Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Six Battalions, the United Nations, ' - - - and it is the Fault of the Jews'

Israel has an ancient history - but it's a very new country. The most recent diaspora was a very long one. Descendants of Abraham and Israel didn't manage to re-establish a national government until the mid-20th century, after a hiatus of nearly 1,900 years. Quite a bit happened in their absence, and the current government is a new entity, not a continuation of what was around when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire.

I think some problems in the Middle East stem from a domestic dispute that happened about 7,000 years after Jericho's founding, and 4,000 years before our time. (October 8, 2007) Israel's current government is new: the area Israel is in is anything but.

Israel isn't America

"Israeli politics in tailspin over Iran"
Jon B. Alterman, CNN (May 2, 2012)

"Israel, by necessity, has developed one of the most able security and intelligence apparatus in the world. There has been no necessity to develop a world-class political apparatus, however, and it shows.

"In a single week, the Israeli army's chief of staff, the former head of internal security and the former head of external security have all publicly questioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judgment on Iran. While the current army chief spoke narrowly about the Iranian government, the former security officials directed their fire at Israeli politicians. On Friday, the former internal security chief told an Israeli audience, 'I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings' -- and he was speaking not of Iran, but of Israel.

"Last week was Israel's independence day, traditionally an occasion of pride and celebration. Instead, Israelis are in a deep funk...."
America has a two-party system that's lasted as long as it has because folks in both parties have been moderately competent at appealing to a fairly wide swath of the voting public. My opinion.

Not all countries have a stable two-party system. When folks from the 'Dental Floss Party,' the 'Union of Thatch Roof Owners,' and whatever other outfits have enough backing to get a foot in the local equivalent of Congress: politics won't look like politics in America. But I think a system like that can work. Take France, as an example.

Israel doesn't have a generations-deep tradition of two-party politics. On top of that, America is over three and a half times as old as Israel's current government. We've had time to thrash out a modestly adequate system. When the country I'm in was as old as Israel is now, filibusters were new; war with Mexico was brewing; a major internal war wouldn't come for a couple decades: and that's almost another topic.

I think it takes time for a country to work out a system as comparatively practical and SNAFU-free as what America has.

I realize that CNN has to attract readers, and that criticizing the way foreigners run their country is a perennial crowd pleaser. Oh, well.

The United Nations is "Appalled" by Israel: Again; Still

"UN 'appalled' by Israel treatment of hunger strikers"
Yolande Knell, BBC News (May 2, 2012)

"A UN expert has said he is appalled by the 'continuing human rights violations in Israeli prisons', as Palestinian inmates continue a mass hunger strike.

"Special Rapporteur [!] Robert Falk said Israel had to treat hunger strikers in line with international standards.

"Israel's Prison Service says some 1,550 Palestinians in jail are on strike.

"Doctors have expressed serious concern about two men who have been refusing food for 63 days in protest at being detained without charge or trial...."
"Without charge or trial" may or may not be a valid complaint.

The hunger strikers, who decided to be hunger strikers? I suppose Israel's government could force them to eat. Which could be showcased as appalling indifference to the hunger strikers' conscience, or religious feelings, or whatever.

Given the sort of knee-jerk 'blame the Jews' reaction to unpleasant realities I've come to expect from the United Nations and other 'civilized' folks: this latest complaint sounds like more of the same.

'The Jews starve people' is another perennial favorite in some circles. (April 19, 2008)

Moving on.

Sinai Peninsula: Remarkable Coverage

"Tel Aviv boosts troops at borders with Egypt and Syria"
RT (May 2, 2012)

"Israel is to deploy at least 22 reserve battalions on its borders with Egypt and Syria, claiming the growing instability in the two countries makes it necessary to be ready for possible external security threats.

"The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has been given an approval of a call-up of additional force by Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee although they exceed the average. Reservists from six battalions have already received their orders, even though many of them are soldiers who have already completed their annual reserve duty.

"Israeli generals say these troops are needed to deal with security threats which are coming from Israel's borders with Egypt and Syria, and also because of growing instability in those countries.

