UNSC resolution 1701: Signs of hope but still a long way to go.
UN Security council resolution 1701 regarding the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is an important step forward. Despite that it has one fatal drawback and that is that it allows Hezbollah a small temporary victory that will alow it to try and survive politically. Nevertheless, the resolution is a golden opportunity for the Lebanese government to exert control over all of its territory.
The resolution only puts the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers as a preamble. This would not fly in Israel even if the government does approve it. As the Israeli public has always proven, at the top of their mind stands deterence and if that seems to be gone (as Nasrallah wll try and claim) they will elect a more hardline government that will "finish the job". So it was when Benjamin Netanyahu replaced Peres and Rabin; and so it was when Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak.
Now you may say "alright, but a deal is a deal and Israel will not be able to attack after signing the ceasefire agreement". True, but if you look closely at the phrasing of the resolution you will see this depends greatly on Hezbollah's refraining from any more cross border attacks (which it won't) since the resolution gives Israel still the right to retaliate.
The resolution calls for a halt to Israeli OFFENSIVE operations; yet this whole war for Israel has been DEFENCIEVE. This leaves Israel quite the lee-way which it should have if Lebanon does not exert its sovereignty over all of Lebanon as the resolution calls for.
Despite these loopholes, the resolution also allows the Lebanese government to do just that. It calls for an intl. force to assist the government; and it calls for an arms embargo that will allow weapons into Lebanon only with the government's approval. Now not even Russia will be able to bypass that. With Hezbollah politically weaken due to the huge devastation it provoked upon Lebanon; the government of Fouad Seniora has a good chance to hold things together. If he takes it, Prime Minister Fouad Seniora might go down in Lebanon's history books as the Rudi Juliani of Lebanon.
Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, UN, Hezbollah.
posted by The Middle East News Addict at 11:22 AM
20 Comments:
To KGB agent
If anyone can send a missile through this ceasefire it is Russia through its arms sales. But more to the point. The resolution is slowly becoming meaningless. With no international force, no Hezbollah disarming so Lebanon could assert responsibility and no returned soldiers, Israel will be back on the offensive-defensive again; and again as a response to a Hezbollah provocation the likes of July 12th. Unfortunately things will be differnt then. Israel will trust UN resolutions even less and will probably not stop when that happens until they feel safe. Now I know some may say it will bring hatred on Israel but they forget that the July 12th attack was not made from extra loving. The next time Israel will probably not make a limited operation as now but rather a full scale attack that wil spell disaster tfor Lebanon. Those who care about peace, about Lebanon, must do all in their power to press for a full implementation of resolution 1701 before it becomes a meaningless paper like 1559.
Israel already considers 1701 meaningless. They won't let certain countries join the peacekeeping force, and they keep making more demands that can't be met due to lack of troops in the force. Moreover, this attack is probably not considered "limited" in Lebanon, it set the country back 20-25 years because of the destruction of roads, bridges, and the airport. With the peacekeeping force as it is, and Israel trying to prevent Indonesia from joining, it is going to be near impossible to fully implement 1701. Israel is now saying it hopes "1701 can be implemented, at least partially," (Haaretz), and it's easy to guess which part they want implemented.
Can you blame Israel for not wanting Indoensia in the force? was it not Mahatir Muhammad that supported Iran's call for the destruction of Israel? Israel has not objected to Pakistan in the force or Turkey, both are Muslim countries. Please explain the difference between them and Indonesia other than what I described above.
I'm not saying there is a difference (other than the fact that Indonesia could make up a large portion of the peacekeeping force). But Lebanon is Lebanon, not Israel, and Israel therefore has no right to decide who goes there and who doesn't.
Also, in relation to destroying countries, there is an open letter by 18 people (including Howard Zinn) that notes the long-term impact that Israel is having on Palestine, which can be found at The Nation website.
