All Hezbollah related subjects in this thread

[J. Abizeid]

القناة الـ10 الاسرائيلية ترى أن الصدمة النفسية تلاحق الجنود الإسرائيليين بذكرى حرب لبنان

13 تموز 2008

بمناسبة الذكرى الثانية لحرب لبنان الثانية التي صادفت أمس كشفت القناة الاسرائيلية العاشرة أن ثلث الجنود الاسرائيليين المشاركين فيها أصيبوا بالصدمة النفسية فيما تتباين آراء الإسرائيليين حول أثر الحرب على إسرائيل إستراتيجياً.
وأوضحت القناة استنادا لمعطيات الجيش أن نحو 800 جندي إسرائيلي ما زالت مشاهد وأصوات وكوابيس الحرب تلاحقهم، وأنهم مصابون بـ"صدمة الحرب" ويعتبر الجيش أن معظمهم "معاقون" نفسيا.
وأشارت القناة على لسان الجهات المختصة في الجيش إلى أن عدد الجنود المصابين بكرب ما بعد الصدمة جراء أهوال حرب لبنان الثانية وشراسة المقاومة، يفوق بكثير العدد المذكور نظرا لميل المصابين إلى عدم التصريح بإصابتهم بالصدمة.
وأشارت القناة أن نسبة جنود الاحتياط المصابين بالصدمة من مجمل المصابين تبلغ 60%، موضحة أنه نظرا إلى حجم القتال فإن أعداد المصابين بالصدمة النفسية الناجمة عن حرب لبنان الثانية هي الأعلى في تاريخ حروب إسرائيل.
وتتجلى العوارض على الجنود المصابين بالصدمة في عدم التركيز في العمل والأرق والتوتر الدائم وتراجع وظيفة المصاب كزوج وأب.
وأوضح رئيس جمعية خدمة "مصابي الصدمات في الحرب" العميد أوري سيغل في تصريح للإذاعة العامة، أن إصابة الجندي تكون أبلغ في حال عدم تجهيزه بما يقيه مسبقا.
وكشف سيغل أن إسرائيل مدينة أخلاقيا لجنودها المصابين نفسيا، معتبرا إياهم "معاقين"، وأن هناك نحو 5000 جندي مصاب بالصدمة اليوم مسجلين في قسم الصحة النفسية التابع للجيش، مشددا على وجود عشرات آلاف آخرين لا يحظون بالاعتراف أو يخشون من كشف ما يتعرضون له.
ويرى معلقون محليون أن انشغال الإسرائيليين بتطورات التحقيق الجديد مع رئيس الوزراء إيهود أولمرت حول قضايا الفساد قد طغى على المشهدين السياسي والإعلامي للذكرى السنوية الثانية للحرب على لبنان، مما يعكس ربما رغبة الإسرائيليين شعبياً ورسمياً في محو تلك الفترة من الذاكرة الجماعية.
ومن جهته أعلن أولمرت في تصريحات لصحف عربية محلية إن الهدوء المتواصل و"غير المعهود" من قبل على الحدود الشمالية يشكل إنجازا مهما للحرب، بينما أكد وزير الدفاع إيهود باراك في تصريحات صحفية أن حزب الله يستعيد قوته في الجنوب في ظل "تآكل القرار الأممي" 1701.
ومقابل تحذيرات من أن خسارة الحرب ضربت قوة الردع الإسرائيلية، يعتبر درور زئيف المتخصص في تاريخ الشرق الأوسط في تصريح لإذاعة الجيش أن إسرائيل لم تفقد قوة ردعها حتى بعد حرب لبنان، لكنه شدد على أن هذه القوة أظهرت محدوديتها.
ومن وجهة النظر العسكرية يرى قائد هيئة الأركان في الجيش غابي أشكنازي أن إسرائيل ستنتصر في الحرب المقبلة رغم عدم استكمالها استخلاص الدروس من حرب لبنان الثانية والتدريبات العسكرية، كما قال للمراسل العسكري في "يديعوت أحرونوت" أليكس فيشمان.
وأوضح فيشمان إن الجيش ينكب على استخلاص مئات العبر والدروس من حرب لبنان الثانية لكنه يفضل التمحور في ثلاثة منها: مواجهة أزمة الثقة لدى المجتمع الإسرائيلي تجاه الجيش بعد خسارته في لبنان، واستكمال النواقص المهنية، ووضع الرجل المناسب في المكان المناسب.
ويرى المتخصص في الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي شلومو بروم أن ميزان حرب لبنان الثانية ما زال سلبيا بالنسبة لإسرائيل، ويوضح أن هناك شبه إجماع على أن إسرائيل دفعت ثمناً باهظاً في الحرب نتيجة "قلة التدريبات العسكرية".
في المقابل يشير بروم في تصريح لـ"الجزيرة نت" إلى الخلاف في الرأي حيال حالة قوة ردع إسرائيل عقب الحرب، ويقول إن من غير الممكن تجاهل الهدوء في الجبهة الشمالية، وذلك في إشارة "لارتداع حزب الله عن الاستفزاز واللعب بالنار" على حد قوله.
ويستدل على ذلك بامتناع الأمين العام لـ"حزب الله" السيّد حسن نصر الله عن الظهور العلني حتى اليوم، إلا أنه يشير من جهة أخرى إلى "تحطم القرار 1701، وتضاعف تهريب السلاح، وتجديد البنى التحتية العسكرية للمقاومة في الجنوب

