8 May 2008
Is this the day the (new) Lebanese Civil War started? And, more importantly, the day Abu Muqawama's plans to move back to Beirut this summer were wrecked?
Abu Muqawama can't find a link to the English-language text of Nasrallah's speech today, so he's stuck reading the Arabic, which you can find here. Apparently idiots are firing RPGs at one another. Now that's keeping it real.
One thing to watch if unrestricted fighting breaks out: Hizbollah can probably beat most of its adversaries within Beirut, but just as Hizbollah can block the roads to the airport, M14 can surely block all roads leading from Beirut to the Hizbollah strongholds of the Bekaa and the South, no?
Update: Abu Muqawama has just skimmed the text, and a few things jumped out. One, Nasrallah called Hizbollah's secure command and control system its greatest weapon during the 2006 war, which Abu Muqawama found interesting. Second, he qualified the whole "declaration of war" bit by calling the government's decision a "declaration of war" by "the government of (Druze leader) Walid Jumblatt." Smart, picking on the leader of Lebanon's tiny Druze community, but it doesn't appear as if the Sunni have considered themselves exempted from the declaration. Although if Abu Muqawama is correct, (Jumblatt's Druze ally) Marwan Hamadi remains the minister for telecommunications, true?
Update II: Walid Jumblatt agrees with Abu Muqawama. He apparently just said on Kalam an-Nass, "If he (Nasrallah) wants to occupy Beirut, he can do that militarily. But then what?"
44 comments:
I hear that they are using mortars in Ras Al Nabaa now. Amal called the TV station and claimed they killed 10 FM gunmen.
I am getting mixed news on the airport situation. Some are saying it is completely shut down and others are saying that Hizballah only shut down to access road to the airport.
One more thing, I loathe how the western wire services (Reuters/AP and BBC) keep saying "Western-Backed" each time they mention Government/FM side of things while Amal/Hizballah never get "Syrian/Iranian backed" each time they are mentioned.
After 2006 people will be watching how the press covers this with very much skepticism.
Amal/Hizballah never get "Syrian/Iranian backed"? I have never seen Hizballah written in the western MSm without it being preceded by "Iranian backed".
You should lisent to the BBC. They are claiming that Hizballah are actually fighting government forces, that might chher you up.
re. Summer plans AM, you and me both
Sorry mo, but look at the BBC link that Abu M provided.
It has "Western-Backed" in bold and does not mention Syrian or Iran in the article. Both those governments have much to gain with the current opposition running the country.
Walid J has to worry about being blamed for bringing all this on Beirut (and its inhabitants) for what? for withdrawing 2 days later? Beirut's inhabitants must have been disgusted at seeing Hariri defeated. I believe things are just about to be brought back to pre-may-7th ...
Soldiering: Opposition marked big.
Politicking: Opposition scored big.
http://tinyurl.com/3phw7k
Here is a link to a TIME article on the communications networks.
Again, TIME is guilty of calling the government "Western-Backed" while saying nothing about the opposition's backers.
Where the hell did Hizballah get the money to put in its own FIBER AND WIMAX networks. That is expensive stuff to wire a whole country. Along with the Welfare program they have huge backing
When did the "Western-Backed" governemnt get so much support to be worthy of that label, while Hizballah is treated as a purely organic and altruistic organization.
I'm sorry Derek, regardless of this article, I read UK press daily and rarely see Hezbollah etc mentioned without a refernce to its Syrian and Iranian backers.
Regarding "picking on Jumblatt" - I have a soft spot for the guy but his rhetoric has been distinctly bellicose in recent weeks - so he cant really object if people return the favour. "if they want war, we''ll give them war".."send car bombs to Damascus" etc.
Admittedly he normally then talks about the importance of dialogue a few days later.
Andy
Yeah, Derek, but that article was written by Nick Blanford. Now I very much like Nick and -- unlike Mo -- think he's a great reporter. But no one is going to accuse him of being biased against the March 14th government.
http://tinyurl.com/5rkaoz
Here is a link to a PDF with more on the Telecomm network. it states that the Hizballah network is link to Syrian Intel/Military networks.
My guess is that it is for more than just Communications, but rather a full blown C3 network. Meaning that it offer command, control etc. for rocket attacks on Israel.
Much has been said on Hizballah getting larger guided missiles for the next round of Israeli fighting. So my bet is that Syrian guides the missiles with Syrian Army equipment and then feeds the guidance data back to the missile batteries in Southern Lebanon.
