Why Hezbollah ??

[kentuck]

A simple but obvious question? Hezbollah is supported primarily by Iran. Rather than attack Tehran directly, we attack their proxies elsewhere. But, make no mistake, this is an attack against Iran, via Hezbollah. Israel is doing the bidding of George W Bush, in an extension of the Iraq War.

That would better explain the Israeli response, At first, it seemed out of proportion to an alleged "kidnapping" of two Israeli soldiers. However, in the perspective of expanding Bush's war in the Middle East, it makes more sense. This is the first shot in the war against Iran.

And now we know why George Bush is hesitant to ask Israel to restrain from their attacks upon the Hezbollah. Because it was his idea to begin with...

[stray cat]

1. Hezbollah is doing Irans bidding so Iran is the initial aggressor

Its also a great distraction for Iran since no one is talking about Irans nuclear weapons program. Hezbollah terrorism has alway been a proxy for Iran.

[kentuck]

3. But does this legitimize an attack upon Iran?

By George W Bush?

[stray cat]

5. I don't think Bush wants this distracting the UN from Iran

I really think this all plays into Irans hand better than it does for Bush. I may be wrong but I think Iran wanted Hezballah to trigger an incident - even lebanese leaders don't think Hezballah would have intitated an incident without Iran's order. Iraq as a counterbalance is gone so its time for Iraq to show its the regional power house - at least by proxie.

[kentuck]

6. Two to four weeks down the road....

you may see Bush or Condi before the UN asking for actions against Iran, just like they did before the invasion of Iraq. Do not be surprised.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adriennui]

4. where do you have proof that "most people" believe bush is doing the

bidding of israel? have you conducted a poll and what was your sampling.

[Zynx]

8. Ah yes. It's all an Israeli conspiracy.

By the way, who are these "most people". I talk to average people all the time and I've never heard this.

Israel, a country with a GDP of $120 billion, is running a country that single handedly keeps Israel afloat? I don't think so.

[Zynx]

7. Hezbollah is a violent organization that has been bombarding Israel

for years before this. If there is any organization in the world that needs its ass kicked it is Hezbollah.

[pooja]

9. Come on.. we all know he's a puppet.. he isn't doing anythin

other than being a bobble head doll.

[ruggerson]

10. Israel does no one's bidding, except Israels.

It is absurd to think that they would do George Bush's bidding. He does not control them and the only time they would concur on something is when their mutual interests coincide.

In the case of Hezbollah, they do.

Welcome to the world of geopolitical conflict.

[kentuck]

11. Although...

I doubt they would attack anyone if they did not have American weapons and American support?

[The Magistrate]

12. Israel's Engagement WIth Hezbollah, Sir

Is not an attack on Iran, nor is it an element in any great plan done at the bidding of the United States. It is a local Israeli action, done under immediate imperatives constraining the Israeli government, in response to purely local provocations.

There are not really any good options for the israeli government in this situation confronting it. Destruction of an irregular force is not easily achieved, and requires first of all the capability either to completely sequester the area in which it operates, or to completely depopulate the area by deportation or massacre. The first is beyond Israeli power, and the second is out of fashion nowadays to the point of being outrageously criminal.

Probably the "best" Israel could do would be to re-establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, sufficiently deep to deny Hezbollah launching sites in ready range of its northern cities and towns. This could certainly be achieved, and maintained despite international protests, but would simply resume the war of attrition Israel found it wisest to abandon a few years ago.

The leaders of Israel doubtless hope, or imagine, that their actions may convince the leaders of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran to take steps to rein in Hezbollah, but that strikes me as an unlikely outcome, and hence an unusually forlorn hope. It would certainly be the right course for those governments to take, but the latter two particularly doubtless imagine they will draw more political benefit and prestige by standing vocally alongside Hezbollah than by curbing it.

Nonetheless, the Israeli government must do something about rocket attacks and military raids across its northern border: its own internal political imperatives demand some action, loud and violent enough to give its citizens heart that something is being done to protect them. So far, despite hyperbole routinely employed in description, the response has been a good deal more noise than mayhem.

There have been two developments reported today that show some promise.

The first is the contentious meeting of the Arab League, which did not even manage a majority expression of support for Hezbollah, as Nasrallah probably expected it would do, but rather issued in a thumping majority rejecting his and his organization's actions. Syria was left quite isolated, and this bodes well for diplomatic pressure on it to do what it can to resolve, rather than exacerbate, the situation. It seems pretty clear that the major countries of the Arab world do not want a regional explosion, and are not going to jump on the projected band-wagon Nasrallah hoped to create behind his view of himself as the vanguard of Arab resistance.