[Frisbeetarian]

No, when Hezbollah was founded it was not born out of a popular movement. When Hezbollah was founded, the members who adhered to its line were very few and were not part of the status quo Shia community. Hezbollah was born when the vast majority of Shias in Lebanon were not well aquianted with their faith. They were Shia Muslims because thier ID cards said they were, not because they knew what being a Shia Muslim meant. Ignorance and illiteracy rates among Shi'as was very high, their education levels were poor, leftist ideologies were much more popular than Islamic ideologies, the hijab was worn more out of being a cultural attire than for religous reasons, etc. The founding of Hezbollah was clergy and religously driven. They all adhered to a specific ideology and theology that was absent from the minds of the vast, vast majority of the Shia Muslims at the time. Even today, the armed members of the resistance are a select few cream de la creme from the tub of milk.

I didnt really need the history lesson being that im from Baalbek, but thanks anyway :).

And yes, you are correct in stating that they join because they believe in such a resistance and it confroms to their ideals and principles. Now if Hezbollah were to do what you are suggesting, i.e. become a "non-conformist, religiously unlabled movement", then those who are the members and fighters would no longer identify with the ideology and principles of such a resistance. In seeking to appease the popular masses, it would alienate its core constituancy by abandoning its identity.

It was actually born out of the bosom of "Amal", the concept of resistance had already been established and laid out, only an iranian revolutionary mindset had set in. Mind you, i dont believe that the Hizb is an iranian party, it is as lebanese as the next party, but it does export most of its support and training from Iran.

Its whats ur stating that i consider to be the core of the problem. Instead of the concept of the resistance being the spear behind the movement, it is religion. Instead of ingraving the notion of resisting the invader no matter how, instead of growing that natural feeling for love of the land, they cultivated the feeling to the belonging to the sect, the religion. That is narrow minded because if Lebanon were to be constituted of shiaa only i wouldnt have seen the fault in this direction. But given the reality on the ground, i would have prefered seing the example i have stated being followed, for a unifying party to exist, a party that would indeed incompensate the whole of the lebanese people.

But you see, whats the alternative? Whats the alternative when the all the resistances goals would be accomplished, the lebanese are only going to grow weary of it. Whats the point of it continuing if there is nothing more to accomplish. I bet ya that the opposition towards it in the later period from now on would have been deminished if the resistance would have shawn in all colours since its inception. Im kinda thinking about the next step, ur looking at the things on the ground and describing them to me. I already told you, i understand what ur trying to get across i am totaly aware of it, of how the resistance is consituted, of how it functions. Even though i think ur mistaken about the resistance being independant on popularity; being a function that was born out the crevices of the people, out of necessity not out of luxury, out deprevation not out of abundance. The resistance is like a revolution, whom if loosing its most important support i.e the people, would falter like a lief. Why do u think SHN calls for the people to rally (whom they show up by the millions) in the streets for a cause? Its because he knows the more people that show up, the stronger he is. Its the core principal the resistance has been counting upon from its birth, i dont understand why u fail on grasping this notion.

You again go back to the point of validity and link it to popularity. With all due respect, popularity and validity are two exclusive concepts. When SHN says "remedy the causes and the consequences will remedy themselves", he is getting at the gist of the notion. The resistance exists because of a number of causes, and as long as those causes continue to exist, the resistance's reaction is justified -- whether it is popular or not.

Actually no, when a resistance wants to achieve something, and most of the people arent in agreement of those goals, it looses its right to act upon these goals. Its what differienciates resistance partys from one another, the Hizb from Al Qaeda.

As for popularity among Southerners, I really don't get how you can possibly think that Hezbollah needs to change its ideology in order to preserve preserve popularity. If anything, the transformation of the Shia community as a whole in terms of religous awareness and ideological identification, from a former state of illiteracy and ignorance, has been a direct consequence of Hezbollah's conditioning of the Shia community with a psychology and culture of resistance that is characterized by an ideology that is distinctly derived from Shia Islam's history and principles. You want Hezbollah to denounce that all after the fact and aleinate its core constituancy? If Hezbollah were to ever do such a thing, it would no longer be Hezbollah. I would be something else. And it wouldn't have the support of the core supporters of Hezbollah.

