Imagine a militia in Cuba, independent from Fidel Castro, starts occupying some region in the country and becomes heavily armed.
Chavez, for example, provides the militia with money and arms. The militia becomes a state within the state such that Cuba's government cannot intervene. The government is unhappy with the situation but unable to control it.
This militia's ideology is that the imperialist US has impoverished and harmed Cuba, and today is time for payback. So the militia starts bombing Miami sometimes, kidnapping American people other times, etc. And the militia keeps acquiring more and more powerful missiles. 1000 km range, 2000 km range, etc.
What would the response of the US be?
Even if we side with the militia and agree that they have a strong point (Cuba has been harmed by the US for decades), the response from the US can be expected to be very harsh. They will invade Cuba.
Indeed, in 1962 something similar occurred and nearly ignited WWIII.
And this is what Olmert did in Lebanon.
So our main problem in Lebanon, at the moment, is that the government has been pushed aside and a militia took over. Should Israel tolerate people armed with long range missiles, who obey no official authority, and sitting by the Israeli border?
If I were Israel I wouldn't tolerate it!
Moreover, these armed people will become even more armed in 2010: more powerful and longer range missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. And these armed people are disobeying all attempts by the Lebanese government to peacefully disarm and join the political life.
So what options is Israel left with?
I honestly believe that Israel is a terrorist state. But I can understand the Israeli reaction. You cannot pack long range missiles at their border and have no official authority behind the command of these missiles! There will be a response, a strong one.
Imagine further that one day Iran succeeds in developing an atom bomb. And then imagine Iran smuggling such a bomb to Hezbollah... The only option Israel has is to destroy Hezbollah or find a way to disarm it.
Hezbollah's armed existence is wrong in the modern world where human beings have reached a sufficiently advanced level to create nations governed by official entities. And these entities communicate with each other at the level of a state. Guerillas are understandable when the state is under siege or lost. But in Lebanon there exists a state and it is democratically elected. Why should Hezbollah carry arms?
The problems between Israel and Lebanon should be handled by the democratically elected Lebanese government. Israel's government is doing its job. Let the Lebanese government do its job. I don't see any Zionist militias in the North of Israel trying to deal with the issues with Lebanon.
Let us behave like the modern world if we don't want to look like a society of monkeys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think you got the wrong idea there, buddy...
"honestly believe that Israel is a terrorist state"
Hmmm... on what basis?
But in Lebanon there exists a state and it is democratically elected
The problem is that (1) there is barely any state in South Lebanon and (2)no Lebanese army capable of protecting Lebanon from Israel. I honestly believe that if the March 14 movement wants Lebanon free of Hizbollah and all other armed militias, it needs to focus on training and equipping the Lebanese army to confront future Israeli aggression. You can't expect people in South Lebanon to consent to Hizbollah's disarmament if that'll leave Israel free to fly over South of the Litani any time it wishes.
Yes Peter, the Lebanese army is being armed. Just give some time to a nation that is coming out of decades of wars and occupation. And give some credit to the government who also has to deal with severe economic problems (that Hezbollah doesn't have).
So the government wanted to reach the South, wanted to bring peace and prosperity to all the regions of Lebanon. But Hezbollah was acting like a state within the state, refusing any significant Lebanese army interference in the South.
Until the latest events that Hezbollah essentially lost because of wrong strategy and is now forced to let the army take over.
Even if you consider that Hezbollah won a battle or two, he lost strategically.
Israel too lost strategically, but that's a different story. Its public image in the world has been severely damaged.
In wars usually you have two losers. Who won the Iran/Iraq war? Who won the Bush/Saddam war? No one! Two losers in each case.
zalame,
When an airplane or a school is hijacked, you don't invade or bomb the airplane or the school, unless you're a terrorist too.
Israel has to learn how to deal with issues in a civilized and peace-oriented fashion rather than provocatively.
We can't put ALL the blame of the Middle East tragedy on the shoulders of the Arabs, can we? Can they be as bad as that?
HappyArab, I see your point however I feel I must remind you of a few key points.
Staying within your example of Cuba and Venezuela and the militia movement we should remember a few things. Firstly, the militia movement is all that there is standing between complete US domination of both Cuba and Venezuela. Second, imagine that the US is actually on the land of a formerly Spanish country whose refugees are crammed into both Cuba and Venezuela (their kinsmen) and are daily being bombed and shelled by the US. The enemy of these three peoples would inevitably be the US. The goal of these three peoples must remain to defeat this enemy and ideally, to liberate this occupied land. Like the Domino effect, if Hezbullah falls, all remaining countries will fall.
On your point regarding the civilians, where would Hezbullah hide them? If they could I'm sure they would, but you saw how the whole of the Lebanon was not safe from Israeli fighter/bombers. Nor for that matter is any Arab capital, which I'm sure are each targetted by Israels nuclear arsenal as we speak.
Post a Comment