by StarmanSkye » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:56 pm
Lily Pat Too said:<br><br>"Don't EVER again try to cast me as an apologist for Israel's actions."<br><br>****<br>Eh?<br><br>How did you, could you, possibly interpret my comments as casting you in the role of an Israeli apologist?<br><br>I sure don't think that's what I did -- It sure wasn't what I meant.<br><br>Sorry for the misperception. Perhaps my words weren't as specific and clear as intended. And I DIDN'T accuse you of believing the 'leaders' BS. The specific example I cited was a general observation re: public credibility. In this connection, let me flip this comment you made around:<br>If YOU knew me even a little better you wouldn't have acted all aggrieved and slighted about accusations I never made and never even thought of making. I tried to address the issue of how inaccurate it was to stereotype Hisbollah and everyone in it as terrorists.<br><br>Specifically: I was referring to the one-sided broad-brush characterization in your remarks that 'they' are terrorists who have no justification or understandable rationale for responding to violence with violence. I daresay, to rephrase and put it in more immediate, personal terms: IF an alien gung-ho, highly motivated military force equipped with the most modern, deadly armaments and virtually unlimited military budget were to occupy MY neighborhood and interfere in my society's self-government, economy, social services, civil infrastructure, etc., imposing arduous and unacceptable conditions and hardships that institutionalized injustice and brutality leaving me and my community with no recourse to appeal or legal remedy or relief (and with a history of sabotaging breakthrough political understandings) I'd be forced, compelled to protect and affirm my rights and defend my family and community by whatever means possible -- even responding in-kind to the superior-force's demonstration that they regard military force-projection as being of greater value and more important than dialogue, negotiation, or agreements.<br><br>In the actual case of the state of Israel in the ME, its leaders (for the most part; The example of Rabin being gunned-down by Zionist extremists for his temerity in actually negotiating with Palestinian and Arab nationalists, which was seen as a betrayal, has not been lost on successive 'leaders', thereby guaranteeing Israel continues to impose demands without willing to make concessions or negotiate in good faith; What recourse do Israel's victims have when even the UN and World Court and Global Community remain deaf to their sufferings and appeals for relief?) have shown they are unwilling to negotiate or compromise -- it seems Israel has become so addicted to the razzle-dazzle allure, prestige and power-influence of having a superior world-class military (and the political will to use it in controversial, even brutal ways) that it has become a major defining characteristic of nationalistic Israeli and Zionist identity. In this way, Israel the state has shown it respects nothing so much as the projection of power and military force, indeed relying on the threat or use of military force to secure it's fragile position with its Middle East neighbors.<br><br>Is it that difficult to imagine the 'message' this sends to the long-suffering Palestinians, refugees and victims of Israeli aggression, people in Lebanon and others in the region? Israel has demonstrated an over-reliance on its high-tech, well-equipped and supplied high-budget military -- Consequently, it has 'lost' the ability or will to cultivate good-will and act as an honest broker for peace. Essentially, Israel expects that its having -- and propensity to USE -- its military with little or no regard for long-standing agreements and human-rights conventions or the opinion/interests of the World Community or International associations, means that it doesn't HAVE to, nor should, negotiate with its neighbors -- nor will it have to concede or compromise on substantive issues of rights and borders, security and territory, disarmament and ceasefires, or other interests/disagreements.<br><br>Why is it so difficult to understand that indiscriminate bombing via F-16 is not any less reprehensible or an act of terror than a shopping-bag bomb? Your statement that 'they' (Hisb'Allah) are terrorists, in the absence of any acknowledgement of the history of horrific suffering and injustices perpetrated by Israel and its complicity in provoking and perpetuating the cycle of escalating, continuing violence, was a pretty unambigious one-sided judgement.<br><br>Which, as indicated, was what I categorically rejected and strongly disagreed with.<br><br>As too, I don't think its fair or accurate to frame all vigorous or violent resistance as simply 'terrorism' and not acknowledge that (in context) it may well be legitimate (and appropriate) guerrilla warfare, ie the geopolitics of grassroots organization and activism, defending oneself and one's nation/state. I take exception to the broad-brush snap-judgement-type one-side-fits-all assumption you expressed that Hisb'Allah is necessarily anti-Israel, and the related conclusion by the 'smart' Israelis you got to know and whose opinion you concur with that Hisbollah's active, military resistance to Israel's aggression is absolutely, completely and totally, always, unjustified (and thence, unacceptable).<br><br>I hold that such at-a-far-distance judgements are extremely problematic and essentially inappropriate -- tempered ONLY perhaps by actual experience and/or having a far-beyond-average detailed understanding and appreciation of the region's complex history, in the context of all the various interests of the people who have or do live there.