The secret of Hizbullah's success

[blackbear]

The secret of Hizbullah's success..

Hizbullah's unbudging resistance to Israel – and the results that has achieved – explains its clout in the Arab world..Charles Harb

Lebanon celebrated with lavish festivities the return of the last prisoners held in Israeli jails, and clamoured to be the only Arab country to have done so, and to have done so by imposing its demand on a reluctant Israel. Hizbullah fulfilled yet another pledge, and successfully ended another chapter in its longstanding battle with Israel.

Lebanese dignitaries from across the political and religious spectrum, Muslims and Christians alike, were lined up to welcome the freed prisoners, in a display of unity not seen since the earlier prisoner exchange of 2004. While many had previously lamented the cost of war and resistance, they now seemed eager to share in the glory of welcoming the last Lebanese prisoners of war.

Hizbullah's success can be added to its already long list of achievements, and reminds Arab and Muslim audiences worldwide of the effectiveness of a steadfast resistance. In an Arab world used to humiliations and defeats, the list of achievements claimed by Hizbullah in the past decade is indeed noteworthy.

The resistance movement was able to liberate most of Lebanon's territory from a two decade-long Israeli occupation, conducted a successful prisoner exchange in 2004, broke the invulnerability myth of the Israeli Defence Forces in the 2006 war, and managed to return all Lebanese prisoners held in Israel this past week. Hizbullah's charismatic leader has argued that his movement has never capitulated to Israeli demands, and thus never been defeated in its 25-year history – "the era of [Arab] defeats is over".

This is in stark contrast to what "Arab moderates" could show for in the same decade they spent negotiating with the Israeli state. The much-publicised and now barren "peace process" keeps edging "forward" through road maps, countless summits, visits, and vague "visions" of a Palestinian state that fails to materialise, and which remains as elusive as it did 60 years ago.

Expanding Israeli settlements keep shrinking the space of a Palestinian state, and Israeli checkpoints still pepper the West Bank. Half the population are refugees scattered around the globe, and the other half live in confinement behind a segregation wall. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas's repeated pleas for the release of some (if any) of the 11,500 Palestinians held prisoner keep falling on Israeli deaf ears.

Only armed resistance seemed able to edge Israeli settlements and checkpoints out of the Gaza strip, and only Hamas seems able to force Israel into negotiating a prisoner release. Israel seems more likely to yield to the demands of resistance movements (Hamas, Hizbullah) than to friendly pleas and peace offers. This is a strong message that further undermines the US's Arab allies.

The difference between the two approaches cannot be stronger and echoes dramatically in Arab public opinion polls. It is no surprise that the Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah comes on top of the popularity contest in all surveyed Arab countries (including Saudi Arabia and Egypt), and by a large margin. The battle for hearts and minds was indisputably won by those who offered to resist the "US-Israeli axis of evil".

The festivities in Lebanon brought the flags of resistance movements from across the political divide: the "party of God" and the Communist party joined within the same crowd, highlighting the common denominator that binds all. This was also made clear by the diversity of nationalities and creeds associated with the 199 bodies Israel returned to Lebanon this day.

Current western support for Arab dictators and the associated labelling of resistance movements as terrorist organisations may not be to its best interest. Striking mutually beneficial deals with those that more closely represent Arab populations rather than with the corrupt dictators that rule them may have better long-term pay-offs. Perhaps the election of a new US president will usher a more peaceful era for the war-weary Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/18/israelandthepalest inians.lebanon.............Comments...419...

[Desmond]

Are we really supporting a terrorist group. Yes I know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and yes the IDF kills people too. But does that justify it? Under what conditions are we to accept the murder of civilians?

It's a disgrace to support a group that targets civilians for military gains, no matter what the conditions.

[blackbear]

Hello Desmond...

I would be interested in your opinion on Benny Morris...

Benny Morris Justifies Israel's Coming Attack on Iran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/benny-morris-justifies-is _b_113725.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?ei=5070&en=77a a34e68aa2e0a9&ex=1217044800&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

Benny Morris: Why Israel will bomb Iran

Benny Morris, the famed Israeli historian, argues in the New York Times that Israel will ‘almost surely’ attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next four to seven months. His scenario of the possible consequences is terrifying. ...

http://www.hurryupharry.org/

Thanks..

[Desmond]

Again just because the Israeli's may be nasty does not justify anyone else. "But mummy the other boy is doing it" is not a legitimate tactic, especially when it involves killing civilians.

Anyway as for the impending attack on Iran: Iran dug their own grave my testing a missile. While many people think that by showing they can attack American and Israeli targets will put them off an attack it will encourage it.

