The Arab governments, and the G8, are turning their back, on Lebanon, giving Israel, a green light to continue its policy of collective punishment, toward Lebanon. The infrastructure is being decimated. Every important port, highway and airport was destroyed. Much of the infrastructure was built ironically by the Saudis. The Lebanese government is doing a great job evacuating Europeans and Americans, while Lebanese are living in shelters for safety.
What makes it different, than before; is that Hizbollah does what it says it will do. Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah warned he would show what he can do, and an Israeli ship was hit. It was at first denied by Israel's media. It was later unable to be hidden, because four sailors died, and the ship was towed in. His next threat is to bomb, the industrial sector of Haifa, where chemicals are stored. Hizbollah claims it has rockets, that can hit Tel Aviv. The Israeli army confirmed that.
Hizbollah is supported in Southern Lebanon. It has clearly a reactionary perspective, of gaining reforms from Israel, by hurting its population. Unfortunately it doesn't understand,any concept of class struggle, and appeal to Israeli opinion. Zionism is much the same, with bigger weapons.
Will Syria and Iran intervene? Syria was weakened after it left Lebanon. It doesn't want an influx of refugees, particularly from a country it disrespects. Hizbollah's weapons are made in Iran, Israel's are made in Seattle and Duluth.
Nobody knows how long, the siege will continue. Israel may be able to drive Hizbollah, a few kilometers inland, and claim victory. The actual solution lies with Palestinians, given land and rights, in a socialist secular Israel, surrounded by a federation of socialist states. As for peace, neither the Zionist or Hizbollah leadership want it. In the USA, the Evangelical Zionists are not going to stop the rapture. This is a wet dream to them. Bill Clinton called for support to Israel.
Not all Israelis support the government's policy. The latest adventure, caused a split in Ashkenazi Jewry. A leadership like Hizbollah's has no understanding of taking advantage of it.
This is a good blog covering Lebanon minute by minute: Updates on the aggression against lebanon .RENEGADE EYE
32 comments:
It is quite clear Israel is thinking about more than just eliminating Hezbollah. This is a terrorist act. they are targeting civilian infrastructure. Democracy now and link tv on satellite are the only decent coverage of the war I can find. Sad
All this is true, but irrelevant. This conflict won't end until one side wins, but so far neither side seems capable of achieving total victory. Israel obviously can't defeat the entire Muslim world, and Israel's enemies haven't been able to win even a single battle, much less a whole war.
There is only one way to achieve lasting peace: help the stronger side to completely defeat the weaker one. But which is the weaker side in this conflict ? Not clear at all....
Maybe I haven't read enough but I had the impression that Hezbollah had been relatively quiet since they removed the Israelis a few years ago from Lebanaon's southern border.
Maybe they do fire rockets across but surely not as much as those coming from Gaza?? If I was the Israeli government it would be Hamas and Fatah and anyone else in Gaza and the West Bank who would be my main comcern. So why go North, I don't know.
But I am not necessarily pessismistic about the outcome. RE is right when he says reactionary groups like Hezbollah have no idea about how to engender suport amongst Israeli workers.
But a large movement amongst Israeli workers against the war could be engendered by any ground invasion of Lebanon and the consequent casualties - I get the impression that Hezbollah may put up a reasonable fight
Or darkness may descend with Lebanon conquered and ethnic tensions re-ignited and a Israeli border zone re-established. It's good for any workers ot have a plan but I'm out of ideas (and a lot of hope) here.
Fontaine - I think it's too simplistic to say that Hizbollah "started it" - H captured the two IDF soldiers when they were well into military operations against Gaza (who they wish to defend) and troops were massing on Lebanon's borders (which is where the two soldiers were captured).
I think it's instructive to remember that the historical roots of H are that it was formed in 1982 specifically to fight the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. The greatest surges of support H gets are when Israel engages in operations like the current one. However justified Israel feels in these actions they will not wipe out H because every missile recruits more members than it could possibly kill.
At the end of the day when Israel bombs trucks of refugees or bridges, or power stations they are murdering people who have nothing to do with any of this.
They do not value human life if it has a different colour skin or different religion - these attacks have to end.
Theyb are targeting ports and airfields to prevent Iran from using them to come to Syria's aid when israel attacks them. This is all part of "A Clean Break", to reshape the region with puppet governments under the thumb of Tel Aviv. So much for democracy!
