Justus For All

Now that is starting to sound more than just a little like what I was saying…

Hmmm…I don’t recall you saying anything about an internal Lebanese civil war after the Israeli attacks end.

If you mean that like Totten you think the situation is perilous, then sure…but everyone is saying that…

No Dave, I was thinking more in terms of getting a “peace-keeping force” to take on the task, and the TOE that they would be required to observe.

News this morning that a NATO force (one of the options proposed) would have difficulty with the Lebanese perception of “being allied to Israel”. That is the mirror of my comment about Egypt / Turkey force being seen by Israel as “allied to Lebanon”.

Having effective TOE is the first obstacle. Obviously neither side can be trusted to observe long term ceasefire agreements. The thirty year UN presence has been as effective as a used tissue. That is the consequence of not having the authority or the power to take on either side and stop it. Like I have said before - what would have been the response if a UN post had had the weaponry, the authority to take out an IAF aircraft heading north?

The perception of non-alignment and independance is the second obstacle.

The capability of the buffer force to stop BOTH sides from aggressive acts - of any kind - is the third obstacle.

There is an ad on tv here - one of those just slightly annoying ones. It centres on a small child with an overloaded liquidiser making a smoothie. Cartoon character voice is heard “Man with a Toughie coming through” and the smoothie gets cleaned off the screen.

What force would be trusted by both Israel and Lebanon to act impartially and effectively in the pursuit of breaches of the ceasefire? The US? Not by Lebanon any more than Israel and the US would trust Iran to act there. Russia? China? New Zealand? That would be a joke.

It centres on a small child with an overloaded liquidiser making a smoothie. Cartoon character voice is heard “Man with a Toughie coming through” and the smoothie gets cleaned off the screen.

This is unintelligible Kiwispeak. Little help?

I think ‘liquidiser’ is what we call a blender. I have no idea what a Toughie would be though.

I think the first thing to understand is what the goal should be for any intervention in Lebanon. A ‘cease fire’ that results in Israel leaving and Hezbollah remaining and rearming is not a useful goal. The goal must be the destruction of Hezbollah as a military force. This can, and should, be achieved both directly through military assets and politically/diplomatically.

This goal is as much for the benefit of Lebanon as it is for the benefit of Israel. Having a military force in Lebanon that is not under the control of the government is a recipe for disaster. If, after being disarmed, Hezbollah is able to control Lebanon and use the official armed forces of Lebanon against Israel that will be a different conflict, and something we will have to chose to deal with then.

I take some exception to the idea that neither side can be trusted to keep to a ceasefire agreement. I don’t think that their is any evidence that Israel would not keep an agreement. Israel will of course respond seriously to any breach of such an agreement though, if that is what you meant, then I agree.

I certainly think that a Turkey/Egyptian force would be allied with Lebanon. I don’t think though that such a force would be allied with Hezbollah or that it would be an ‘enemy’ of Israel. My big concern with the Turkey/Egypt idea is simply that Hezbollah will beat them.

I think with the proper goal, the destruction of Hezbollah as an armed force, their will be less difficulty in worrying about a perception of non-alignment and/or indepence. Obviously, such a force would not be ‘neutral’ to Hezbollah. From that perspective it would be on ‘Israel’s side’ but it would also be on the side of the government of Lebanon, allowing Lebanon to eventually gain control over all of its territory. The Lebanese Army, in my opinion, should be working closely with any force deployed for this purpose. As long as the international force was pursueing this goal vigorously, I don’t think that there would be any issue with Israel interfering. Of course, if the international force was simply letting Hezbollah rearm, that would not be the case.

I think that a NATO or even an ad-hoc international coalition, with the U.S. as a part, could effectively intervene here, working with Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and allow the Lebanese government to gain full control of its territory. Certainly it would not be percieved as ‘neutral’ or ‘trusted’ by those who support Hezbollah, but no force that wants to disarm Hezbollah will be trusted by Hezbollah supporters. Having a large portion of any ground forces in such a conflict being from Muslim nations might be a wise thing though, but I think American air power at the least will be needed in a supporting role.

