Most Israelis want Olmert to go, poll shows

philologos

In the Irish Times this morning I read this article and infact most Israelis now want their PM Olmert to go as he never really found a solution to retrieving the two captured soldiers and that 157 Israelis had to be killed for nothing. "Hundreds of Protesters gathered at the cemetery in Jerusalem yesterday calling for Olmerts resignation". ""We think this country deserves better leadership" said Mrs. Moskal".

The Israeli people are starting to see how much of a sham this conflict was too apparently.

Edit:: Added a pic of the article, tiny bit cut off at the end sorry

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5438/olmertye1.jpg

mike65

Isrealis are used to quick clean victories. Olmert has'nt got a high profile military history and so was'nt well looked on to start with.

Mike.

New_Departure06

Jakkass wrote:

In the Irish Times this morning I read this article and infact most Israelis now want their PM Olmert to go as he never really found a solution to retrieving the two captured soldiers and that 157 Israelis had to be killed for nothing. "Hundreds of Protesters gathered at the cemetery in Jerusalem yesterday calling for Olmerts resignation". ""We think this country deserves better leadership" said Mrs. Moskal".

The Israeli people are starting to see how much of a sham this conflict was too apparently.

Edit:: Added a pic of the article, tiny bit cut off at the end sorry

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5438/olmertye1.jpg

I think you are interpreting this wrongly. They don't seem to be objecting to the conflict itself, but to Olmert ending it so quickly and to perceived tactical failures in the military campaign. The poll also shows a big rise in support for the right-wing Likud and the hard-right National Union, who are if anything even more hawkish than this govt. I recall the disaster of Netanyahu's last govt. He agreed a deal with Yasser Arafat and then refused to implement it, claiming (the usual cliche we here from Israeli politicians) that they didn't have a partner for peace on the other side. I fear the ultranationalist warmongering frenzy the Israeli electorate has been in for the past 6 years has some way to go yet.

philologos

I know its because of Israelis thinking selfishly, its more like its because they are thinking about the fact that they didnt achieve what they wanted to in the end and lost lives for no reason.

Mick86

Jakkass wrote:

The Israeli people are starting to see how much of a sham this conflict was too apparently.QUOTE]

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that the war was mismanaged from the word go and the Israelis are pissed because they felt that victory was within their grasp when the government agreed to a ceasefire. Themismanagement of what was a popular war has become the catalyst for protests against Israel's internal problems.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754720.html

I think its more because Olmert agreed to a ceasefire without any real benefits coming from the war. Hezbollah will likely retain their weapons, operating within Lebanon, and Israel will continue to take the brunt of those attacks. The UN & Lebanon failed to enforce its resolutions regarding Hezbollah before, and the Israeli people have no faith that anything will be different this time round. They were probably hoping that they would see some real results from commiting the country to war, rather than giving Hezbollah time to regain strength before the next conflict.

Israel has lost too much for what has happened. A change is needed and Olmert will be the first to go. There will be a few others to be axed aswell, especially if the ceasefire fails totally.

New_Departure06

Deleted User wrote:

I think its more because Olmert agreed to a ceasefire without any real benefits coming from the war. Hezbollah will likely retain their weapons, operating within Lebanon, and Israel will continue to take the brunt of those attacks. The UN & Lebanon failed to enforce its resolutions regarding Hezbollah before, and the Israeli people have no faith that anything will be different this time round. They were probably hoping that they would see some real results from commiting the country to war, rather than giving Hezbollah time to regain strength before the next conflict.

Israel has lost too much for what has happened. A change is needed and Olmert will be the first to go. There will be a few others to be axed aswell, especially if the ceasefire fails totally.

Maybe when Israel starts implementing UN resolutions like 242 (return to 1967 borders) it will have the moral authority to lecture others on doing this.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

Maybe when Israel starts implementing UN resolutions like 242 (return to 1967 borders) it will have the moral authority to lecture others on doing this.

In the Lebanon conflict Israel has obeyed the UN. Its Lebanon and Hezbollah that have failed repeatedly to follow the Resolutions. Hezbollah still retain their arms, and have not disbanded. And Lebanon has repeatedly failed to exercise its Authority, and to reinforce the border preventing any border incursions.

If you you're going to talk about Israel failing res 242, perhaps look to the other participants that have also failed to obey.

Lemming

Klaz, Israel did not withdraw from Lebanon as the phrase would suggest. It pulled out of most of Lebanon, and carries out frequent incursions at it's own leisure. If you actually look (and by look I don't mean glance and snort) at why Hezbollah was created you'll see that it will continue to exist in the context of a paramilitary force for as long as it sees Israel occupying Lebanese lands or throwing two fingers to the notion of national soveriegnty whilst decrying any notions about it's own borders being either changed or violated.