"The situation on the Sinai Peninsula which borders Israel is becoming unmanageable, RT's correspondent Paula Slier reports from Israel. Since the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, she said, Sinai police have been attacked more than 50 times by local Palestinian jihadist groups, as well as by the local branch of Al-Qaeda which is operating in the region. ..."
RT's coverage is remarkable, I think, for not trotting out 'experts,' 'concerned citizens,' and the United Nations being appalled, for the usual 'and it is the fault of the Jews' show.

Maybe they're part of that vast conspiracy of Jews we keep hearing about. Or, not.

The Wall Street Journal: 'Well! What Do You Expect?'

"Israel Fortifies Border Fence With Lebanon"
Associated Press, via The Wall Street Journal (May 1, 2012)

"Israel has begun fortifying a fence along its volatile border with Lebanon, reinforcing an especially dangerous section that has been susceptible to sniper fire and other threats, military officials said Tuesday.

"The military said the project was strengthening a half-mile (one kilometer) section of an existing fence in Israeli territory, and no modifications to the route were being made. Even so, to avoid friction, it said construction was coordinated with the Lebanese army and the U.N. peacekeeping force in the area, UNIFIL.

"Israel has no diplomatic relations with Lebanon. The two countries have been in a state of war for six decades.

"The project is taking place near the spot where an Israeli officer was killed by a sniper two years ago. The shooting took place as the Israeli army was clearing brush that it said Lebanese guerrillas could use for cover...."
This Associate Press article, on The Wall Street Journal's website, is another fairly calm discussion of what sadly is business-as-usual in the Middle East. I suppose a dedicated conspiracy buff could be convinced that 'the Jews' really control the AP and The Wall Street Journal - and the Internet - and the brains of everybody who doesn't have aluminum foil inside his hat.

A bit more seriously, I don't like the way Egypt is developing, now that the old strongman got booted out. Still, it could be worse. A lot worse. Iran is a case-in-point.

If I seem indifferent or unconcerned: sorry about that. What's been happening for the last several decades in that part of the world is not good news. But what I've seen in the news recently, although reason for concern, isn't all that different from what I've been seeing for most of my life. I'm not going to go ballistic over 'more of the same.'

Related posts:
Background, the United States at 64:
A tip of the hat to Patty Garza, on Google+, for the heads-up on news from the Egypt-Israel border.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Small World: Georgetown MBS Building Named After Lebanese P.M.

As Yakov Smirnoff says, "what a country!"

Georgetown's new MBS building will be named after Rafic B. Hariri: former Lebanese Prime Minister, killed in a 2005 truck bomb attack. Boston University's School of Management is named after the late Mr. Hariri, too.

The Georgetown building's name was determined when Rafic Hariri's son, Saad Hariri, paid the $20,000,000: Georgetown price for the naming rights. Giving wealth benefactors the opportunity of seeing a particular name on a building in exchange for a sum of money is an old custom - and one which has made it a bit easier for colleges and universities to pay for new buildings.

Saad Hariri has had a connection with Georgetown for quite a while. He graduated from Georgetown with a degree in International Business back in 1992.

If the name Saad Hariri sounds familiar, it should: He's the prime minister of Lebanon now. Holding a leadership position in Lebanon was a high-risk occupation as recently as 2007, when Lebanese general Francois Hajj was killed. (December 12, 2007)

A Georgetown University Alum Makes Good, Pays to Name Building: So What?

Aside from the connection with a country in the Middle East, news in a university newspaper's blog about a new building on campus may not seem to have much to do with the war on terror.

I think that Saad Hariri's choice to put his father's name on the new home of Georgetown's McDonough School of Business is a good reminder of what sort of world we live in.

National borders are important - if only on the " 'Good fences make good neighbors' " principle. But if they were ever a barrier to communication, commerce and culture, they aren't (with some notable exceptions) now.

It's been decades since Istanbul named one of it's major traffic arteries after former president John F. Kennedy (Kennedy Caddesi).

It may be many more decades - or generations - before historians sort out the merits of Peru's President Alberto Ken'ya Fujimori. But Alberto Ken'ya Fujimori was, I think, important as an indication of how 'nationality' isn't the comparatively rigid concept it once was.

After a Japanese-Peruvian president, a Georgetown U. building named after a Lebanese prime minister - by the P.M.'s son, who is also a Georgetown graduate - could be taken an indication of just how close the rest of the world is: no matter where you live.

Related posts: News with a view: Background:
A tip of the hat to markstoneman on Twitter for the heads-up on the Georgetown U. building name.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, and the Lizard People

"Lizard people?!" I'll get back to that.

Reading about Israeli attacks on Lebanon and calls for restraint in the Middle East, I realized that Lebanon and Pakistan aren't all that different in one way. I'll get back to that, too.

Israel and Lebanon and Palestinians: Same Old, Same Old

"Boilerplate" is text that's used over and over, with just a few words changed from the standard phrases. There's a lot of it in legal documents - and news stories.

News from the Israeli-Lebanese border is, as far as I'm concerned, almost all boilerplate. So are the opinions, openly expressed or not. The way I see it, the international community and the press have noted that:
  • Missiles from Lebanon hit Israel
  • Israel fired back
  • Israel had better be careful
    • Lebanon, too

Lebanon and Israel

There doesn't seem to be any question that rockets were fired from Lebanese territory into Israeli territory. Whether the government of Lebanon was involved or not seems to be debatable.

Hesbollah, a terrorist organization, seems to have gotten veto power in Lebanon in May, 2008. You wouldn't think it, looking at a list of political parties and leaders in Lebanon, which includes "Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc [Mohammad Ra'ad] (includes Hizballah Party [Hassan Nasrallah]); Nasserite Popular Movement [Ussama Saad];..." (World Factbook CIA) On paper, from a distance, it looks like Hezbollah is part of one faction of the Lebanese government.

But, since Hezbollah and company are well-armed, and seem to be on the Ayatollah's 'preferred' list, there's more to their power than what's on the organizational chart. Back in May, Lebanese government leaders were given an offer they couldn't refuse. "Government leaders said they had given way on crucial provisions because they felt the alternative to an agreement was war...." (International Herald Tribune)

And, of Course, the Palestinians

Some Palestinians have an issue with Israel over who owns what land. They may even have a point. However, instead of going through a judicial process (there are international courts, remember), they prefer to settle the disputes the old-fashioned way: by killing the families and acquaintances of those they disagree with. Or, failing that, anyone who might be in the neighborhood.

As far as the international community seems care, the trouble comes when Israel's government does something effective about stopping that sort of Palestinian self-expression.

And yes: I'll admit to being biased.
  • I'm inclined to sympathize with people who accept the world of the Magna Carta and transistors, and in many cases maintain beliefs which go back thousands of years
  • I'm not so inclined to sympathize with people who made suicide bombing into a religious practice
    • Although, from a Machiavellian perspective, that '72 virgins' incentive is great marketing

Israel and the 'Great Satan America'

It's true: America is one of the few countries that supports Israel.

This failure to accept deeply-held values of the international community isn't all that surprising: America is seriously out of step with much of the rest of the world when it comes to blaming the Jews for problems. That may be part of the reason that America is so high on the list of scapegoats. Not only is this country big and successful, it has the audacity to not blame the Jews.

Someone to Blame

There seems to be a widely-felt need to have somebody to blame. Preferably, somebody who's involved in a secret conspiracy. That way, lack of evidence is evidence that the conspiracy exists.
  • "There's no evidence that lizard people are secretly controlling Wall Street and the news media."
  • "You see?! That proves it! They won't let The Truth be published!!"1
There are several benefits from blaming dark forces for your problems. It:
  • Eliminates uncertainty
    • And having to think
  • Provides someone else to blame the problems on
Life is so much easier, when analysis of issues can be replaced by blaming it all on Zionists, capitalists, or lizard-people. (October 5, 2008)

Lebanon and Pakistan: It's Not All That Simple

Some countries, like America and India, have relatively strong, secure, central governments. I'm not all that pleased with the heavy centralization that followed the War Between the States, but that's a very different issue.

The point is that the central governments of countries like India and America have some control over what happens within their borders. At the other end of the spectrum are places like Somalia, where southern zealots and northern pirates shoot it out while the central government keeps its collective head down and sends delegates to the United Nations.

Lebanon and Pakistan aren't as badly off as Somalia, but they're not in the same league as India and America.

