Social diversity and nonviolence in Beirut

Numerous male commentators, looking at the Hizbullah protests in Lebanon– and claiming they sought only to indicate either the seemingly “western” looks of some participants in the protests, or the diversity of their clothing styles– have published fairly lascivious-looking photographs of young women among the protesters. And by an amazing coincidence (not!), many of these photos have emphasized down-the-cleavage shots and other pieces of bare torso skin.
Often, too, these images have been accompanied by demeaning, feminophobic references to adult women as being “babes”. (Q.v., Josh Landis, among others.)
I have made the point that one can discuss the general issue of the diversity of clothing styles among the protesters– with some women wearing full black hijab and others wearing tight jeans and tops that, yes, do show a lot of cleavage– without propagating demeaningly sexist images that perpetuate the idea that women are to be judged primarily according to men’s perceptions of their physical attributes rather than by the contribution their actions make to the common good…
Anyway, if one does want to publish an image that represents the social diversity of the protesters, here is my favorite, published by AP today:
Photo
The caption reads: “A Lebanese child holds a picture showing Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah during the tenth day of an open-ended protest, in central Beirut, Lebanon Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006. Hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah-led protesters swarmed downtown Beirut on Sunday, demanding Prime Minister Fuad Saniora cede some power to the opposition or step down. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Tawil)”
The larger story here, of course, that I do intend to write about as soon as I have the time to give it its due, is the amazing success Hizbullah and its allies have had in organizing and keeping the discipline within this series of massive nonviolent protests… As well as the broader commitment that all parties in Lebanon have shown thus far to the principle of not allowing themselves to be dragged back into use of violence as they strive to resolve intra-Lebanese differences that truly are very complex.
There was the sad exception of the incident last Sunday that killed one anti-Saniora protester. But thankfully that did not spark any continuing cycle of violence.

55 thoughts on “Social diversity and nonviolence in Beirut”

  1. What would the procedure be to rewrite the constitution, to replace the confessional system with a one-person one-vote system that guarentees minority rights?
    A one-person one-vote system may result in a Hezbollah government. But if that’s the will of a majority of Lebanese citizens that has to be reflected in the government. The voice of the majority may be distasteful, but letting that distasteful voice be heard is always better than stifling it.

  2. I completely agree with Inkan. If the US wants to restore a shred of credibility to its image in the Middle East, they have to hold good on their promises of democracy and popular governments. The US has to realize that it’s not up to them to decide who forms Lebanon’s government- nor is it up to Israel. We need to recognize that the era when the US can fund dictators like Saddam Hussein is beginning to end. We simply don’t have the moral authority to decide who forms the governments of the Middle East.

  3. I have posted more photos from Beirut friends that aim precisely to portray the diversity of the protesters, respectfully.
    As of today, my friends are very hopeful that Lebanese are finding a relatively non-violent intercommunal path out of the cramped, inequitable confessional governing framework they’ve been trapped in since France departed its former colony. They think the greatest prop of the present government, and so the greatest obstacle, is the United States. Let’s hope they are right that Lebanese will find their way.

  4. I wish that I could share the optimism of Janinsanfran. However this morning I heard a radio correspondent from Beirouth and came out witht the impression that the tensions are very high. In the streets, people looks at a new civil war as a possibility.
    The fact that the West (especially the US and possibly France) is encouraging the Siniora government to remain steadfast in power despite the resignation of five ministers from the opposition may get to this result. I’m pretty sure that 1) The revendications of the opposition to be better represented is right 2) Without the intriguing of the US, the Siniora government would have entered in discussion in order to find a compromise. 3) With the massive protests going on since at least a week, any democratic government would have fallen here in the EU. 4) Encouraging Siniora and Harirri to stay in power is pushing toward civil war and irresponsible.

  5. Yes, it’s all pretty ironic I think, that the US is effectively stopping the democratic process from taking place. Siniora is pulling a Green Zone on his citizens, barricading himself and ignoring a large segment of the populace which is demanding change. And why is this possible? Because the US is propping him up. Now, as laudable as his desire to follow up on the Hariri investigation is and secure what he sees as freedom for Lebanese from Iranian/Syrian interests, right now he is acting in a manner VERY incompatible with the democratic ideals the US espouses. I don’t mean to repeat my previous point, I was just struck after reading some of these comments how ironic it is that the US is acting here as an impediment to democratic forces taking place. This in itself is deeply troubling to me. Would others agree with this judgement?