Ren,
I hate to nit-pick but your statement: "Every important port, highway and airport was destroyed"
Correct me if I'm wrong but are'nt there large cruise ships docking and loading foreign passengers in Beirut even as we debate? How destroyed could those ports be?
Another small matter that all secular progressive socialists should keep in mind is that if Hezbollah had the opportunity and means, most commenters to this post would be lined up and shot.
A reminder just in case that some may have have missed the religiously fundamentalist and regressive goals of Al Qaeda, oops sorry, I meant Hezbollah.
Roman: I agreed with your pedantry but then you went and spoiled it all by saying Al Quaida and Hizbollah were the same thing. This is what's called an 'amalgam' where you say that two things are the same because they share characteristics. Al Q and H both use violence, call themselves muslims and hate Israel therefore they are the same thing.
For instance - the antiwar movement and Saddam hussein both opposed the iraq invasion - therefore they must be 'in league' with each other
Al Q and H were set up at around the same time and were in quite different places in the cold war spheres of influence. Whilst the US helped set up Al Q to fight the USSR occupation of Afghanistan H was set up to oppose Israel and was backed by the US's enemies. They are different organisations - it might be easier for you to lump the politics of all these funny foreigners into one group but it doesn't make it true.
All this stuff about them having us lined up and shot is actually pretty fanciful and relies on having a CNN understanding of islamic organisations.
They are for peaceful democratic change in lebanon and as far as I'm aware have only used armed force against Israel I'm not saying they are groovy people, only that histrionics about what groups like H believe limit our understanding of them rather than deepen it.
Fontaine: thanks for the considered response.
I'm not pursuaded yet though. I think the idea of Hizbollah committing "an act of aggression" in the context of the bombardment of Gaza and the use of the first kidapping to settle old scores by the IDF doesn't make sense.
You say that "Hezbollah is not an official entity of the government" so doesn't have the right to intervene, but that relies on a particular view of the world that doesn't fit with the region.
H is stronger militarily than the Lebanese government, exists primarily to defend Muslims against Israel and does not recognise the lines drawn on the map by the great powers - which is an understandable position in my view.
For the people in the region international law is something that has no meaning. Israel consistently flouts it and has been condemned by the UN on numerous occasions but nothing happens - Israel is in a very weak position to complain that others disrespect borders and ignor international law.
For H their people were being killed and the IDF were preparing to attack their positions (and had begun shelling) - you could argue that tactically they made a mistake but the idea that Israel was minding its own business when the big bad H came and started it all... no - you don't get to kill children in Gaza and then describe others as aggressors and murderers.
H is "basically a more rabidly racist and more heavily armed version of the Minutemen that patrol the U.S.-Mexico border" I think a political description of H would be much more useful than emotive and inaccurate posturing.
Do the minutemen have senators? Do they promote social welfare programs? Are they a mass organisation? Have they ever defended their country against invasion by a foreign power? No.
I guess we wont agree on this - so I'll ask a question where perhaps we might find common ground - do you think the Israel's response has been proportionate - and do you think the kinds of actions it is taking at the moment can achieve it's stated aims.
jim jay,
You said of Hezbollah: "They are for peaceful democratic change in lebanon"
I disagree completely with this assessment and find it laughable. Democracy is the last thing this group wants. Their ultimate goal is an Iranian style theocracy as envisioned by Ayatollah R.Khomeini.
They have been preparing the border frontier for just this kind of battle for many years. Laying mines, building underground facilities and supplying them with an est 13000 rockets and forming ambush zones so that when they sucker in the Israeli forces, they can have the advantage.
Does this sound like a "peaceful democratic" group to you?
Thanks to the experienced and well disciplined Israeli command they did not fall for this trap.
They should continue pounding the frontier until its "softened up" and then when the time is right, rout the Hezbollah fighters from their holes thereby creating a new DMZ for those "effective" UN forces to patrol.
The amalgam thing was intentional. Those points in common between AQ and H, I believe, are the main characteristics and focus of this post.
"for peaceful democratic change in lebanon"" - i.e. the Hezbollah: I wouldn't call a potato or a dove peaceful, if backed by the Iranian revolutionary Guards, JIm: it is always catastrophic when the right cause is in wrong hands. A peaceful and political solution is needed, and most parties seem to avoid that. Iran and Syria, not exactly p[eaceful countries: and Iranians and Syrians pay the price. Also: when it operates as a state in the state....