Israel is willing to take the risk of conventional missiles in order to prevent the future threat of nuclear missiles. Provided with Patriot missile systems then Israel is even less worried.

It was a miscalculation on Iran's part and has forced Israel's hand. Israel could have waited but now it thinks that it must end uranium enrichment to prevent Iran replacing conventional warheads for nuclear ones when the inevitable war happens.

Now what do I think of the prospect of an attack? Well the attack may well end in an absolute war in the Middle East, and part of me against all other feelings welcomes that. I know it seems to be against everything else we stand for but wait.

What are your actual views on the middle east? Fancy living under Islamic rule in Iran? Is Saudi Arabia a utopian vision? Fancy shacking up with the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas or the various murderous groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that bomb market places full of innocent civilians?

Unfortunately the Middle East is an unworkable state right now. The majority of it is a violent, dictatorial, oppressive and frankly abhorrent place. Would I miss the Middle East in it's current state? No.

I don't want a war, but it is now unavoidable, has been since we were tricked into messing around with the place nearly 7 years ago now. The best thing we can hope for is the end of it. And this may be the end game.

[blackcat]

[Desmond]

"People cannot fight back against tyranny??"

Deliberately targeting civilians is never a legitimate target. What right do hezbollah have to talk about oppression when they murder innocents?

"There is a reason why you are told only to post in critic's corner."

Tony is reconsidering that, and my views on the Middle East has nothing to do with being a critic. This is a massive problem within the community and it's yet another reason why it is not progressing as it should. Just because 9-11 was not committed by Islamic fundamentalists does not give them carte blanche. You cannot support the tyranny and murderous regimes and groups in the Middle East.

"War is very avoidable"

Not this one, it was set in motion many years ago and will be played out in full. Too many people have put too much into this to not have it happen.

"Iran has as much right to nuclear technology as Israel"

Not really up for debate here.

[blackcat]

[Desmond]

"They are REACTING!!!"

Not in the correct fashion.

"They are not the instigators of the terror."

Makes no difference, attacking civilians is still forbidden.

"It is ALL wrong so why do you only seem to attack the Palestinian cause when the real culprits behind all the carnage in the middle east is Israel?"

I don't, I'm just not willing to give carte blanche to any group that deliberately attacks civilians, that includes the IDF. In fact it seems just bizarre to criticize the IDF for their crimes but to support hezbollah in theirs.

"I take it you mean you concede that Iran has the right."

Yes but that was never going to affect the outcome of this.

"Its the reason for going to war with Iran."

They would just construct another.

"It was the reason given for slaughtering Iraqis."

Best to remember that we are not solely responsible, in fact we are responsible for the minority of civilian deaths in Iraq. According to the Iraq body count, there were (taking the lowest figure) 22,586 civilian deaths in Iraq last year. 1,326 (taking the highest figure) of which were civilians killed during coalition actions and a further 756 (taking the highest figure) killed directly by coalition action. That's 2,082 deaths out of 22,586. 9% of civilian deaths in Iraq can be blamed on coalition troops. Who is slaughtering the other 91%?

There are other bad guys in this world, it's best to remember that. Don't get stuck on a single target and don't feel the need to ignore the crimes of one group just because another is also guilty.

[Andrew.]

One way to stop this would be to get world wide support! to get the Israelis out of the Holy Land as it does not belong to them and never has.

[Desmond]

" to get the Israelis out of the Holy Land as it does not belong to them and never has."

Well that all depends on your point of view. Israel has been ruled by a large number of groups over the last few thousand years, but a Jewish presence has always remained even in the aftermath of the Heraclius massacre. There were many Aliyahs long before what is credited as the first in 1882. There has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, let's not deny that.

To claim that it never has is been owned by Israeli's plainly wrong as they have ruled it in the past. Ancient Israel has owned by the Jews. To claim otherwise is just denying historic fact.

Of course presence does not equal ownership, so who does it own it? By the same respect the Arab and Israeli claim are just as tenuous as each other.

The problem is that Israeli has rarely been ruled by it's occupants. It's been constantly conquered by various empires that have ruled it.

The actual question of Israel cannot be answered without answering a far larger and more complex question:

What is a country, who owns and rules it and where does it borders lie?

You cannot answer the Israeli question without first understanding both the history of the region and it's people and examining both claims and answering them in reference to the answer to the question asked above.

[Andrew.]

[Desmond]

You're using a biblical definition when a legal one exists. Their right to the land is a legal matter not a biblical one.

Simple question, who does own it and why?