Wednesday, August 02, 2006
More about Hizbullah and Christian Villages in the South
A recently published New York Times article provides more insight into Hizbullah's use of the Christian village of 'Ain Ebel as a staging ground for its attacks. Residents cited in the article say that Israeli artillery hit various areas in the village (without causing injuries) that were used by Hizbullah to fire rockets into Israel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Of course you would emphasize "No injuries", wouldn't you, no mention of 600 dead civilians, very balanced. Since you decide to publish your view on the conflict, here's mine: The IDF has committed countless war crimes, has killed children, women and civilians and it would be better if Israel did not exist. Israel came into being with terrorism herself, Irgun, Stern Gang, murdering Count Bernadotte of the UN. Before Israel was created there was nothing like the hatred for jews in the arab world. Israel is the problem, not H'Bollah, which was formed in response to previous Israeli war crimes.
To Anonymous:
The truth is, we all stand guilty before God - Jew and Gentile.
Nevertheless, God Himself has determined a RIGHTFUL HOMELAND for every ethnic group upon the earth - including the Jew and the Arab.
Because of its sins, a particular nation may from time to time not experience peace at its borders - and it may experience oppression, occupation, or even deportation at the hands of some foreign force.
Then God remembers His mercy and has respect once again for the land that He chose as the homeland for that particular nation (any nation).
This applies to all of us in every family, tribe, language or nation - whether Jew, Arab or any other nationality.
We see that God is both severe and forgiving. Who are we therefore to argue against His choice of the borders of the various nations on earth.
There is a right place for the Jews and there is a right place for the Arabs.
The important thing is that our hearts are right with Him.
^
huh. that was not quite my reaction to the article about Christians, although the fact that no one was killed seems to have more to do with good luck (on everyone's part) rather than any new approach to Israeli shelling tactics.
I think this aspect of the Maronite attitude/reaction to Hizbullah has sort of been side-lined by the media's recent focus on the recent shift Arab governments have made from their initial rejection of Hibullah. How much pressure were the Maronites putting on Hizbullah to disarm during the last 6 years? What was Hizbullah's stance during the Syrian withdrawal?
also...
Can someone direct me towards an article or manifesto that describes the apparently popular narrative that "H'Bollah... was formed in response to previous Israeli war crimes"? Are those Farms I used to hear about all they got? Seems like sort of a weak excuse to keep the 2nd largest military force in the middle east. You think they would have accomplished their objective with the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, at least in the view of some of the secular leftists who sympathize with their "form[ation] in response to previous Israeli war crimes".
Lily-Belle of http://anecdotesfromabananarepublic.blogspot.com/ has a superb post on Israel’s surprise hacking of Hezbollah's Al Manar TV station that took place earlier today. It seems a distinguished Tzahal “Arabist” appeared on the terrorists’ captured screens for a few minutes and said the following to his “captivated” Mohammedan audience:
“Stop fighting the Israeli army, an army of steel… Stop listening to patriotic hymns for a moment…Reflect and bring your feet back to the ground..” [sic]
Hmm … A case of Levite levitation, maybe?
Or a carefully executed media “blitz” by Tel-Aviv’s Orientalist experts (“Anî speak Arabich fluent. Yitzzraëlîm friendz of fig-eatin camel-man viz towel on the ‘Rishôn’. Shalom Abdul. Peace. Shazam Aleykhêm.”) and other brilliant graduates of <b>The Sherry Shriver School of Advanced Alien Communication.
Frankly, I’m starting to wonder if it's true what they say about Anglo-Israelite eschatology and the long-awaited advent of the Age of Aquarius!
On a second thought tough, with all due respect to UFOs and Mars men, I think we might call it the Age of the Missing Leash.
Opens up a whole range of (not so) hidden meanings
Future generations will remember the reign of George W. Bushmert
As the Age of the Missing Leash: from Abu Ghraib’s Arabivorous German shepherds
To the escaped Israeli anaconda now suffocating the Texan snake-oil salesman who raised it!
To mikealpha: The muslims took in the Jews expelled by the Spanish in the 15th century. Despite the odd incidents of friction by and large muslims and jews lived peacefully together for centuries. Then the Zionist enterprise started and waves of Zionists appropriated Palestinian lands. Israel was created, Palestinians ethnically cleansed. This is what sparked the hatred of arabs for Israel, a very understandable response to the action of the Isralies.
Derek,
Many people, including Israeli commentators, back the view that Hizbullah was formed partly as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It's not so much alleged Israeli war crimes that drove the consolidation of Hizbullah as a Shi'a guerilla movement, though. I think it has more to do with the dynamics that the Israeli invasion unleashed within Lebanon. Initially, the Shi'a in the south actually welcomed Israeli troops, because the IDF entered Lebanon to fight Palestinian guerillas who had made their lives miserable too. Israel overstayed its welcome (it's easy for us to say that now, but they were quite embroiled in the conflict) and Shi'a resentment turned against the IDF. I think Shi'a refugees from the south who had fled to Beirut formed Hizbullah. The consolidation of Hizbullah and its ability to mobilize Shi'a was definitely assisted by tensions between the different confessional groups within Lebanon and the fact that they all had militias. And, one should not forget the Iranian factor: the Iranian revolution was a huge moral boost for Shi'a in Lebanon and Iran played an important part in its formation and strengthening. Anyway, this is a really complex topic on which I am not well read at all.
The question that should be asked is what HA's aims are now. It's clear that it's offensive has to do with Syrian and Iranian agendas, but is also linked very much to the movement's own domestic political agenda. Nasrallah is asserting the power of the Shi'a on the Lebanese political scene. The Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was a low-point for HA, because it was identified with Syrian interests and had to be on the defensive by the pro-Hariri forces. So, the kidnapping of those soldiers could be an attempt by HA to restore its prestige and to flex its muscle - Nasrallah has in fact succeeded in highlighting the weakness of Lebanon's elected government.
The bottom line is that HA is a force for instability, a real loose cannon. Before this crisis, there were even military intelligence analysts in Israel who asserted that HA would integrate into Lebanese politics and slowly disarm itself. That has been revealed as wishful thinking.
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on!
maytag refrigerator repair san diego university of lowell massachusetts acls classes rockford hcc southwest college
Post a Comment