  6. It’s not irony, it is hypocrisy. And the US government (well, Bush anyway) is consistent in this hypocrisy.

  8. It is fortunate that so far, the protests have not led to any signficant violence. Still, Helena’s praise of this movement as an overall nonviolent movement is rather selective.
    We saw real non-violent change with the March 14th movement. In response to the assassination of a political figure, the Lebanese people demanded political change and got it.
    Over the summer, Hezbollah, far from practicing non-violence, decided to consolidate its power by starting a completely unprovoked war against a neighbor that had completely withdrawn from Lebanese territory over six years ago. The result was quite violent, and quite devestating for Lebanon. But Hezbollah was able to use this very violent means to consolidate its grip on its constituency in the south.
    Then there is the as yet unresolved murder of Pierre Gameyel. It is unclear which antagonist to Lebanon committed this political assassination. Nevertheless, the fact that Hezbollah has been aggressively calling for street protests in its aftermath to overshadow this murder, rather than demanding that its perpetrators immediately be brought to justice, means that the movement is at least indirectly benefitting from the violence.
    Then there is the fact, of course, that Hezbollah is not simply a political movement but an organized militia that has refused to lay down its arms, and as noted above, decided to use them in an unprovoked attack on its neighbor.
    As such, fawning over the non-violent street protests is at best misleading. This is a violent and racist group. The report on yesterday’s rally quoted deputy Hezbollah leader Sheik Naim Qassem (Nasrallah is still in hiding) quoted him as saying “Do the West and Arabs want the coicwe of the people in Lebanon? Tell them, ‘Death to America,’ Tell them ‘Death to Israel.’ Tell them ‘Glory to a Free Lebanon.”
    Calling for Death to Israel and America (and, as they did over the summer, attempting to make good on the former pledge) is the antithesis of non-violence.
    If Helena is sincere about her desire for non-violence, one would expect that she would do the following.
    1) Demand that Hezbollah immediately disarm
    2) Demand that Hezbollah and Lebanon immediately normalize relations with its neighbors, as there are no bona fide outstanding territorial claims (Sheba Farms is a pretext, and everyone knows it).
    3) Demand that Hezbollah, before assuming any futher power, acede to requests to investigate the political assassinations of Hariri and Gemayal, and also agree that any party who played a role in such associations be barred from participating in Lebanese government.
    Once this happens, we can indeed cheer the “non violence” of Hezbollah. Until then, any such praise is at best premature, and at worst hypocritical and dishonest.

  9. Nice to see Hezbollah female diversity pictures. Look forward to some reports and pictures from the Teheran mothership. I am sure that stripes are fashionable for the Holocaust revision conference in Iran inspired in the Nazi concentration camp prisoner uniform. Fashion always comes back.
    Are you invited to this venue Helena? Or after your 36 hours in Iran a couple of years ago you already know all there is to know? Remember your summary from that trip? No public evidence of any anti US or antisemitic expressions. What a joke. Eat you words if you have the spine to admit.

  10. Joshua,
    How can we ask Hezbollah to disarm when the entire people that surround them, the Lebanese, are subject to Israeli overflights, massive destruction of infrastructure, killing of civilians, and other destruction that has nothing to do with targeting Hezbollah? What, are we supposed to ask that the ineffectual Lebanese army defends the Lebanese against the Israelis? And since you’re in a resolution-affirming mood, how about Israel following through with Resolution 242? How about the overflights over Lebanon stop?
    This is a two-sided conflict, and any easy characterization of terrorists vs. victimized Israelis is not only wrong but not helpful in solving this conflict.
    Regarding your other point, that Hezbollah is in fact not a non-violent organization. They aren’t simply violent towards everyone, but to those (Israelis mainly) who they see as encroaching on Lebanese sovereignty. This is not to excuse their violence, such as the taking of Israeli soldiers. It’s more to say that the situation is more subtle than you make it out to be. I personally was quite impressed with Hezbollah when its leaders issued calls for nonviolent resistance and no violence in the face of one of their Shia supporters being killed.
    And if you’re going to be framing your argument around Hezbollah’s rhetoric, how about we discuss George W Bush’s “crusade” against people in the Middle East? How about we talk about his use of the word “Islamofascist” and how it reflects his extremely negative perception of Islam? How about instead of judging leaders and groups solely by their words, we judge them also (and mainly) by their acts?