And what would happen if Indonesian troops attack Israel? As for Israel's right or not to decide who will come to Lebanon, you are right a priori that Israel has no right to decide. It is the decision of the sovereign of that territory. Be it the case that the sovereign is unfortunately Hezbollah and not Lebanon; and be it the case that Hezbollah has declared and opened war on Israel, they would have every right until such time that Lebanon takes over.
As for the kletter, I read it and found no rvidence (media report or other) about it. What's more, please give me more reliable sources than Noam Chomsky
With all due respect, I don't need to give you other sources for the letter, there are already 17 others listed (three of which received Nobel Prizes, that's not given out easily). The letter's point (in my understanding) is that the many attacks by Israel against Palestine, military or otherwise (most of which are well-documented, even by corporate media) are slowly going to destroy it. It's an idea that deserves consideration.
In regards to Indonesia: some people might think that Israel should not be allowed where it is, because what if it attacked Palestine or Lebanon? Many have said that war is terrorism with a bigger budget.
Also, it is the right of the people to decide who's in the country, not the sovereign. Either way, no one in Lebanon decided they wanted Israel there but I have heard of any Lebanese objections to an Indonesian military presence.
Do you mean corporater media like Reuters indoctrinated photos?
As for Nobel prize winners, take a look at another one, Shimon Peres and what he had to say. The fact that Noam Chomsky who is very "unbiased" wrote on a kidnap does not make it true. I can provide with documented media on a Palestinin that invented being hit by Israeli police and then admitted he lied, but that is small scale.
Need I remind you the"Jenin Massacre" in which 5000 civilians turned to 500 and then turned to 50 out of which 25 were Hamas and 25 civilians (Israel lost 23 soldiers then)
What about Qana in which 67 casualites turned to 37, or Hula where 50 casualties turned out to be one? The situation as I wrote became so bad that Lebanese Reuters employed photographer began to docrinate photos in an unprofessional manner with photoshop.
In regards to Palestinians and Lebanese faking massacres: The Holocaust was a terrible occurrence which killed millions of people, how many schoolchildren are unaware that many of the millions killed were not Jewish, and how many think that 6 million Jews were killed when in fact the number was closer to 5 million. Please do not think that I disrespect Jews or the Jewish religion in any way, or that I do not believe the Holocaust was the tremendously terrible thing that it was.
Also, you seem to think that in reality very few civilians were killed in Lebanon. How many do you estimate died?
Israel has no right to be where it is because people were already there and not hurting them. A nation has the right to defend itself, as did the Soviet Union, but a group of people such as the Zionists do not have the right to take land because they want to. Further, I think that Israel has no right to be in Lebanon and Palestine not because it has no right to defend itself, but because it has no right to defend land that it has no right to in the first place.
I do not go into estimations. I go with facts. The fact is that the number given from Lebanon all the time is 900 civilians and 0 Hezbollah and I find it hard to accept, especially in light of the recent foregries I mentioned earlier. I think it was UN Humanitarian aid coodinator who said in Cyprus he has never seen something like Hezbollah fighters who take pride in the fact that more civilians get hurt because it hurts Israel in world PR. I think anyone fighting for his country should be doing so to defend his people and not sacrifice them for propaganda.
As for Israel, UK and FRA, they were in an implicit alliance but as I said, they banked on Egypt's provocation. Israel was to attack anyway in resopnse to the blockade; FRA and UK were there for the ride.
Finally, I have not recieved your response regarding Hitler and the Soviet Union. Did the fact Hitler attacked the Soviet Union gave the soviets a righ to attack Berlin or would you say the soviet Union had no right?
If you say they do, then why is it that you think USSR was entitled to self defence and Israel not? If you say they did not have the right, then what do you think of self defense? Looking forward to your response.
If you don't go with the estimates then what do you go with? There will never be an exact, undisputable body count. I was asking how many civilians and how many Hezbollah fighters do you believe died, or if you don't have an exact figure (which you couldn't), about how many civilians and about how many Hezbollah fighters do you believe died?
