| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lebanese Jew
USA
18 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2005 : 9:11:18 PM
|
It has becamoe obvious now that Hezbollah is trying to create military unrest in South Lebanon on the borders with Israel in order to take attention away of the UN demand to disarm the militia and the growing unease among many Lebanese vis-a-vis Nasrallah's Iranian policies in Lebanon.
Nasrallah described the Chritstians as minorities (same language used by Jumblat last week), to say that they don't matter in the national decision on Hezbollah's arms.
Are Nasrallah and Jumblat grasping for straws as they see their ship sinking or are they at the verge of beginning a new sectarian civil war in Lebanon to take the heat off Hezbollah and Syria in the assassination of Rafic Hariri? |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 2:17:19 PM
|
I am not sure if it is Hezbollah or the pro-Syrian mafia, which killed Hariri, who are trying to create the unrest on the Southern border with Israel in order to shift public attention from the investigations into Hariri's assassination to a new problem.
However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that HEzbollah's leadership is a bit in disarray, hopping from Syria to Iran and making random and somewhat uncontrolled statements regarding the internal affairs in Lebanon or its relation to other non-Shiite communities.
The time has come for all Lebanese to deal seriously with the issue of arms outside the control of the Lebanese army (Hezbollah and Palestinians); these must be confiscated whether Hezbollah likes it or not. We can no longer have a militia whose political and military decision-making takes place in Iran and whose allegiance to a pluralistic Lebanon is questionable at best, claim in the name of the Lebanese people to be a "vague" resistance movement.
If we really need a resistance movement in Lebanon, it has to be of ALL Lebanese regardless of religion, it has to have clear realistic goals, that serve Lebanon's interest in peace, democracy and prosperity. Enough peotry and B..S.. thrown at the Lebanese people. |
Edited by - Truth Squad on 08/31/2005 12:47:29 PM |
 |
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 10:44:45 AM
|
it is not to our advantage to point fingers at lebanese factions in the killing of 7ariri. The situation inside lebanon will be resolved through dialogue only.
|
Edited by - Bullocks on 08/31/2005 10:45:28 AM |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 12:00:08 PM
|
Whoever was involved in the assassination and the chaos that ensued must pay; whether it was Lebanese individuals, a Lebanese faction or the Syrian regime.
I do not believe there will remain a major "situation inside Lebanon", once we eliminate the Syrian and Iranian factors from the equation. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 2:50:17 PM
|
quote:
I do not believe there will remain a major "situation inside Lebanon", once we eliminate the Syrian and Iranian factors from the equation.
I don't follow what you're saying. Could you please elaborate - Do you mean dismantle Hizballah by force? |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 5:20:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
I don't follow what you're saying. Could you please elaborate - Do you mean dismantle Hizballah by force?
Not necessarily. All I mean is make sure that no party - especially an armed one - operates under command of a foreign entity or serve the interests of a foreign cause. Nasrallah's hops to Iran and his claim from Iran (during his visit there) that no one will dare to touch his arms, has taken the issue of Hezbollah’s arms outside the confines of a Lebanese dialogue on the "arms of the resistance movement" as it was alleged to be, into one of arms at the service of a regional struggle between Iran and Israel where the Lebanese people have no say.
As a Lebanese I refuse to be forced to pay the price for this futile struggle time and again and I refuse to allow a regional power to control an ideological and armed group on my territory who continues to hold a majority of the largest sect in Lebanon hostage to its empty rhetoric, only to serve a non-Lebanese cause. It would be best if the Shiites of Lebanon (so that we can avoid a sectarian conflict) would pull the rug from underneath Hezbollah and force it to disarm peacefully or to bring its military decision-making (at least regarding any armed conflict) under the umbrella of Parliament. Otherwise, all options should remain open so that we do not get dragged into another war not of our choosing.
This is aside from the ideological threat that Hezbollah poses to Lebanon’s pluralistic society.
Sometimes you need surgery and radiation to contain cancer; I hope that we are not there yet and that we won't get there. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 02:24:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Truth Squad
Nasrallah's hops to Iran and his claim from Iran (during his visit there) that no one will dare to touch his arms
When did Nasrallah say that. Can you give me the source / article, and word by word transcript of what he had said, because I hadn't heard it myself.
Thanks |
Edited by - Bullocks on 09/01/2005 02:24:41 AM |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 10:27:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
When did Nasrallah say that. Can you give me the source / article, and word by word transcript of what he had said, because I hadn't heard it myself.
Nasrallah visited Iran on August 2 - 3, 2005 (see: http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/2005/05-08-03.rferl.html#45 or http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0508030305112327.htm).
