Hezbollah says won't resist UN troops

by Jocelyne Zablit
2 hours, 30 minutes ago

BEIRUT (AFP) - Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that UN troops set to deploy in southern Lebanon would not encounter any resistance from his fighters and expressed regret for the month-long war between Israel and his militia.

Nasrallah, who spoke in an interview aired on Lebanese television, however warned that the 15,000-strong international force which is to begin deploying in coming days along the border with Israel should not seek to disarm Hezbollah.

"We have no problem with UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) as long as its mission is not aimed at disarming Hezbollah," Nasrallah said in his second interview since the UN-brokered August 14 ceasefire.

The leader of the Shiite militia group added, though, that if the Lebanese army in the country's south encountered armed militants, it had the right to seize the weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060827/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictlebanon

It really makes Israel look bad. Mind you, Israel didn't need a whole lot of help with that this time, but Hezbollah is making all the right moves to help the world forget that at heart they are a terrorist organization.

And that she referred to Mandela's African National Congress as a terrorist organization? Did you know that the father of modern Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, was called a terrorist by the British colonials, and that his Mau-Mau movement were portrayed as vicious assassins?

Colonial and Occupying powers always accuse their opponents as terrorists.

Hezbollah is no exception to the terrorist smear, and like it happened with Mandela and Kenyatta, the day will come when the world will welcome Hezbollah leaders as statesmen.

watch Nasrallah carefully. You might have the next Lebanese president or PM in being. The guy is damned smart.

I'm no fan of Israel's policies, but that doesn't make Hezbollah's any better. I understand the good works they do for the poor in Lebannon, but that doesn't excuse the chaos and violence they perform. Hezbollah leaders will never be acknowledged as statesmen until they renounce violence and hatemongering. The same goes for Israel.

continue its barbaric strikes without some kind of retaliation. Israel is breaking the peace all over the place without any consequences.

Did he advocate the violent destruction of South Africa's neighbors?

Is Mandela a bigot?

and yes they were terrorists

and yes they were/are bigots

or Nelson any worse. Since you are the one trying to play 'gotcha', bite my ass if you want to get surly.

Meanwhile Israel goes out of it's way to step in every dog turd on the street.

actually they a pretty god amateurs compared to them. But of course that didn't stop 1000s of Americans to pump legally money into the IRA just to blow up some allied Brits and sustain a 20 years war.

Imagine if Nasrallah had attacked the Brits when they fought the Nazis, blown up hotels and killed one of the highest UN representives when the guy came to settle peace. That was what the Israeli Stern/Irgun/Lehi did.
And two of the leaders behind those acts became Israeli PMs !!!

talk about double standards

And, yes, I am Irish (along with just about every other nationality). It still doesn't excuse Hezbollah. Just as paranoia doesn't excuse Israel.

and I particularly don't share the Hizbollah's religious ideology. But labelling them as "terrorists" doesn't help. Better to listen to their claims and see what can be done out of it.

I recently saw a report on French TV by a Lebanon born expert, Professor at a French University. He pointed out two "unknown" facts :

1) the Christian population in Lebanon is far bigger than previously known, makes about 45% of the Lebanese. They know it now because of the recent elections, where a scientific counting of the required identity papers has been done. The Shiites (Hezbollah's base) are the second group but not as big because the number of Sunnis was underestimated. Roughly the Hezbollah's diehard base is 18-20% of the population.

2) The Hezbollah was LOSING popularity before the war because of the strict religious aspect. The Lebanese are the most westernized "Arabs" in the world.

Results : those FUCKING IDIOTS in the WH, in their delusional dreams of a new ME, with their intervention CATAPULT their fiercest foe as the hero of the Arab world, all religious denominations included.

Bush knows surely how to "catapult the propaganda".

because the general consensus still seems to be that Christians are a minority (eg a statistical stury in Feb 2005 put them at 41%), but that their proportion is shrinking - they get half of the seats in Parliament, but that is down from the 6:5 ratio they used to enjoy - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Lebanon - which was set up because there used to be a majority of Christians.

I'm not against dealing with them either, but we shouldn't labor under some illusion that they are a force for good in the ME anymore than the IRA was in Ireland and Great Britain. Para-military operations such as these often have legitimate concerns that have caused their creation in the first place. They often do good works to bolster their approval with their people. However, they also attack innocent civilians in order to spread fear in the minds of their opponents and that makes them by definition terrorists. Calling them that isn't an insult, it's a description.

When Hezbollah discontinues attacking innocent people, then I'll no longer call them terrorists. Until that time, that's just what they are. And before I'm attacked as being ignorantly pro-Israel, I think they moved into terrorism years ago when they started bulldozing people's houses.

As Begin and Shamir showed, using Israel as an example.

...like the one in Iran.

Nasrallah's a lot smarter and more dangerous. It's fortunate for the world he's not sitting on top of a major industrial power.

...owe their existence to the violent (or at least highly irritated) overthrow of a pre-existing legitimate regime.

Only about half of Europe; Virtually all of the Americas South of The Great Lakes; Largish chunks of SE Asia; China itself; Much of Africa.


Really there's not many places in the world where terrorism (or like activity) did not figure in the instalation of a government subsequently recognised by the international community.