Can u then please tell me whats the point of the resistance when there nothing more to resist? I repeat, i understand the importance of their beliefs in how they operate.

Im trying to create a loop hole for the resistance to escape through in order to survive. To metamorphose into a institution that is colour blind, for it to negate the effects of blind hate and fear, that will surely weaken it.

You seem to perceive that religion holds a valiantly positive effects on a certain society, it may hold over the individual, but i believe that religion propels society's into decay and deconstruction. It unfabrics logic, and makes superstition and stupidity rain over peoples minds, instead of logic and clarity.

Who is "we" when you say "we" are a fighting people by nature and circumstance? When Israel invaded in 1982, it was met with rice and flowers by some. I do not belive that such a general statement can be made. There have been many resistance movements. Some arab nationalists, some communists, some socialists, some Christian, some Muslim, etc. It's not a question of whether there is or isn't a certian history of resistance. The point here is that Hezbollah's model has thrived whereas other models have dwindled. And the credit for this lies in thier identity and ideology. A resistance movement needs a driving ideology. Without such a driving ideology, it will never survive.

Im talking in a larger scope, the people of this area (middle east) have been accostumed to continued wars and conflicts, it hardened their skin and made war and anarchy cause less of a destructive effect on things. In contrast if said things would have affected an american society that has been spoiled by centuries of internal peace, stability and prosperity, things would have been totally different; public mania, stocks crumble, collapse of economy, exponantial rise of crime and total chaos. Reason: no one had ever experiend war at their door step, they dont know what the fu*k to do. The Hizb was fully aware of this fact when it started lauching missiles into israeli settlements, its aim was not the destruction and flatening of entire areas, no, but to cause widespread panic. It knew that the israeli people were soft, and would crumble and panic at the 1st sound of alarm, and they knew that this fact would put humongous pressure on the israeli goverment. Israelis cant handle long term war, and especially when it hits home, thats why all of the conflicts that have been happening with israel for 60 years now, have been happening outside israel and on foreign lands like syria and egypt, because israeli leaders too are aware of it.

It is not necessary for Hezbollah to change its ideology so that it can garner support from non-Shias or preserve that support. It is understandable that Christians or Sunnis whose villages were liberated would have an appreciation for the resistance. It is understandable that the idea of resisting against aggression, liberating land, and freeing prisoners are national causes and achievements that resonate with people on a national level. This in itself is enough, and Hezbollah never asked for any of this support or appreciation anyway. It is not something that they are seeking, nor are they concerned with it. They have absolutely no interest in acting on the basis of garnering support or using their acheivements on a national scale for internal ends. This is not the basis upon which the resistance makes its calculations and operates.

Can u then please care to explain how a Christian would join a party that believes that every person that does not believe in Allah and Mohamad will go to hell. Point taken the resistance will garner support from him just for the mere fact that its resisting the enemy, but when that fades away...getting clearer?...what will keep it from having that support crumble....the idea of resistance would have vanished....what will be the reason for that Christian to continue to support this now changed regimed? We all know that the fact that enabled the resistance to garner support from different religions and sects was because it was resisting foreign invasion....(you see what i mean?).

This in itself is enough, and Hezbollah never asked for any of this support or appreciation anyway. It is not something that they are seeking, nor are they concerned with it. They have absolutely no interest in acting on the basis of garnering support or using their acheivements on a national scale for internal ends. This is not the basis upon which the resistance makes its calculations and operates.

Oh yes, thats why they introduced themselfs into the goverment, into university politics, into charities and schools, its because they are shy and dont want to get noticed and arent asking for support.

Fact, the resistance wouldnt survive if the relationship with the citizens of the south wouldnt have been amiable, it wouldnt have persisted if a same relationship existed with the populace in "dahye", mind you alot of **** happens there, but its because the people love them that they accept all the security and patrols. But to show a rather funny contrast, the resistance knows that it cant act to its whims and arrest every violation that happens in the "banlieu", they "dont want" to stop every crime, every misdemeaner, every violation because basicly the populace there would get pissed off and they would start having alot more problems, thats why most of the criminals and thieves go hide in areas such as "Hay el Seloum" and "Baalbek" and "Hermel", these are locations where the goverment cant reach them, and the resistance does not care too much to aggravate them. Having lived for 2 years in "dahye", im quite aware of what im talking about.

A quick note: if u think that i have an inate hatred for shiaas ur mistaken. I just am uncomfortable with "Organized Religion" and would like to see it dissapear in our resistance, because i believe that the single idea of resistance is enough to entice even the most ardently pacifist fellow to rise up in arms.