I could not find the full transcript of Nasrallah's press conference but if anyone has access to it I would appreciate sharing it with this forum. Below is a summary of his visit:
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2005/08/020805.asp
LEBANESE HIZBALLAH LEADER VISITS IRAN
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Lebanon's Hizballah organization, arrived in Tehran on 31 August, Radio Farda and other news agencies reported. Nasrallah met with Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on the first day of his visit, and on 1 August he met with Expediency Council Chairman Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, President-elect Ahmadinejad, and President Khatami. "Success, victories, and progress of this popular and faithful force in political, cultural, social, and military domains of Lebanon are results of purity and reliance on God's will that should be preserved and institutionalized as the main factor in the fight against enemies of Islam," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. Khatami denounced calls for Hizballah's disarmament, IRNA reported. Middle East expert Alireza Nurizadeh told Radio Farda that aside from the longstanding military and security contacts between Iran and Hizballah, Nasrallah and Khatami have developed a close relationship in recent years. This trip is an opportunity for the Lebanese official to bid farewell to outgoing friends in government, and it is an opportunity for Nasrallah to establish contacts with the newly elected leadership.
|
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 10:45:55 AM
|
The above quotes don't say much other than the usual. He did not confine dialogue into "no one touches the Hezballah weapons".
You have a confessionalist system where one confession has advanced much better in power than the other confessions. So in other words, dismantling hizballah should also have implications on the nature of other confessions or factions, and the structure of the whole political system.
The only way forward in my opinion is through dialogue with the Shiite sect. Any such oversimplification or mentality or jumping to conclusions such as the main topic of this thread, in my opinion, is what would eventually lead to civil war.
|
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 09:57:58 AM
|
Dialogue with the Shiite sect is the preferred option. However, who represents the Shiite sect? Is it Hezbollah? Is it Amal? Is the "Shiite Meeting"? Is the Shiite Higher Council? Is it the Shiite deputies in Parliament?
The idea of having a dialogue is fine but you have to have an authoritative body to talk to. Hezbollah will never relinquish its arms; this has become obvious from the declarations of Nasrallah and his deputy (in Iran and in Lebanon). What Hezbollah is asking for is Lebanese cover to carry on its mission (whatever that mission may be).
We have a UNSC resolution that gives us and give the International community the right to disarm this militia and we should use to contain the aspirations and the power of this growing offshoot of Lebanese confessionalism. Unless we want to give the Lebanese people an ultimatum: to become Hezbollah Shiite or to leave Lebanon (more like what happened to the Lebanese refugees in Israel).
As for the topic of this thread, I believe many Lebanese have their concerns about HEzbollah's power and perceive the militia as a threat to their way of life; so it is perfectly legitimate for them to express their concerns.
As for the claim that Hezbollah has never used its arms internally: 1) I am not sure of that; Hezbollah is already extracting favorable political decisions because of its arms.
2) Shall we wait until Hezbollah use its arms internally to begin planning a confrontation with it? it may be too late then.
These are my thoughts.
As for the quote I gave you it was simply to document that Nasrallah was discussing the issue of his arms with foreign non-Lebanese powers, thereby taking the issue outside the Lebanese context to where it really belongs. Hezbollah in Lebanon may have a Lebanese leadership and Lebanese members, but in its ideology, practice, arms and goals, it is not Lebanese. It is more Iranian than Lebanese in fact (similar exmaples that come to mind are communist parties in Eastern Europe during the cold war: armed with allegiance to the USSR). |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 10:39:00 AM
|
The majority of Lebanese shiite individuals would disagree with you, and based on that it is essential to have dialogue with them rather than take the road to civil war.
As for shiite representation, all of hizballah, amal, the shiite higher council, and the majority of shiite deputies in Parliament are against dismantling the weapons of hizballah, let alone being extremely intolerant of the ex-South Lebanon army members, who are their worst enemy.
The only exception in regard to the hizballah weapons is the "Shiite meeting", which represents a minority of shiites.
|
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 8:13:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
The majority of Lebanese shiite individuals would disagree with you, and based on that it is essential to have dialogue with them rather than take the road to civil war.
I totally agree with the necessity to have a dialogue. I am not sure if a majority (or a minority) of Shiite disagree with me. There has not been a real census on Hezbollah's role in Lebanon. With Amal and Hariri, Hezbollah mobilized less than 50% of Southerner voters; so I would avoid the game of numbers.quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
As for shiite representation, all of hizballah, amal, the shiite higher council, and the majority of shiite deputies in Parliament are against dismantling the weapons of hizballah, let alone being extremely intolerant of the ex-South Lebanon army members, who are their worst enemy.
