AstroProdigy Posted February 25, 2007 Report Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) There was a lot of support for Hezbollah beforehand, but now that all the facts are in I think some people (including Europeans obsessed with the idea of Middle East "neutrality") feel pretty dumb. Let's discuss! Edited February 25, 2007 by AstroProdigy
Aileron Posted February 25, 2007 Report Posted February 25, 2007 Well, their evilness aside, Hezbollah was pretty stupid. The only reason Israel stopped is because the UN asked them to. The only reason the UN asked them to is because the country of Lebanon had a legimate democratic government. Basically, the only thing keeping the Israelis from running the Hezbollah over was that democratic government. For Hezbollah to protest against that national government was stupid and would have been self defeating if it ever had a chance of success. That being said, their mindset was that the ceasefire was a victory for Islam. They thought they had a victory and wanted to build upon that victory by more victories. It wasn't a victory, it was a ceasefire. Israelies decided they already had what they wanted (for Hezbollah to back off a bit) and decided that they really didn't need to go all the way to Beiruit. If anybody won the Israelies did. Besides, it certainly wasn't the Hezbollah rockets that caused them to stop. To be honest, those things did more often than not create pot-holes than actual casualties. But at the end of the day, these terrorists have gotten to the point where they consider any situation in which they aren't completely wiped out a "victory".
Dav Posted February 25, 2007 Report Posted February 25, 2007 The thing I like about the debate on this issue is it quickly moved to the middle east in general and how the instability created by the iraq war is partly to blame. In hindsight I think this was inevitable given the situation at the time. Now we must look towards the future to broker a lasting peace rather the dwell on the past.
AstroProdigy Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Posted February 26, 2007 Looking back Hezbollah had a very strong spin on the media coverage of the event. The media showed civilian damage, but it never showed the massive damage to Hezbollah infrastructure. We also see now that Hezbollah really is a mouthpiece of Iran. Iran can't go to war directly so they use their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon.
Aileron Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 Don't forget Hamas in Palestine. While this is all hypothetical, actually, I'd bet Iraq slowed it down a little. Remember, Hamas, Hezbollah, and most of the militant Shi'ite tribes are merely Iran's lackies, but Iran only has so much money to devote to each one. Iraq caused Iran to start funding the Shi'ites, which means less funding for Hamas and Hezbollah. An organization devoted to taking over the world and controlling it under a world-wide caliphate where rule of law is based upon who can claim to have the closest family history to a man who lived 1500 years ago is inherently unstable. Iran would have caused problems regardless.
AstroProdigy Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) I wouldn't take it that far, but I think it's safe to say Hezbollah is not an innocent organization bent on the good of Lebanon. It's a factional Shiite organization bent on the dominance of the Shiites in Lebanon and the destruction of Israel. When certain scholars say "Israel still occupies some of Lebanon" they refer to a small plot of land that is internationally recognized as Syrian and belonged to Syria before Israel captured it along with the Golan Heights. It was all a trick to justify violence. Whatever your belief on Israel and Palestine is, Hezbollah is basically a terrorist organization and a proxy for Iran. Edited February 26, 2007 by AstroProdigy
Recommended Posts