In regards to Hezbollah fighters being happy innocent people died, I agree that no one should be made happy by death. I'd like to point out though that Zionists have a tendency to fall back on the Holocaust when it comes to Israel and the measures Israel takes to defend itself, which you seem to be indirectly doing (no offense).
In regards to the Suez Crisis, my point was merely that Israel got assistance in the form of troops, I wasn't looking into the motives.
You have received my response regarding Israel/USSR, but I'll repeat it. The USSR had a right to the land it was on, and therefore a right to defend itself and its existence. Israel has a right to exist, but not where it is, because other people were already there and were forcibly removed from their homes. Thus, I believe that although Israel has a right to defend its existence, it does not have the right to defend the land taht it has no right to in the first place.
Also, if Israel has the right to defend itself, why doesn't Palestine?
I urge you to read the Peel commitee report from 1937 (if I haven't already done so) that will show that Jewish people bougt the land. I would also urge you to read about Khaybar in the Quran and know that even it notes there were Jewish people ther friven out by Muhammad.
As for your notion that the USSR had the right to defend its land, I agree. But was Berlin part of that land? You seem to avoid the question. If the USSR was protecting its land then what were they doing in Berlin?
As for Palestinians defending themselves, defending from what? from the Camp David 2000 accords that gave them the whole Gaza strip and 97% of the W, Bnk 5 years ago (even Palestinians today don't know why they gave it up)? From the Gaza disengagement? From Olmert's withdrawal? All these accomplishments were done with diplomacy and now Hezbollah and Hamas are threatening all of that by strengthening the Israeli right wingers who say any withdrawal will not be met with peace, but with further attacks.
I'm looking at the Wikipedia page about the 1947 UN Partition Plan (not the most reliable source, if you have a better one, please let me know about it), and it says that while 99% of the Arab State was Arab, only 55% of the Jewish State were actually Jewish. It's not like Zionists created a nation out of land that was theirs and no one else's. When the US made the "Louisiana Purchase" from France, about one-third of the country, it did not give European Americans the right to drive out all the Native Americans who were the inhabitants. There was a court case in the US from some time ago that said that while Native Americans had some rights to the land due to their "occupation," European Americans had greater rights to it due to their "discovery." What it failed to explain was how the Native Americans "occupied" the land without having already "dicovered" it. It's not a direct analogy, but it's something to think about. My point is that while Jews may have bought some of the land, which they did, they did not buy all of it, and there were a lot of Arabs who had homes there and suddenly found themselves a minority in a nation whose borders were drawn by people who had just arrived (in historical terms). Arabs were the majority but the borders were drawn in such a way that the Israelis were just barely the majority.
Your mention of the Peel Commission brings up an interesting point. Palestine, prior to the creation of Israel, had been "owned" by Britain. It was not legitimately owned, it was taken, as was East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, etc. in the Six Day War. Surely those weren't "bought?"
I have twice ansered your USSR question, so here is my answer a third time: the USSR had a right to defend their land, and invading Berlin was necessary to do that. It was clear that Germany had imperial goals, and they were killing millions of people (including Jews, I might add), so the USSR along with a number of other nations stopped them from taking over Eurasia. Israel may have to invade people to defend themselves, but since they don't have a right to much of that land in the first place, they don't have a right to defend that land by invading anyone. Unless your point is that since the USSR was oppressive to its own citizens (which doesn't apply to Israel becuase Israel doesn't oppress Israelis) and therefore not a legitimate government and thus without the right to defend its land (which I might agree with, I'm not sure), I don't see why you keep bringing this up.
In regards to Palestinians defending themselves, I was referring to Israeli occupation and invasion.
