Who Won?
August 13,2006

Israel and Hezbollah 2006 – Who Won?

As of today, the plan is for a ceasefire to take effect on Monday. The terms of the agreement call for Israel to retreat behind its border in exchange for Lebanese and U.N. forces to fill Southern Lebanon with some 30,000 troops. Hezbollah, again, is to be disarmed in the region.

PurpleThink believes Israel was victorious if Hezbollah was decimated and the Lebanese-U.N. force successfully implements Resolution 1559 like it should have done years ago. However, this is all a matter of degrees, and in such cases both sides can confidently declare victory.

After all, Israel retreated short of total victory, Hezbollah’s highest leaders broadcast to the people almost daily, and now a new generation of locals have war stories to stoke the fires of anti-Semitism.

We have no idea what’s next, but the exchange below with a PurpleThink reader explains an awful lot. It’s worth reading in its entirety because it provides excellent insight into the divided camps that exist. Tom seems to be a nice enough guy. However, in our estimation, his ideological identity is stronger than his sense of rational thought. Of course, we have been blamed of this as well. You be the judge.

 

Tom:

Hezbollah's origin was the result of Israel's initial invasion on occupation of southern Lebanon. The current invasion is creating more radical fundamentalists in the Muslim world.

As for disarming Hezbollah, the Lebanese won't be able to do this until Israel puts a stop to all of its territorial ambitions in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the only organization that has been able to defend that country.

People forget that this invasion, like the last, was actually based on Israel's desire to take water from the Litani river. All the talk about fighting terrorism is an ironic distraction, since this war is exactly what the terrorists want.

For the Lebanese, Hezbollah is a necessary evil needed because the US and the rest of the world won't put the brakes on Israeli expansionism.

PurpleThink:

Israeli expansionism? This has got to be a joke. Israel was at the bargaining table, ready to give away nearly the entire West Bank, fallback from the Golan Heights, remove 80% of Jewish settlements from occupied territories and recognize a Palestinian State.

This offer was met with outright rejection and a failure to remove the longstanding call for the destruction of Israel. Israel called the bluff of Islamic fascists and the jig is up. They don't want peace, because it means they aren't needed. It's a power grab.

If Israel were all about territorial acquisition, why even consider land for peace? -- why return the Sanai to Egypt? -- why bargain with Arafat and offer to give away 40% of your territory?

You claim Lebanon cannot disarm Hezbollah until Israel stops its territorial expansion. What? Israel pulled out from Southern Lebanon and the Lebanese response was to allow Hezbollah to backfill with missile installations. Lebanon CANNOT disarm Hezbollah because it is an arm of the Syrian army and more powerful than the Lebanese.

I don't know what planet you live on Tom, but this latest escalation started when two missiles were launched into Israel and a Hezbollah sanctioned cross-border raid seized 2 Israeli soldiers. This was a direct attack on Israel within its internationally recognized border.

U.N. resolutions required the removal of Hezbollah from the South of Lebanon. Hezbollah is a puppet of the Syrian government and is a way to wage war on Israel without implicating the actual state of Syria. Hezbollah doesn't exist because of Israeli aggression -- it exists because Syria needs a way to be held blameless for its aggression towards Israel. Without Syrian and Iranian resources, Hezbollah would be a bunch of disgruntled street thugs with molotov cocktails as their most lethal weapon.

Pray tell, how do you propose Israel should bargain with a pseudo-state that calls for its destruction? Besides ignoring it, how do you deal with periodic missiles being launched into your country by radicals in another country? You must have a brilliant answer to this.

Tom:

You might be interested in a review of the conflict between Israel and Lebanon over water from the Litani River.

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/litani.htm

You might also want to remember that Israel didn't withdraw from all of its conquest in Lebanon under pressure from Hezbollah. They kept a portion of that country, in violation of the internationally recognized borders.

As for the West Bank and the Palestinians, you chose a really bad example. The Israeli government is continuing to expand its illegal settlements on the West Bank, indisputably expansionist behavior.