Fewer and fewer people are actually bothering to ask "why?" these days, and instead choose to become perverse cheer-leaders for one side or the other.

toomevara

Getting back to the OP, most Israelis want Olmert out because his handling of the conflict militarily was an absolute farce. No other reason. There is a huge backlash in Israel at the moment from the reservists (who form 70% of the IDF). These batallions were poorly led and sent into battle only half equipped and thus suffered a disproportionately high number of battlefield casualties. Incidentally most reservists are older family men/women and have alot of political clout.

There is very little anti-war sentiment in israel at the moment with most israelis regarding the cause as just, but the execution poor. For them this is merely a breathing space before the next conflict unfortunately.

Israel withdrew to behind the Blue Line border per the UN requirements. Initially there listening posts which violated the border, which were later removed. The Sheeba Farm area was designated as being Syrian territory by the UN.

I'm not suggesting that Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon, but they obeyed the UN resolution. They performed their own obligations, however Hezbollah/Lebanon didn't. Had they obeyed the UN resolution, at least, Israel would have been in the position to negotiate for a formal peace. Instead Hezbollah continued the war, and Israel retalitated across the border. And it goes around and around.

Many people find it convenient to call on Israel to obey resolutions like 242, while ignoring the failings of countries like Lebanon, or factions like Hezbollah to also comply to other UN resolutions.

toomevara

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not suggesting that Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon, but they obeyed the UN resolution. They performed their own obligations, however Hezbollah/Lebanon didn't. Had they obeyed the UN resolution, at least, Israel would have been in the position to negotiate for a formal peace. Instead Hezbollah continued the war, and Israel retalitated across the border. And it goes around and around.

This is absolutely true in this particular case. Those who are quick to berate israel for non-compliance with UN resolutions, most notoriously 242, should be equally intolerant of Lebanon's refusal to grasp the Hezbollah nettle and take full control of its own sovererign territory. Allowing Hezbollah to form and run a state within a state on Israel's Northern border was, and will coninue to be, a recipe or disaster for all the people of Lebanon, not merely shia partisans who affiliate themselves with the militant mullahs of Hezbollah

Hogmeister B

Deleted User wrote:

Many people find it convenient to call on Israel to obey resolutions like 242, while ignoring the failings of countries like Lebanon, or factions like Hezbollah to also comply to other UN resolutions.

That could have something to do with the fact that Israel's violation is far more significant, involving as it does the illegal occupation and colonisation of large areas of land, and the oppression of four million people.

Semantics. This is about whether the resolutions are carried out or not. Whether they're even attempted or not. In the theatre that is Lebanon, Israel has obeyed the UN, whereas Lebanon & Hezbollah have not.

In other areas like Palestine & Res 242 Israel has failed utterly. However, if you look at agreements like the Oslo accords, the PA also failed utterly. Its very convenient to focus entirely on Israel and how they failed to follow Resolutions or stick to agreements, but you should also consider the PA's failure aswell. Each time Palestine has gained a concession, there's a rocket attack or some other aggressive move.

The problem is that its easy to point out Israels failures. They're well documentated and posted up regularly on boards like these. However, you should spend some time reviewing the failure of Palestinians to sieze opportunities for peace, rather than viewing them as victories and following up with further attacks.

Have you read the following from the PA spokesperson, Ghazi Hamad:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD126806

I'm starting to believe there's some hope if a PA spokesperson can acknowledge some of the mistakes of the resistance, and take some resonsibility for those actions.

john_g83

Deleted User wrote:

Have you read the following from the PA spokesperson, Ghazi Hamad:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD126806

I'm starting to believe there's some hope if a PA spokesperson can acknowledge some of the mistakes of the resistance, and take some resonsibility for those actions.

Good job on posting a site created by a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, no possible conflict of interest there.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALESTINIANS_GOVERNMENT_CRITIC?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=EUROPE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-27-21-49-59

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=16009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700876.html

Do a search. Its not hard to find. Apart from pointing out the source I used, do you have any actual opinions?

toomevara

john_g83 wrote:

Good job on posting a site created by a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, no possible conflict of interest there.

In all fairness, this is a quote taken from a Palestinian daily, the provenance of which is sound. While you may, legitimately, take issue with the site's creator, the quotes are valid, as is the sentiment expressed within them.

toomevara

Deleted User wrote:

In other areas like Palestine & Res 242 Israel has failed utterly. However, if you look at agreements like the Oslo accords, the PA also failed utterly.