The biggest obstacle in the trust issue for such a force is getting the Lebanese government and people who don’t want an armed Hezbollah running part of their country to trust that we will finish the job. I wouldn’t blame them for doubt on that issue, one reason I think we absolutely must continue to support the Iraqi government is to regain lost trust in the Middle East that America will finish a job that it starts there. We don’t have a great track record on that.

“Toughie” - ad name for a particular brand of dishrag. Point of ad (and hence comment) nothing too big for it to clean up.

Dave, I can’t say I disagree. What is apparent is that for your scenario to work, to be acceptable to both sides, the TOE for the Lebanon occupation force will be just a continuation of the old “toothless dog” that everyone loves to hate about the UN.

Your point about Israel makes this quite clear.

You make the point about Hezbollah being “stronger than the occupying force”. Why should Israel be allowed the “luxury” of being stronger than the occupying force?

As you say, the record of the international community, and the US in particular being able to leash in the Israelis is pretty damned poor.

So, where I think I disagree is that your solution provides “protection” for Israel, but not to the other side. Until that protection is equal for both sides we are not going to see the end of a strong Hezbollah, or Hamas, or even AlQaeda. Until the ability of a peace-keeping force is increased to the point where it can be effective in separating warring factions impartially, we are not going to see an “effective” UN, nor peace in the Middle East.

At the moment, the entire momentum of Middle East policy is toward one side wins, one side loses. That tends to create a strong sense of desperation - of survival vs non-survival - in the losing side.

That, I believe, is as much the problem as anything else. And, if memory serves, we reached a similar conclusion a couple years back.

Probligo,

You seem intent on viewing this as a conflict with two sides, Israel and Lebanon. I don’t think that is an accurate view. If we want to distill it down to two sides, it would be Israel and Hezbollah. ‘Lebanon’ is caught up in the battle between the two, but it isn’t exactly a belligerent. Hezbollah is in a defacto state of rebellion against Lebanon and some of Lebanon’s goals coincide with those of Israel. Of course some of their goals do coincide with Hezbollah as well, their is certainly a lot of anger against Hezbollah.

I don’t really care for a force that is ‘acceptable’ to Hezbollah. I want Hezbollah destroyed. I do want a force that is acceptable to both Israel and Lebanon.

You said: “You make the point about Hezbollah being “stronger than the occupying force”. Why should Israel be allowed the “luxury” of being stronger than the occupying force?”

That doesn’t make much sense. I have advocated as part of the multinational force (still theoretical at this point in time) Israel leaving Lebanon. I think it casually obvious that if Israel was concinved that another force would defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon they would be happy to withdraw and let them do so. It would be a great benefit for them if that were so.

I don’t believe that Lebanon or Jordan or Egypt or Syria require ‘protection’ from Israel. Israel has not, and will not, attack these nations for no reason. Israel acts to defend itself, and does indeed respond vigorously to aggretion, but does not have a history of starting conflicts. The situation in the occupied territories is a bit more complex, but I don’t think we should fall into the trap of demanding that all things are solved before anything is solved.

You instance that Israel is just like Hezbollah and we should treat them impartially is I think a huge mistake in concept. They are not the same.

I do not believe that I have advocated a solution that provides protection to Israel and no benefit for anyone else. My solution involves protection for Israel from Hezbollah, and assistence to Lebanon and protection for Lebanon from Hezbollah as well. Lebanon would no longer be subject to Israeli attacks, and the government of Lebanon could begin to gain full control of its territory. It seems to me that you have no interest in helping Lebanon vs. Hezbollah, and can’t even see a difference between the two entities. Perhaps you should look into the recent history of Lebanon and try to understand that the two things are not the same. Hezbollah propaganda of course claims that they are, but I hope you would not fall for such a transparent claim.

Dave, we still have the “defeat / win” rhetoric in there.

You over-simplify, like your statesmen do, apparently without regard for the complexities on the ground.

1. In Southern Lebanon, Hizbollah is the Lebanese government. They provide education, health services, welfare, and defence The “Lebanese government” does none of these things.