Just because terrorist methods have been used in the past doesn't make it acceptable now. Witch burning was relatively common during the periods you mention but hopefully we've matured and evolved as a race since then.

of Hizbullah's activities. I was merely noting that in a historical context there is nothing particularly different in their behaviour.

And in a modern context, much as Israel might hate the idea, Hamas is largely recognised as legitimate political force in their own right. IRA/Sin Fein is another body that has crossed the line from outlaw organisation to legitimacy in modern times. And who knows which bunch of rascals is ever in charge across much of Aftica on any given day.

Why should Hizbullah be singled out for special condemnation?

All of the organizations you mentioned have been condemned by most modern nations at some point. The only reason we're talking about Hezbollah now is because of recent events. A couple of years ago we were all talking about Hamas because they had just won elections in Palestine. Twenty years ago, or so, we were condemning the IRA for bombing British civilians. And, of course, there's always someone in Africa we're upset with.

I'm not trying to say Hezbollah is an evil operation, they do many good works for the poor and needy in Lebannon. However, when they attack Israeli civilians, they no longer warrant support from the rest of the world. The same goes for Israel when they bulldoze civilian homes and launch indescriminate strikes into heavily populated areas. To me, there really is no difference at this point between the two of them. They both seem to be determined to destroy the other and it looks like they'll both get their way soon.

And are now recognised.

I too condemn Hizbullah's attacks on innocent civilians, but the operative word there is innocent.

If those civilians are sitting on occupied territories, then they are not in my view innocent. They are an occupying force, and further, it could well be argued that since these "settlers" are not generally in uniform, they qualify as covert agents and under the Geneva conventions are entitled to nothing but a last cigarette and a bullet.

Or that US citizens can be killed by American Indians as they were here first? Is there a cutoff time when it will no longer be acceptable for them to attack us? Yes, that's rather facetious, but then so is your argument that Hezbollah has a right to murder civilians. These are people trying to establish a home, they're not spies. To condemn them so easily because of the decisions of their government is rather cruel. I didn't vote for bush* and you probably didn't vote for howard, but we both have to live under their reigns. That doesn't make us guilty by proxy, it makes us human beings living under less than ideal governments. Just as Al Qaeda, Aborigines, or American Indians have no moral right to attack you and me, Hezbollah has no right to kill Israeli civilians, even if they did vote Likud.

To be honest, I find the cavalier attitude some people here at DU present toward the lives of others a little disconcerting. I thought this was a progressive site that respected life, even when its the life of those we don't agree with. Everyone on this board should be condemning Hezbollah and Israel both for this latest idiotic adventure of theirs. Hundreds of people died in the name of politics and all many here can do is choose sides like it was a soccer game. In the progressive ideal I was taught, human life was worth more than that.

my understanding is that a good many of those settlers, esp the most recent, are there against even the laws of Israel. And yet apart from a few isolated cases, these people are not made to leave their illegal settlements. Why then should these people receive special protection, even to the extent of displacing more persons (without compenstation) from their own land?


Vis a vis native people. I guess one has to work on the principle that such hostilities end when the locals stop fighting back or transfer the conflict to other (hopefully more peaceable) venues.


It would be nice if Hizbullah, Hamas and other like organisations could take their battle into the courtroom, but when Israel won't come to that party (and the world community is reluctant to prosecute Israel) what choices are left? The legitimate governments of the region are essentially powerless in the face of Israel's US backed might. Which leaves either bowing down and taking whatever Israel decides to dish out, or fighting back in an extra legal fashion.

Arabic civilians in the region, on the whole, have no choice about living on the front lines of a war zone. Israel is the one who time and time again choses where the front is and tells those on it: "Get out or get bombed."

So sorry if I don't have much sympathy when people who choose to live on the front lines are given the same ultimatum in return.

(edited to correct punctuation)

Why use such deceptive language? Not having heard about these "good many" illegal settlers, I googled it and found that it's actually just a few zealots who have done this. They then look to the Israeli government to retroactively make their settlements legal, which they often do. Most settlers are enticed to live in these areas by government subsidies (currently estimated at 10 billion dollars). So basically, what the government is doing is uprooting the current occupants of the area then exporting a large population of poor people to live in what amounts to a warzone. I would call these people victims of their government, you call them cannon fodder.

http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/oped092405.html

We seem to have very different beliefs on the value of life.

he has an armed militia in a country anyway.

Is it through Lebanon's permission? Then Lebanon better control it crossing its borders to attack other countries.

If it's not with Lebanon's permission, then Lebanon needs to be attempting to do something about disarming it.

Hezbollah was born out of the ruins caused by Israel's invasion of Lebanon. As in Iraq, militias were formed for self-defense against a more powerful opponent, be it the US in Iraq, or Israel in Southern Lebanon.

Israel's misguided policies towards her neighbors led to the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

Not including "insurgent" groups.

There is a Hezbollah organization in Iraq but, the name is virtually all it shares. Since they're not fighting Israel over in southern Iraq, and Iran supports much bigger fish in Iraq, Lebanon's Hezbollah gets Iran's support, not Hezbollah in Iraq.

as your facts and calm rationale always come through.