Lebanon's Balancing Act

Lebanon's big civil war, 1975-1990, is something that most Lebanese probably don't want to repeat. Since then, the country has had elections, which is nice; and Hezbollah (Hizbollah, whatever) maintained its armed militia, which isn't so nice. Meanwhile, Syria hasn't blown up a major Lebanese official for a while: which is good news.

Back in 2006, Israel attacked Hezbollah positions in Lebanese territory: including some in Beirut. I can't say that I blame Lebanese people for resenting that: but it would have been nice if the Lebanese government would have done a little more to discourage Hezbollah from killing Jews.

I can't fault the elected government, in a way:
  • Hezbollah's political arm is an established part of the civilian government, and its military can lean on the central government if necessary
  • I doubt that Syria has given up interest in controlling Lebanon's government
    • And even if it had, Lebanese leaders might be hesitant about defying Syria's preferences - and making themselves a target
On the other hand, I can see why Israel has been a bit 'unrestrained' in doing a job that Lebanon's own government can't - or won't - do.

Pakistan, LeT, and the ISI

Details are different in Pakistan, but the general situation is much the same. The civilian government doesn't control the tribal areas of the country, military leaders seem to have independent ideas about foreign policy, and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, is financially independent of the civilian government - and the 'state within a state' doesn't seem interested in the civilian government's wishes, either. Actually, the ISI seems to be a real-world version of what the silly side of American liberalism thinks the CIA is: an independent entity, operating in the shadows, with its own agenda and minimal allegiance to the country that spawned it.

So, we've had
  • A Pakistani leader give orders to shoot coalition soldiers if they follow terrorists into what the map says is Pakistani territory
  • Indian officials insisting that the Pakistani government - or at least part of it - is responsible for the Mumbai attack
  • A Pakistani official making disparaging remarks about documentation from India
Pakistan's prime minister said: " 'All that has been received from India is some information. I say information because these are not evidence,' Yousuf Raza Gilani told Parliament late Tuesday, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan." (International Herald Tribune) In English, that's a rather fine distinction: but I suppose it may be a valid point from a judicial point of view.

Just the same, I don't buy the Pakistani insistence that no Pakistani government agencies were involved in the Mumbai attack.

And, I think that Indian officials should remember that the civilian government of Pakistan doesn't seem to have much say in what the ISI does.

I hope that Pakistan's civilian government can find a way to get control of its own agencies, and its country, before India's government decides to get at the Mumbai perpetrators the hard way. It's not because I'm an American and that (presumably) America is shielding Pakistan.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And, apparently, nut jobs who might use them. India has nuclear weapons, too. A regional nuclear war is something that, in my opinion, the world doesn't need right now.

Encouraging India to hold off attacking Pakistan isn't just 'shielding Pakistan.' It's shielding India, and everybody who lives downwind.

Forget Blaming the Jews and the Lizard People

Military force is sometimes necessary: but in the case of Pakistan, I hope that the civilian leaders can be forced to defy their own spies, generals, and tribal leaders: and start acting like a civilized country.

More-or-less related posts: In the news: Background: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
1To be fair, one of the more mainstream 'lizard people' assertions does not focus on Wall Street and the news media.

In a much more inclusive, international, global, spirit, David Icke has steadfastly held that key people around the world are really space alien shape shifting lizard people: like George W. Bush and the British royals. I haven't discovered whether President-Elect Obama is one of Them or not.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Hezbollah Gets Veto Power in Lebanon: Not Good News

Hezbollah has quite a few aliases:
  • Hizballah
  • Hizbollah
  • Hizbullah
  • Hezbollah
  • Party of God
  • Islamic Jihad
  • Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine
  • Organization of the Oppressed on Earth
  • Revolutionary Justice Organization
And that's just in English.

Hezbollah has been a growing force in Lebanon: helped by Syria, Iran, and suicide bombers. The Islamic movement doesn't approve of Israel, thinks that Palestinians don't have what they should have, and acts against Israel by:
  1. Bringing terrorists and collaborators through the border crossings using foreign documents
  2. Setting up a terrorist organization inside Israel and in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip
  3. Cross-border operations - smuggling weapons and terrorists
  4. Financial support for Palestinian organizations and groups.