Hitchens approach to this problem was interesting.
Fighting erupted at Gaza, for the sake of Israel and Hamas, to derail a referendum sponsored by Fatah and Abbas, for the two state solution. He also castigated the US complicity with Zionism, acting as an onlooker.
I don't believe in the two state solution. I'm not against a referendum.
Sonia is correct, on her blog, she says Israel is decimated Lebanon, because it's state vs state. If Hezbollah negotiated with Israel, it would be considered selling out. It's not if you agree with that, it's how Israel thinks.
Hezbollah is reactionary. They have the same strategy of the Zionists, not caring who they hit. No concept of class differences.
Roman: When I said "They are for peaceful democratic change in lebanon" I meant it - and I was being specific about their approach to Lebanon, which is why I used the tell tale phrase "in Lebanon".
They are not a peaceful group - I've already said they advocate armed force against Israel. So how does laying mines on the border, etc contradict what I said?
They want to get elected in Lebanon, which is just a fact and you'll have to show me where they say anything different, and they basically use the normal democratic methods within Lebanon as far as I can see - they also want to abolish the state of Israel, and are prepared to use force to get that - this is not a peaceful policy, nor is it always, cough, helpful.
You put the words "peaceful democratic" in quote marks which implies you are quoting me - but I don't think I ever said they were a peaceful democratic group so I'd suggest you're trying to distort my argument to make it easier to fit into your world view.
To say that Al Quaida and Hizbollah are the same is not correct - if you want to tell yourself that to help yourself sleep then fine - but I suggest some reading might be in order.
Interestingly on Channel Four News tonight they interviewed the ex-head of the hizbollah unit of the CIA and he made it absolutely clear that the CIA and the US see the two groups are very different entities.
Redwine: I agree that "A peaceful and political solution is needed" and that H is not a peaceful organisation - in order to create the space for a progressive form of politics to appear in the region Israel needs to stop killing children. If they did that H would not even exist.
Agreed Jim; when maalot happened, not so many were shocked.
Killing children is horrendous (so is killing adults): some friendly and peaceful organizations should ponder a bit. Why haven't I seen so many bloggers when it came to other children killed,in other states, right, because not Israel was doing the killing.
Middle east is now so complicated that it is hard to point out who is the culprit. The whole thing is just unfortunate.
jim jay,
Just a point of clarification, I never stated that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are exactly the same. In my comment, I merely hinted at the fact that both have more in common with each other than one might suppose. Exactly the same? No. So let's not build any more strawmen.
My point is basically this. Israel is the ONLY free democratically elected government surrounded by tyranical theocracies and failed states ruled by roving gangs of thugs. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization whose only reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and their guiding principles are racist and anti-democratic. You, as a secular socialist would languish in prison or be lined up and shot if you expressed your political views under their ideal form of government.
Im not sure the blame game gets us anywhere towards a deeper understanding of systemic causality.History makes the winner "right, brave and kind" but the issue is how to get to peace and stability and here Renegade correctly identifies the One State Solution with class conflict eliminated as the only logical end-game. No, Hamas or Hizbollah or Zionism will not readily buy in.
"and here Renegade correctly identifies the One State Solution with class conflict eliminated as the only logical end-game. No, Hamas or Hizbollah or Zionism will not readily buy in."
Spot on Renegade and troutsky!
Thanks for the fine post, Rengade.
Roman "Just a point of clarification, I never stated that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are exactly the same."
ok - I'll accept you didn't mean it that way although when you wrote "The amalgam thing was intentional. Those points in common between AQ and H, I believe, are the main characteristics and focus of this post." it led me to believe you intentionally amalgamted the two together - thanks for the clarification.
After all these are two groups that absolutely could never be allies due to their profound ideological differences.
I still dispute the idea I'd be lined up and shot under their regime as they have shown no propensity to shooting their political opponents so far...
However, in my concern that we shed more light than heat on this discussion i don't want it to be lost that an attempt to understand this group as it actually is (rather than the dubious emotive theatrics that you can get in the press) is not the same as supporting the group.
"It is quite clear Israel is thinking about more than just eliminating Hezbollah."
when i first read this statement quickly, i read 'emulating' instead of 'eliminating.'
seems more appropriate the other way.
The entire Southern Lebanese beef with Israel was that it occupied parts of Lebanon. Hezbolla was viewed as a champion by the Shiite community funded by Persia.