This is an extremely valid assertion, the culpability of the PA in the current plight of the palestinian people cannot be discounted. Though it may often be more convenient to regard the Palestinian question as a Manichean struggle between the big bad Israelis and the downtrodden Palestinians, we should never forget that the PA has routinely squandered chance after chance to bring an end to, or a least ameliorate, the sufferings of the Palestinian people.

And often, it must be added, for nothing more than the preservation of their own corrupt, venal political elite. As one negotiator at Oslo (EDIT: oops sorry, should have said Geneva)quipped, not without an element of truth, 'The Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Semantics.

Is this a comment on the previous post, or a description of what you're about to engage in?

This is about whether the resolutions are carried out or not. Whether they're even attempted or not. In the theatre that is Lebanon, Israel has obeyed the UN, whereas Lebanon & Hezbollah have not.

So while its only about whether resolutions were carried out or not, its also only about whether certain resolutions were carried out or not.

This is so, because - as everyone knows - the Israel/Lebanon issue is 100% seperate to the Israel/Palestine, or indeed Israel/much-of-the-Middle-East issues that we hear about from time to time.

Lebanon's refusal to grasp the Hezbollah nettle and take full control of its own sovererign territory

Indeed. All it takes is a bit of willpower. And besides, the Lebanese military is well up to the task...being as well funded and supported as it is.

So clearly its just that they secretely support Hezbollah, rather than that they'd like to try and find a solution other than risking an all-out civil war which they may not be able to win.

john_g83

Deleted User wrote:

Do a search. Its not hard to find. Apart from pointing out the source I used, do you have any actual opinions?

I was just suggesting that you could have quoted a more impartial source, which you consequentially did. I didn't say anywhere that I had a problem with the content of the article.

Seeing that you asked I feel that Israel thought that they would just walk in to Lebanon and wipe out Hezbollah and did not expect the resistance and casualties that they ultimately faced. I have heard a few commentators using this fact to suggest that the Israeli military isn't as powerful as many people had thought. This is one of the main reasons that the public are so upset.

In my opinion and the both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have allot to answer for, but I believe that if there is ever to be progress the greater emphasis is on the Israelis as the local superpower.

As for obeying the UN, one must remember that the US have vetoed many resolutions that were aimed at Israel, perhaps they would have been less compliant if more of these resolutions have been passed:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/15/un.resolution/
Just one example.

toomevara

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. All it takes is a bit of willpower. And besides, the Lebanese military is well up to the task...being as well funded and supported as it is.

So clearly its just that they secretely support Hezbollah, rather than that they'd like to try and find a solution other than risking an all-out civil war which they may not be able to win.

Don't think anyone's under any illusions regarding the potency or efficacy of the lebanese military, or indeed its hopelessly fractured command structure, which,incidentally, does contain elements (not insignificant) which are drawn from the shia community and who both tacitly, and in some cases, actively, support hezbollah. Obviously the Christian, Druze and Sunnis who constitute the rest of the army are going to be less than enthusiastic enaging in any activity (i.e the disarmament of Hezbollah) which could plunge them back into civil war. But dont be under any illusion, they do not, in the main, support Hezbollah or its actions.

Which leaves Lebanon in a prickly situation.Ultimately Lebanon must deal with the issue of Hezbollah using its sovereign territory to unilaterally launch disastrous, ill-conceived and counter productive attacks against Israel (Nasrallah himself conceeds that the kidnap of those Isaraeli soldiers was just that). These will, rightly or wrongly, bring the kind of disproportionate response from Israel which we've witnessed over the past few weeks and set lebanon back economically and socially for decades.

The political will must be there to say to Hezbollah, we are a sovereign state, in control of our own territory, you can't use it, against the will of the democratic majority, to prosecute your own ideologically driven war against another sovereign state. A state with which we had, up until a month ago, relatively cordial relations after years of conflict and struggle. Hezbollah's activities are intolerable and Lebanon must deal with them to secure its own future..

bonkey

toomevara wrote:

Ultimately Lebanon must deal with the issue of Hezbollah using its sovereign territory to unilaterally launch disastrous, ill-conceived and counter productive attacks against Israel

Agreed. Ultimately, Lebanon must do this. A pre-requisite will be getting itself into a position where it can actually attempt this with a chance of improving matter.

The political will must be there to say to Hezbollah, we are a sovereign state, in control of our own territory, you can't use it, against the will of the democratic majority, to prosecute your own ideologically driven war against another sovereign state.

Agreed. This is, however, complicated by a number of issues, not least of which being that Hezbollah currently make up a not-entirely-insignificant portion of the political body which is what would exercise this will.