    (From GlobalSecurity.org)
With its track record, I wasn't very happy when I read that Hezbollah now has veto power over the Lebanese cabinet.

I'd like to believe that reason and the collective common sense of the international community would serve to restrain Hezbollah (see "The final straw," below).

Somehow, though, I doubt it: Although it's barely possible that Syria and some other countries will now find it less convenient to support that particular bunch of Islamic enthusiasts.

On the other hand, since they've got veto power in Lebanon, Hezbollah is much closer to being a 'legitimate political party,' rather than a 'terrorist organization.' At least, in the world where international diplomats live.

Lebanon Under Hezbollah: A Potential Reality Check

I think that it's possible that a Lebanon effectively under the control of Hezbollah might serve to clarify what is happening in the Middle Eastern theater of the war on terror.

Back when the Munich Pact brought "peace for our time," it wasn't all that unreasonable to pursue a policy intended in part to "correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty...."

After Germany invaded the Belgium, the Netherlands, and other parts of Europe dearer to the British leadership than the Sudetenland, it became clear to the English speaking world that Germany's national socialist party wasn't quite as dedicated to "the peace process," as we call such things now, as had apparently been hoped.

Right now, there's a great deal to be concerned about in the Middle East: It is remotely possible that Hezbollah, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations will prove to be harmless advocacy groups: and that all that is needed for peace in the Middle East is for America to withdraw troops and support from that area.

I think it's more likely that some Hezbollah, or another player in the region, will sooner or later launch a "final solution." I hope this does not happen. But, if terrorists, or states which support terrorism, begin using nuclear weapons, I think that their acts may bring the nature of the war on terror into sharper focus.

Or, maybe not. The optimism, if that's the word for it, of those who desire "peace for our time" seems boundless.

Sources used for this post:
  • " Lebanon agreement shifts power to Hezbollah"
    International Herald Tribune (May 21, 2008)
    • "BEIRUT, Lebanon: An agreement reached by Lebanese political factions early Wednesday amounted to a significant shift of power in favor of the militant Shiite group Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition, who won the power to veto any cabinet decision.
    • "The sweeping deal to form a new government promised an end to 18 months of crippling political deadlock here, and underscored the rising power of Iran and Syria, which have backed Hezbollah in a proxy battle against the governing coalition and its American and Saudi allies."
      [emphasis mine]
  • "The final straw"
    International Herald Tribune (May 19, 2008)
    • "America is always looking for ways to weaken Hezbollah and end its violent operations. The good news is that Hezbollah may now finally be undermining itself from within.
    • "Trapped between Israel's wrath and the disillusionment of the Lebanese people, the "Party of God" is bringing about its own destruction and damaging its credibility by openly taking on the world.
    • "Last month, Hezbollah announced that its top military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, had been assassinated in Damascus. Mughniyeh had been on the most-wanted lists of 42 countries for his involvement in several high-profile bombings, including attacks that killed more than 200 Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s. After Mughniyeh's death was announced, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, quickly accused Israel, and vowed vengeance: 'You have killed Hajj Imad outside the recognized battle zone,' he declared, speaking in front of party militants. 'If you want an open war, then let it be an open war.'
    • "An open war will leave Hezbollah in shambles and destroy its infrastructure and influence. Any operation from Hezbollah in response to Mugniyeh's assassination will surely be met with a massive Israeli retaliation, with consequences harsher than even the last war. This will not be accepted by the majority of Lebanese who are still struggling to regain their livelihood, and will inevitably lead to a civil war. Nasrallah, in effect, is caught between two wars: one of Israeli retribution, and the other initiated against him by the outraged Lebanese people.
    • "Rather than serving as a fearsome threat, Nasrallah's proclamation has trapped Hezbollah. In any future confrontation, Israel will not refrain from bombing economic infrastructure and civilians, whose villages Hezbollah guerrilla fighters use as a launching pad for their attacks. As Nasrallah is well aware, this will inflict on Lebanon a price it cannot pay. The balance of fear, which Hezbollah has claimed is tilted in their favor, has been nullified....
    • "Today the Party of God is out of options. By trying to avenge the murder of the party's military commander, Nasrallah would bring disaster upon Lebanon and the Shiite community. He cannot deliver on his vow to wage an open war and will have to backtrack on his threats.
    • "What the international community needs to do now is to capitalize on Hezbollah's troubles by strengthening Lebanon's moderate, democratic forces and the authority of their central government. America should seize this opportunity to undercut the influence of an organization that has the blood of many people on its hands. Time is of the essence."
    I think, particularly looking at the veto power Hezbollah now has, this analysis is overly optimistic.
  • "Syria weighs peace with Israel against costs"
    Reuters (May 21, 2008)
    • "DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Under pressure over an alleged nuclear program, Syria is exploring a peace deal with Israel that could alter its links with Iran and with anti-U.S. groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas Islamists.
    • "Syria and Israel confirmed on Wednesday that they were conducting indirect talks mediated by Turkey -- eight months after Israeli planes raided a target in eastern Syria.
    • "Washington said last month that site was a nuclear reactor being built with North Korean expertise and stepped up its campaign to isolate the Baath Party government in Damascus...."
    The Reuters piece gives a pretty good background on the tangled relationships between Syria, Israel, and Iran.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Assassinations, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nothing's Simple