The second is the report of some statements by the Lebanese leadership that it may indeed dispatch its national armed forces into Hezbollah's area in the south of the country. Obviously this would be the ideal solution, certainly from Israel's point of view, and probably in the eyes of much of the world as well. The reluctance of the Lebanese government to do this previously is perfectly ubnderstandable, and certainly at bottom one point of the Israeli operation has been to make not doing it even more uncomfortable than doing it might be. This is not an elevated exercise, obviously, but sometimes there really are only crude and cruel tools available. If the Lebanese government had real, if quiet, backing from major Arab governments, in such an effort to extend its authority through the whole of its country, it would have some prospect of success, anyway. Or at least enough of an appearance of success for a while that Israel would be able to consider its face had been saved, too, and stand down in response.

[kentuck]

13. I disagree, Sir....

Until these latest hostilities, I do not recall any major events happening that would necessitate a war. No doubt, there were continuing terrorists acts on both sides - kidnapping government representatives, imprisoning citizens of each country, and the usual bad-mouthing of each other with threats and paranoia.

However, to think that violence will not beget more violence, that it will somehow come to a reasonable compromise, is lookin thru rose-colored glasses, in my opinion.

Hezbollah has been supported and armed by Iran for at least a couple of decades. They filled a vacuum in Lebanon with their food and moral support for the people of Lebanon. It is sad in the sense that Beirut is (was) one of the most beautiful cities in the world and now it is to be bombed back to where it was in 1982, during their civil war.

A "buffer zone" will only create missile that go farther. To think any Israeli actions are not tied to the security concerns of the US is, in my opinion, naive. This is only the first step in establishing the criteria in attacking Iran, just like they did with Iraq. My first question is: Who will they send to the UN this time to make the case for war?

[The Magistrate]

14. You May Not Recall Any Major Incidents, My Friend

But that does mean, owing to the level of reporting and general concern about world events in our country's news organs, that their have not been many incidents over the last several years on the northern border of Israel of great concern to its people and government. There certainly have been many border clashes and similar matters, the cumulative effect of which has been quite serious from the Israeli point of view. The parable of the straw that broke the camel's back is the instructive one here.

Beyond this, Hezbollah represents a long-standing problem to the Israeli government by its very existence. Owing to the withdrawl of Israel from a strip of southern Lebanon some years back, it is the only one of the various Arab militant bodies that can claim on reasonable grounds to have had any major, measureable success against Israel, which gives it a good deal of political heft in both the rejectionist and jihadist milieus, and makes it a reasonable object of Israeli long term policy that occassion be found to take it down a peg or two.

All of this would be operating on the Israeli government whether the U.S. was contemplating war, or renewial of diplomatic relations, or any other thing, with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The idea that all the strings in the world are pulled from a central location is a very poor means of understanding events. The fact is that there are a great many independent actors in the world, each acting out of its own view of its necessities and interests with very little regard for any of the rest.

[kentuck]

18. When you burn your finger, it hurts you more than I...

I would agree. And maybe you are correct in that this was the last straw? And Hezbollah does represent a long-standing problem to the Israeli government. And maybe they want to take it down a "peg or two". Those with the biggest guns do tend to speak the loudest.

However, we have a tinderbox in that part of the world at this time and anyone that strikes a match is lighting a fire that may not be so easily controlled. But the US is pulling the strings in that part of the world, to a large degree. America will be an actor in almos every action that happens there. I think we need to understand that to understand the events that are happening right now between Israel and the Hezbollah.

[The Magistrate]

22. We Are Certainly In Agreement, Sir, That The Situation Is Dangerous

Violence, once begun, has its own dynamic, and like fire, has potential to escape the control of those seeking to employ it to some end, and in ways that can destroy what they had hoped to achieve by its use, and then some, even including they themselves.

It is also true that, the U.S. being a very large actor, it constitutes a sort of audience many smaller actors play their hanmds with an towards, and with some calculation of how it will regard what they do. But that is very far from suggesting that they move under U.S. control, and that the U.S. directs or even directly influences what they do. Certainly the U.S. has no strings by which to pull Hezbollah, though it is possible U.S. attitudes towards and pressures on Iran have moved that regime to pull its strings on Hezbollah as a sort of warning shot against the U.S., in demonstartion of the sort of trouble it could find by acting against Iran. But it is just as likely Hezbollah acted from its own motives, seeking to augment its stature as a champion of Arab resistance by moving to strike Israel as it renews hostilities in Gaza against the Arab Palestinians, and has dragged its own greater patrons by this into a circumstance they had themselves no intention of being in. No real evidence being available to demontrate either of these views, any comment on it must remain speculation, whether informed or otherwise.