  11. Mike Hezbollah is obliged to disarm by the terms of the Taif agreement, not merely UNSC 1559 and 1701. Maybe we should tear up the Taif agreement along with the Lebanese constitution and the UN charter, since the pernicious nature of the Israelis (and the Americans)seems to justify everything, even political assassinations and coups d’etat.
    The term ‘Islamofascist’ was invented by Maxime Rodinson, an ardent critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. There’s nothing Islamophobic about it, no more than critics of “christianists” or bigoted fundamentalist ministries are “anti-christian” or critics of Israeli government policy ipso facto antisemitic. “Death to Israel” doesn’t admit this distinction. It’s simply & explicitly genocidal.

  12. “How can we ask Hezbollah to disarm when the entire people that surround them, the Lebanese, are subject to Israeli overflights, massive destruction of infrastructure, killing of civilians, and other destruction that has nothing to do with targeting Hezbollah?”
    Point taken, though I would disagree that the destruction has “nothing to do with targeting Hezbollah.”
    Israel has no territorial or other claims against Lebanon. Although we can always argue about cause and effect, or action and reaction, in the case of Lebanon the violence is a result of the completely unnecessary state of belligerency maintained by Lebanon.
    Israel, for years, said that it would withdraw from Lebanon upon the conclusion of a peace treaty and recognition. Lebanon refused a peace treaty, saying that Israel should just get out, and everything would be hunky dory.
    So under Barak Israel eventually decided to cut its losses and left, even without a peace treaty. The result is that Hezbollah, rather than disarming, increased its arsenal, and created an even more dangerous situation on the border. The situation is shockingly even more dangerous than the earlier years of when Israel invaded Lebanon, and maintained the “good fence” policy which allowed Lebanese in the South to visit and work in Israel.
    In short, don’t fall into Helena’s trap of blaming “the occupation” for everything. The state of belligerency is the primary problem, and Israel has shown that, when it deals with friendly neighbors, that it reciprocates in ways that benefits both sides.
    As for 242, I would echo your words that this is not a one-sided affair. 242 anticipates a negotiated solution, with mutually agreed upon recognized borders. Israel can’t simply “comply” with 242 on its own, because it also requires negotiations with the other party to agree upon the final borders and adequate security guarantees to ensure that those borders are not simply armistice lines (Hamas’s calling for a “hudna” does not satisfy this requirement).
    In any event, even if Israel could be said to be unilaterally violating 242, that doesn’t affect Lebanon. Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon, and it has no bona fide territorial claim that might explain its state of belligerency.

  13. Those arguing on behalf of “peaceful” Israel and claining it has no anti-Lebanon interests or positions seem to forget the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (among other places) who strain the resources and political fabric of Lebanon simply because, contrary to international law, Israel refuses to allow them to return home.