Yesterday, Imad Mughniyeh was in Syria: specifically, in the Kafar Suseh neighborhood of Damascus. Then, a car blew up, killing him. Obviously, the Jews are to blame.

At least, that's the line that Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, took at a rally today.

"You have killed Hajj Imad outside the natural battlefield," fingering Israel. Hezbollah says that it only fights Israel within Lebanon and on their common border.

"You have crossed the borders," Nasrallah said. "With this murder, its timing, location and method — Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

It may be that Hezbollah isn't one of those collections of Islamic enthusiasts who blow up people in strategic markets and tactical stores. Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have been so inhibited.

Before being promoted from Hezbollah commander to martyr, Imad Mughniyeh was a busy terrorist. The "International Herald Tribune" put together an impressive list of his accomplishments, including:
  • 1983: killing over 300 people with bombs in Beirut1
  • 1985: planning the hijacking of a TWA flight, (American Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem was killed)
  • 1985: Involvement in hijacking two Kuwait jetliners
  • 1992: according to Israel, bombing Israel's embassy in Argentina (29 dead)
  • 1994: according to Israel, bombing a Buenos Aires Jewish center (95 dead)
  • 1996: connections with the Khobar Towers bombing (19 American soldiers dead)
That's an impressive resume.

Assuming that Imad Mughniyeh didn't get killed by a clumsy colleague, or that a clerical error in the Hezbollah car pool didn't send a limousine to some enemy of Islam and a car bomb to Imad, somebody has succeeded in removing one of the movers and shakers of the "Death to Israel!" crowd.

The nordo-celtic pagan in me finds a sort of grim satisfaction in the explosive death of one who killed so many in the same way.

However, since my ancestors abandoned the "Grendel" approach to conflict resolution roughly a millennia ago, I have to consider finer points of ethics and morality than 'you hit me, I hit you.'

Something I've noticed as the decades pile up is that, despite the existence of simple principles, their applications get complicated. Fast.

In this case, the starting point is pretty obviously the "You shall not kill" rule. Discussion of that part of the Decalogue on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) website goes on at some length.

The word "innocent" came up quite often (sections 2258, 2261, 2263, 2270, for starters). The prohibition against killing clearly and specifically refers to the taking of innocent human lives. Although Imad Mughniyeh is certainly a human being, considering him "innocent" takes a greater willing suspension of disbelief than I'm likely to make.

Defense of individuals and groups is permitted. Again, it's complicated. For example: 2309 spells out the basic rules for the defense of countries; 2312 points out that moral law isn't suspended in wartime; Section 2313 spells out groups that must be treated humanely (non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners).

I understand that many people, including myself, have serious reservations about selecting the leader of a dangerous group, and killing that person. On the other hand, I haven't been able to see how it's better to let hundreds of relatively innocent people be killed in order to preserve the life of the person who plans the killings.

As I said, it's complicated:
  • Imad Mughniyeh's death won't bring any of his victims back to life
    • But his death may prevent more deadly attacks
  • With Hezbollah promising "open war," more deaths are likely
    • But Hezbollah has one less leader to help plan more attacks
I think one thing is certain: With few exceptions, the world's nations are either unable or unwilling to stop terrorist organizations from killing people.