As for the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, all that was offered was a set of disconnected homelands similar to the ones set up by the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Under the internationally recognized borders, Israel is legally required to withdraw from all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. If Israel would abide by international law, anyone looking at a map would see that Israel would still be getting a much better deal than the Palestinians.

The irony is that this insane, expansionist war is dramatically increasing support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East.

Now that Israel has gone crazy in Lebanon, even a majority of Lebanese Christians are supporting Hezbollah's shelling of Israel in retaliation against Israeli bombing.

http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?

This nutty war that you are salivating over is the best thing that ever happened to Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria.

PurpleThink:

Tom, I enjoy the dialogue and appreciate your input. Always good to learn and have an open mind. I do not salivate over this war. I genuinely lament its escalation.

First, to agree. I believe that Israeli expansion into the West Bank was a mistake and continues to be. It’s easy to pull armies behind borders when you need to, but patriotic citizens are not too happy when you ask them to abandon their homes. This is expensive, time consuming and creates political turmoil from within your own society – something Israel of all countries doesn’t need.

However, this was still a good example because Israel was willing to bargain nearly all of it away in exchange for peace. Arafat feared he would lose public support from a growing Hamas contingent and thus failed to even attempt negotiation on the issue. This proved, once and for all, without a doubt, that “land-for-peace” is not the aim of the Palestinians. They want Israel destroyed, and nothing else will suffice. This is the public position of Hamas and Hezbollah. How do you negotiate with this?

Israel pulled back from the Sanai in exchange for recognition and a promise of peace. Egypt and Israel have both respected this. In contrast, every time Israel tests the intentions of the Palestinians or Hezbollah by pulling back, they backfill with missile installations, shell Israeli cities, and conduct cross border raids.

Given the above, your solution is that Israel must pull back further. What? When confronted with an enemy that has no intention to live side-by-side in peace, the result is a closer enemy with closer missile installations, more inclined to use them.

In this light, I choose not to discuss arguments about public opinion or red herrings such as the Latani. They are irrelevant.

Make no mistake, Israel is fighting for its existence. If you believe as Iran does that it should be “wiped off the map,” then say so. Otherwise, this war is lamentable but necessary against an enemy that has no desire to negotiate.

Tom:

You are speaking in terms of false choices. I don't want Israel wiped off of the map, nor do I support their nutty, expansionist war in Lebanon.

You have to remember that Israel has been just as determined to wipe Palestine off the map as its enemies have been to wipe Israel off of the map.

As for the peace deal offered Arafat, it gave Israel most of the West Bank and created apartheid style homelands that were not even connected to each other. Remember that Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the West Bank.

Israel's "negotiation" strategy has been to make offers that no sane Palestinian leader could accept, and then to blame the Palestinians for the failure of the negotiations.

You don't have to be out to eliminate Israel to realize that they have been intransigent in their desire to conquer the West Bank and turn it into part of Israel, internationally recognized borders be damned.

The irony is that you have things completely backwards in regards to Hamas. Hamas responded to Israel's quasi-pullback in Gaza with a cease-fire. Israel responded by kidnapping, bombing, and executing Hamas leaders and Palestinian civilians.

Keep in mind that Hamas was originally funded by Israel in order to undermine the PLO. Now, Israel has created a monster and every step they take in Hamas creates more support for that fundamentalist organization.

Until Israel understands that it has to recognize the right to a Palestinian state and until Israel stops settlements and its illegal wall in Palestinian territory, Arab nationalists who have tried to compromise with Israel will lose out to Islamic extremists. That is reality, whether you like it or not.

Facts don't stop being facts because you have chosen to take one side in this conflict.

 

PurpleThink:

"Facts don't stop being facts because you have chosen one side in this conflict."