<br><br>But of course, this level of awareness is hardly encouraged by the most powerful, active players, ie., Israel, the US, International PTB/corporations, oiligarchy and transnational MIC -- and their Intelligence-controlled MSM dittohead mouthpieces. For instance: It's no 'accident' that sentiment about Israel's actions in Lebanon and Gaza differs so widely on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and even between Europe and Israel -- given how skewed and censored the news is in Israel and the US re: true events, and how deeply Israel is aligned with the US Military and political establishment. The London Times recently reported that up to 59 percent of the US public polled believed Israel's attacks on Lebaon and Gaza in reaction to the soldier kidnappings/arrests and rocket attacks was justified, contrasting with 17 percent in Britian and 12 percent in Germany. American (and Israeli) opinion is far more likely to have been influenced than Europe by innacurate and incomplete 'news' reporting, where US MSM didn't report that that over 9000 Lebanese are being held in Israeli jails, that Israel had been involved in some 11,000 cross-border raids into Lebanon, that prisoner exchanges between Lebanon and Israel had happened on numerous occasion, that on the eve of its invasion/attack Israel sabotaged a major peace-accord agreement between top Palestinian and Israeli religious and secular officials securing release of the kidnapped soldier Shallit (sp?) in Gaza and opening the door to far-ranging negotiations, and that Hisb'Allah didn't begin its rocket attacks until Israel instigated aggression.<br><br>My POINT, which apparently I didn't clarify, was that it's extremely problematic, and even a bit absurd, for those of us not on the front-line Free-Fire-Zone of immanent danger to judge what kind of action or resistance or response is appropriate or 'reasonable' or justified for people who ARE living under such difficult, dangerous and awful conditions -- <br><br>And as I understand, it is problematic (and personally costly and risky, even dangerous) for the Israeli public to openly and actively disagree with their associates and compatriots, and to criticize their outspoken military and political 'officials', to go against the weight of rah-rah public-solidarity sentiment that has made the issues of victimization and need for displays of will to use its overwhelming military superiority and constant vigilance standby, even sacred and inviolable, fixtures of public policy<br><br>But So and thus I ask:<br>How can we presume to simply dismiss as unjustified, the anger and frustration and desperation of people who have tried to live a 'normal' life under such apalling, trying conditions -- with the reality of epidemic violence and death and destruction all around them, touching every aspect of their lives -- exploding rockets and bomb-attacks, gunfire, land-and-water theft, summary secret 'arrests' and indefinite imprisonment, betrayals and abuses, beatings and child killings, constant indecencies and violations of spirit and 'other' outrages including arbitrary freedom-of-movement checkpoints, road restrictions and day-and-week-long curfew 'conditions' (with 'violators subject to sniper-fire deadly-force), violent home-destructions and invasions and being subject to use as prisoner bargaining-chips or human shields by insufferable officials and rude soldiers, etc. -- in short, the full, long-range of daily, hourly, weekly, year-after-years indignities and atrocities, miscellaneous unconscionable abuses and sufferings that are intended to isolate, disorient, grind-down, disorganize, fragment, weaken, crush and wear-out an entire nation -- <br><br>I asked you -- What would YOU tolerate? Have you considered what daily life is like for the Palestinians or now, for those in Southern Lebanon?<br><br>IMHO, to summarily trivialize and stereotype Hisb'Allah (or Hamas) as JUST or ONLY 'terrorists' is terribly flawed and inaccurate. Hisb'Allah is MUCH, much more than 'just' a terrorist organization. But of course, the PTB and their MSM toadies have always laboured to create an oversimplified generalization of resistance movements and groups as something villainous and despicable, evil and unreasonable, impossible to understand or reason with. It's the one-dimensional stereotype of drumbeat propaganda that villifies and demonizes the hated 'enemy' who is worthy of our disregard and contempt -- THAT'S the knee-jerk kind of lowest-common-denominator presumption that I was taking issue with in my general public observation re: unquestioning credulity. I didn't mean to imply that's what I thought you meant, only to point out that as interested and aware observers (and 'students') of deep politics, we should be vigilant lest we too tend to make too-hasty and oversimplified or unqualified generalizations, esp. re: 'they' being terrorists. I strongly believe it is of GREAT value for us, everyone vitally interested in issues of peace and justice, decency and compassion and shared humanity, to be able to imagine, what if WE were 'they'??? It shouldn't be such a reach if we really believed peace is both necessary and possible.<br><br>So, you didn't like (or care to respond) about Hamas (or Hezb'Allah) preferring, if they had the means, to fight and defend themselves with all the modern instruments and armaments, capabilities and tools of warfare?