I also wonder if this is Chinese Huawei Equipment. Huawei sold C3 equipment to Saddam during the run up to the 2003 invasion.
RE: Jumblatt's responsibility -- wasn't he the one who made the airport surveillance an issue? Wasn't it the ensuing removal of the head of Hariri International Airport (or was he just the head of security?) that started this rolling?
Two question-observations at this time:
1) Was M14 trying to whittle Hezbollah down by a thousand cuts (i.e. removing Nasrallah's people from positions of power), and they over-reached?
2)Sa'ad Hariri has offered a truce-type agreement mediated by the army, w/ the "immediate election of a consensus candidate" -- is the army still seen as neutral in any way, after Nahr-al-Bared and other such attempts by the M14 gov't to build it's image/power base as the legitimate national gov't? Why?
James
I tend to go with your first point. It makes sense, but perhaps (?) they were surprised by the reaction.
The "double jeapordy" point in one of the links is a good one. It is in none of the party's interests to start a genuine civil war. I dont think the M14 lot could win it without substantial overy foreign interference, which I dont think they want.
For the Hezbies it would distract them from the border.
Andy
AM, isn't this more like 'When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong?'
One thing some of the more perceptive (or paranoid?) commentators out there are pointing out is the possible role of the US in all of this as an instigator, a la Gaza right before the Hamas takeover. (In case you haven't had a chance to read the Vanity Fair exposee, I suggest you do so now. it should still be accessible through their archives) Has the US been helping train, fund, and/or equip the M14 forces on the same scale as they were with Fatah? Has anyone from the administration been spotted recently traveling in Lebanon and meeting with key M14 players?
The point to this line of questioning: is Hezbollah's violent reaction (presuming they started the gunfights -- a big "if") an indication they are feeling threatened, like M14 was bearing down on them?
james,You may have missed it but both Jumblatt and Geagea have been venerated guests of the White House in the last 3 months
Nasrallah's speech is interesting. First, I'm always flummoxed when Hizbollah chiefs mention 14 February in an unironic way, as if they had nothing to do with (oh, never mind)...
It's interesting to see Nasrallah play up the communications system as if it proved itself as the preeminent "weapon system" against the IAF/IDF in 2006. I thought what worked best was the fact that they had a decentralized plan in place to deal with the inevitable fracturing of their forces by dominant Israeli firepower and C&C strikes.
Is Nasrallah telling the truth? Or is it just bluster to attempt to retain the network, which seems more commercial to me than anything else.
He seems to be worried about someong "bugging" or "jamming" the current system and wants something upon his warriors can rely more. Kip would be happy to see Nasrallah fretting about the potential loss of cellular phone towers to aerial destruction. Nasrallah says that the simpleness of Hizbollah's mixed cable/wire system is its genius.
He even cites the Winogard report, telling Lebanon that the Israelis are planning to better strike at Hizbollah's C&C assets. Personality, I would imagine wire-based communications would be more difficult to defend, but what do I know?
I like the part where he said the government was just trying to shake down Hizbollah, that this was all over "state" monies and really not about Lebanese writ of law, calling the government a "band of thieves."
I liked that a lot. Then he said Hizbollah didn't want a coup or power or blah blah blah blah.
You're right about the Jumblatt hate, and the goofy reference to Condy Rice (ahhhh, the booted puppet master!), the French, Sarkozy, Israel, Olmert, United Nations Security Council, George W. Bush, David Welch (US envoy), etc, etc, etc. All the conspiracies, all the paranoia, but never any accountability from Hizbollah.
Hizbollah never does anything wrong. Hizbollah never makes strategic blunders (like assuming Sunnis in Lebanon wouldn't react violently to the telephone issue).
And for those embroiled in the controversy over how Hizbollah is defined in the press (Arabic anyway), Nasrallah contends that Israel and other enemies have spent "hundreds of millions of dollars" distorting Hizbollah's true nature, playing up the Syrian and Iranian connections.
There's a lot more, but Nasrallah gets tiresome. I'll await Abu M's buddy, Nir Rosen, to fill in the blanks with some hearty cult of personality spin on what a swell fella Nasrallah is, how we just don't understand him, how those who oppose him in Lebanon don't make valid points, yada yada yada...
So, Abu M, is your alter ego still going to Lebanon for the summer? If not, maybe you'll divert to Baghdad. I'll put you up while I "embed" with al-Sadr's crew.