  14. Vadim, I’m going to address your comments by paragraph, one by one.
    “Mike Hezbollah is obliged to disarm by the terms of the Taif agreement, not merely UNSC 1559 and 1701. Maybe we should tear up the Taif agreement along with the Lebanese constitution and the UN charter, since the pernicious nature of the Israelis (and the Americans)seems to justify everything, even political assassinations and coups d’etat.”
    Israel is bound by UN resolution 242 to return much of the Palestinian land it took during the War of 1967. Do you see how this relation is related to the necessity of Hezbollah to disarm itself? There is a connection: both Israel and Hezbollah defend their right not to obey the resolutions by reference to the defense of national security. Obviously this term entails different things for both countries. But one thing I think, is that if Israel were to give back Palestinian land and Syrian land in exchange for a deal for lessened extremism, many extremist groups would be more marginalized and their cause neutralized. Obviously we’d still have many extremists. But the main fault in the reasoning of people like you who defend a vigorous Israeli deterrence even to the extent of cases of collective punishment (in other words the defense of the status quo), is that you assume that extremism has no historical root or historical solution. Rather, it’s an outcrop of the deranged Islamic mind, or a reflection of the Islamic predisposition to extremism.
    This is what is at the heart of people who use the term “Islamofascism.” you say “There’s nothing Islamophobic about it, no more than critics of “christianists” or bigoted fundamentalist ministries are “anti-christian” or critics of Israeli government policy ipso facto antisemitic.” I haven’t seen something more wrong than this before. People who use the term “Islamofascist” are connecting a particular religion to tendencies of European Fascism during the roughly mid-early twentieth century. It’s a religious classification. Me, being critical of particular Israeli actions and policies in a historical framework, I make no such racial classification. So don’t give me your bullcrap about “Islamofascism” not denoting any particular religious bias or negative prejudice.
    Joshua,
    I am not making the mistake of blaming the occupation for everything, but as the sustainers of the status quo they do have a responsibility to try to repair historical grievances. I despair that there is extremism in this world but it is generally an outcrop of particular historical grievances. I’m not trying to morally justify it so much as to try to find a solution.
    I think you misunderstood me. I did not claim that Israel, during the summer war, hit ONLY non-Hezbollah targets. What I am arguing is that what they did amounted to a form of collective punishment that is unacceptable no matter who it is or who it is done to. They destroyed roads, bridges, exits out of the countries, milk-producing factories, churches, and killed clearly marked UN observers. They also killed a whole shitload of Lebanese civilians who had nothing to do with Hezbollah. Also, their general strategy was one of collective punishment: ie., bomb the Shia south until they no longer supported Hezbollah, and until Hezbollah lost power.
    “In any event, even if Israel could be said to be unilaterally violating 242, that doesn’t affect Lebanon. Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon, and it has no bona fide territorial claim that might explain its state of belligerency.” The point is that why should Israel expect other groups to follow UN resolutions which are detrimental to their wellbeing and their country’s defense, when Israel itself is violating some pretty major UN resolutions?
    Further, why should Israel push for Iran to be punished for its nuclear electricity programs (we have as of yet no evidence to the contrary) when it itself has loads of dangerous and ready-to-deploy nuclear weapons? Israeli-US hegemony is not a moral reason for this discrepancy, it is more a practical one.

  15. It’s a religious classification
    No kidding. ‘Fundamentalist Christians’ (or for that matter “Christian Fascists”) are a small subset of ‘Christians’ as ‘Jewish extremists’ are of Jews as ‘Islamic Fascists’ are of ‘Muslims.’ Personally I think the expression is dumb, but it isn’t any more Islamophobic than you are antisemitic, esp insofar as it was coined by a reknowned advocate for Arab causes and critic of zionism. as you say “islamo-‘ denotes a religious, not a racial classification; how on earth could it be racist? capeesh?
    you assume that extremism has no historical root or historical solution…But the main fault in the reasoning of people like you who defend a vigorous Israeli deterrence even to the extent of cases of collective punishment
    oh brother, please don’t tell me what I think, and I’ll return the favor, m’kay? On that note Ill take my leave of this silly and obnoxious exchange. have fun playing with your straw men. If you have time, look up and read the Taif agreement, and maybe read the UN res. addressing Hezbollah a bit more carefully. Maybe you’ll learn something. I have high hopes for you, young man.

  16. Israel’s attitude towards (eg)UN resolution 242 is one of defiance not just non-compliance. For years Israelis have engaged in the most ruthless and cynical ethnic cleansing, fraud and theft in the territories occupied in 1967 including east Jerusalem. Hundreds of thousands of colonists have been planted in defiance not only of international law but of public opinion. To surrender to Israel’s cynical policies, its violence and disdain of morality is to acquiesce in the inauguration of an age of barbarism in which might is right. The question is not whether Israel should retreat from the territories it occupied in ’67 but how far that retreat should go. It is hard to believe, after all that has taken place, that any lasting agreement will not begin with the dismantling of the racist legal infrastructure of a state designed for agression.

  17. Joshua I have nowhere claimed that Hizbullah is an entirely nonviolent movement, so please don’t claim that I have.
    On the other hand when any movements use actions that stick to the discipline of nonviolence that is a very welcome development– and in the intra-Lebanese context, as in all others, far far preferable to the alternative.
    So I think it’s important to acknowledge and express appreciation for that development.
    Next up, let’s hope: Israel announcing that on a reciprocal basis it is willing to eschew all use of violence in its relationship the Palestinians and other neighbors?

