By Israeli Force of Arms
Although Israel's current campaign in Lebanon has received seemingly unlimited press and pundit attention, clarifying analysis has been hard to come by. Knesset Member Azmi Bishara, provides much needed food-for-thought in an article for Al-Ahram Weekly. Bishara takes aim at everything from the Israeli leadership to the international forces that will eventually enmesh themselves in Lebanon. Most of all, he focuses attention back on what really matters: the Lebanese state and the collective will of the Lebanese people. The article is well worth a read in its entirety. Here are a few choice excerpts:
"Any comparison between Olmert's and Nasrallah's political rhetoric must conclude that the latter is the more rational. His speeches are more consistent with the facts and rely less than Olmert's on religious expressions and allusions... "
"[Israeli leaders] possess the keys to the machinery of a state, a real state, one that is secure in its identity, that has clear national security goals and channels of national mobilisation, as opposed to a long deferred project for statehood and a states [sic] built on the fragmentation of national identity..."
"Israel...has decided to settle internal Lebanese dialogue by Israeli force of arms...Israel's aim is to change the rules of the game between Israel and Lebanon and, therefore, within Lebanon itself. This is the only point of similarity between the current campaign and the war of 1982. The major differences are that, on the negative side, international and regional circumstances favour Israel, while on the positive side the resistance, which is not Palestinian but Lebanese this time, is much stronger and better organised...Even after the Syrian withdrawal the Lebanese society has much more positive attitude towards the Lebanese resistance than it had towards the Palestinian resistance, in those days of 1982 a part of the Lebanese people fought on the side of the Israelis. The initiative now lies in the hands of the Lebanese people and the resistance. They, alone, have the ability to thwart the conspiracy..."
"The resistance isn't playing the role of victim. It didn't ask for international sympathy with the victims but for solidarity among freedom-seeking peoples. These are the rules of another game, a language that Arab regimes have forgotten, if they ever really knew it, though they owe their own existence to such a discourse..."
"[T]he charge that the resistance has courted disaster betrays the existence of an Arab camp that regards robust resistance in Lebanon and Palestine as an adventure."
Also, for a thorough explanation of Hezbollah's history, its relationship to Lebanon, and its activities leading up to the present crisis, read Lara Deeb's "Hizballah: A Primer."
"Any comparison between Olmert's and Nasrallah's political rhetoric must conclude that the latter is the more rational. His speeches are more consistent with the facts and rely less than Olmert's on religious expressions and allusions... "
"[Israeli leaders] possess the keys to the machinery of a state, a real state, one that is secure in its identity, that has clear national security goals and channels of national mobilisation, as opposed to a long deferred project for statehood and a states [sic] built on the fragmentation of national identity..."
"Israel...has decided to settle internal Lebanese dialogue by Israeli force of arms...Israel's aim is to change the rules of the game between Israel and Lebanon and, therefore, within Lebanon itself. This is the only point of similarity between the current campaign and the war of 1982. The major differences are that, on the negative side, international and regional circumstances favour Israel, while on the positive side the resistance, which is not Palestinian but Lebanese this time, is much stronger and better organised...Even after the Syrian withdrawal the Lebanese society has much more positive attitude towards the Lebanese resistance than it had towards the Palestinian resistance, in those days of 1982 a part of the Lebanese people fought on the side of the Israelis. The initiative now lies in the hands of the Lebanese people and the resistance. They, alone, have the ability to thwart the conspiracy..."
"The resistance isn't playing the role of victim. It didn't ask for international sympathy with the victims but for solidarity among freedom-seeking peoples. These are the rules of another game, a language that Arab regimes have forgotten, if they ever really knew it, though they owe their own existence to such a discourse..."
"[T]he charge that the resistance has courted disaster betrays the existence of an Arab camp that regards robust resistance in Lebanon and Palestine as an adventure."
Also, for a thorough explanation of Hezbollah's history, its relationship to Lebanon, and its activities leading up to the present crisis, read Lara Deeb's "Hizballah: A Primer."
1 Comments:
In light of recent developments, we have been troubled with the phrase "the War on Terror", coined so effectively by the current administration. It seems to us this is nothing more than a colloquialism for national security, a concept not lost on any administration. The need to interject the word "terror" seems insulting, and an obvious scare tactic to continue the machine moving forward, despite continuous blunders.
The United States, Israel, and every other country in the world for that matter, should continue to concentrate of the basic concept of security. This can not be achieved by constant misguided rage at the wrong targets. In other words, to preserve security for a country, it is utterly crucial for that country to recognize what the threat is before launching into destruction mode, using all capable intelligence information along with some common sense and a little appreciation of human life. In our opinion, the last of such a balance was shown in 2001 by the current administration, when the United States systematically eliminated those responsible for harboring and aiding a group that attacked us. Unfortunately, this balance and planning was short-lived, and we lost our way as we occupied Iraq. We can only hope that Israel doesn’t make the same mistake (though it could be argued they already have) as they try their hand at preserving national security, or as we call it in the United States, “fighting the War on Terror.”
www.rumbleon.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home