Falafel for everyone!
soldier, your knowledge on Iraq is without doubt deep and second to none that I have read. Why you should revert to a post that seems based entirely on your animosity for the man and his party is beyond me.
You think Hizballah were involved in Hariris murder? And yet his own wife disagrees with you ?
If you listen to the speech again he qualified the importance of the network in that the resistance lost men when they used conventional communications which were intercepted. That is why it was important and why he deems it as important as the weapons.
What is it that makes you think the network is commercial? It is not linked to the standard phone network and is limited in its connections within Lebanon. He even hints that it is not even able to relay conversation but uses signals. Not much commercial use for that.
He said it was more difficult to intercept, not defend.
Also he did not say this was all over "state" monies. He said the opposite, that since it is not a commercial network it has nothing to do with the states income like the govt. is charging.
As for Lebanese writ of law and his calling the government a "band of thieves" that is exactly what they are and no one but no one has shown less respect for the rule of law than those in govt. If they are so concerned about state "monies" in the telecoms sector, then isn't it odd that every phone call you make in Lebanon, every internet connection you pay for, requires a fee to go to a company to none other than than the Telecoms ministers son. And what greater ban d of thieves than these are there who can steal $40 billion dollars of aid money and leave a country to pay it back?
He said Hizbollah didn't want a coup or power and you missed out that he also said that had they wanted a coup the leaders of March 14th would have woken up this morning in prison or in the middle of the sea. And the fact is he's right. If Hizballah wanted a coup, who exactly in Lebanon could stop them?
Jumblatt has demanded the weapons taken, has demanded car bombs be sent to Damascus, instigated this entire episode and has signed up to the neo-con adventure. What do you suggest, they shake their heads and say "oh that Jumbaltt, hes such a cad"?
And paranoia? Are you seriously suggesting that the Europenas, the US and Israel are not all making concerted efforts to see Hizballah's weapons removed?
never any accountability from Hizbollah? For what? they didn't instigate this escalation nor did they start the shooting so perhaps you will tell me.
But in Lebanon and in the Middle East he is more popular than any other leader. Even the Israelis trust his word over any of their own. You may dislike him. Maybe you dont like it when someone stands up to the American agenda in the ME (much as you dont like Sadr) or maybe its just the Shia you don't like and hey, whichever it is, thats your prerogative. But you are going to have to do a lot better than blah blah blahs and calling him tiresome to tarnish his image.
AM's, mo's, and my summer plans alike...
"He even cites the Winogard report, telling Lebanon that the Israelis are planning to better strike at Hizbollah's C&C assets. Personality, I would imagine wire-based communications would be more difficult to defend..."
Buried redundant wire can be rather hard to damage in a permanent way, and certainly much easier to fix. It is also fairly easy to spoof false lines.
In any case, Hizbullah is likely more worried about having their internal communications compromised. This is obviously extremely easy to do with cellphones or the public telephone system, and requires some heavy-duty encryption of radio networks to put it beyond presumed Israeli COMINT capacities. While much has been (rightly) made of Hizbullah's disciplined OPSEC, they undoubtedly were made rather nervous by both the IDF's successful targeting of longer-ranged missiles in the early days of the 2006 war, as well as by the more recent Mughniyya assassination in Damascus.
(Of course, you can intercept landlines too, if you know where they are and put a capture-and-record device or transmitter into the network--hence Hizbullah's skittishness at anyone poking around their "security" areas.)
More broadly, the paralysis of the central government, Lebanon's economic difficulties, and the decrepit leadership in the Christian M14 camp means that M8 may well have majority support. As several have already noted, it certainly has military superiority (leaving the Army and ISF out of it.)
Mo, I don't believe that Hizbollah murdered Hariri. I do believe that Syrian agents murdered him, that Hizbollah is a proxy of Syria and Iran, and that the group to benefit the most from his death was Hizbollah.
When the chief of Hizbollah raises the assassination without any irony intended, it seems like black humor. To put it charitably.
I noticed where he said that when the wires were cut and units were forced to go to wireless communications, they died. But that gets me back to the reality of wired communications, something we've known since the trench fighting of WWI: Once cut, those wires are worthless, and it's fairly easy to cut wired communication nodes.
Second, the state-within-a-state (that Hizbollah says isn't a state-within-a-state) does everything for two motives: Increase the power of Hizbollah and make money.
