As Expected, Hezbollah Finds New Excuse Not to Give up Arms

(Post by LB)

As a follow-up to my previous post on the misguided efforts to convince Israel to give Sheba’a Farms over to Lebanon, I am including the following quotation from The Media Line’s article, “Hizbullah: Israel Land Deal Doesn’t Mean the End of Resistance”.

Hizbullah officials say that even if Israel withdraws from the disputed Shib’a Farms, the movement will not disarm, as it still has to defend Lebanon from “any future Israeli aggression.”

It is stunningly obvious that Hezbollah, committed to Israel’s destruction, will not simply give up its arms if Israel hands over the Sheba’a Farms over to Lebanon. It will simply be another victory for Hezbollah, and will reinforce their image, and their argument that only through force of arms can they extract concessions from Israel. Most of their achievements have been accomplished through violence, and they will continue to attempt to bleed Israel in this way.

11 Responses to As Expected, Hezbollah Finds New Excuse Not to Give up Arms

  1. oao says:

    israel is committing suicide on all fronts.

  2. Ken Hoop says:

    Ever heard of the Irgun and Sterm Gang? Israel was founded on genocidal violence. But you should read Pat Buchanan’s new book-it didn’t have to happen if America had stayed out of what became WW2.

  3. Cynic says:

    It is stunningly obvious that Hezbollah, committed to Israel’s destruction, will not simply give up its arms …

    AS Iran’s “foreign legion” they are committed to Shiite foreign policy and that means getting control of the whole Middle East, eventually.

  4. oao says:

    hey, hoop,

    you’re as much as an ignorant ass as buchanan, who is an admirer of the far-right racist parties in europe. you know and understand history as much as he does, namely zilch. as it should be, as anti-semitism is rooted in ignorance and stupidity.

    here’s the demolishing of his book:

    A book that stinks

  5. Sophia says:

    Might I suggest Mr. Hoop study the Stern Gang a little more closely?

    Regardless of whether one approves of their tactics or not – and I certainly do NOT and consider them terrorists – as did the great majority of the Yishuv in their day – they were not “genocidal” in any sense of the word. Violence against Palestinian Jews had gone on for decades yet their primary target was the British Empire, which was keeping Jews from escaping to the Middle East – itself rent by violence, including pogroms and terrorism against Jews as well as discrimination by the by the Crown (British administration of the Mandate and the Empire’s behavior before, during and after WWII demands study.)

    Even as they feared attack by the Arabs, Palestinian Jews carried poison pills in case the Nazis broke through – indeed, Irgun suspended operations during the war and fought for the British against the Axis. In fact, tens of thousands of Mandate Jews volunteered, some 30,000 fought for Britain – this even as refugee ships were blockaded and sometimes even returned to Europe within sight of desperate people on the shore.

    According to Arthur Koestler in “Promise and Fulfillment,” a leader of the Stern Gang saw his family turned back to Europe by the British, where they perished in the Shoah. No doubt others saw the Patria explode, heard about the sinking of the Struma – people knew about the death camps – surely, this played some role in the Stern Gang’s actions?

    Regardless – should the West simply have made an accomodation with the Nazis? Evil though many British actions may have been, simply allowing the Nazis to flourish can’t have been an option – and the revisionist idea that Hitler didn’t mean to kill the Jews is ridiculous. Yet sadly – people are still reading Mein Kampf – not least, in the Middle East.

    In any case – it’s a lie to say the Stern Gang created Israel, or to claim that Israel was created with the goal of harming the local Arabs. Indeed the people who created Israel were as idealistic as they were desperate.

    Israel was founded, not by violent gangs, but by people who drained swamps, created innovative ways to grow crops in a desert, who built towns, created jobs, defended their fields during the day and their lives at night, and developed a nation against impossible odds and from many cultures – including the local Druze, Bedouin and Arabs who elected to stay and become citizens even after the multinational attack of 1948. Hebrew was re-created as a modern language, papers and books and symphony orchestras blossomed in spite of the hardships.

    That is what created a nation – not violence – but creativity, cooperation and hard work. The one unnecessary war wasn’t WWII, but the war of 1948 – the war against Israel. That’s the real shame – that and the fact that several more have been waged and the threats are simply unending. Indeed one could argue that an ongoing war is being waged – against the Jews. Simply the name has changed now – now they call it a war against Israel, against “Zionists”. But it’s the same war, isn’t it?

    Hard-working, idealistic people created and defended Israel even as the global Jewish population was devastated by pogrom after pogrom, by Shoah and by Soviet oppression and by persecution in the Middle East, and the tiny nation has been boycotted by the Arab League and blockaded by the British Empire, and has suffered many wars and countless acts of terrorism, yet retains a core of openness and hope. Perhaps one day this will find an echo.

    Meanwhile – is there ANY possibility that Mr. Hoop and others like him might do some serious studying and not rely upon bigots and incompetents for their information?

  6. oao says:

    Might I suggest Mr. Hoop study the Stern Gang a little more closely?

    You may, but he won’t. Simple minds require simple arguments and history is too much of an effort — it requires mental effort and time, and the Hoops of the world can’t be bothered. that’s the audience that buys into ignoramuses like buchanan.

  7. Cynic says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Buchanan takes it out on Churchill whereas it was Chamberlain who had to declare war on Hitler after appeasing him and throwing the Checks down the tube, and left it to Churchill to clean up the mess.

  8. oao says:

    read hitchens’ critique. buchanan is an ignorant who distorts history for his anti-semitic and far-right extreme positions.

  9. Cynic says:

    Hitchens writes:
    The kaiser picked a fight with Britain by backing the white Dutch Afrikaner rebels in South Africa and by butchering the Ovambo people of what is now Namibia.
    Which in a manner is amusing given that they were both after the spoils of colonialism.
    What Hitchens when he criticizes Buchanan omits is the atrocious British behaviour as well.
    The Boers (mainly Dutch ‘expatriates’ and Hugenot refugees from Catholic oppression in France) were there well before the Brits decided to invade and the ensuing taxation which drove Americans to a tea party in Boston drove the Boers to the interior as they rebelled against the unjust taxes.
    Pity Hitchens doesn’t mention the camps in which the Boer women and children were corralled, and who died from disease and starvation, during the scorched earth policy practiced by the British.
    And the “ethnic cleansing” when the British expelled Afrikaners to Argentina.

    Pity Hitchens didn’t stick to the facts about Hitler and the war instead of trying to show how nasty the Boche was. Good grief it was “all in the family”, whatever would Victoria say?

  10. oao says:

    hitchens is uneven and has lots of blind spots.

    but insofar as his critique of buchanan goes, it’s sufficient to show him for the ass that he is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *