.
After all, there was no need to make a big fuss amongst themselves after the war...it was mostly Jews that were the recipients.
Come to think of it, maybe the French model is the ticket for hizbo.
Btw, I just love that comment about the Iranian revolution being bloodless. Oh, it only became full of blood afterwards. Yeah, after the holy rollers co-opted the revolution and started killing everybody. One hundred thousand murdered political prisoners since the "bloodless revolution, according to the PMOI site.
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at January 19, 2007 10:22 PMVery interesting forum MJT, your travelogue reminds me of when I traveled through Lebanon into Syria and Turkey. It was easy to do back then. Two comments: First, it is easy to find out where someone is calling from within a radius of one km but I can't say how to do it here because you know Hezbollah monitors your blog and they are the enemy. secondly, the best kind of sleeper is one who is hiding in plain sight and yes, yes, yes, the angryarab is a sleeper.
there was a suggestion that some of you could combine our computers to create a large array of hizbollah weapons monitoring and I think that is a great idea. Lets all work together and pool information to find these weapons, or nature reserves as they call them to the UN- and create a report. title it the CITIZENCIAERS. Farfetched, sophomoric, blase? You make the call MJT.
Posted by: James Just at January 19, 2007 11:51 PMGreat reporting MJT. Just keep up the good work!
Posted by: Furica at January 20, 2007 12:13 AMLets all work together and pool information to find these weapons
That is not possible.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 12:23 AMLets all work together and pool information to find these weapons
I agree with Michael. You can't spy on an organized crime operation like Hezbollah publically for two obvious reasons:
1. When Hezbollah finds out that they're being spied on, they'll respond by not only killing everyone they suspect (whether actually involved or not) but they'll also respond by trying to increase their invulerability by make examples of everyone who might possibly be seen as opposition and with incitement...
2. If such a program is actually public, then Hezbollah will know EXACTLY who to kill and which families to make examples of.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 12:46 AMThe real reason this is impossible is because only Lebanese civilians who live in South Lebanon can gather meaningful intelligence on Hezbollah. Many of them do this, but they won't pass it on to you or me.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 02:19 AMUNcontested, don't speak for Christians please, and don't pretend to be Christian please. Your religion is your right, but don't decide you're Christian just to give more weight to your poor argument.
I am a Lebanese Christian, and I won't allow you to lie.
So stop saying "As a Christian", or I'll publish on this page your full name.
Cheers.
Posted by: and more lies from hezballah at January 20, 2007 02:20 AMThe real reason this is impossible is because only Lebanese civilians who live in South Lebanon can gather meaningful intelligence on Hezbollah. Many of them do this, but they won't pass it on to you or me.
Well obviously. That they won't tell you or me is just another way of saying that they're not stupid.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 02:25 AMI also have a hard time believing UNcontested is a Christian. I've met some strange and extreme Christians in Lebanon, but none who use that kind of rhetoric. Not ever.
Still, I don't see how the person above could possibly know this person's full name unless that email address is a known one. I checked it on Google and came up with nothing.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 02:29 AMI don't care what religion uncontested professes, her ideas are nuts.
Posted by: Zak at January 20, 2007 08:07 AM"Nasrallah was responsible for the provocation which was both intentional and clear act of war. Where is the "good-will" in that?"
You need to have lived in lebanon to know what they have achieved both politically and to a certain extent militarily.
"and more lies from hizbollah" i don't really care who you are, you must be one of them blood-sucking GaeGae/Gemayel people who were made famous by the sabra and chatila as well as killing by ID. Aoun never did that in his life. His only enemies were not lebanese, they were occupiers.
As for you bruno, i certainly agree with you. At least you make sense, and yes i agree. lol. But one thing, if israel's people feel like that, how do you think the lebanese would feel about war? Just give it a thought. Alot of people would agree that lebanon was dealt bigger blows in wars than israel ever did during it's existance.
Now me, i always talk to israeli's on hotmail sometimes meet them on blogs or other chat rooms, and i can say for sure alot wish they come to lebanon, it's like a dream to many of the israeli's i chatted to them - other than the one's who started to insult every political leader in lebanon, excluding GaeGae ofcourse lol, they would tell me how they just wanted to be accepted as a nation, so they feel they posses something. I told them that lebanese feel the same way, we love our country and want it to become the paris of the middle east yet again, but the israelis are doing it wrong - very wrong.