A wired telecommunications system for only a couple of a thousand cadres in Hizbollah and Amal makes no sense. It likely will become a secondary commercial network during times of peace, with surcharges paid for its use at the expense of the state-run communications network.
This also is the fear of the central government. I think there's some reason for this. While it's true that Nasrallah claims that it's about security, not making money (he's pretty specific about that), the fact that he must raise the issue shows you how the government sees it.
The government sees this as a loss of (mononpolistic) control over telecommunications and a potential loss of state revenues; Nasrallah sees it as the exact opposite, claiming that it's the "band of thieves" in the government that's shaking him down over "money" when he's not in the business of making money on this communication network.
I don't buy it.
Your points about the reality of klepto-capitalistic control of the Lebanese telecommunications network by (mostly) Sunni Arab families are valid, and they explain Nasrallah's polemics.
But that doesn't mean that Nasrallah and Hizbollah have the right to create their own monopolistic telecommunications system, does it?
I also didn't "miss" anything. Did you want a verbatim translation of the entire speech and news conference? Good gravy! I just gave highlights for those who don't read Arabic!
Also, I happen to admire Moqtada al-Sadr. Most in the Army might say that I like him too much. "Like" is the wrong verb, but "respect" would be accurate.
As for Nasrallah, while a minority of peoples in the fracture ME find him so wonderful, I would suggest that's only because he performed mildly better than most Arab leaders against the IDF/IAF, not because they would want to live under him.
It's always seemed to me that he blundered into the war with Israel, that his "victory" over the Israelis was a pyrrhic one and didn't really harm Israel's ability to project force (just made the IDF more cautious in the future) and the real losers in the battle were non-Hizbollah Lebanese.
Eventually, someone is going to just admit that Hizbollah -- like Hamas -- has a great deal of legitimacy within a plurality of those in their quasi-state. But in exchange for that legitimacy they've sold themselves to Syria and Iran; that their actions often are harmful to the rest of the actors within their states; and that their fidelity to foreign powers ultimately demeans their legitimacy.
Jumblatt is decried by Nasrallah specifically because the Druze are so tiny. He has been more circumspect about taking on the Sunni Arabs (although they're the ones firing RPGs at the moment) and Christians.
Over what? A wire telephone system? Whatever...
Nasrallah picked another fight, overplayed his cards, and must deal with the consequences.
Again.
soldier,
You are within your rights to believe what you wish.
I personally believe that it was not Syria who killed Hariri. I would look further South than Syria. No, further than even than that.....
Hizballah as a Syrian and Iranian proxy? Maybe, with all the support they get from Iran you could make a case for a heavy Iranian influence on them, but I assure they are no proxies. But the whole notion of Hizballah being a Syrian proxy is I'm afraid just a smokescreen that takes political pressure off of Hizballah and puts it on Syria which in turn allows Syria to play the bluff game with a Hizballah card it does not hold. Hell, up until '92 Syria and Hizballah were mortal enemies and it was Syria that sidled up to Hizballah went it became evident that their favourite and true Shia proxy in Lebanon, Berri, was about to be wiped from the scene.
Syria does not offer enough to Hizballah to give it that kind of leverage.
Its easy to cut wires if you know where they are. And if they are deep enough and your enemy is mainly bombing from the skies then the chances are he wont hit them.
Also the whole state within a state is getting very tiresome. There is no state within a state. The so called security areas are, especially now, a myth. There was one square before the war and now thats gone.
If Hizballah was after power and money there is a hell of a lot of ways they could do it. But the moeny they raise just in Lebanon alone via donations is immense. But out of interest, how do you suggest that their state within a state would raise them money?
The wired communications wasn't used just by the 2000 full time cadres and has been in place for over 10 years. In the 2000-2006 period of peace there was no commercial telecoms alternative offered by Hizballah.
The fear of central govt. is surely obvious no? They have allied themselves to Cheney's agenda which includes the disarming and weakening of Hizballah. Nasrallah only raised the issue of money because that is the excuse the govt. used to order the networks dismantling. He raised th issue in order to tell people that since it is not a standard voice network, it cannot compete with the state owned network and that therefore their excuses were bogus. There is no loss of control or revenue (revenue that they will only be pocketing anyway).
Now if Hizballahs network was going to be illegally competing with the state one (and possibly if I thought they were not stealing the income) then I would agree they have no right.