2. Like all of these conflicts, determining fault is impossible. There is no record of first strike, first breach. Yes, I know that you will point to the kidnapping of two IDF men. Can you deny that (if Hizbollah is the arm of Syria and Iran) that was not in “retaliation” for an agressive IAF flyby of the Presidential Palace in Amman? I can acknowledge that fly-by was in retaliation for the kidnapping of 1 Israeli soldier by Hamas. Hamas were seeking the release of women and children held in Israeli prisons withut charge or trial. The only real rationalisation I have read of that was they would be safer in Israeli prisons than out. I can agree with that, given the source of the dangers they face as Palestinians.

3. Yes, the last thirty years of Southern Lebanon history is dominated by Israeli occupation culminating in a withdrawal during which the Israeli army (by the Israel government’s own admission) left two refugee camps without protection, resulting in the slaughter of most of the inhabitants all of whom were Muslim.

4. The effect of any future “ceasefire arrangement” will be the same as all of them in the past. On the one hand you will have a relatively unscathed and unrestricted Israel; on the other you will have a defensively and economically crippled Lebanon struggling once again to survive, with a large portion of their population displaced. And that is the price they have to pay for the kidnapping of two IDF servicemen and the deaths of four others? The US will pump another few billion into Israel “for doing such a good job on our behalf”. Lebanon will have to rely on the support of charity donors to NGO’s such as Oxfam.

5. The Lebanese would NOT be in full control of their territory. A very large part of it will be under the (partial) control of international forces. You can bet every boot you have ever possessed that one very important part of Israel’s agreement to the ceasefire will be the implementation of a 20km exclusion zone. That is what they are in the process of creating. They will insist (with US backing) on it being maintained by the international force. By proxy therefore, Israel will continue to control a very large slice of Lebanon.

6. If, as the news we get down here states, the IDF is creating “defensive minefields” what are the odds they are doing that in Israeli territory? Negligible to zero in my book. They will be in Southern Lebanon; in part to act as a defensive shield against incursions; in part to control access of the International Force to areas that Israel don’t want them in. Whose fault will it be when a child gets killed in 15 years time because he/she was playing and tripped one of these mines? (And note please that this is the reason for the (partial) inserted above).

7. “It seems to me that you have no interest in helping Lebanon vs. Hezbollah, and can’t even see a difference between the two entities. Perhaps you should look into the recent history of Lebanon and try to understand that the two things are not the same. Hezbollah propaganda of course claims that they are, but I hope you would not fall for such a transparent claim. “

My point Dave, is not what I think.

It is the reality of what the people of Southern Lebanon think. There is a huge difference between the two.

It is the reality of what the people of Lebanon must face in their future. Who will provide protection for the Muslim south, when the Druse start their “retaliation” for the destruction of Lebanon - as they did after the last “ceasefire”.

I wait with interest to see what distinction a ceasefire agreement will make between “Lebanon” and Hizbollah.

I predict that it will make no distinction. US and Israel will make sure of that.

Perhaps this might help, Dave.

“The country has been torn to shreds. Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted on us?” a bitter and emotional Saniora told foreign ambassadors.

“You want to support the government of Lebanon? Let me tell you… no government can survive on the ruins of a nation,” he said. “I hope you will not let us down. We the Lebanese want life. We have chosen life. We refuse to die.”

This too is interesting as a moderate view of Lebanon today.

Or perhaps you might like a slightly more radical view?

Let us either cry for our impotence or prick their consciences; it will make no difference, anyway.

You can’t have it both ways. If Hezbollah is the legitimate government, then Israel’s war against all of Lebanon is justified. If it isn’t, if as I claim they are a band of thugs that provides social services much like Prohibition gangsters did in Chicago then they need to be defeated and destroyed.

There simply will not be peace while an armed force whose goal is the destruction of Israel sits on the Israeli border.

Since I want peace, the ending of that force is the first goal, the first step. After that, we can see where we are and try to make progress in other areas.

None of the problems you mention have any hope of solution while Hezbollah remains an armed force.