Reform, despite our dearest wishes, takes time. Putting pressure on Hezbollah only seems to increase their support, so its counter-productive. There's nothing to gain in villifying them now, only for that to result in them having a stronger democratic presence in the next elections. There's no benefit in otulawing them from politics if the result is a civil war.

There's no easy solution...thats effectively what I'm trying to say. We can criticise Lebanon all we like for not having its act together, but we shouldn't do so without recognising just why getting its act together is a non-trivial problem.

coming back on-topic, though, Israel seems to have a similar set of problems.

Many people criticise the decisions made, but at the end of the day one gets the feeling that Israeli's want Olmert to go because he wasn't enough of a warrior. In other words, the majority of Israeli's see heavy-handedness as their path to a solution and want to pick the best war-leader.

(I'm pretty sure no-one is going to suggest that they want Olmert gone because he didn't just sit back and seek a peaceful resolution to the kidnapping).

So, basically, both sides seem to be choosing those who will fight their corner best, and are then expressing surprise/dismay that the other side aren't whole-heartedly committed to a peaceful solution.

The Lebanese government can't easily rid themselves of their warrior faction in the form of Hezbollah, and the Israeli's want a better warrior to lead them so they'd like to get rid of the current guy and elect one.

How is it that only the Lebanese are the ones faulted here for not curbing their warrior-wants?

Hezbollah's activities are intolerable and Lebanon must deal with them to secure its own future..

Yes it must, but does that mean that you are in favour of Lebanon plunging itself into civil war if that is what facing Hezbollah today would lead to?

Would you be in favour of a Hezbollah-controlled region if that was the outcome of such a civil war?

Or perhaps a new cycle of civil-war, followed by invasion by Israel or some other faction to prevent hezbollah taking control, bringing us back to where all of this started in the first place?

Solutions take time. They take support. Unfortunately, the modern approach seems to be to say "sort out your problems, then we'll give you all the support you won't need any more".

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Is this a comment on the previous post, or a description of what you're about to engage in?

Well, I kinda left a quote above my post as reference.

So while its only about whether resolutions were carried out or not, its also only about whether certain resolutions were carried out or not.

Definetly. Israel obeys the resolutions relating to Lebanon and ignores most of the resolutions dealing with other areas like Palestine. I'm fairly sure I mentioned that already. I'm not seeking to dismiss or deflect attention from Israel's ignoring of resolutions.

My point is that you focus on Israel's failure to obey resolutions, but you're not seemingly willing to make the same level of focus on other nations/groups failure to do likewise.

This is so, because - as everyone knows - the Israel/Lebanon issue is 100% seperate to the Israel/Palestine, or indeed Israel/much-of-the-Middle-East issues that we hear about from time to time.

Everyone knows? Ahh. Sarcasm.

Well, if you want to combine the conflict in Palestine with the conflict in Lebanon, go right ahead. However I keep them separate since they're different countries, and I see the failures of the PA in Palestine as being different, to the failures of Hezbollah/Labanons government in Lebanon. But I suppose its easier to place everything on the same plate and have more ammo to fire at Israel, while ignoring the other participants failures.

toomevara

Bonkey, Agree 100% with that learned analysis of the nature of the problem. I also should like to clarify that I'm not in any way attempting to exonorate Israel's disproportionate military response to the current crisis. I'm examining things mainly from a lebanese presepective here.

I'd hope that the settled will of the lebanese people would be respected by Hezbollah thus avoiding future conflict with Israel. I genuinely believe that Israel has little or no strategic interest in Lebanon, providing there's no Hezbollah military threat. Their plate is full just dealing with Gaza/The West Bank and Hamas. If hezbollah can be persuaded to drop the armed struggle in favour of a poltical one i'd hope fervently that any potential civil war in Lebanon could be avoided. Let them drop the AK in favour of the ballot box, and if Hezbollah become the democratically elected government of the Lebanon at some point in the future then more power to them, as long as violence as a means of the furtherance of state policy is eschewed.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Agreed. Ultimately, Lebanon must do this. A pre-requisite will be getting itself into a position where it can actually attempt this with a chance of improving matter.

I think a prequisite would be to "try" to get into that position, rather than Hezbollah continue to gain more & more power. Sitting back doing nothing isn't going to change anything except lessen their own support and increase Hezbollah's.

Agreed. This is, however, complicated by a number of issues, not least of which being that Hezbollah currently make up a not-entirely-insignificant portion of the political body which is what would exercise this will.

Agreed.

Reform, despite our dearest wishes, takes time. Putting pressure on Hezbollah only seems to increase their support, so its counter-productive. There's nothing to gain in villifying them now, only for that to result in them having a stronger democratic presence in the next elections. There's no benefit in otulawing them from politics if the result is a civil war.

