Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘lebanon’

So what really happened in the game of “the tree was on my property” that broke out on the Israeli-Lebanese border yesterday, resulting in a lethal exchange of fire? Pajamas Media takes a crack at deciphering the finger-pointing and media spin games. And the Jerusalem Post has more on UNIFIL’s role in this mess.

300,000 people turned out in Beirut to honour assassinated ex-premier Rafik al-Hariri’s memory and protest Syrian attempts at control in Lebanon.

It’s looking more and more like Lebanon is headed towards yet another “civil war” – or at least, that’s what the media will insist on calling it. The same media that gives Hezbollah credibility as a “Lebanese opposition party”.

Beirut is on fire.

The war between Lebanon and Syria is once again coming to a head, with Hezbollah fighting for Syria by proxy. Today’s “strike” was initiated by Hezbollah to escalate the fighting.

The aim of Hezbollah is to topple the Lebanese government and take over Lebanon for Syria. It has never made any secret of this. To achieve this goal, Hezbollah uses violence, force, threats, and terrorist tactics. The “political arm” of Hezbollah exists only to further the aims and successes of the terrorist group. It’s a foreign army, paid for by a foreign country, with the goal of invading and taking over Lebanon for a foreign government.

So why, then, does the international media insist on legitimatizing Hezbollah by calling it the “opposition”?

Let’s call this what it is: A war between Syria and Lebanon, fought on Lebanese soil but paid for with Syrian money. To use the word “opposition” is to give Hezbollah a legitimacy does not deserve.

Here’s Stephen Harper’s latest move at the Francophonie:

Harper angered Lebanon and an assortment of other Arab, Muslim and French-speaking states in a meeting to draft a political declaration on this summer’s war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Canada’s rookie prime minister vetoed an amendment to a statement that said the 53-member organization “deplored” the effect of the month-long conflict on the Lebanese civilians it endangered. The amendment was brought forward by the Egyptian delegation and backed by “a majority” of countries at the table, according to French President Jacques Chirac.

“The amendment wants to recognize and deplore the war and recognize the victims of Lebanon. We are able to deplore the war, we are able to recognize the victims, but on both sides,” Harper
said at what was supposed to be a closing news conference.

“The Francophonie cannot recognize victims according to their nationality. Recognize the victims of Lebanon and the victims of Israel.”

Once again, Harper is standing up for what’s right, no matter what it costs him politically. I don’t always agree with him or his party, but I’m finding this incredibly refreshing.

Update on the stories below:

Stephen Harper backed Jason Kenney on his comparison of Hezbollah to the Nazis, claiming it was “fair”:

“Like all comparisons, it’s true in some ways, and not in others,” he said, “but as near as I can tell, both Hezbollah and the Nazi party stand for the elimination of the Jewish nation. So I think that’s pretty fundamental and, in that sense, I don’t think it’s unfair.”

Though Kenney and Harper both have a point, they ought to realize that Nazi comparisons, even when justifiable, tend to obscure the original argument.

Meanwhile, one of the three MPs who originally called for Hezbollah’s legitimization, Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj, has resigned as foreign affairs critic (hat tip: Puck):

All 10 leadership hopefuls condemned the remarks. Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett said Wrzesnewskyj should no longer retain his post as a foreign affairs spokesman.

The Liberal party has been floundering lately, with no clear voices emerging in this conflict. Wrzesnewskyj’s resignation, and the condemnation of his remarks by the leadership candidates, is the first hopeful sign in a while that perhaps the Liberals might find their moral compass that has been missing now for quite some time.

It seems to me that the problem is one of perception, and of which historical comparison is the most apt. Some, like Kenney and Harper, see Hezbollah as the new Nazi party, and view appeasement as dangerous and ultimately more destructive. Others, like Boris Wrzesnewskyj, Peggy Nash and Maria Mourani, see Hezbollah as the new IRA:

“You want to encourage the politicians of this military organization, you want to encourage the political wing, so that the centre of gravity shifts to them.”

Wrzesnewskyj compared the situation in Lebanon to the decades of sectarian violence by the Irish Republican Army.

“If there wasn’t a possibility for London to negotiate with Sinn Fein [the IRA's political party], we’d still have bombings in Northern Ireland,” he said.

Certainly, Hezbollah (and Hamas, and other groups that employ a political/social/terrorist combination strategy) would like to encourage the IRA comparisons. But there’s one key difference, that the Canadian MPs on their “fact-finding mission” seem to have missed: The IRA had, as its goal, the establishment of an independent Irish state. Say what you will about their methods – and I will condemn terrorism unequivocally – they did have a goal that could be pursued politically, and that would be legitimate if pursued politically. Hezbollah has no such goal. They aren’t vying for statehood or independence of freedom. Their goal is the destruction of Israel. And no matter what means they choose to pursue this goal, it cannot be legitimatized.