Once again though, I am forced to wonder what your solution is. You say that disarming Hezbollah is wrong or fooling or something. What is your alternative?

Dave, sometimes I have difficulty working out just how you see things.

1. Hezbollah is PART OF the Lebanon government. They have representatives WHO WERE ELECTED IN FREE ELECTIONS in the Lebanese Parliament.

That does not make them the “Lebanese government”.

2. Hezbollah provides a wide range of public services and welfare in Southern Lebanon.

That does not make them the “Lebanese government”

3. The Hezbollah provides an effective defence and police force to the South Lebanon.

That does not make them the “Lebanese government”

__________________________________________________

Now, take away Hezbollah from Lebanon. What is left? What is left for the PEOPLE who live in South Lebanon (well used to) in the same way as I live in Auckland, or you live where you live. Those PEOPLE elected Hezbollah for as many varied reasons as you might vote for your local representatives.

That, I think more than anything else, is where we are always at odds.

You want to destroy Hezbollah. To hell with the consequences. That is the first objective. What happens after we will deal with after.

And at that point we hit the retrack point in the record, the groundhog day moment, and it starts all over again.

And that is my point.

We can not “solve” the problems of the Levant, or the Middle East, or Zimbabwe, or Sudan, without recognising and planning for what will be needed to replace and prevent the same thing happening again in the future.

Afghanistan has proved that - instead of growing wheat and rice, farmers grow opium; because they can not sell legitimate product in markets depressed by subsidised products from rich countries.

Iraq has proved that - I can not believe the suprise being expressed at the impending split of Iraq into its three natural factions; it was apparent from day one, it was apparent from the appointment of the interim government…

If we take Hezbollah out of Lebanon, with what will we replace it?

Well, if past cycles of the groundhog day are followed the US will reward Israel with more armaments, with more money; Lebanon will reconstruct, probably from sheer hard work and determination and a small amount of help from Europe and friendship payments from the Arab nations.

But Dave, what will the PEOPLE of Lebanon be thinking. They are the casualties, they are the ones who lose their homes, they are the ones facing several years of poverty and deprivation while they rebuild their lives.

There will be hatred within the country as well as enmity for both the US and Israel. Who will plan to prevent the battles that will almost certainly occur between Druse, Christian and Arab?

Dave, for this attempt to remove Hezbollah to succeed the reasons for the existance of that organisation to exist must be removed. No, I do not mean “remove Israel”.

I am talking about assisting Lebanon’s rebuilding, the restoration of infrastructure, the creation of an effective government, provide effective law-keeping, provide an effective defence.

In that latter point perhaps US could adopt the same approach as they did in Germany after WW2.

“We will help in re-establishing your nation. We expect that you will follow where we lead. We expect cooperation. We will in return defend your nation with equal determination against all comers, including Syria, Iran and Israel.”

Probligo,

The problem with your line of thought is that you ASSUME that Hezbollah will want to work with the U.S. or any of the European nations.

I think the terrorist groups in the Middle East have made it very clear they don’t want to worth with any of the Western nations.

Pamela, why should they?

See here for why NOT.

I say it again -

There is no more justification in the actions of Hezbollah than there is legitimacy in the actions of Israel. Neither is there any less.

To argue that Hezbollah has no right to fight, is to say that the Muslims of Southern Lebanon have no right to defend themselves.

To argue that Hezbollah attacked first is to ignore all of the history of the war between Israel and Lebanon. Never has there been any revocation of that state of war. Never has there been an equitable ceasefire.

To argue that Hezbollah is an “external terrorist organisation”, is no different to arguing that Tino Rangatiratanga is an arm of the Chinese Peoples Party or the Australian Aborigine Freedom Association. The statement is wrong. As Khouri has said, Hezbollah IS the people of South Lebanon.

Lebanon has never made any meaningful defence of the people of the South. The massacres of Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and again in 1985 shows that neither Israel nor Lebanon wish to have responsibility for those who were expelled from MSOI in 1947/48.

Neither has the international community ever recognised the people of South Lebanon as anything other than a “Lebanese problem”. That should be as much to our shame as “civilised” people as Dafur.