But this network is there to serve a resistance and a resistance that has been the only deterent to an army that is addicted to abusing Lebanon. Now whether you agree or disagree with the politics, you must agree that the notion of a govt. weakening a nations only deterrent to an enemy is slightly illogical.
When I said missed, I meant it only in that the last line was pertinent (as well as quite funny i thought). Again, the fact is, if they wanted exclusive power, they have at least the military strength to do it.
As for Nasrallah, you are not looking at him from an Arab pov. It is first of all considerably more than a minority that like him, but it is not only because of his military success (as debatable as you might find that success). It is his candor, incorruptibility, honesty and in keeping of his word that endears him to the Arab street (not to mention the grudging respect on the Israeli one). If you look at it from an Arab pov you will see that, that kind of leader is surprisingly rare in the ME.
I take it you are not in agreement with the recent UNiv. of Maryland/Zogby poll of the Arab world?
For quasi state, fidelity to foreign powers etc, I refer you to previous points above but would ask you this: From a neutral perspective, who harms the state more, Hizballah if they are all that you say they are or the ruling elite who are equally beholden to foreign states but states that are allied with a country's immediate enemy?
The Druze may be tiny but portraying Jumblatt as some poor weak small fry is seriously misjudging the Lebanese political scene, where its not how big your sect is but how big your patron is. If anyone is responsible for the current crisis it is him and my theory why he did this is that Geagea was usurping him as Welch's favorite. He is trying to prove to teacher that he is the better student.
This is not about a communications network. It is about the longstanding attempt to weaken Hizballah. That is what they are standing up to.
Mo is right, particularly with respect to his views on Hezbollah and Iran/Syria.
Soldier you surprise me with your take on the 2nd Lebanon War and Lebanese politics. And there appears to be a bias in your perspective on this theater of war. Why is that?
Syria Comment
About time we went back to kick some ass.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49613
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=408_1208548722
OPEN THE AIR BRIDGE AND CALL THE MARINES TO KICK SOME ASS! It's been 25 years coming!
Mo, you believe that Israel killed Hariri? Oh, come on!
I'll take Syria and double down on the UN report about the involvement of Damascus in the slaying.
Syria is the transhipment hub for Iranian arms. Syria's secret police are working alongside Hizbollah in destabilizing the government (as if it needed much help, being wobbly on its own). Hizbollah has been the primary beneficiary of these Syrian intrigues.
Syria doesn't control Hizbollah, but they're kindred spirits in the Levant and have the same enemies and the same friend, Iran. If anything, Hizbollah has more power over Syria since Damascus deserted in 2005, not the other way around.
But Iran? That's another $400 million story, right?
What was so annoying about Nasrallah's speech and press conference was the cloying unaccountability of Hizbollah for anything that goes wrong in Lebanon. He blames everything on the US, France, Israel and the Druze.
He never says, "You know, we dicked up here."
The reality is that Nasrallah is a polarizing figure within Lebanon. The perception amongst most Sunni Arabs and Christians and Druze is that Hizbollah has built a state-wihin-a-state, that it's funded by Iran and assisted by Syria, and that -- like Syria -- it uses the threat of Israel as a means to bend the rest of the nation to its needs.
How to justify a weird wire telecommunications network? Blame the threat of Israel.
How to justify control over the security of the international airport, which makes that airport a target of the IAF in a future war? Blame the threat of Israel.
Shi'i residents in south Beirut won't pay their electricity bills? Blame Israel.
Jumblatt has a problem with 100 containers (containing what?) being stored at the airport? Blame Israel.
Hizbollah illegally builds at 160 construction sites? Blame the threat of Israel.
By the way, why does Hizbollah already have its own phone system? Oh, yes. Israel. Security. Blah blah blah.
Nasrallah in his speech reiterated that Hizbollah isn't a "state within a state." But Hizbollah sure acts like it, right?
In the next battle with Israel, I imagine Nasrallah is going to go the way of Abbas Musawi. He seems to relish the notion, so his martyrdom will be noted.
I have a grudging respect for him, but I don't believe he's been good for Lebanon, and ultimately won't be good for his Shi'i followers in the south.
Since 1991, what exactly has Hizbollah done for Lebanon? What has Hizbollah done for Syria and Iran?
That's what I thought.
Well Hez turned down the governments offer to end this. I guess they want more or they want more concessions till all M14 leaders are in prison or something.
Also, mo, you sound very much like a FPM supporter. Are you one or are you a foreign observer?