Just like bruno said, israelis feel insecure, so do the lebanese from their grim history - especially the shia who suffered the most. You all have no idea what dahiyeh used to look like, but now when you see it you think it's been like that since creation, but believe me it used to be as beautiful as any other christian or druze or sunni (tripoli + saida) place. And since i'm a christian and entitled to what-ever opinion i may have, i also have a dream to visit jerusalem and bethlehem, both holy lands and places with the holiest shrines of christianity. Unfortunately, circumstances don't allow.
As for you Totten, i know myself very well. If you accept me for who i am on this blog is up to you, it's your blog not mines. But the christians you meet are the rich, right wing ones. If you don't accept pro-hizbollah people on a blog i really wouldn't expect you to accept any real life ones with similar p.o.v, which is why you could be dis-illussioned about us sometimes.
Michelle Aoun had 69.8% of the votes in 2005, and a recent poll showed he had 71% of the christian vote and i'll try find it too to prove it. As for what i say, it isn't rhetoric, it's common sense. Israeli's have feelings? yes. Lebanese? yes. Including the shia. If you thik i talk rhetoric and pro-hizbollah, then you should see a Aoun political leader called ibrahim (seriously forgot his second name but he's always on TV doing interviews), you should see what he says.
If he's not enough, go see what Franjiyeh says, who's parents and brothers and sisters were killed by the LF (GaeGae group) in front of his eyes, he also admitted it on live TV, on the LBC chanel as well lol. You have no idea what this franjiyeh guy says. He says what's in his mind, he doesn't care who gets offended and he's a christian and is pro-hizbollah all the way, so is Aoun for any of you who think he just wants the presidency, he could've stayed with the 14th march, or would've at least deserted/distanced himself from hizbollah in the war, but he didn't, nor did arselan, nor did franjiyeh, nor the other political parties in the opposition.
As for the email, i hardly know any of you so the most personal stuff i can tell you is that my name is ronya and i'm from Rweis, that's it.
Posted by: UNcontested at January 20, 2007 08:32 AM~~"Hizbollah Lover". I did read some posts. He started off pretty well in older stories, but kind of went mad on the jewish thing...."~~~
If I may be so impertinent and ask 'where' (so I can read it) would that be terrible? Excuse me for interrupting but I'm always so interested in the 'reasoning' behind such thoughts and I can't find it....
Tse.
Uncontested,
What you fail to recognize is that Iranian money spent on arming an independent militia, Hezbollah, is money not spent on investments within southern Lebanon that would open prospects for a brighter future for the shia. The maintenance of a welfare state and belligerence that incites a war is hardly something to crow about. The PLO and Arafat did exactly the same for all those decades.
Posted by: JAS at January 20, 2007 09:57 AMOk, UNcontested. You're just nuts. :)
And no, most of the Christians I know in Lebanon are liberal and left, not right-wing. I spend most of my time in Hamra and Gemmayze, not Bcherre and Jounieh.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 10:04 AMI haven't had time to read the article or the comments, but the pictures are heart-breaking. I've shared a few meals and conversations with some good people in Hret Hareik and Chatila and seeing this makes me want to cry (as it did over the summer when I realized that surely some of these people are now dead).
I'll reserve judgement, but I expect to be disappointed by the abject callousness of the "see, look what Hezbollah made Israel do" content of the comments.
Anyhow, thanks for the pics.
Posted by: Naha at January 20, 2007 10:29 AMHaret Hreik...pardon the dyslexia.
Posted by: Naha at January 20, 2007 10:31 AMSpeaking of banning, if I were a newspaper editor, there are certain words whoes use I would make a firing offense: "amid" (because it's always used to imply a causal connection without actually drawing one), "utilize" (in place of "use"), etc.
May I suggest that non-word "lol" be banned from this comment section (with a filter or something) because it's phony (not actually implying mirth but rather, disdain), annoying and it's overused by HL and his clones.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 11:32 AMTsedek, for HL's wit and wisdom, see here
And all I ask in return is one measly F-16...
Posted by: Bruno at January 20, 2007 12:28 PM"What you fail to recognize is that Iranian money spent on arming an independent militia"
And how many independent militia's and unlawful armies has the US and Israel armed and financed in the future? Don't be a hypocryt and focus on where one simple group called hizbollah gains it's money from.
"Hezbollah, is money not spent on investments within southern Lebanon that would open prospects for a brighter future for the shia."