<br><br>With a well-equipped infantry, artillery, armoured battalions, airforce and navy fighting for autonomous self-determinism, would they then be considered more or less 'terrorists'?<br><br>Does any of this resonate?<br><br>Starman<br><br>BTW: Food for thought that goes to the issue of Hisb'Allah as a legitimate, grasroots resistance movement -- and that shows suicide bombers are NOT just irrational religious extremists -- as the west tries to pigeonhole them. The below-cited study makes a concerted effort to find what motivates suicide bombers -- and discovers the common criteria is not religious extremism, but resistance to foreign occupation -- and a desperate intent to compel political change.<br>--S<br>*<br><<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1838199,00.html>">observer.guardian.co.uk/c...9,00.html></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br>WHAT WE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT HIZBOLLAH <br>This week, world terrorism expert Robert Pape will share with the FBI the findings of his remarkable study of 462 suicide bombings. He concludes that such acts have little to do with religious extremism and that the West must engage politically to halt the relentless slaughter <br><br>The Observer (London) Sunday August 6, 2006 <br>by Robert Pape --- professor of political studies at the University of Chicago. His book, Dying to Win: Why Suicide Terrorists Do It, will be published in the UK by Gibson Square this month.<br><br>Israel has finally conceded that air power alone will not defeat Hizbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground power won't work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the enemy. <br><br>In terms of structure and hierarchy, it is less comparable with, say, a religious cult such as the Taliban than to the multi-dimensional American civil rights movement of the 1960s. What made its rise so rapid, and will make it impossible to defeat militarily, was not its international support but the fact that it evolved from a reorientation of pre-existing Lebanese social groups. <br><br>Evidence of the broad nature of Hizbollah's resistance to Israeli occupation can be seen in the identity of its suicide attackers. Hizbollah conducted a broad campaign of suicide bombings against American, French and Israeli targets from 1982 to 1986. Altogether, these attacks, which included the infamous bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, involved 41 suicide terrorists. <br><br>Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon. <br>What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hizbollah. <br><br>The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force. <br>Previous analyses of suicide terrorism have not had the benefit of a complete survey of all suicide terrorist attacks worldwide. The lack of complete data, together with the fact that many such attacks, including all those against Americans, have been committed by Muslims, has <br>led many in the US to assume that Islamic fundamentalism must be the underlying main cause. This, in turn, has fuelled a belief that anti-American terrorism can be stopped only by wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which helped create public support of the invasion of Iraq. But study of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism shows that the presumed connection to Islamic fundamentalism is misleading. <br><br>There is not the close connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that many people think. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Most often, it is a response to foreign occupation. <br><br>Understanding that suicide terrorism is not a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the US and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism. <br><br>Spreading democracy across the Persian Gulf is not likely to be a panacea as long as foreign troops remain on the Arabian peninsula. The obvious solution might well be simply to abandon the region altogether. Isolationism, however, is not possible; America needs a new strategy that pursues its vital interest in oil but does not stimulate the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists. The same is true of Israel now. <br><br>The new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy weapons, but it has little chance of destroying Hizbollah. In fact, in the wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid Hizbollah's recruiting. <br><br>Equally important, Israel's incursion is also squandering the goodwill it had initially earned from so-called moderate Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The countries are the court of opinion that matters because, while Israel cannot crush Hizbollah, it could achieve a more limited goal: ending Hizbollah's acquisition of more missiles through Syria. <br><br>Given Syria's total control of its border with Lebanon, stemming the flow of weapons is a job for diplomacy, not force. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, Sunni-led nations that want stability in the region, are motivated to stop the rise of Hizbollah. Under the right conditions, the US might be able to help assemble an ad hoc coalition of Syria's neighbours to entice and bully it to prevent Iranian, Chinese or other foreign missiles from entering Lebanon. It could also offer to begin talks over the future of the Golan Heights. <br><br>But Israel must take the initiative. Unless it calls off the offensive and accepts a genuine ceasefire, there are likely to be many, many dead Israelis in the coming weeks - and a much stronger Hizbollah. <br> <p></p><i></i>