After Israel left Southern Lebanon, what was Hezbollah to do? They bought land in the south, earned 2 seats on the pluralistic parliament, yet, there was no more bogeyman.
So in advance of the G8, with Iran about to be condemned by that body, Tehran issued orders to its Lebanese flunkies to detract attention.
Damascus was eager to participate to having had to flee last year. As for the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians, why would they be interested in a Persian operation, a Persia they are very much leary of.
No, rather than being on the side of the Lebanese, Nasrallah, bowing to his Iranian masters, sacrificed the people of Lebanon, for a few bucks and good standing with the Republican guard operatives.
I won't even attempt to argue with anti-semites about Israel's right to defend herself.
CB says:After Israel left southern Lebanon what was Hezbollah to do?..Tehran issued orders to it's Lebanese flunkies to detract attention".
Detract attention?Pretty complex way to shift focus, don't you think? And useless? In your analysis Hezbollah was bored so started a "conflict"?
The anti-semite strawman is boring, try harder.Hint: Start with Palestine and work out from there.
Complex?
There is no rationale, whatsoever, for what Hezbollah did, other than to detract attention from their masters troubles.
Anti-semite strawman?
I won't respond to the obvious.
I guess, we're bombarded mostly with the opinions of rulers who are pro-one ruling class or another. In America, that'd be a pro-Israeli ruling class point of view. In Iran, it would be pro-Hezbollah (incipient)ruling class point of view. Clearly though, all these explosions, all these casualties (1/3 are children) aren't about two soldiers captured by a group of Shiites from the other side of the political line in the sand. Hell, Israel was founded by people who were called "terrorists" in 1947. Don't believe me? Look up Deir Yassin (not the newly formed punk rock group by the same name) or the 'Stern Gang' on Google.
What are they about?
Power. And power is wealth. Follow the money...follow the gold coloured road.
What do we need to change the situation?
Prayers?
Nope. We need to fight fire with fire. We need power and that means, we need to control/own the social product of our labour aka the GDP. The nature of the wages system prevents us from doing so and makes us instead think that we have to beg THEM to stop the killing. They will respond to such begging when THEY'RE good and ready.
Welcome Mummia. I was jealous of all the attention John Brown was getting. I write more subtly, but the message is similar.
If you read this blog, you would know it is anti-Islamist, it is against religious schooling for minors of any kind.
Lynne Stewart thrown to the lions, was the first casualty, in the onslaught against democratic rights, by the rulers. Are you for scaring lawyers from defending controversial clients. I don't care if for her clients, I care if they get a free trial.
Mummia please only bring political discourse. I'm not doing Klanwatch stuff like JB. Most rightists who come here, are the intelligentsia.
CB: You are almost correct. Lebanon is the first domino, then Syria and Iran. For those like CB, who believed the domino theory in Vietnam, Lebanon is Israel's first domino.
What would you say to the thousands of Hassidic Jews, who hate Zionism? Call them anti-semite?
The midget homeland was Oz, now it's Smallville.
Ren,
I know your stance against anti-clericism in any form, it is not your comments that trouble me.
I see no evidence of an imperial Israel as your post suggests. They have not been aggressive toward their neighbors, except in defense. Their neighbors, however, have called for their extinction.
They are capitalist and have a representative form of government in a land where it is rare. A non Islamic state in the heart of the region offends many.
It was never sympathy for the overblown myth of displaced Palestinians that drove the hatred. Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, all rejected Palestinian migrants. It was and is anti-semitism and fear of the influence of capitalism and representative governance that move the Islamists and tyrants to their genocidal and racist aims.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion is propogated throughout the region...and the "Zionists" are to blame? The land of Israel is as inextricably linked to Jewishness as is their scripturally supported claim to be the chosen of God.
I'm continually amazed how a free, peace loving people in a country the size of New Jersey inflame such passionate hatred, even from those who don't live in the region.
"They have not been agressive towards their neighbours, except in defence"
Have you been watching the news for the past couple of weeks? How on earth can you call bombing the living daylights out of South Lebanon a "non agressive" or "defensive" response to a guerilla force?
With hundreds of rockets raining on your country, how else would you characterize it?
I'm signed up!
Measures need to be taken to end the US/Zionist alliance and the repressiona and extermination of Palestinian and Arab peoples!
Anon, I would call airstrikes on civilians an absurd, murderous and callous respose to attacks from a specific guerilla group.
What would you call it?
Post a Comment