You know one of the stories Palestinians categorically reject is that at the begining of the war the Arab armies commanders told them to leave and return once they have driven the Jews. Strangely enough, this is what Nasrallah told the Arab people of Haifa in this recent war... wonder what version will prevail in 50 years now that we have media to record it. As for Wikipedia as a source, I do recommend better sources. Mark twain's book from the 19th century on his visit to the Ottoman region of Palestine would be an enlightment. Also, look at the Peel committee population distribution and the 47 parition plan and you will find the correlation: where the majority were jews went to the Jewish state and where it was Arab, went to the Arabs (though not to Palestinians)
Yes, it was 55% Jewish, but not overwhelmingly Jewish. I don't know where you live, but for the moment I'll pretend it's Kansas (probably not, but the analogy isn't really dependent on location, so it could be Mexico City or Ontario London or wherever). I'm also going to assume you're a Westerner and not Muslim (safe assumption). Let's say you and a number of other Christian/Jewish/atheist Kansas people were living happily in Kansas. Suddenly a lot of Muslims come to Kansas and settle down. Since hundreds of thousands of Arabs had just been killed where they had been living (like Iraq or Afghanistan), the international community decides that they deserve a homeland, and that it would be part of Kansas. Wherever most of the people are actual Kansas dwellers, it remains Kansas. Wherever it's mostly Arabs, it becomes Kansarab. Kansas then becomes a territory militarily occupied and basically controlled by Kansarab. Obvious issues with occupation aside, the Kansarabs were more spread out, so Kansarab is only 55% Arab, while Kansas is 99% Kansasian. 45% of the people in Kansarab are actually Kansasians, and the Kansarabs don't like them, and they are forced out. Trivial issues such as whether anyone actually lives in Kansas aside, it wouldn't be right and people wouldn't accept it.
To Agent KGB
I love your story, but it is kind of partial. Lets add two more points to your story. I would be interested in your response. Say that those Muslims from the Middle East came to Kansas and said it was their land. Now say that my people's (Kansas) holy book sayd this is the case (as the Quran says that the prophet drove the Jews away see the term Khaybar to understand why this was the name Nasrallah gave to his most advanced missile) and say that we find in Kansas 5000 year old Arabic scriptures (much like the 5000 year old dead sea scrolls written in Hebrew and found in Israel) that prove their case. Let us also add to the mix that my (again, Kansas) most holy place is built on their holy place found there which is carbon dated 3500 years earlier then mine (much like the weiling wall predates the AL Aqsa mosque by about 2500 years). So what now? Does this change your story a little bit?
This is why I despise comparing Israel to European colonialism. There was no physical proof that French were ever in Algeir before they got there; neither was there one for UK in India. In Israel there have been proof and yet they are compared to colonialists. Going back to the Kansas story, should we leave Kansas to the people now there after it has been proven they drove the Middle East Arabs from there thousends of years ago?
But all this is really written by me to get your response, in which I am truly interested. However it bears no relation to the Lebanese Israeli case because Shia Lebanese have no cliam for this land, only Palestinians.
I'm not comparing Israel to European colonialism, at least not directly. I'm saying if it weren't for European colonialism, in the form of mandates, there wouldn't be an Israel, at least not where it is today. What I'm comparing it to is kind of besides the point though.
The Jews of 5000 years ago and the Muslims of 1500 years ago are no longer alive today, and the world has obviously changed since their time. It's a nice story, almost definitely factual, but if you lived in Kansas and Kansarabs came and said that, "Yeah, it's nice that you live here and all, but these people who practiced our religion were here 5000 years ago so we get to take over the land now," you would no doubt we somewhat doubtful of their right to live there now, 5000 years later. You posted: "Going back to the Kansas story, should we leave Kansas to the people now there after it has been proven they drove the Middle East Arabs from there thousends of years ago?" My disagreement with the validity of the question is this: the people now there drove no one from the land, they were born there thousands of years after the Jews left. If it were a matter of a few decades or even a few centuries, my opinion might be different, but after thusands of years the Jewish claim to the land is kind of gone.
