Anent Israel, Lebanen, et.al.

The news is rife with information and testimony to the effect this conflict, while being fought largely on Lebanese soil, and having a catastrophic effect on the Lebanese people and Lebanese infrastructure, has nothing at all, really, to do with the Lebanese, but rather Hezbollah proper, as supported overtly by Iran and Syria (where no rockets have fallen, and no casualties are expected soon).

Does this impress anyone as slightly skewed?

Funny, too-

Noise from the U.N., and international commentary in general, evinces a somewhat "qualified" caution regarding Israel's conduct, sympathy (of course, and rightfully) for Lebanen, and about Hezbollah...what?

Anything at all?

Or Syria, and Iran, vis a vis their involvement?

Obviously, no one else has the slightest idea what I'm talking about.

Tin ears, and all that...

I think I covered some of these points in the other thread before it got a trifle bogged down.

Lebanon is a country of mixed faiths. One of the largest groups as I recall being the Maronite Christians (about 25%). There are also the Druze, Sunnis and the Shia in the South. Hezbollah represent the Shia and are in effect a country within a country. They only really formed as a response to the 18 years of occupation of Southern Lebanon by Israel. Israel did not go into Lebanon because of Hezbollah but rather because of the Palestinian refugee camps fermenting trouble for Israel during Lebanon's protracted civil war.

It was hoped that the new moderate Lebanese Government might slowly reform a common purpose for all of Lebanon and having a couple of Hezbollah ministers in the Government was part of that healing process as the Shias voted overwhelmingly for Hezbollah. I believe there were negotiations to bring the Hezbollah fighters into the Lebanese army although this is still at the discussion stage. There is also the ongoing issue of Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli jails. Throw into this mix that the Syrians and Iranians provide support for Hezbollah and there is quite a potent cocktail for trouble.

As I said, in the other thread, I really question the wisdom of destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. It is almost as if Israel wants the Lebanese Government to fail - something that very clearly is troubling GW, who requires Lebanon to succeed.

In the aftermath of all this destruction, if the Lebanese Government is to survive I foresee the US and EU taxpayer picking up the rebuilding tab for all this - something GW is getting quite used to.

Once the fighting has stopped there will have to be talks - the question really is how many bombs will it take to save face on both sides and can they avoid going beyond a point where talk will be too painful to be immediately contemplated. One has to bear in mind that the Israeli Government is also relatively new to all this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The news is rife with information and testimony to the effect this conflict, while being fought largely on Lebanese soil, and having a catastrophic effect on the Lebanese people and Lebanese infrastructure, has nothing at all, really, to do with the Lebanese, but rather Hezbollah proper, as supported overtly by Iran and Syria (where no rockets have fallen, and no casualties are expected soon).

Does this impress anyone as slightly skewed?

Funny, too-

Noise from the U.N., and international commentary in general, evinces a somewhat "qualified" caution regarding Israel's conduct, sympathy (of course, and rightfully) for Lebanen, and about Hezbollah...what?

Anything at all?

Or Syria, and Iran, vis a vis their involvement?

---

I'm with you for the most part, but a bit of your post did go over my head... :lookaroun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I think I covered some of these points in the other thread before it got a trifle bogged down.

Lebanon is a country of mixed faiths. One of the largest groups as I recall being the Maronite Christians (about 25%). There are also the Druze, Sunnis and the Shia in the South. Hezbollah represent the Shia and are in effect a country within a country. They only really formed as a response to the 18 years of occupation of Southern Lebanon by Israel. Israel did not go into Lebanon because of Hezbollah but rather because of the Palestinian refugee camps fermenting trouble for Israel during Lebanon's protracted civil war.

It was hoped that the new moderate Lebanese Government might slowly reform a common purpose for all of Lebanon and having a couple of Hezbollah ministers in the Government was part of that healing process as the Shias voted overwhelmingly for Hezbollah. I believe there were negotiations to bring the Hezbollah fighters into the Lebanese army although this is still at the discussion stage. There is also the ongoing issue of Hezbollah prisoners in Israeli jails. Throw into this mix that the Syrians and Iranians provide support for Hezbollah and there is quite a potent cocktail for trouble.