[Learned]

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

It was actually born out of the bosom of "Amal", the concept of resistance had already been established and laid out, only an iranian revolutionary mindset had set in. Mind you, i dont believe that the Hizb is an iranian party, it is as lebanese as the next party, but it does export most of its support and training from Iran.

Its whats ur stating that i consider to be the core of the problem. Instead of the concept of the resistance being the spear behind the movement, it is religion. Instead of ingraving the notion of resisting the invader no matter how, instead of growing that natural feeling for love of the land, they cultivated the feeling to the belonging to the sect, the religion. That is narrow minded because if Lebanon were to be constituted of shiaa only i wouldnt have seen the fault in this direction. But given the reality on the ground, i would have prefered seing the example i have stated being followed, for a unifying party to exist, a party that would indeed incompensate the whole of the lebanese people.

Seeing as you are an "ex-Shia", it is not surprising that you hold this point of view. However, I fundametally disagree with you. As I pointed out twice thus far, a lot of "resistance" movements tried to resist under a whole slew of banners, ideologies, and slogans. They all failed. Hezbollah succeeded and thrived. The important question that you have to ask yourself is why they all failed whereas Hezbollah succeeded, and I think that this is an issue that you are overlooking. Resistance is not sophistic. It is not chaotic. It is not irrational. It is not carried out "no matter how". Resistance should be structured, disciplined, orderly, and inspiring. Resistance for the sake of resistance is not inspiring. Hezbollah's ideology is inspiring to its cadres and supporters. It drives individuals to make the sacrifices that are required in order for a culture and psychology of resistance to thrive, and it is perfectly within thier right to draw parallels between their ideology and history and thier current struggle.

The other important thing to remember is that Hezbollah does not hold any monopoly on resistance. In the words of SHN, "if you want to resist, come and we will make room for you." Many different factions fought in July 2006 (LCP, AMAL, SSNP, non-affilaited villagers in the South, etc) other than Hezbollah, albiet in much smaller numbers. Also, within Hezbollah there are the "Al-Saraya Al-Lubnaniyah" (and armed wing parallel to the Islamic Resistance) who consist of Lebanese from all sects, religions, ideologies, backgrounds, etc. Anyone can join, and there is no religous requirement. In doing this, Hezbollah is being as flexible as possible. But I'll tell you flat out that if Hezbollah were to change its identity as you want it to, it would be suicide. It will never happen. You are going to have to accept Hezbollah for what they are, not turn them into what you want them to be.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

But you see, whats the alternative? Whats the alternative when the all the resistances goals would be accomplished, the lebanese are only going to grow weary of it. Whats the point of it continuing if there is nothing more to accomplish.

Who said we want resistance to go on forever? It seems that you may not have thought clearly about the goals of resistance. The goal isnt to get weapons for the sake of weapons, or resist for the sake of resistance, or have a movement for the sake of the movement. This is utter non-sense.

Once the goals are accomplished, the resistance disarms. This is the only logical outcome, and it is what the leadership of the resistance is striving for. Do you think that they want to continue resisting forever? Ofcourse not. Everyone looks forward to the day when we can live in peace and security without an emminent threat on our Southern border.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

I bet ya that the opposition towards it in the later period from now on would have been deminished if the resistance would have shawn in all colours since its inception. Im kinda thinking about the next step, ur looking at the things on the ground and describing them to me. I already told you, i understand what ur trying to get across i am totaly aware of it, of how the resistance is consituted, of how it functions. Even though i think ur mistaken about the resistance being independant on popularity; being a function that was born out the crevices of the people, out of necessity not out of luxury, out deprevation not out of abundance. The resistance is like a revolution, whom if loosing its most important support i.e the people, would falter like a lief. Why do u think SHN calls for the people to rally (whom they show up by the millions) in the streets for a cause? Its because he knows the more people that show up, the stronger he is. Its the core principal the resistance has been counting upon from its birth, i dont understand why u fail on grasping this notion.

The resistance are the few, not the many.
They are the secluded, not the masses.

Those who rally in the hundreds of thousands are supporters of the resistance, sure. But remember, in 1982 they did not number in the hundreds of thousands. In 1992 they didn't number in the hundreds of thousands either. Those who have become ardent supporters of the resistance, especially after the liberation in 2000, have done so because of the resistance's accomplishments. This is different than a revolution. A revolution is a popular uprising that demands change. The popularity preceeds the change. This is the opposite. It is popular support for those who accomplished change after the fact. The popularity is a consequence of the accomplishments.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Actually no, when a resistance wants to achieve something, and most of the people arent in agreement of those goals, it looses its right to act upon these goals. Its what differienciates resistance partys from one another, the Hizb from Al Qaeda.