I don't see why the only options are the extreme ones. Hezbollah are already part of the government. Encourage them to give up their arms, and to join the government properly without having a military arm. Encourage them that they can gain their objectives of Israel leaving Lebanon by political means. Since afterall their violence only keeps Israel on the border (and crossing it) all the time.

They don't need to villify Hezbollah. They need to lower the focus on military response, and promote political responses instead. Promote peace over war, showing the increased standard of living capable from peace, and the level of foreign investment available if Hezbollah turned in their weapons. Appeal to their peoples desires to lead a peaceful, and comfortable life, while highlighting the negative results of constant conflict.

There's no easy solution...thats effectively what I'm trying to say. We can criticise Lebanon all we like for not having its act together, but we shouldn't do so without recognising just why getting its act together is a non-trivial problem.

Agreed. There are no easy solutions. However waiting to see what happens, is worse than acting now. And I've seen very little of this criticism about Lebanon that you remark on.

Many people criticise the decisions made, but at the end of the day one gets the feeling that Israeli's want Olmert to go because he wasn't enough of a warrior. In other words, the majority of Israeli's see heavy-handedness as their path to a solution and want to pick the best war-leader.

Somewhat agree. I think they want him gone because they gained nothing from the conflict.

How is it that only the Lebanese are the ones faulted here for not curbing their warrior-wants?

lol. Where have the lebanese been the only ones' faulted? Really. Do tell.

Would you be in favour of a Hezbollah-controlled region if that was the outcome of such a civil war?

Why is only a civil war? What about if Hezbollah are completely elected into government, in full support of the people? Would they combine the paramilitary Hezbollah with the existing army, or continue its little conflicts with Israel? Or would they settle the conflict peacefully? I don't know. I doubt it. But the only way to find out is to force the issue a bit. Because right now, hezbollah are gaining power, and the Lebanese government are loosing it.

Oh. Don't Hezbollah already pretty much control Southern Lebanon as it is?

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

I don't see why the only options are the extreme ones.

I agree absolutely that they're not. However, the Lebanese government only seems to be criticised for doing nothing when Hezbollah are actively engaging in acts of aggression....which suggests that it is direct action against the aggression/aggressors that is being asked for.

Indeed, no-one seems to show that the Lebanese govt. are doing nothing in terms of non-extreme options, only that they're not actively putting their army in the way, not kicking Hezbollah out of parliament, and so on - the extreme options. Maybe I'm just not reading the right criticisms.

Encourage them to give up their arms, and to join the government properly without having a military arm. Encourage them that they can gain their objectives of Israel leaving Lebanon by political means. Since afterall their violence only keeps Israel on the border (and crossing it) all the time.

And when this is seen to be done (as was the case during the latest round of violence), there were no shortage of critics saying that such empty gestures and words were meaningless, and that it was action that was needed.

Appeal to their peoples desires to lead a peaceful, and comfortable life, while highlighting the negative results of constant conflict.

Agreed.

Its also true that by running amok (whether suported by teh Leb govt. or not) Hezbollah themselves have shown the downside to picking a fight.

The problems start when people see that trynig to lead a peaceful, comfortable life will involve allowing Israel to attack their nation for some period of time on whatever pretext it chooses to issue. Whether or not Israel's pretexts are just and correct won't be the issue.

And I've seen very little of this criticism about Lebanon that you remark on.

You haven't read much commentary by Israeli supporters then, I guess.

Why is only a civil war?
What about if Hezbollah are completely elected into government, in full support of the people?

Then the West will have to reconsider its claim to being devoted to democracy and benig comitted to seeing deocracy in the Middle East, and so forth. Indeed, the entire rationale for why democracy is the right way for a nation to go will need to be rethought.

Personally, though, I can't see this happening unless Hezbollah are given the means to gain such support.

Take what you said about people's desires to lead peaceful lives. If you seriously believe this, then ask how such people could vote for Hezbollah, unless they saw that path to violence as the most peaceful option.

So either the notion that people want peace is wrong, or Hezbollah's message of violence will not gain majority support unless the alternative is a less acceptable violence.

While Israel continues to launch attacks - rightly or wrongly, justified or not - against Hezbollah on Lebanese soil, then it is going to drive more and more Lebanese to support the only people currently willing to stand up and fight the invaders.

But the only way to find out is to force the issue a bit. Because right now, hezbollah are gaining power, and the Lebanese government are loosing it.

Forcing the issue because you've looked at the symptoms and think you should treat them rather than finding and targetting the underlying causes is not good policy.