On point 1: I would rather look at the opinion of the Lebanese majority on this issue (if I can). It seems that everyone is publically seeking a Lebanese endorsement of Hezbollah's arms; Why? Is Shiite endorsement not enough? Or does Lebanese mean Shiite only? Why not have a referendum (a true one) on whether the Lebanese people endorse the idea of an armed militia independent of the Lebanese army and bowing to the whims of Iranian policy in the region.
On point 2: in as much as we ask all Lebanese (and rightly so) to be forgiving and tolerant of the Syrians (workers, army and intelligence officers) despite all the atrocities they committed in Lebanon, we should be able to ask a minority of Lebanese (the pro-Hezbollah Shiite groups who constitute less than 50% of the Lebanese) to be tolerant of other Lebanese (refugees in Israel) and accept gracefully their return in peace even if only to stand trial before a Lebanese court; unless the plan of Hezbollah and its allies is to permanently replace those Lebanese with Palestinians or other Shiites from Iran.quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
The only exception in regard to the Hezbollah weapons is the "Shiite meeting", which represents a minority of Shiites.
Do we know why?
On the issue of majority and minority, the golden rule is that the majority has to accommodate the minority if we are to have peace; because the majority has at least the security of numbers. The minority usually suffers from the paranoia of effacement; this fear has to be appeased for the minority not to be exploited or used by demagogues or outsiders against the majority. The weapons of Hezbollah present a real threat to most if not all minorities in Lebanon; that is not to say to all non-Shiite groups and many Shiite ones.
After all why can't we have a strong nation with its army to protect it? Why do we need a Shiite militia for that? Hezbollah has expressed many times its distrust of the Lebanese army; a position which I interpret to mean distrust of any one beyond the absolute control of Hezbollah. I aslk in return the right to distrust Hezbollah and to work diligently to disarm it. I prefer that this takes place peacefully and with Shiite consent; otherwise we are heading to war.quote:
Originally posted by Bullocks
أخمن أن الدول المختصة تحضر لحرب إقليمية جديدة بين أطراف الأنظمة الشيعية في سورية و إيران من جهة و الدول الغربية من جهة أخرى. و قد تتداخل أدوار الدول العربية بين مؤيد و معادي للأطراف ذاتها. و يلعب لبنان دورآ إستراتيجيآ عبر تجييش العناصر الحزبية اللبنانية في خدمة المطالب الأجنبية الإيرانية أو الأمريكية حيث لا ضرورة لتأمين العنصر المقاتل لهذه الدول في لبنان بسبب تواجده المجاني. هكذا يكون الصراع الأجنبي على لبنان محصورآ في الأراضي اللبنانية في المرحلة الأولى بمجرد دفع ثمن بسيط لتسليح الأطراف اللبنانية من قبل الدول الأجنبية كما كان الحال عليه في السابق
It is not a war against Shiites; on the contrary. The Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq have snatched each a state of their own design. The Sunnis on the other hand, have lost control of a state (Iraq) which may no longer exist. My impression is that the plan would be to give Syria to Sunni control (Sunnis are a majority in Syria); that would shift the war from Iraq to Syria on one hand, and on the other it would appease the angry Sunnis of Iraq and Syria. Lebanon’s role in this ordeal, would be not to take sides. With arms in the hands of militias and groups beyond Lebanese control (like Hezbollah and the Palestinians) Lebanon may inadvertently get involved. That could lead to a disaster. That is why I am calling for a total disarmement of all groups outside the Lebanese army. |
|
|
|
ezdean
Lebanon
21 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 5:48:04 PM
|
| How do you propose to disarm Hizballah if the Shi3a are opposed to that? Who will do it? Wouldn't that begin a new sectarian war in Lebanon? I am interested in reading your thoughts on that. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 2:10:40 PM
|
Ezdean, I will be happy to propose a complete plan for the disarmament if formally asked to. But the point of this discussion is really to share ideas on how best to achieve disarmament without blood shed.
One way to achieve that, would be for the arms and militants to be integrated in the Lebanese Army, either totally or as a separate brigade "The Borders Brigade". It will be similar to a "Special Force" whose mission is to intervene to defend the borders but at the orders of the Central Command. Its sectarian purity will have to be "polluted" by non-Shiites and its political agenda will have to be purely Lebanese. I do not see why that would not be feasible.
Unless Hezbollah's leadership does not trust non-Shiites in the defense of Lebanon or unless the true mission of Hezbollah is more of an Islamic Resistance in the region to spread the faith and the way of life (à la Khoumeini Revolution), rather than mere liberation of Lebanese occupied land; in that case the whole concept of the legitimacy of Hezbollah as a political party in Lebanon should be revised. |
|
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 10:52:56 AM
|
| I agree to that model. That's what I actually had in mind - something constructive as opposed to pointing the finger |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hezbollah takes Lebanon to civil war
Forum Locked