No, you are mistaken. Rights are not a function of popularity - not by any means whatsoever. If the majority of the Lebanese people reach a point where they decide that living in submission is preferrable for them than resisting under some empty slogan of "I love life", that is their right. They are free to relinquish their rights of they want to. But as long as there is a single individual who does not want to relinquish anything that is his right, even if the whole world is against it, his right remains his right and he is absolutely justified is striving to attain it. I invite you to read the post I linked to in my earlier reply. It explains this idea very clearly. Rights are absolute. They are not relative to popularity.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Can u then please tell me whats the point of the resistance when there nothing more to resist? I repeat, i understand the importance of their beliefs in how they operate.

There isn't. I never said there was.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Im trying to create a loop hole for the resistance to escape through in order to survive. To metamorphose into a institution that is colour blind, for it to negate the effects of blind hate and fear, that will surely weaken it.

Oh, I see. So you think that the only way the resistance can survive after the goals are accomplished is if it drops the whole religion thing?

Thats interesting. But Hezbollah would disagree with you, and so do I.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

You seem to perceive that religion holds a valiantly positive effects on a certain society, it may hold over the individual, but i believe that religion propels society's into decay and deconstruction. It unfabrics logic, and makes superstition and stupidity rain over peoples minds, instead of logic and clarity.

Thats interesting. You are entitled to your opinion. But tell me, since you described yourself as a non-Muslim theist, what exactly is your theology, and how is it different from religion? Is it detached from "superstition and stupidity" and does it embrace "logic and clarity", unlike religion as you claim?

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Im talking in a larger scope, the people of this area (middle east) have been accostumed to continued wars and conflicts, it hardened their skin and made war and anarchy cause less of a destructive effect on things. In contrast if said things would have affected an american society that has been spoiled by centuries of internal peace, stability and prosperity, things would have been totally different; public mania, stocks crumble, collapse of economy, exponantial rise of crime and total chaos. Reason: no one had ever experiend war at their door step, they dont know what the fu*k to do. The Hizb was fully aware of this fact when it started lauching missiles into israeli settlements, its aim was not the destruction and flatening of entire areas, no, but to cause widespread panic. It knew that the israeli people were soft, and would crumble and panic at the 1st sound of alarm, and they knew that this fact would put humongous pressure on the israeli goverment. Israelis cant handle long term war, and especially when it hits home, thats why all of the conflicts that have been happening with israel for 60 years now, have been happening outside israel and on foreign lands like syria and egypt, because israeli leaders too are aware of it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Can u then please care to explain how a Christian would join a party that believes that every person that does not believe in Allah and Mohamad will go to hell. Point taken the resistance will garner support from him just for the mere fact that its resisting the enemy, but when that fades away...getting clearer?...what will keep it from having that support crumble....the idea of resistance would have vanished....what will be the reason for that Christian to continue to support this now changed regimed? We all know that the fact that enabled the resistance to garner support from different religions and sects was because it was resisting foreign invasion....(you see what i mean?).

Well first of all, Hezbollah is not a party that believes that "every person that does not believe in Allah and Mohamad will go to hell". Let's not turn this into a discussion about Islam by making innacurate statements.

Secondly, Hezbollah does not impose beliefs on people. Religous beliefs are a function of individual choice. A member of Hezbollah is free to believe in whatever he wants, and a Christian is free to beleive in whatever he wants. If the Christian (or Sunni or Druze or Alawite or Atheist or whoever else) is so narrow minded to believe that the resistance should not be supported for sectarian reasons, regardless of their accomlishments on the national level, then I don't want his/her support.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Oh yes, thats why they introduced themselfs into the goverment, into university politics, into charities and schools, its because they are shy and dont want to get noticed and arent asking for support.

You misunderstood. There is a difference between seeking popularity and a pat on the back for the sake of it, and working effectively to secure your interests and create a sense of social justice in the face of necessity.

When did Hezbollah enter the government? In 2005. And the only reason it did so was out of necessity, because of international pressure to get Hezbollah to disarm. If Hezbollah could have their way, they would prefer not to be in government at all.

Why the chariteis and schools? Because the state of society necessitates it.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

Fact, the resistance wouldnt survive if the relationship with the citizens of the south wouldnt have been amiable, it wouldnt have persisted if a same relationship existed with the populace in "dahye", mind you alot of **** happens there, but its because the people love them that they accept all the security and patrols. But to show a rather funny contrast, the resistance knows that it cant act to its whims and arrest every violation that happens in the "banlieu", they "dont want" to stop every crime, every misdemeaner, every violation because basicly the populace there would get pissed off and they would start having alot more problems, thats why most of the criminals and thieves go hide in areas such as "Hay el Seloum" and "Baalbek" and "Hermel", these are locations where the goverment cant reach them, and the resistance does not care too much to aggravate them. Having lived for 2 years in "dahye", im quite aware of what im talking about.