An-Nahar has a great photo of the smoke near the airport. Click on my name for the site. Also a report about the mysterious arrival of an Iranian plane with 300 or so passengers.
At about 11 p.m. (2300) in Lebanon, Hizbollah television announced that it rejected a ceasefire.
FPM has good updates, however, so go to their "Orange" outlet for them.
Sa'ad Hariri's response to Nasrallah can be found at http://www.14march.org/
Basically, he says that what Hizbollah is doing, if not madness, is treason.
"I beseech you to lift the siege of Beirut. I beg you to open the airport highway. I beg you to remove your armed men from the city's streets. I ask that you at this grave and historic hour act responsibly and pull Lebanon out of its black inferno while unifying all the Muslims."
(My translation of the moving passage)
He goes on to say that only Israel is rejoicing in the scenes of strife (I actually doubt that; Israel's interests aren't served by Hizbollah grabbing even more power over Lebanon).
"French daily Le-Figaro published its investigation into the disappearance of Zuheir al-Saddiq, star witness in the probe on former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri's murder."
From Syria Comment (again)
Hey Abu muqawama, good points you make. So you were coming back without telling us?
update: Hizb already controls Beirut. Future TV has stopped broadcasting.
Where are the Americans? Will this be like stage II?
Does anyone think this is a strange move by the Army?
This is how this develops.
1. Amal and FM get in fights, FM flees or gives up and Amal takes that ground.
2. Amal hands it over to the Army and moves up an gains more ground, repeating the process.
The Army has moved into all the FM offices and has shut down the TV station.
It is like they are working together. I know some people feel Sulemein is Pro-Syria and Amal has strong ties too.
One thing is for sure that After Amal removes FM from areas the Lebanese Army moves in.
Amal and hizb are handing in to the army because their logic is that they are stopping Future's militia's (snipers etc.) and security services.
And relegating the affair to "the State". These are clear policy directives coming from the politburo.
The army is not "with Amal" but the army tries to stand in the middle for fear of confessional split. As it is Amal handing in to army, the army takes.
Interesting... thanks, Bech. I had planned on returning 1 August but am not sure now. I *think* things will calm down after a few days, but we'll see.
I heard the Amal guys were acting like real idiots and that Hizbollah was basically keeping them on a leash. True?
SLNII
I thought Nasrullah admitted he was wrogn about ordering the July Kidnapping ? he certainly said it wasa miscalculation.
As to blaming other people - standard political far in this part of the world, no?
Regarding what they have doen for Lebvanon since 91 - the obvious question is to force Isreli Withdrawl from the South.
Finally, as for Jumblatt, the dude has been a lot more belligerent than Christian or Sunni leaders I can think of, so its not surprising he gets the brunt of their rhetoric.
For the record there are some M8 Druze as well.
Andy
are you referring to Nir Rosen's reporting?
Well probably on the first day, with the strike and all.
But I don't know if it is still the case, and seriously doubt this was happening. What's actually happening looks very studied and planned.
It is weird to see that Amal and Hizb are much more synchro than what I thought.
And I'm not sure if anyone could fairly say if it is hizb or amal who's on the street right now and what's the exact relation between both (organizationally speaking).
very weird development.
yesterday they caught LF guys coming from the east. Hope this was an exception and not part of a plan... or else all hell could break loose.
what do you think of this, militarily speaking i mean? what can the US or Israel give (if anything) to the loyalist?
Soldier,
No, thats what I meant by no, look further South. I'll see your Syria and raise you a Wahabi..:)
Syria has designs on Lebanon? of course, we all know that. Would a Syrian return benefit Hizballah? Not in the slightest. The Syrian years were of enedemic corruption, human rights abuses and a political elite above the law. All attributes that run counter to Hizballlahs reputation. And if Syria was to return, uninvited, its Hizballah who would be facing the most awkward questions of why they are not resisting.
Yes they are kindered spirits, but you said they were a Syrian proxy army, there is a big difference. And Iran and Syria were friends when Syria supported Iran against Iraq. At the same time Syria were battling Hizballah in Lebanon. Where is the logic in that?
And like anon stated, we dicked up is exactly what he said about the 2006 war.
Im not sure where you get the "perception amongst most Sunni Arabs and Christians and Druze is that Hizbollah has built a state-within-a-state". Where do you get that fact from? Go on the streets of Lebanon and ask people randomly and see if you still think that (and Sunni Arabs? Chrisitians and Druze are not Arabs?)