Maybe you have found the underlying causes, but if you have, I can't figure out what they are from your post.

Don't Hezbollah already pretty much control Southern Lebanon as it is?

A good indication of just how successful the way of dealing with the situation thus far has been, wouldn't you agree?

Mick86

toomevara wrote:

This is absolutely true in this particular case. Those who are quick to berate israel for non-compliance with UN resolutions, most notoriously 242, should be equally intolerant of Lebanon's refusal to grasp the Hezbollah nettle and take full control of its own sovererign territory. Allowing Hezbollah to form and run a state within a state on Israel's Northern border was, and will coninue to be, a recipe or disaster for all the people of Lebanon, not merely shia partisans who affiliate themselves with the militant mullahs of Hezbollah

In fairness to the Lebanese government it has a lot of difficulties to overcome. The first is the sectarian make up of the country. Who will disarm Hezbollah? Not the army because the Shia in it's ranks are probably all Hezbollah supporters anyway. Any attempt to get non-Shia soldiers to do the job would more than likely restart the Civil War which is festering away beneath the skin waiting to erupt again. And it is also note-worthy that the UN has dropped the idea of implementing it's own resolution in this regard. Taking full control of it's territory is another problem. The south of the country has been out of government control since the PLO took over in the 70s. That area was virtually self governing after the Israelis drove PLO out and Hezbollah filled the subsequent political vacuum.

A lot of people seem to regard Hezbollah as some kind of outside military organisation that has infected Lebanon. It is much more than that because it is also a political, educational and social welfare organisation and it's members are all local lads. You can't drive Hezbollah out of the south because that would mean depopulating the place. Hopefully they have learned from the recent war that rattling the Irael cage is counter-productive and they'll cop on to themselves but I doubt it.

toomevara

Mick86 wrote:

In fairness to the Lebanese government it has a lot of difficulties to overcome. The first is the sectarian make up of the country. Who will disarm Hezbollah? Not the army because the Shia in it's ranks are probably all Hezbollah supporters anyway. Any attempt to get non-Shia soldiers to do the job would more than likely restart the Civil War which is festering away beneath the skin waiting to erupt again. And it is also note-worthy that the UN has dropped the idea of implementing it's own resolution in this regard. Taking full control of it's territory is another problem. The south of the country has been out of government control since the PLO took over in the 70s. That area was virtually self governing after the Israelis drove PLO out and Hezbollah filled the subsequent political vacuum.

To be fair mick86, I did mention most of this in some of my previous posts, and wouldn't disagree with any of what you say.

Mick86 wrote:

A lot of people seem to regard Hezbollah as some kind of outside military organisation that has infected Lebanon. It is much more than that because it is also a political, educational and social welfare organisation and it's members are all local lads. You can't drive Hezbollah out of the south because that would mean depopulating the place. Hopefully they have learned from the recent war that rattling the Irael cage is counter-productive and they'll cop on to themselves but I doubt it.

I'd second that too, in fact as I've argued eariler, i'd hope that Hezbollah would return to its grass roots as a primarily political, social and cultural organisation and abandon the disastrous militancy fostered in the long civil war, which has led it into the current morass.

But Hezbollah needs to decide if it's Lebanese first and shia second, or vice versa. It's my hope that it plumps for the former, ditches the syrian connection/iranian mullahs and becomes a non-violent organisation, pursuing its aims through politics, protest, agitation, whatever, but with the welfare of the Lebanon and all its people uppermost in its considerations.......You cant drive Hezbollah out of the south as you correctly say, but what you can do is take the weaponry and violence out of the equation.

if this happens the possibilities for lebanon and its people are endless...

Manic Moran

I think those who are advocating that the entire Mid-East/Israel problem must be dealt with in one fell swoop are trying to bite off more than can realistically be chewed. I think it's been shown since the 70s that a piece-by-piece approach can work if nobody gets impatient. Think about it: In 1973, Israel was basically at war with all sides, and occpying the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and Golan. Various different pieces of the cake were nibbled away, starting with the peace treaty with Jordan. There has been peace on that border since, without reference to what happened elsewhere in the area. Similarly, you had the peace treaty with Egypt, and the withdrawl from the Sinai. Again, there were no real pre-conditions regarding the rest of the Israeli Question. There's been peace there since. It took a few decades, but eventually Israel pulled its settlements out of Gaza. They pulled out of Lebanon. Who's to say that had people just continued as they were going, they wouldn't have pulled out of the West Bank either? Unlike the cases of Egypt and Jordan which have continued to remain peaceful, Israel's rewards for pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon have been just a continuation of violence. Is there any wonder that the Israelis see no benefit to continued withdrawls at this stage? Hamas/Hezbullah should have just let the progress continue. They'd have gotten what they wanted eventually. This is completely independent of UN resolutions, which people on the ground probably regard as a group of pontificating windbags to be ignored when they don't like what they say.