I'm less certain of this, but I think it's true: Although it might be easier to obliterate cities like Beirut which harbor terrorists, mass murder is not the answer to purveyors of mass murder.
1 In 1983, attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks in Beirut killed hundreds of people: 63 in April, when a 2,000-pound truck bomb demolished the U.S. Embassy's front; 241 in October, when the First Battalion, 8th Marines Headquarters building in Beirut was destroyed by another truck bomb.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Lebanon Loses Another Leader: General Hajj

The Lebanese military has been studiously neutral in their country's politics.

Early today, General Francois Hajj and several other Lebanese soldiers were killed by a 77-pound bomb. They were driving in a Christian neighborhood near Beirut.
  • Lebanese politicos who don't approve of Syria say Syrian ordered the hit.
  • Lebanese politicos who welcome Syria's influence in Lebanon say, "did not!"
  • The Lebanese military say that the attack is a bad thing, and that they don't know who is responsible: yet.
So far, business as usual.

Getting assassinated is a chance people take, when they become important Lebanese leaders. General Francois Hajj is the ninth is a series of hits, starting with the truck bomb that killed Rafik Hariri in February of 2005. Even a United Nations investigation said that the Hariri hit may have involved Syrian officials.

It does seem that there's a correlation for Lebanese leaders, between wanting Syria out of Lebanon, and getting killed.

Finally, a few interesting details
  • General Francois Hajj was a Maronite Catholic
  • The bomb that killed him was a traditional car bomb: 77 pounds of explosives packed into a BMW, in this case
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

The Middle East, Princess Di, and the Fayeds:
a Multicultural Perspective

In London, an inquest into the death of Princess Diana is in the news.

This has nothing to do, directly, with the war on terror, but I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

A little over ten years ago, Princess Di, her very special friend Dodi Fayed, Fayed's bodyguard, and a sozzled driver shot into a tunnel, along with a swarm of paparazzi. In the tunnel, the car met a concrete pillar, with predictable results. Dodi's bodyguard survived, happily, but Dodi, Di, and the driver were sincerely dead.

Dodi's dad, Mohammed al Fayed, says that Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip, told the British secret service to kill Dodi and Di. Even assuming that the elder Fayed is right about his son having gotten Di pregnant, and the British Royal family not wanting a non-Britisher in the family, the assassination angle seems unlikely.

Until you realize that Mohammed al Fayed is from Egypt.

That's a part of the world that reminds me, in some ways, of gangland Chicago. Back around the 11th century, a group of Islamic Persians permanently removed people they didn't approve of: and gave European cultures the word الحشاشين (hashashin) in the process. It came into English as "assassin."

It's easy to get the idea that people in and near today's Middle East are accustomed to settling differences by selective, and occasionally not-so-selective, assassinations. For example, Coming from a region like that, the first thing a bereaved father might think of was that the family of his son's girlfriend had put out a hit.

Sure, it killed Di, too: but honor killings aren't exactly unknown around there, either. Di had, from some points of view, besmirched the family's honor and needed to be killed.

So what? Non-Muslims are dealing with a part of the world, and a culture, that most of us aren't used to. Aside from relatively minor details, like table etiquette, there are major points where people who grew up in a post-Magna-Carta world must remember that other cultures have alternative values.

For example, in America, a woman who was raped is generally regarded as a victim.

In other places, from Syria to Pakistan, a woman who was raped has brought shame to her family, and must be killed to wipe out the shame.

Although I can't condone honor killings and assassinations, I think it's necessary to understand how other cultures deal with conflicts and other issues, in order to properly evaluate how well, or how poorly, political leaders in that part of the world maintain order.

In other words, Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh are not Kansas City, Detroit, and Miami.

Back to the Princess Di mess for a moment. As a father myself, I sympathize with Muhammed al Fayed. The loss of a child is a terrible thing, and I grieve with him.

Although I believe that al Fayed has misread British culture, and over-estimated the abilities of the British secret service, It's only reasonable to provide a link to "Al Fayed," Muhammed al Fayed's website.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.