As for the threat of Israel, erm well it is what created them and what they exist to face so of course their infrastructure is based on that. How do you see that as illogical?
What I find remarkable about you is that you have so much knowledge of the most miniscule details on Iraq and you have access to the MSM and so can see the variances betweent the propaganda and the reality. And yet you swallow the propoganda against Hizballah hook and sinker.
Control over the security of the airport? Because one man wouldn't do anything about a camera that was in a container OUTSIDE of his jurisdiction and instead passed the details to the ISF?
Residents of South Beirut won't pay their electricity bill? Tell you what, go rent a house in South Beirut and ask the Electric company to come install and deliver electricity to you and let me know how far you get.
I think its rich of a state that has ignored and abused its weakest and poorest to complain when sonmeone steps in to provide the services they refuse to provide.
What has Hizballah done for Lebanon since 1991? You mean apart from fight and remove Israel from Lebanon, provide social, health and educational services for free, not just to the Shia but to all Lebanese, fight corruption and invest in the country?
What hve they done for Syria and Iran? Dont know, don't care.
Derek,
Why do you presume im an FPM supporter when I have not mentioned them once? Surely you are not falling for the old, "he cant be a Hizballah supporter he can write a sentence" stereotype?
I will give you one thing though. In looking at your earlier argument about the whole "western backed" thing earlier I went to find you some evidence. Now I know Hizballah has always been preceded in Western MSM reporting by Iranian Backed or Syrian Backed because it makes me snarl every time I hear it. But I will grant you that I noticed that very recent articles seem to have dropped this. I wonder why that is.
Yeah, I too am surprised by the coordination between Amal and the Hizb. (Though I'm not on the ground like you, Bech, and can't see for myself.) I blogged about the possibility of US/Western aid to the government in an update to my later post. Good question...
bech, am, why the surprise about the HA-Amal co-ordination? It was happening in 2006 and the opposition in general has been training for all eventualities since 2007
I don't get it.
Why is the Hizb comms network such a problem for the government?
I can understand it being a problem for Israel, but why would the Lebanese government care?
It would seem to be a little late in the game to take issue with Hizb undermining government provision of services or establishing its own services networks independent of government control.
Is this financial?
mo, not to this extent...
anonymous, because that's what the Americans want. trade off so to speak. And for the loyalist that's more influence. The question they asked themselves was Can they use state's institutions to corner Hizb? The result is ironically the reverse, it is Hizb using the army to neutralize them.
Plus, it is very important to note that it is not the government who was against the telecom thing but jumblatt. The government was put in a fait accompli.
This is why Nasrallah directed accusation towards Jumblatt and said Siniora was obeying Jumblatt's directives. Jumblatt is experimenting with American help how far can Hizbullah be cornered.
Hizbullah this time decided to pre-empt. Very strategic decision indeed. Now I think the Americans and their allies are going to think twice before trying something new.
Seriously Abu Muqawama why is American foreign policy so bad and militarily so immature?
Hope you (and others like you) are working on redressing this problem before the Middle East becomes really like hell.
bech, we have enough problems countering US agenda as it is, please dont encourage them to get better.....
As'ad AbuKhalil"What is not known is this: how did the crisis in Lebanon start? Or in other words: what (or who) did instigate Walid Jumblat to suddenly bring up the issue of Hizbullah's lines of communication, and the matter of airport security? What about the timing? Is there any connection between Jumblat's sudden announcement on the matter and the visit by David Welsh? One thing is for sure: no good will come out of a situation with Amal armed thugs roaming the streets of Beirut--I already hear complaints about their thuggery by people in the city. The city (and the Palestinian camps) have tried that before, and it was certainly not a pleasant experience. But make no mistake about it: just as Muhammad Dahlan was trying to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza, before it preempted him, the Jumblat-Hariri gang was about to takeover the government and move against Hizbullah, at the behest of the US/Israeli/Saudi plan before they were outcouped or overwhelmed."
Good on the syrians and iranians for supporting hezbolah against western backed government, The mentally ill lebanese who support the western backed government need some serious history lessons. the usa criminal regime hates arabs in the region and only seeks to exploit lebanese for israeli and american personal gain. the mentally ill lebanese need to shut their mouths and stop onstigating sunni shia strife etc. because everyone but the mentally ill know this is not about that it is about the exploitation of arabs once again to meet american and israeli objectives. The mentally ill are angry because a shia leader was the one to rise up and not a sunni one.
Post a Comment