Valid criticisms. I could add to them if you like.

Originally Posted by friendofzeus

A quick note: if u think that i have an inate hatred for shiaas ur mistaken. I just am uncomfortable with "Organized Religion" and would like to see it dissapear in our resistance, because i believe that the single idea of resistance is enough to entice even the most ardently pacifist fellow to rise up in arms.

I don't think I ever suggested that you have any hatred for anybody. I think I understand where you are coming from. I've known many individuals such as yourself who have denouned their religions (whatever they may have been), and adopted anti-"organized religion" stances.

But like I said, I respect your opinion, but as of this point it is just an opinion. Hezbollah has put forth a model that is tried and tested and seems to be successfull, so its not just a bunch of arbitrary ideas strung together. What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that resistance alone should be enough of a driver for people to follow behind a movement, and that religion is illogical and decays society so the resistance should drop it. However, the experience in Lebanon does not indicate this. Many secular movements with resistance as thier driver did not survive and thrive, and Hezbollah has been able to utilize religion and at the same time increase education levels, literacy rates, political awareness, ideological resoundment, etc among Shias in Lebanon. As for religion, I strongly disagree with you but respect your opinion nonetheless.

Perhaps if you were to back up your opinions with some kind of ideological basis or substantive argument, we can discuss their plausability and relevance. However, at this point, all I can say to you is that your opinions are interesting, but I disagree because we already have a model that is working and successful. Why fix it if isn't broken?

[joseph_lubnan]

How should the Lebanese people move the issue of the HA arms forward?

* Is it possible to tie the disarmament with the liberation of Sheb3a, no matter whether the borders between Lebanon and Syria issue is resolved? (Now that the issue of prisoners is resolved)

* Is it possible to for HA and the government to start negotiation on Sheb3a immediately in a similar way to the negotiation on the prisoners?

* Is it possible to create a new group in the Lebanese army with members from all of the mosaic of Lebanon, including some members of the current Shiite resistance? And disband the HA militia/resistance...

The only entity standing in the way of achieving the above today is HA. Don't you think that this is paradoxical given what HA claims they want for Lebanon. How can the Lebanese not resent HA for their refusal to move forward on such issues?

[Frisbeetarian]

Seeing as you are an "ex-Shia", it is not surprising that you hold this point of view. However, I fundametally disagree with you. As I pointed out twice thus far, a lot of "resistance" movements tried to resist under a whole slew of banners, ideologies, and slogans. They all failed. Hezbollah succeeded and thrived.

That doesnt make a religious resistance the only option to consider.

The important question that you have to ask yourself is why they all failed whereas Hezbollah succeeded, and I think that this is an issue that you are overlooking. Resistance is not sophistic. It is not chaotic. It is not irrational. It is not carried out "no matter how". Resistance should be structured, disciplined, orderly, and inspiring. Resistance for the sake of resistance is not inspiring. Hezbollah's ideology is inspiring to its cadres and supporters. It drives individuals to make the sacrifices that are required in order for a culture and psychology of resistance to thrive, and it is perfectly within thier right to draw parallels between their ideology and history and thier current struggle.

Resistance can be irrational, resistance is a product of man, and thus it can take any colour shape or form. You dont see alot of rational thinking when say a terrorist blows up a hospital or an elementary school for the sake or resistance...u may call it terrorism but they will sure call it resistance towards an invader that is acting in a similar manner. There can be no rationality in any act perfomered by man, it is the mere notion of acting that demand sacrifice in order for it to be achieved. No resistance is perfect inso it commits and errors that it is forced to make even though such acts to do not comply with its ideologie. Resistance is a product of man and as such takes the shape of all our interesting behaviour.

Resistance for the sake of resistance is not inspiring. Hezbollah's ideology is inspiring to its cadres and supporters. It drives individuals to make the sacrifices that are required in order for a culture and psychology of resistance to thrive, and it is perfectly within thier right to draw parallels between their ideology and history and thier current struggle.

To there is little that is more inspiring than the fact of resisting an invader and defending my homeland, i dont need religion to tell me to defend my home. Somehow i think this notion should be present in all man since inception (since it goes hand in hand with survivle and freedom) its kind of sad to see that it religion is needed to get you excited to be free.

The other important thing to remember is that Hezbollah does not hold any monopoly on resistance. In the words of SHN, "if you want to resist, come and we will make room for you." Many different factions fought in July 2006 (LCP, AMAL, SSNP, non-affilaited villagers in the South, etc) other than Hezbollah, albiet in much smaller numbers. Also, within Hezbollah there are the "Al-Saraya Al-Lubnaniyah" (and armed wing parallel to the Islamic Resistance) who consist of Lebanese from all sects, religions, ideologies, backgrounds, etc. Anyone can join, and there is no religous requirement. In doing this, Hezbollah is being as flexible as possible. But I'll tell you flat out that if Hezbollah were to change its identity as you want it to, it would be suicide. It will never happen. You are going to have to accept Hezbollah for what they are, not turn them into what you want them to be.