As I said, in the other thread, I really question the wisdom of destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. It is almost as if Israel wants the Lebanese Government to fail - something that very clearly is troubling GW, who requires Lebanon to succeed.

In the aftermath of all this destruction, if the Lebanese Government is to survive I foresee the US and EU taxpayer picking up the rebuilding tab for all this - something GW is getting quite used to.

Once the fighting has stopped there will have to be talks - the question really is how many bombs will it take to save face on both sides and can they avoid going beyond a point where talk will be too painful to be immediately contemplated. One has to bear in mind that the Israeli Government is also relatively new to all this

---

All this is true, Les, and well-noted.

I guess my point is that, as has also been noted, while Lebanen must suffer a degree of "official" Hezbollah participation, it is helpless to blunt Hezbollah's aggressive lead in this case.

Now, how/what are we to think of that?

As you say, a country within a country...

Where, then, in Lebanen do we find this country so as to combat it?

If the Shia faction encompasses Hezbollah, one might conclude there is a way to isolate them, but for religious and various cultural reasons this tactic has no favor, as we see again and again throughout the Muslim-dominated Mideast.

I see Iran has absolutely denied supporting Hezbollah in it's efforts; I wonder why they found it necessary to do this, as it doesn't seem the U.N. has noticed the provenance of Hezbollah's rocketry?

And all of this accompanied by these strangely muted denounciations of Israel flying about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

I'm with you for the most part, but a bit of your post did go over my head... :lookaroun

---

Surely not?

Read it again...:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I see Iran has absolutely denied supporting Hezbollah in it's efforts; I wonder why they found it necessary to do this, as it doesn't seem the U.N. has noticed the provenance of Hezbollah's rocketry?

And all of this accompanied by these strangely muted denounciations of Israel flying about...

---

Just because they have weapons that we're supllied from Iran, isn't proof that the Iranian Government supports Hezbollah's efforts in this particular attack. (I'm pretty sure they do, but thinking is not the same as proving.)

As an example, may i point out that during the last 40 years or so, PIRA were using primarily American Weapons... So was just about every other "militia" involved, on both sides.

Or are you saying the American Government supported PIRA and their opponents in their policy of blowing the fuck out of Ulster and the UK?

How about Spain? I believe the Basques use primarily American Weaponry (when it isnt home made)...

People sell weapons for profit, and dont care what they will be used for.

Surely you, with your Capitalist principles, would agree that Iran should follow "The Market" in this way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As an example, may i point out that during the last 40 years or so, PIRA were using primarily American Weapons... So was just about every other "militia" involved, on both sides.

Or are you saying the American Government supported PIRA and their opponents in their policy of blowing the fuck out of Ulster and the UK?

How about Spain? I believe the Basques use primarily American Weaponry (when it isnt home made)...

---

While I must say I wish American arms were not so easily available, I am not aware of any government policy of support for PIRA or other militia, Rat.

You might be confusing the Kennedy clan with our government proper.

In any case, your attempt to deflect/marginalize my point reminds me of those occasions when I've been accused of utilizing similar reasonings to avoid getting to what might be defined as "the nub of the matter".

Not at all.

I also stated that i believe that Iran could well be supporting Hezbollah in the specifics of this attack. However i have no evidence except a belief.

Belief, however, is not proof...and as I demonstrated with an argument we know wasn't true in the circumstances vis a vis Ulster.

The point I was trying to make is "American Weapons does not equate to American agreement with an attack". Likewise, Iranian Weapons does not equate to Iranian agreement to an attack.

We know that Iran supports Hizbollah in general and supplies weapons on a general basis... that does not mean they know or agree with the specifics of any certain attack.

The argument would certainly be made that they were supplied for "Defensive" purposes. Something, given Israels tendancy to mount a full scale Battle to get at a single person and total disregard for any other nations Soveregnity, is hard to refute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Not at all.

I also stated that i believe that Iran could well be supporting Hezbollah in the specifics of this attack. However i have no evidence except a belief.

Belief, however, is not proof...and as I demonstrated with an argument we know wasn't true in the circumstances vis a vis Ulster.

The point I was trying to make is "American Weapons does not equate to American agreement with an attack". Likewise, Iranian Weapons does not equate to Iranian agreement to an attack.