NTM

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

In 1973, Israel was basically at war with all sides, and occpying the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and Golan. Various different pieces of the cake were nibbled away, starting with the peace treaty with Jordan. There has been peace on that border since, without reference to what happened elsewhere in the area. Similarly, you had the peace treaty with Egypt, and the withdrawl from the Sinai. Again, there were no real pre-conditions regarding the rest of the Israeli Question. There's been peace there since.

You are deluding yourself IMO.
Once the generally West-friendly dictatorships/monarchies are out of the picture [they cannot last forever], I'm pretty certain that, given the present level of hatred towards Israel and the US (Bush II's presidency and the total and utterly unconditional support for Israel during it must really be the final bitter icing on the cake), those peace treaties and relatively cosy diplomatic relations you speak of will probably go straight in the toilet by popular demand! They definitely will if people like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt take up power. The future looks very, very black to me.

Manic Moran wrote:

Who's to say that had people just continued as they were going, they wouldn't have pulled out of the West Bank either?

IMO, they'll never do that. Not fully anyway. It's not just a worthless bit of desert filled with a vast and growing population of enemies who surround and vastly outnumber your settler "game-pieces" and the troops who must protect them by factors of ~ 200-1 (edited: checked figures). The ratio in the West Bank is more manageable at ~ 6-1 (edited: checked figures).
Also, Bush II was the 1st US president to explicitly tell them they have created "facts on the ground" in the West Bank and can keep the big settler towns (and associated lands/water resourses) which they are now busy protecting with their new wall/fence.
The current Wall/fence will now set the absolute maximum the Palestinians can hope to get in the West Bank in any peace deal IMO (i.e. they probably would get less than that).

Manic Moran wrote:

Hamas/Hezbullah should have just let the progress continue. They'd have gotten what they wanted eventually.

I thought they wanted the total destruction of Israel?

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I agree absolutely that they're not. However, the Lebanese government only seems to be criticised for doing nothing when Hezbollah are actively engaging in acts of aggression....which suggests that it is direct action against the aggression/aggressors that is being asked for.

Well, I suppose that's true of everywhere. When problems raise their ugly heads, we all want to see them resolved immediately. When they're simmering under the surface its easier to ignore. However, this situation has gotten to the stage again where direct action is required. For the last 6 years there were opportunities to apply more subtle pressure on hezbollah to turn away from violence, which don't seem to have been applied. Now that a major issue is once more on the table (as with the Israeli withdrawal in 2000), the Lebanese are being called upon to cover their border and to exert authority on the region.

Indeed, no-one seems to show that the Lebanese govt. are doing nothing in terms of non-extreme options, only that they're not actively putting their army in the way, not kicking Hezbollah out of parliament, and so on - the extreme options. Maybe I'm just not reading the right criticisms.

Nah, I'd say you're correct. You (I do aswell) do see the extreme views, however, in part thats because the UN resolutions require that there be only an official force with weapons, and the Lebanese government being the only authority in the country. Its seen as being extreme, because the Lebanese gov is so weak, but it is expected of most nations that the gov controls its own country. (But then the UN is already backing down on enforcing the resolutions it placed on Lebanon)

Kicking Hezbollah out of parliment would only give them an excuse to continue the violence. Only gives them one option. Keeps them in the "cool" rebel fringe.

And when this is seen to be done (as was the case during the latest round of violence), there were no shortage of critics saying that such empty gestures and words were meaningless, and that it was action that was needed.

Ahh, but I haven't seen this to be done. Have you? Cause I don't remember campaigns to encourage people away from violence, and seek more peaceful means of negotiation. I can't remember seeing any efforts to secure a peaceful answer to israel's presence, or Hezbollahs attacks. For the last 6 years all I've seen are "tit for tat" attacks by both Israel & Hezbollah, with the occasional comment from the Lebanese government encouraging Hezbollah on.

Its also true that by running amok (whether suported by teh Leb govt. or not) Hezbollah themselves have shown the downside to picking a fight.

The problems start when people see that trynig to lead a peaceful, comfortable life will involve allowing Israel to attack their nation for some period of time on whatever pretext it chooses to issue. Whether or not Israel's pretexts are just and correct won't be the issue.

But it can equally be shown that during the last 6 years Israel didn't invade lebanon until it itself was attacked. The Lebanese Gov can easily point out that Israel has kept peace when its not been attacked, and show that when it is attacked by these little (useless) pinpricks, they lash back heavily.