Who told you they don't invest? I seriously don't imagine where the already poverished shia would be without hizbollah support. In a way they are supporting themselves, because obviously, hizbollah is shia too, made of lebanese staff, lebanese soldiers, lebanese leadership but multi-national and multi-ethnical and multi-religios support.
The more you ignore the fact hizbollah is a power, an important power at that, and the longer you ignore their popular support, the longer you focus on the people who hate hizbollah living in an abundance of people who love them, you will not get anywhere anytime soon. Michelle Aoun realised that and acted accordingly. Ibrahim Kan'an, an MP in the lebanese paeliament representing the Free Patriotic Movement (worth asking about him, totten, explained this on anb, a lebanese TV channel.
When he was asked about why they had made an allegiance with hizbollah, who actually opposed them in the elections, he clarified the fact that hizbollah was un-willing to co-operate with a man who was assumed to have little or rare support, who was also opposed by the 14-march alliance. After the elections, hizbollah was ditched by the 14th march alliance, starting with jumblat with the rest following suit. Hizbollah could not afford being seen as a sole warrior opposing every other party in lebanese main-stream politics because then it would look like a sectarian party working for shia domminance.
This also applied to the FPM. Michelle Aoun, after gaining landslide victory of the christian vote, realised the Hizbollah-Amal parties had basically gained every single seat in the south and much of the bekaa with some christian and sunni areas as well (out of 12 Hizbollah MP's for the south, one is christian and 2 are sunnis). He, also, couldn't afford to be seen as a lone party fighting off the rest and as a result isolating much of the christians against the rest of the lebanese and even creating divisions among christians themselves. This is where the alliance had to come.
He, just like Aoun, explained that this would be for the better rather than the worse of the country. He said we have our popular support, and they have their popular support and that they don't see anything wrong with trying to unite these people. Eid and Christmas was celebrated for the first time in lebanese history by christians and muslims hand-in-hand enjoying themselves and having fun. Nobody had been able to pull this off before the opposition team. Furthermore, Ibrahim is staunchly anti-government, and so is aoun. They are not anti-president. To add to this, Ibrahim Kan'an once also noted that it is actually evil to have not formed this alliance. It would be evil for his people and the people of the shia because they would have then effectively divided the country into four rather than 2. At least now its a muslim-christian vs muslim-christian thing in lebanon. Thats much better off than christian vs muslim or whatever.
"Hamra and Gemmayze"
It's very funny you don't think these two places do not hold rich people, whom all are either christian or sunni, all of whom would rather support the gov rather than opposition. If you look at the 2005 polls, you will see that all rich christians voted for Gemayel and LF, while the well-off/poor christians voted FPM and Franjiyeh (he had 80,000 christian votes, most were non-maronite). The same applied to sunnis. All middle-upper class sunnis voted Future Party, the poor knew damn well to vote other minor parties allied to hizbollah-amal party.
The government and it's ministers have been in power since 1992. This was no revolution, all this was is an international community overthrowing the corrupt syrians, but they also overthrew alot of the wrong people. This is an international coup with mustard on top. Nothing changed in the government. The new taxes they are introducing are in effect forcing the poor to stay poor and the rich to stay rich because believe it or not rich people, business men and land-lords or factory owners/enterpreneurs do not need to pay any of the taxex introduced, only the poor consumers of lebanon do.
This is nor justice nor fair on any of the impovrished people of the south. Both Nasrallah and Aoun have said it in the past, the easiest way to raise money, is to introduce taxes. And the problem with that is the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. It discourages any attempt by anybody to lift themselves from the cycle of impovrishment.
I know many of you dissagree with hizbollah on internal affairs and their policies concerning israel etc, but in lebanon and in internal affairs they have done alot of good. Enough good to cancel out their bad points etc. While hizbollah was fighting a devastating war, our government did nothing to help anyone. The FPM housed 50,000 refugees and hizbollah housed much of the rest, while seniora was crying and begging rice to stop the slaughter, and she didn't listen until the israeli's told her they can't take it any longer that they decided to reach a deal in the UNSC.
Hizbollah is unable to occupy land or regain lost arab territories and have made that very clear to everyone in lebanon and around the world. They are a deterent for the lebanese and guarantee for the shia who have been subjected to oppresion and de-classified since the creation of lebanon and who have hardly ever been the cause of any of lebanon's problems, but too many times payed the price for them. That's why i sympathise with them.