In regards to holy places, your argument is very much (in fact, entirely) based on years. Yes, it is interesting that a Jewish holy site was established thousands of years before a Muslim holy site in the same spot. My history professor no doubt finds it fascinating. But mostly what I draw from those dates is that both are well-established holy sites of great importance to Judaism and Islam respectively. Today is today, however, and therefore numbers from today should be taken into consideration as well. Two such numbers are the percentage of the world population that is Jewish (0.23%) and the percentage of the world population that is Muslim (20.12%). If one religion has to rule the region (which I don't think is the case, it should be ruled by an international force), then it should be the Muslims, not the Jews, because there are clearly more Muslims that see religious importance in the region than there are Jews.
If you live anywhere in the Americas, it may be of interest for you to know that in fact the few surviving members of Native Amreican groups who held the land a mere 500 years ago would probably love to have their land back, though I doubt you or your fellow European Americans would be willing to give it to them. If you are one of those surviving members, then I am extremely sorry and meant no offense in any way.
I notice that you semi-neatly avoided my two main points. The first of those points is that you, as a non-Kansarab, would prefer not to be oppressed. The second is that Kansas should not be occupied militarily by Kansarab (the way Palestine shouldn't be occupied by Israel), because Kansarabs just don't have the right to do that.
I liked your idea that now after thousends of years the Jewish claim is now gone. Would you now agree that all Israel has to do is survive for as much more time needed for Palestinain claims to be gone? If so, I fear as to where this world is coming to. If not, then why the double standard on Jewish versus Palestinian claim?
Great reference to the number of Muslims versus Jews. The strong shall prevail ha? I guess the next logical step would be a holocaust for one of the sides... Do we really want a world where the strong prevails, justice be gone? If so, Israel has nothing to worry in conventional warfare and in nuclear, both sides have something to worry about.
Following on that point, I agree with you that the situation on the ground must be addressed. In that sense I would like to note President Clinton's words to Arafat after the latter said that the temple mount was not in Jerusalem but in Nablus: "I don't know if it was in Jerusalemor not and you don't either; the important thing is that the Jews believe that and you have to take that into account" (Denis Ross book). Same goes for Israelis and Al-Aqsa.
Finally with regards to your points about me avoiding the preference of Kansas people not to be occupied etc., they did have that option in 48. They rejected it relying on the Arab armies to get them everything. It failed. Yousuf Ibrahim from the Council on Foreign Relations once said that the Palestinians have a tendency to accept offers that are no longer on the table. In 48, they rejected the partition plan. In 67, after 5 failed attempts to get rid of Israel, they accepted the partition plan and not the 67 offer. In 2000 they rejected the 67 offer with few modifications (which Palestinians today do not understand why Arafat said no). The conclusion is that with every peace talks they pass, they get less and less on the next one, leading to your logic of in a couple of years having their claim gone.
Why wouldn't the Palestinain claim be gone after thousands of years? People don't have a right to something just because someone thousands of years ago who they were related to lived there? Likewise, people shouldn't have to pay for what their ancestors did. Bloodlines shouldn't pass on things like that.
I don't think the strong should prevail, I think the majority should, so long as it's not at outrageous expense of the minority (not the case here). Muslims are clearly the majority, though they're not necessarily militarily stronger.
In regard to your third statement, I'm not quite sure what your point is, but you seem to just be saying that both have a right to freely move to and from their holy sites, which I certainly have no disagreement with. I'm an atheist, so I have to admit I don't entirely understand religious attachment to places or religious rituals. I do however believe that if a group truly considers a certain region holy, as both the Muslims and Jews consider Jerusalem, that they have a right to move to and from that region.
Again, people shouldn't pay for what their ancestors did. Many Palestians were not alive in 1948 or 1967. You seem to be saying that since nearly 60 years ago Palestinians rejected an offer, Israel now has a right to militarily occupy what little land Palestians now have? That has to involve some intersting logic.
Wow, let me calm down from the claim be gone thing. So you would agree that if Israel manages to keep the territory for however long is necessary the Palestinians should be screwed? This takes the phrase "possession is 9/10 of the law..." to a whole new level.