We know that Iran supports Hizbollah in general and supplies weapons on a general basis... that does not mean they know or agree with the specifics of any certain attack.

The argument would certainly be made that they were supplied for "Defensive" purposes. Something, given Israels tendancy to mount a full scale Battle to get at a single person and total disregard for any other nations Soveregnity, is hard to refute.

---

Well, I have heard reportage hinting that there are Iranian regulars in-country, tending to the missile launches in some vital capacity.

While these reports must necessarily be regarded as anecdotal until they are fleshed-out (or not), as you say-we have our suspicians, as well (now) as a denial by the Iranians.

We shall see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

While I must say I wish American arms were not so easily available, I am not aware of any government policy of support for PIRA or other militia, Rat.

You might be confusing the Kennedy clan with our government proper.

---

Iran-Contra affair not spring to mind?

I was not aware that Iran had denied support for Hezbollah. I thought one of the main points of contention is the fact the Iranians have expressed great approval of all this. It is the Syrians that appear to be slighlty caught cold by events and have denied involvement in this particular attack (which may be true). It is, however,slightly ironic that most of GWs policy thrust last year was to get the Syrians out and now he would like them to exert control. A pundit said on TV the other day that the only person that could actually tell them to stop shooting is the Iranian Ayatollah - the Syrians have limited influence.

Given that events suggest that Hezbollah have longer range Iranian missiles and according to an Israeli spokesman today the Israeli frigate was hit by a sophisticated shore to ship missile (Chinese presumably through Iranian sources) I don't think Iran could deny both involvement and training in the use of such weapons. Increasingly it would seem they do not want to deny such claims either.

These are undoubtedly troubling times and at the moment I really question the wisdom of Israel's over the top response. Hezbollah sat and watched Israel go in heavy on Hammas for two weeks on the one soldier kidnapped. I think they were trying to provoke what has unfolded. It is not always wise to chase the enemy when they are saying "chase me, chase me". But hey, what do I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

While I must say I wish American arms were not so easily available, I am not aware of any government policy of support for PIRA or other militia, Rat.

You might be confusing the Kennedy clan with our government proper.

---

Iran-Contra affair not spring to mind?

---

No it does not, especially as it was not officially sanctioned, and was dealt with as the one-off activity it was when found out.

We also have as an arguable example Afghanistan and Bin Laden, which was in no way covert.

Again, to dwell on historical faux pas doesn't serve any purpose here; if you demand the point, I'll concede it-what then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

No it does not, especially as it was not officially sanctioned, and was dealt with as the one-off activity it was when found out.

We also have as an arguable example Afghanistan and Bin Laden, which was in no way covert.

Again, to dwell on historical faux pas doesn't serve any purpose here; if you demand the point, I'll concede it-what then?

---

It was an example we know about. And to suggest it was not officially sanctioned is getting into the realms of "depends what the definition of is is"

I think it slightly Naive to think we are not supporting any groups covertly...in fact I would be suprised if we were not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

No it does not, especially as it was not officially sanctioned, and was dealt with as the one-off activity it was when found out.

We also have as an arguable example Afghanistan and Bin Laden, which was in no way covert.

Again, to dwell on historical faux pas doesn't serve any purpose here; if you demand the point, I'll concede it-what then?

---

It was an example we know about. And to suggest it was not officially sanctioned is getting into the realms of "depends what the definition of is is"

I think it slightly Naive to think we are not supporting any groups covertly...in fact I would be suprised if we were not.

---

I thought your point (and Rat's, as well) was overt vs. covert.

Anyhoo, I'm wondering about this current situation, unless you feel we are disqualified from speaking of it without the requisite self-flagellation?

The CIA kidnapped the Israeli soldiers so that Israel would over-react, thereby prompting Hezbollah to get involved which would in turn cause Israel to over-react even more which would cause Iran to talk about pushing Israel into the sea which would give GW another reason to invade Iran.

Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

The CIA kidnapped the Israeli soldiers so that Israel would over-react, thereby prompting Hezbollah to get involved which would in turn cause Israel to over-react even more which would cause Iran to talk about pushing Israel into the sea which would give GW another reason to invade Iran.

Fact.

---

Oh.

Well, then.