For anyone denying Hizbollah/Aoun support, then all you need to do is go ask Fisk what he thinks. He's pro-government and a new staunch anti-hizbollah (after for so long being pro-hizbollah. I think the israeli's killed his driver Abed or he missed the chance to sun bathe this summer) journalist whose writing technique is the same as yours totten. He admitted 2 million people had attendet the 10th december protest. Please do not convince me that 2mill people are 70% of the shia who make up 35% of the country. Because if you do think thats how it is, then you have a problem doing maths. Mach 14th was nothing bigger than 1million and they admit it. It's called the "one million march" and i was at both, trust me 10th of december was immaculately and spectacularly different and larger.
Cheers.
Posted by: UNcontested at January 20, 2007 03:21 PMIt's strange how much UNcontested fervently loves Hezbollah, when even Aoun admits the alliance is purely political rather than ideological. From today's New York Times:
“It’s not like I love Hezbollah,” General Aoun said in an interview. “I am not trying to defend Hezbollah as much as I am trying to find a solution with them, because a clash with them would ruin us.”
Posted by: mertel at January 20, 2007 05:18 PMUNcontested,
Save your taqiyya for Robert Fisk and Jimmy Carter. The dhimmi Christian vote counts for nothing and is totally meaningless, other than to score propaganda points. Both the Sunni Islamists and Shiia Islamists have taught the dhimmi Christians that they better sing whatever tune they want them to sing, or else. Aoun's dhimmi political maneuvers are NOT a product of free liberal politics in a democracy, but a product of fear and terror. A product of centuries long Islamic Fascism.
Here's Brigitte Gabriel, a Christian from the Levant that now lives in the States, telling it like it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY
Posted by: redaktor at January 20, 2007 05:23 PMI would also nominate "taqiyya" for a banned words list, not because the implication (that lying is surprisingly acceptable to some Muslims) is entirely wrong but because most Muslims have never heard of that particular word and so westerners use it embarrass themselves. If you want to accuse someone of lying, then support your contention and use the English language. We have LOTS of words for dishonesty.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 05:30 PM"And how many independent militia's and unlawful armies has the US and Israel armed and financed in the future?" What? This is pure HL. Totally inane!
Uncontested is a our friend HL. Who else would make a counter argument of this nature?
Taqiyya and dhimmi are both words that should be used way less often than they are. I instinctively roll my eyes when I come across them because the user is almost always being hysterical.
Christians in Lebanon are not dhimmis. Not even remotely.
The Copts in Egypt are.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 05:39 PM"how many independent militia's and unlawful armies has the US and Israel armed and financed in the future"
Must be an example of time-travel verb forms that Douglas Adams outlined in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
It would be so cool to be able to answer questions about the future that way. If only my computer could access the database that wikipedia will have in the year 2500, I could answer that question.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 05:41 PMThough HL did like the word dhimmi which may say something about what Hezbollah aims for. But whatever-his-name (the actual Hezbollah member we had commenting for a while) was much more scary since he mentioned "unpatriating" [expelling] Christians from Lebanon. I'm sure Hezbollah doesn't talk about that in public or they'd have no Christian allies. I wonder if they talk about it in private.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at January 20, 2007 05:48 PMMJT,
Why are you so afraid to use the term? I would not use the term(s) if there was no truth to it. What few Christians are left in the ME are all dhimmis. Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Palistan, it's all the same. The Christian dhimmi is not mastersof his own home, or his free destiny. The existence of the dhimmi Christian in the ME depends on the whims of the muslim overlord.
Posted by: redaktor at January 20, 2007 06:21 PMThere is no "Muslim overlord" in Lebanon. That's not how the country works at all. Not even close! There is no overlord of any kind, Muslim or not. Part of Lebanon's problem is that there is no authority, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.
It is a libertarian and even anarchic place.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at January 20, 2007 06:28 PMRight, no Muslim overlords. So why don't your dhimmi Christians sign a peace treaty with Israel? Instead, they sing Jihadi songs.
Posted by: redaktor at January 20, 2007 06:54 PMHehehe i just noticed i said future!! I'm sorry, i don't know what i was thinking. I ment in the past, obviously.
"Uncontested is a our friend HL. Who else would make a counter argument of this nature?"
Well, don't even think for one second that during the civil war that more christians died than muslims, because with people like GaeGae and Gemayel family, they would've been willing to kill another million if they had the weapons.
Furthermore, do not think for once that muslims killed more christians than the christians killed each other. My family very well knows and remembers what happened, and believe me when I oppose other christian barbarics it's not for the sake of defending Hizbollah, it's for the sake of pointing out what b.s some people here like to talk about, especially Brigitte Gabriel. I watched her video many times and have watched her talking in many other interviews.