Funny, I was thinking of saying the same thing to you. If you honestly believe the unsubstantiated propaganda regarding Hamas being started by Israelis, we have gone into cookoo land. Let me get this straight -- Israel funded a charity whose goal was to "undermine the PLO." Some in this charity used Israeli funds to move on and found Hamas and you call this Israel "starting" Hamas. That's great fun, but doesn't come close to rational argument. The Islamic charity Israel was fronting in the 1970's was battling a PLO that at the time still advocated the destruction of Israel. All's fair in war, and fighting a war by funding hospitals and schools is far better than bombing Israeli busses, don't you think?

Here are some facts you conveniently ignore:

a) Hezbolla started this latest engagement by lobbing missiles into Israel and conducting cross-border raids.

b) Before this latest conflict, Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000 (completely withdrew and did not hold on to Lebanese land as you state) only to see Hezbollah backfill with the missiles and militants that initiated this war -- all this in direct violation of UN resolution and a cease-fire agreement made in good faith. Your original post states that only once Israel stops its territorial ambitions in Lebanon will Hezbollah be disarmed. That was 6 years ago -- still Hezbollah exists.

c) Hezbollah advocates the utter destruction of the Israeli state.

d) You state that the Litani river is the main reason for this "expansionism" yet Israel made no attempt to each the Latani until today -- 30 days into the conflict, and this same day it has agreed to a cease-fire and retreat behind its own border. Hmm. Doesn't quite add up to me.

e) Now that Hezbollah has been decimated and the Lebanese army will follow UN forces into the South of Lebanon, Israel has agreed to retreat behind its own recognized border --proof that all along it only wanted security from Hezbollah raids and missiles.

You say you don't want Israel "wiped off the map," but you are comfortable with Hezbollah doing it for you -- lobbing missiles into Israel because that "protects" Lebanon -- laughable.

You still haven't addressed these truths. You simply pull on suspect history lessons that do not address the current situation.

I have been able to concede an area in which Israel's actions were not prudent. However, it appears you see Israel's detractors as infallible -- especially the way you suck-up their revisionist history propaganda. Proof you have succumbed to propaganda is the way you use the word "expansionist" when Israel continually withdraws and makes land-for-peace offers. You conveniently ignore my analysis of the Egypt situation as an example of how Israel lives in peace with those that don't bomb its markets and lob missiles into its territory. You state the Gaza cease-fire was met with Israeli aggression - revisionist history at its worst. You say Israel tries to "conquer" the West Bank and that Israel wants to "wipe Palestine off the map." Let's forget for a moment that there is no "Palestine" to wipe from the map. My dear sir, Israel has the firepower to "conquer" any contiguous area it damn well pleases and chooses not to do so. More evidence you are brainwashed? As evidenced by my version of the photos on your site, the photos clearly show destruction of military facilities and you conveniently refer to them as "civilian."

Enough!

You have clearly stated your position which is that Israel must give up, return within its pre-1967 border and simply live with neighbors that periodically kill Israelis and plot new ways to destroy it. What evidence can you cite sir that would support any assertion that this would satiate Islamo-fascists and their desire to destroy Israel? How sir, will it do anything other than prove to embolden the enemy as it has countless times now? You state only when Israel completely withdraws will "arab nationals who have tried to negotiate with Israel" be successful. Of which Arab nationals do you speak? This philosophy of yours has failed in both Gaza and Lebanon. You love to cite other sources -- give me a shred of evidence to support your position that Israel and its neighbors will experience more peace as a result of your position. Anything!

You say you are a "godless liberal homo." I shouldn't be surprised by someone that enjoys pigeon-holing their existence into such narrow confines. Picking a camp and then taking pot-shots at your self-described sworn enemy in Christian Conservatives has clouded your overall judgment. Had Israel been an ally of liberal democrats, your views would no doubt be different. Anyone that willingly allows themself to be put into a manageable package to be manipulated by political elites deserves their fate. It is you sir that has no concept of reality.

|

Home|epinion|Purple People Eater

Feedback@PurpleThink.com

©2006 PurpleThink.com