We both know strong the hizb is now, so why build something new when u have an already powerfull resistance ready to be upgraded :) and enhanced.

Who said we want resistance to go on forever? It seems that you may not have thought clearly about the goals of resistance. The goal isnt to get weapons for the sake of weapons, or resist for the sake of resistance, or have a movement for the sake of the movement. This is utter non-sense.

Once the goals are accomplished, the resistance disarms. This is the only logical outcome, and it is what the leadership of the resistance is striving for. Do you think that they want to continue resisting forever? Ofcourse not. Everyone looks forward to the day when we can live in peace and security without an emminent threat on our Southern border.

They already said that they are not going to lay down their weapons when our lands and captive return (even though im in favor of that decision), thus alot of opposition will rise from within the people demanding the resistance to stop its armed branches. We both know, that this opposition will grow because of lack of goals. Already alot of the lebanese dont want anything to do with Palestine, inso i dont think freeing Palestine will be a valid argument to persuade the people in continuing the resistance. You see, as i already mentioned, im trying to think ahead, trying to afformention what will happen if things keep going the way they are. You are describing things as they are now, i understand what ur saying, i understand the realities of "Now", but for the second time, im asking you, try to think ahead, try to invision how things will be with the abscence of true goals, that are meaningfull to the lebanese, that the resistance will adopt.

The resistance are the few, not the many.
They are the secluded, not the masses.

Those who rally in the hundreds of thousands are supporters of the resistance, sure. But remember, in 1982 they did not number in the hundreds of thousands. In 1992 they didn't number in the hundreds of thousands either. Those who have become ardent supporters of the resistance, especially after the liberation in 2000, have done so because of the resistance's accomplishments. This is different than a revolution. A revolution is a popular uprising that demands change. The popularity preceeds the change. This is the opposite. It is popular support for those who accomplished change after the fact. The popularity is a consequence of the accomplishments.

We both know that there are armed resistance branches around the world, that operate secretly that do now want to be known. But with the hizb its different. True they started out with little support from the people, but u cant just deny the fact that they opted to gain as much popularity and support from the people in order to preserve their existance in the long run as a much wider and larger party. Sure the hizb could contend with its meager audience whilst in its infancy, but it knew that it couldnt evolve without the peoples love. And when evolved it required this base of support to appear very strong and untouchable, because in a seemingly democratic society, and when facing "democratic" regimes, this fact is LOGICLY very important to acquire, the support of the people.

No, you are mistaken. Rights are not a function of popularity - not by any means whatsoever. If the majority of the Lebanese people reach a point where they decide that living in submission is preferrable for them than resisting under some empty slogan of "I love life", that is their right. They are free to relinquish their rights of they want to. But as long as there is a single individual who does not want to relinquish anything that is his right, even if the whole world is against it, his right remains his right and he is absolutely justified is striving to attain it. I invite you to read the post I linked to in my earlier reply. It explains this idea very clearly. Rights are absolute. They are not relative to popularity.

Lets not go into the details of pety Lebanese confrontations, lets talk in a larger scope. Actually a "right" is given, by its popularity. A "right" doesnt necessarily mean that its "good".Lke the burning of witches back in medieval time. Alot of people of gathered and screamed for their death, that insilled a right to kill that witch because alot of people agreed on it, and surely it was done, thousands of times....it may not be good and right but it was a "right" exerced by the church instilled by the masses. Resistance can garner the same concept; a resistance is popular, it becomes the saviour of the people, if it is not it becomes an oppresor, a fairly simple equation.

Thats interesting. You are entitled to your opinion. But tell me, since you described yourself as a non-Muslim theist, what exactly is your theology, and how is it different from religion? Is it detached from "superstition and stupidity" and does it embrace "logic and clarity", unlike religion as you claim?

I believe that god is the laws of nature.


**** net cafes, ill continue this tomorrow, besides am out of m money :P.
Such a nice debate, reminds me when we used to debated redneck jackoffs on xanga;defending islam and the prophet...brings tears to my eyes....*sniffs*.