[kentuck]

23. One thing to always remember....

Truth is the first casualty of war. Did Hezbollah capture (kidnap) the two Israeli soldiers? Some say yes and some say no. There are more things that we do not know than that we know.

[The Magistrate]

24. That Is Pushing It Much Too Far, Sir

Anyone who says no to that may be dismissed out of hand as a liar or a fool or most likely both.

"In opening the mind, as in opening the mouth, the object is to shut it again on something solid."

[kentuck]

25. So, who should we believe? Our side or the other side?

We do have a bias to our side of the story, don't you agree? :)

[The Magistrate]

26. Are You Seriously Maintaining, Sir

That no soldiers were captured, or Israel captured them?

What one does, Sir, is process what is said through one's own knowledge of events and the world, and it is a person's responsibility to have an adequate store of that....

[kentuck]

28. What I am saying is...

we should be careful at accepting anything as fact that comes from our government or the Israeli government. It is very possible that elements of the Hezbollah captured the soldiers. Perhaps they were not part of the political wing of the Party? Perhaps there were Hezbollah leaders that disgreed with them? We do not know.

There is a tendency and perhaps, a desire, to believe everything that our government tells us is true. Unfortunately, it is not. If the last five years have proven anything, it is that the present leadership will lie about everything - even when there is no need.

And, what happened to the Hamas leadership that was kidnapped (captured) by the Israeli forces just the other day? Did they release them? Have you heard an update on that story. These were leaders of the Hamas government. Leaders of another government kidnapped? What happened there?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

31. so nice...had to say it twice.

:)

[The Magistrate]

34. None Of That Matters, Sir

It does not make a bit of difference if this was one faction of Hezbollah or not, or if some in its councils expressed disagreement with the plan, or any of that. The thing is a corporate entity and all elements are responsible: this is war, Sir, not a criminal case. The rules are very different.

Nor are people faced with the necessity of believing one side or the other; it is likely both sides are telling lies seasoned with bits of truth, as competent liars always will, and it is up to the listener to be informed enough to make reasonable judgements about the contents. When persons knowing little about Israel v. Palestine ask how to become informed about it, my advice is often to read the propagandas of both sides as the truth taken together, for while not quite accurate, of course, that will be a nearer approximation of the real state of affairs than either one being taken alone could ever be.

At the risk of diverging onto a tangent, the reason for the high dudgeon over the capture of any leader within the Hamas organization escapes me, whatever his position in life may be. The organization is quite frank about existing in a state of war against Israel, and to exist in a state of war entails certain consequences, among which are actions taken against you by your declared foe as your foe sees fit and is able to do. None of my view on this has anything to do with whether a thing is right or wrong in any abstract sense. Hamas and Hezbollah have a perfect right to fight Israel, within the rules of war, and Israel has a perfect right to fight them, within the rules of war. They do nothing inherently wrong in killing or capturing an Israeli soldier, just as Israel does nothing inherently wrong in killing or capturing a member of Hamas or Hezbollah. Whether an act by either side is the right thing to do in the circumstance is quite seperate from whether they have the right to do it. A great deal done by both sides in this matter strikes me as extremely unwise, and in that practical sense, without any element of morality, wrong....

[kentuck]

36. i do agree that both sides have acted...

"extremely unwise".

[Monk06]

41. What's with the 'Sir' and why is a moderator steering this thread?

[kentuck]

43. The Magistrate is the Magistrate and that is the way he is...

He is polite and respectful to all. He is a moderator but that does not mean he cannot express his opinion on certain matters. He is one of the most respected members on DU. A hint: Get on his good side. :)

[Monk06]

46. "A hint: Get on his good side." Thanks for the hint but I think I'll pass.

[ruggerson]

33. Do you exist?

Or are you just something we are all imagining on a computer screen?

[alvarezadams]

15. Tough - and perhaps wrong - question

Hezbollah is recognized as a terrorist group by the US and Israel. The EU has been slow to respond to US pressure in making it part of its terrorist list, or to take any action on the subject.

One of the reasons why the EU is so reticent is that Hezbollah has become part of a political process in Lebanon, taking part in the electoral process. Another is the very basis of the group - originally founded to combat the invasion/occupation of Lebanon by Israel - which makes it (in the eyes of some) originally a bona-fide resistence group.

In reality it is a group built up out of disparate parts. Its "military wing" is far from being its most important - a Western parallel might be Herri Batasuna vis a vis ETA in Spain.