Just as it can easily be shown the lack of success versus the damage received from the Hezbollah attacks into Northern Israel & the Sheeba Farms area. Promoting the belief that Israel would give them the Sheeba Farm (which Israel is discussing atm) area for a peaceful border, and emphasising that this needs Hezbollah to keep the peace, would encourage many people away from Hezbollah, especially since this is one of the main sticking points.

You haven't read much commentary by Israeli supporters then, I guess.

Actually I've read loads from Israeli supporters, and I'm not suprised to see them commenting about it. Rather, I was suprised at your comment because you suggested that other sources were talking like this. The BBC, for example, rarely if ever suggests that there are other issues other than Israel attacking. Or that the kidnapping or racket attacks were downplayed once the civilian casualties started occuring. The focus I've found is on israel and Israel being the aggressor, rather than a failure by Lebanon to sieze control in 2000 or later, or even the more honest admission that Hezbollah was the aggressor.

Then the West will have to reconsider its claim to being devoted to democracy and benig comitted to seeing deocracy in the Middle East, and so forth. Indeed, the entire rationale for why democracy is the right way for a nation to go will need to be rethought.

Totally agree.

Personally, though, I can't see this happening unless Hezbollah are given the means to gain such support.

They already have it. They just scare too many people away with their paramilitary activities. Many people see them as being thugs, and are afraid of what would happen if they did get into power (If Hezbollah did have power and continued their military campaign, would Lebanon, as a whole, be held responsible for attacks on Israel>?). However if Hezbollah represent the people, which they suggest they do, then shouldn't they represent them in the right manner>? They have the same resources as the other political groups in the region. If anything they have more resources than these parties.

Take what you said about people's desires to lead peaceful lives. If you seriously believe this, then ask how such people could vote for Hezbollah, unless they saw that path to violence as the most peaceful option.

I don't know. Why do people vote for SF? I'm sure hezbollah make the same promises for peace and also get some votes through intimadation. But overall I'd say its because people are tired of seeing their government doing nothing. Hezbollah is an alternative to a Gov that fails to control their own country.

So either the notion that people want peace is wrong, or Hezbollah's message of violence will not gain majority support unless the alternative is a less acceptable violence.

But why just violence? Hezbollohs main aim is the removal of Israel from lebanon (Destruction os Israel being secondary, I assume). Why does it have to be about violence? Surely they can see that they're not going to remove Israel through violence, since Israel just "digs in" instead. History shows that the times the PA or any other country has ever gained land or concessions was through the negotiation table rather than through force of arms.

While Israel continues to launch attacks - rightly or wrongly, justified or not - against Hezbollah on Lebanese soil, then it is going to drive more and more Lebanese to support the only people currently willing to stand up and fight the invaders.

Agreed. Just as, as Hezbollah continues to launch attacks from lebanon into Israel, it will encourage Israeli's not to support any non-violent resolution of the situation. You mention their desire for a better warrior, well, that may be because they feel they need one in the face of continous attacks.

Look at Palestine for a sec. Concessions were made to form the PA to allow rule of Palestine (Oslo). Attacks were supposed to stop, but they didn't. In fact, its rare any mention that Israel allowed them to form a government under Arafat is covered, instead just focusing on the oppression by Israel. Many Israeli's wonder what they gain, when most concessions they make, are forgotten and the attacks continue regardless.

Forcing the issue because you've looked at the symptoms and think you should treat them rather than finding and targetting the underlying causes is not good policy.

Maybe you have found the underlying causes, but if you have, I can't figure out what they are from your post.

A good indication of just how successful the way of dealing with the situation thus far has been, wouldn't you agree?

I included all three lines, because they're relevent to each other. Hezbollah control S.Lebanon because the Lebanese government have done nothing to stop them. Doing nothing will only increase Hezbollah's power, because if the Lebanese government isn't against them, then theyre seen to support Hezbollah or even worse incapable of ruling the country.

Forcing the issue regardless of the "true" reason is needed, because this problem is not going to go away. Its also not trapped in stasis. An attempt to resolve the issue is needed now. While the deaths caused by the Israeli retalitation are fresh, and people are questioning Hezbollah's actions, the Lebanese Government needs to start flexing its muscles (political), and start making its (military on the border, police in S.Lebanon, Political to Hez & Israel) presence known. Try to regain their own peoples trust in them & their military. Try to encourage Hezbollah away from violence. Try to keep Hezbollah & Israel from attacking each other.

Something is needed now. Not 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years in the future, when the border erupts once again.