[J. Abizeid]

Hezbollah delivers remains of two Israeli soldiers - Yahoo! News

The deal is viewed as a triumph by the Lebanese guerrilla group

[J. Abizeid]

Hezbollah delivers remains of two Israeli soldiers - Yahoo! News
Hezbollah delivers remains of two Israeli soldiers

Hezbollah handed over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers to the Red Cross on Wednesday to be exchanged for Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.
The deal is viewed as a triumph by the Lebanese guerrilla group and as a painful necessity by many Israelis, two years after the soldiers' capture sparked a 34-day war with Hezbollah that killed about 1,200 people in Lebanon and 159 Israelis.
Hezbollah's al-Manar TV showed two black coffins being taken from a vehicle at the Israel-Lebanon border after Hezbollah security official Wafik Safa disclosed for the first time that army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were dead.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) took the coffins and drove them into Israel. Safa later said DNA tests conducted by the ICRC had verified the identity of the soldiers. There was no immediate confirmation from the ICRC or Israel.
"We are now handing over the two imprisoned Israeli soldiers, who were captured by the Islamic resistance on July 12, 2006, to the ICRC," Safa said at the border. "The Israeli side will now hand over the great Arab mujahid (holy warrior) ... Samir Qantar and his companions to the ICRC."
In a deal mediated by a U.N.-appointed German intelligence officer, Israel was to free Qantar and four other prisoners.
Qantar had been serving a life prison term for the deaths of four Israelis, including a four-year-old girl and her father, in a 1979 Palestinian guerrilla attack on an Israeli town.
Neighbors outside the Regev home wept at the news the two soldiers were dead. Fighting back tears, Shlomo Laniado, who served in their reserve unit, said on Israel's Channel Two television: "It increases the motivation to protect this country and it shows us who we are dealing with."
An ICRC truck later drove into Lebanon with the bodies of eight Hezbollah fighters killed during the 2006 war.
Israel will also hand over the remains of nearly 200 Arabs killed trying to infiltrate northern Israel. Hezbollah will return the remains of Israeli soldiers killed in south Lebanon.
The deal also calls for Israel to release scores of Palestinian prisoners at a later date as a gesture to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
HEZBOLLAH READY TO CELEBRATE
Hezbollah has dubbed the exchange "Operation Radwan," in honor of "Hajj Radwan," or Imad Moughniyah, the group's military commander who was assassinated in Syria in February.
Yellow Hezbollah flags and banners fluttered across south Lebanon and along the coastal highway from the border village of Naqoura to the capital, Beirut. "Liberation of the captives: a new dawn for Lebanon and Palestine," one banner read.
Israel denounced the planned festivities.
"Samir Qantar is a brutal murderer of children and anybody celebrating him as a hero is trampling on basic human decency," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev said.
For some Lebanese, the exchange demonstrated the futility of the devastating conflict with Israel two summers ago.

"There shouldn't have been a war in 2006. A lot of lives were lost," said Rami Nasereddine, an 18-year-old student in downtown Beirut. "It's good that the prisoner exchange is taking place. Israel should have done that two years ago."
The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas said the prisoner swap would boost its position in demanding the release of hundreds of long-serving prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured two years ago near the Gaza Strip.
"This is a great victory to the resistance and to Hezbollah and it is a festival for the Lebanese prisoners and their families," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.
Israeli President Shimon Peres set the prisoner swap in motion on Tuesday by pardoning Qantar, reviled in Israel for his role in the 1979 attack. Qantar, aged 17 at the time, has said the father was shot by Israeli soldiers who also wounded him, and that he doesn't remember what happened to the girl.
Peres said he felt "bitter and unbearable pain" at the decision and that it "in no way constitutes forgiveness," but that Israel was obliged to get its soldiers back.
Olmert had described Qantar as the last bargaining chip for word on Israeli airman Ron Arad, missing since he bailed out over Lebanon in 1986. Israel said a report supplied by Hezbollah on Arad as part of the swap had failed to clarify his fate.
Hezbollah has made Qantar's freedom a central demand. Many in Lebanon believe Israel's refusal to free Qantar earlier prompted Hezbollah's cross-border raid that led to the 2006 war. The other Lebanese prisoners being released were identified as Maher Qorani, Mohammad Srour, Hussein Suleiman and Khodr Zeidan. They were to receive a heroes' welcome of fireworks and rallies in Lebanon, which declared a public holiday.

[joseph_lubnan]

Now that both HA and FPM are in the government, what's next for the MOU?

It has been a while since the two parties have done anything or said anything in relation to the MOU how to move it forward and what the next steps may be. If one assumes it was a genuine step, is the MOU forgotten today ? Have FPM and HA put it behind them? What are the next steps?

[lebanese1]

Originally Posted by joseph_lubnan

Now that both HA and FPM are in the government, what's next for the MOU?

It has been a while since the two parties have done anything or said anything in relation to the MOU how to move it forward and what the next steps may be. If one assumes it was a genuine step, is the MOU forgotten today ? Have FPM and HA put it behind them? What are the next steps?

Next step is to liberate Shebaa farms, then integrate HA'
s weapons in a national defense strategy.

[Learned]

I do not think that there is anything more Hezbollah could have accomplished to avenge Imad Mughniyeh than what it accomplished today.