This editorial appeared in today’s Gazette in response to the 3 Canadian MPs who called for the removal of Hezbollah from the list of terror organizations:

They appear to be typical of an alarming number of Canadians who think that compromise, which works so nicely in Canada, can work as well everywhere. But in Canada we don’t have parties, factions or demographic groups dedicated to the utter destruction of other parties, factions, or demographic groups.

How do you compromise with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, who says “there’s no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.” What does Nash imagine Nasrallah means when he says: “When the people of this temporary country (Israel) lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin”?

Meanwhile, Jason Kenney reminds us that foot-in-mouth disease strikes all sides of this one:

Conservative government spokesman Jason Kenney compared Hezbollah to the German Nazi party Tuesday and said opposition Canadian MPs are providing political cover to the banned organization.

Oh, Mr. Kenney, didn’t anyone ever teach you Godwin’s law?

Good letter in today’s Gazette:

How can a terrorist group that provokes a war subsequently claim to be “resisters” when the going gets tough?

This utter hypocrisy is echoed by Lebanon’s prime minister, who initially claimed to be held hostage by Hezbollah, only to proclaim subsequently his outright support for the terrorist group. How in the name of God (anyone’s God) can people support a group whose leader is adamantly opposed to a peaceful accord and who has often said coexistence with Jews (not Israelis) is not an option? Racism and hatred don’t get any more blatant than this.

What she said.

So let’s see, what can be said about the past 48 hours?

Israel has begun pulling out of Lebanon. But the UN peacekeeprs aren’t going in – and nobody’s willing to hold Hezbollah to its obligations.

In the meantime, the Lebanese army is moving to take positions in South Lebanon… but not to displace or disarm Hezbollah. On the contrary, Hezbollah’s favourite puppet government has reportedly struck a deal to allow the group to keep its weapons. (Siniora now denies this, but actions here will speak louder than words).

Oh, and the kidnapped soldiers? Still not released.

What exactly is the basis for the claim that this cease-fire is in any way, shape or form good for Israel?

Meryl gives it a D. Allison believes Ehud Olmert’s days as PM are numbered. In an op-ed in Ha’aretz, Moshe Arens claims that Israel’s war was too much for its leaders to handle. The Jerusalem Post reports that Hezbollah has been strengthened immeasurably. Yoram Kaniuk in Ynet writes that the IDF lost this war and wasn’t up to the task. The general consensus is that the cause was just but the execution was severely flawed.

Israel didn’t achieve any of its continually-revised objectives.

Get back the kidnapped soldiers? Nope.

Destroy or then weaken Hezbollah? The opposite happened – Hezbollah has been strengthened in popularity among a Lebanese population who largely rejected them before. So much for the naive goals at the start of the war that had Israeli leaders actually believing that the Lebanese citizenry would take up common cause with Israel.

Disarm Hezbollah? On paper, yes. In practice? I don’t think anyone is quite that naive. And with Iran and Syria emboldened, this does not bode well for the near future.

Encourage the Lebanese army to implement 1559 and take control of southern Lebanon? On paper, maybe, but in practice, Saniora has become more of a puppet of Hezbollah than ever before.

Install an effective neutral peacekeeping force as a buffer? Instead of NATO, Israel got stuck once again with a crippled UN force that is more likely to be part of the problem than part of the solution.

World opinion? No comment. Things weren’t good, but then, they were never good on that score even beforehand.

Sure, the Israel cabinet is spinning the cease-fire as good news. What else can they do? But there will be a lot of tough questions being asked in the days ahead.

Israel had no choice: it was attacked and had to respond. But it isn’t always enough to be right. You have to be right, and you have to win.

The good news is, hopefully – hopefully – thousands of Israeli soldiers can come home, and thousands of civilians can return to their homes. In the short term, there’s no doubt that everyone wanted to see an end to this crisis – civilians in Israel and Lebanon alike were paying far too heavy a price. But the long term is worrying.

Pessimism when it comes to the middle east is hard to avoid, and I’m not really in the mood to play silver-lining today.

Imshin is fed up, and writes why:

I started this blog in 2002 because I was so upset about the lies being told about Israel all the time. Lies being told and being believed.

I don’t care any more. It doesn’t matter. We’ve always had to look out for ourselves. Today is no different.

[ . . . ]

Brave kids are fighting for us in Lebanon, getting wounded, getting killed. Whole families have been sitting underground for weeks, many others are refugees. People are being killed and wounded in their homes, thousands of homes have been destroyed. By an organization described by some foreign media as a ‘resistance movement’. Resistance against what exactly?

Against Israel’s existence. They are quite clear about that.

The situation is that Lebanon has to burn right now if Israel is to survive. I’m sorry for the people on the other side, but that is the way it is. Us or them. In that respect we are not doing nearly enough for the enemy to get the picture. No, for the enemy to cease to be.

So I’m supposed to be bothered about the usual lies being told about us by our enemies, those who wish us to cease to be? Excuse me if I don’t give a $%^&!

Read the whole thing.