Civil war's are always grim and ugly, and everyone who fights in a civil war, will lose. In a civil war their are no win-win or win-lose situations or outcomes. It's always a lose-lose one. The biggest losers from the post-civil war era has to be the christians because of the ammount of people they killed, biggest non-lebanese losers were palistinians also for the same reason, biggest losers from the lebanese muslim community was Amal also because of their killing machine.
Then we come to hizbollah. From my eyes, they were the only victors. They managed to lose for a bit at the very begining of creation after the clashes they had with Amal, but they actually proved to be over-all victors of the civil war for the simple fact of killing the very fewest lebanese, did not engage in sectarian war at all (Amal was shia and so were Hizb, they didn't fight the jews of lebanon, nor the christians and certainly not the sunnis).
Even now after all these provocations coming from the governmental alliance and political leaders, they have shown immense restraint in dealing with internal affairs as well as have proved themselves to be a resistance of the nation rather than the shia or the resistance of whoever supports them.
Jumblat the madman, who has switched sides more than i could keep up with, claimed a month ago that Hizbollah may be involved in the assasinations. The rest followed suit, including Hamadeh who insulted Hizbollah by saying that they were responsible for the assasination-attempt for his life in 2005/2006 because it happened in an area Hizbollah controlled and actually tried to file a law-suit.
Hizbollah then released a statement that they will file a much bigger law-suit convicting the government of co-operating with the Israelis in the past war and holding them responsible for the rest of the assasinations which actually worked on all of the targets because the rest all happened in government controlled spaces, with both state army and police presence.
Hamadeh dropped the case because he knew that if hizbollah knew he co-operated with the Israelis, they would definitely have evidence to prove it. Even then, Nasrallah still refrained from taking legal actions against the Lebanese figures and political leaders in conspiracy of trespacing and being un-patriotic, owning allegiance to an enemy state as well, having constant communication with a banned state as well as conspiracing and intent to murder (Nasrallah).
Aoun never did this in his life. He always owned his allegiance to Lebanon and all it's people. He once said that the person who used to buy his food was Christian, the one to deliver was Shi'ite and the one to serve it was Sunni.
To all of you who are starting to act kind of weird and calling me a dhimmi, I for one and i'm sure i can say this on behalf of every christian would say, I feel better living in lebanon which is half controlled by hizbollah and half controlled by the state, than living in any of the states who are allied themselves to america such as saudi arabia or any other arab state to have made a peace treaty with Israel. Hizbollah at least looks after their people, allows them to free elections and recognises the christians' right to exist as well as be partners in ruling the country.
As for the other person quoting what Aoun said. I beg of you to scroll up and read what i write. I did not praise hizbollah for whatever reason it may be. I recognise and sympathise their cause. They have adapted to lebanon for the people. I know many in Hizbollah who would like a lebanese islamic state including nasrallah.
In 1984, he was appointed to be the ba'albeck commander for that region after the creation of Hizbollah. When the leadership polled to see whether or not to have an islamic state included in their manifesto, Nasrallah voted "yes". Then again, he is the same man to drop this factor from the organisations' manifesto because of his recognition and respect for all other religions of the country. He is a wise and clever man.
I for one believe that Hizbollah causing a war with israel was wrong. Then again, morally it was right because if my brother was to be on that other side of the border in the other half of the ghajar under occupation, or kfar shouba or shebaa village or my brother was to be in those israeli jails rotting because he resisted for the sake of me and the state and then abandoned by his own nation...i would feel discusted of being lebanese.
Even looking at history and past events, Nasrallah made it very clear in every speech he gave that he has an intent to kidnap more soldiers in order to strike a deal with the israeli's for a prisoner swap. He has said it clearly and on many occassions asked the government to object if they didn't accept this. No-one from the government did accept.
Even at the failed Ghajar Operation, they did not object but rather praise the resistance for their heroic actions. During the war, 87% were with the resistance. The thing people have to learn about lebanon is that we may love you and like you for what you do, but/or hate you for what you don't do or for what you want to do in the future. In normal words, we may like your actions but hate your politics, or policies, or ideology, or principles etc. Hizbollah is honest in politics, too honest for lebanese liking. They will come to you and tell you "da, da, da, da. Full-Stop. You do not like it, tell us who you are to object it, and why should we listen to you. What have you done for the country..."
This i