FWIW, Hezbollah has cited continued Israeli actions in Lebanon to justify its continued attacks. In 2000 Hezbollah kidnapped THREE IDF members... and in 2004 (through German mediation) Israel exchanged 14 Lebanese prisoners. Why such disproportionate attacks should take place NOW seems a little strange in light of the quite recent past. Thus the OP might have a point about Israel acting as a proxy, but I find it doubtful.

If IRAN is the target, alienating Shiites isn't going to be such a good idea. We have troops in Iraq that are purportedly trying to create a peaceful coalition - something that would be absolutely impossible if we were to directly or indirectly intervene against Iran.

Yet... yet.... given the oblivious incompetence of the current misadmin and the ideologically-driven groupthink mentality of those who should know better, who knows?

[kentuck]

16. I know many will disagree with this but...

I think Israel does few major military moves without consultation with their "ally", the United States.
I think this may be part of George W Bush's "plan" to further "democratize" the Middle East. At first, I thought it was Hamas that Israel was attacking? Now, it is Hezbollah? The disproportionate reaction leads me to believe that Israel is acting a part in a larger strategy.

[alvarezadams]

17. I disagree

I don't think that Israel is being the tool of the US in this one. In fact I think that the disproportionate response probably has more to do with internal Israeli politics (new government, new PM) and, perhaps, to keep attention away from other Israeli excesses in Gaza and the West Bank.

What I find sickening is the reaction by US politicians on either "side" of the aisle.

[kentuck]

19. Well, we do agree about the politicians on both "sides" of the aisle...

:)

[alvarezadams]

20. I wish...

... that we could agree on the basis of :toast: instead of :puke: .

A pretty sad state of affairs in our body politic, eh?

[kentuck]

21. That is a problem...

It's good we have a uniter instead of a divider, right?

[cali]

32. You were

told by the Magistrate the history (briefly) of H'zbollah attacks on Israel. If you don't believe him, do a little online research.
And it's absurd to believe that this is some US/Israel conspiracy. The admin is culpable for its veto, for refusing to ask Israel to cease its bombing in Lebanon and for having abandoned its role in the peace process, but it is not working with Israel on some scheme and consulting with them militarily.

[kentuck]

35. if you say so.

I never said there were no attacks on Israel? Of course, they would nver consult with Israel about military matters. What was I thinking??

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Exactly. People with their eyes open have seen this coming for months.

Israel and the NeoCons have very similar goals for the mideast.

[Heewack]

37. I see it differently.

This it as Iran driven because it is the perfect time as they see it. They are showing that they can make things very difficult for the world community by stirring things up in the ME beyond their will to control. The U.S. is weaker in perception internationally and thus less likely to be able to build a consensus amongst the Security Council for any action. Iran has been boldly defiant over the past year and a half. They are showing their muscle.

[Imagevision]

38. Because their there and they're convenient, Bush's Iraq Civil war needs

a diversion, more were killed in Iraq in the past 3 days then has since Israel started putting on a show.-- their bitchin about 2 captured soldiers, and they've got the balls to shoot bombs at people spending a day at the bach in Palestine?? give me a frggin break~!!!!

[SeaNap05]

39. HOW do you know it was Bush's idea-source that for me.

I'd like to see a source on that idea if not it is most likely made up.

[Imagevision]

40. Colin Powell two days ago stated Iraq is in a civil war...

[SeaNap05]

42. ???????

[kentuck]

44. With Bush, everybody is only giving an opinion. Nobody knows...

for sure. Nobody knows if he was or wasn't involved in the decision. He has been known to lie. Everybody seems to be trying to figure out what is happening. Or else you can believe what you hear on the M$M? If the idea has no merit, it will not survive the light of day.

If you think there is nothing there because, for whatever reason, you can believe that also. There are conspiracy theories here from time to time and many people deceive themselves into believing they only operate on the facts. Whatever pulls your chain...

[mmonk]

45. I don't have a problem if Israel

wants to do Hezbollah harm like eliminate them. They serve humanity in no way. However, reducing Lebanon to rubble won't help in the long run. Tough situation.

[rucky]

47. Goading Iran and Syria into military intervention...

hence the challenge to Syria to rein-in Hezbollah - even after we told Syria to stay out of Lebanon just a few months ago!

always a double-bind before we attack:

Taliban: bring us bin-laden or we attack. Taliban offers up bin-laden (with a few caveats). We attack sans negotiations.

Saddam: show us your weapons plans or we attack. Saddam hands over 1000 pages of materials. We attack within 48 hours.

Syria: call off Hezbollah or we attack. Of course, we say this after Israel has already attacked. It'll be soooo much easier for the US to jump into this one.