As for outragous expense of the minority, you are confusing me. At one point you say Israel as the majority makes outragous decisions that affect the Palestinian minority; and on the other you say that Muslims (including Palestinians) are the majority and as such Israel should back off. You cannot dance on both weddings at the same time. Either the Palestinians are the majority as Muslims and as such their issue should be connected to the entire Muslim world, or they are the minority and as such their claim should be disconnected from the entire Muslim case. Arafat tried that and could not. When he spoke to Barak on the holy pllaces, he represented the entire Arab world. When he spoke of the right of return and Barak suggested they settle where they are as Jews have done in the diaspora, then all of a sudden Arafat said Barak is confusing Palestinians with Muslims. You cannot have it both ways so that Israel loses either way. Palestinians cannot be the majority when they need to and the minority when they don't...
As for the "what their anceseters did" part, most Palestinians that were alive that time are today's 60 year olds, they made the decision. I agree, sons should not pay for their parents mistakes; but should they benefit off them too?
Now I guess what you might try to say: what about Jewish people benefiting from their parents and grandparents suffering in the holocaust? why should they earn from that while Palestinians should not benefit from their parents suffering? simple. Because the holocaust was not caused by the Jewish people to themselves. They did not have a choice on it. Palestinians had a choice not to go to war in 48 and chose to gamble that away. If you gamble, you must be prepared to lose as well. No one forced them to attack the Jewish state and had they not done so they would have set today on far more land.
I think that you and I have radically different views of the world. I look at it as a world of individuals, who get together to form groups (nations, religions, etc.), although the individuals remain far more important than the groups. You seem to see it as a world of groups, where the groups happen to be made up of a bunch of people, and the groups are more important than the individuals who are members of that groups. Thus, while you see a "Israeli" or rather "Jewish" claim to the land, I think that's crazy because the individuals who were part of that group when the group was originally there (when Jews lived in Palestine 5000 years ago) are long gone, and I don't think that membership in a group gives individuals a right to something just because their group had it 5000 years ago, whereas you think that makes sense. Basically, I think that there are people today (people who happen to be Palestinians) who have a right to the land the nation of Israel is now on, because they used to live there until they were forced out. Once they're dead though, I guess they might still have a claim to the land but the point is kind of moot because they're dead, and I don't think that their claim would get passed on to their descendents, because their descendents are obviously different people.
In regards to the minority/majority thing: I was talking about different issues. Muslims are more numerous than Jews, so they have a greater right to Jerusalem: though I think that no one group should have control of the land and that all should be able to move to and from their holy sites, Israel clearly thinks differently, as I imagine do many Muslims. When I say Palestinians, I am probably talking about the issue of Palestine/Israel as a whole, not the issue of who gets control of Jerusalem.
Palestinains can be simultaneously the minority and the majority, because their land was split up. As a whole before the land was divided, Palestinians were the majority. Then the land was broken up and, as you said, wherever the land was mostly Jewish became the nation of Israel and where it was mostly Muslim became the occupied territory called Palestine (not your exact words). The problem with that was that the Muslims were concentrated differently and it resulted in Palestine being overwhelmingly Muslim (with few if any Jews suddenly finding themselves within boundaries that were overwhelmingly Muslim), but Israel was only 55% Jewish, barely a majority, so many Muslims found themselves in a Jewish country.
In regards to your last point: no, people should neither benefit nor lose due to the mistakes, misfortune, good luck, brillaince, whatevr of their ancestors. Jews of today shouldne't get to be special because other Jews died, Palestinians shouldn't suffer due to other people making bad decisions, and George Bush Jr. shouldn't get to go to Yale or Harvard becasue his ancestor was smart.
I think I made it seem as though I were combining the issues of Israel/Palestine and Jerusalem, which are obviously related issues but not one and the same. I am however very interested in your views on who should control Jerusalem.
Post a Comment
<< Home