  18. Amidst this debate, it is clear that Israeli apologists will claim that Israel’s action were self-defense. I pose this: Did Israel have other options? If so, why were they not considered?
    Moreover, Israel was not out of Lebanon-the Mossad continued to operate there, an assassination attempt on Nasrallah’s life took place, flyers were being dropped in the south claiming that “Hezbollah is hegemonic”, (all occuring in the spring prior to the war)while in late spring, Mossad operatives were caught in Lebanon-thus is it fair to say that in fact “Israel was out of Lebanon”?
    This proganda has served Israel well in its congressional lobbying efforts, however in spite of this, the truth remains otherwise.
    Helena your thoughts?

  19. Amidst this debate, it is clear that Israeli apologists will claim that Israel’s action were self-defense. I pose this: Did Israel have other options? If so, why were they not considered?
    Moreover, Israel was not out of Lebanon-the Mossad continued to operate there, an assassination attempt on Nasrallah’s life took place, flyers were being dropped in the south claiming that “Hezbollah is hegemonic”, (all occuring in the spring prior to the war)while in late spring, Mossad operatives were caught in Lebanon-thus is it fair to say that in fact “Israel was out of Lebanon”?
    This proganda has served Israel well in its congressional lobbying efforts, however in spite of this, the truth remains otherwise.
    Helena your thoughts?

  20. Mike,
    I think that Joshua did a good job of pointing out the difference between UNSC Res. 242 and 1559.
    1559 calls for the establishment of sovereignty by the duly elected government of Lebanon and states that militias such as Hizballah are an impediment to this assumption of sovereignty.
    Hizballah is not the sovereign, no matter how many people Nasrallah brings out to the streets.
    KDJ,
    Hizballah has been running its operatives in Israel for much of the past six years. Does this mean that Hizballah occupies Israel?

  21. Infiltration is not occupation-I did not use the term occupation-however, in terms of legitimating this war on Lebanon, indeed it is not accurate to assert as such that Israel was “out of Lebanon”-yes, the troops were out-Israeli operatives were not, and likely are not. However, Israel has not ended its overflights until today, and in fact in the past had not ended their incursions in Lebanon’s airspace-so let us at least begin there.
    As for Hezbollah’s disarmament-HC is absolutely correct-Bush has allowed Israel to co-opt this issue-and this is an enormous mistake. Hezbollah acknowledge’s that they cannot “keep their weapons forever”-thus implicitly stating some recognition of 1559-disarmament, whether it be Hezbollah or any other armed actor in any other context must occur as part of a political process-Israel’s imposition of a timeline will only further complicate this issue for the people of Lebanon.

  22. Infiltration is not occupation-I did not use the term occupation-however, in terms of legitimating this war on Lebanon, indeed it is not accurate to assert as such that Israel was “out of Lebanon”-yes, the troops were out-Israeli operatives were not, and likely are not. However, Israel has not ended its overflights until today, and in fact in the past had not ended their incursions into Lebanon’s airspace-so let us at least begin there.
    Moreover, these overflights, and their rumbling and sonic booms are traumatic for the local population-they are unacceptable.
    As for Hezbollah’s disarmament-HC is absolutely correct-Bush has allowed Israel to co-opt this issue-and this is an enormous mistake. Hezbollah acknowledge’s that they cannot “keep their weapons forever”-thus implicitly expressing some recognition of 1559-disarmament, whether it be Hezbollah or any other armed actor in any other context, must occur as part of a political process-Israel’s imposition of a timeline will only further complicate this issue for the people of Lebanon.

  23. Israeli overflights have continued… as has Hizballah smuggling of arms in violation of the ceasefire agreement.
    When I decypher your convoluted second paragraph, I may respond.

  24. Further to this-how can we justify, ethically as well as well as within the framework of international law, the collective punishment of the entire people of Lebanon? I believe in fact that this is the fundamental question here-this war, the failure of Israel to allow for humanitarian corridors, the destruction of all means of escape for the people of Lebanon, the blockade of its port for an entire MONTH after the war ended, are in fact propaganda ridden rationales for further collective punishment. There is no justification for this. Moreover, how does one legitimate the on-going aggression against UNIFIL? It seems there is no justification for this-other than destroying any means by which conflict prevention may be possible. With the exception of the Israeli peaceniks i.e. the refusniks, etc., Israel has no moral justification for its actions. Did Israel and much of the US administration and Congress, not understand that a declaration of war meant in fact that Hezbollah would fire back?
    Finally, the US administration and its Israeli allies only weakened the progressive people in Lebanon who were working toward moving their country forward-solidifying the divides, encouraging the playing off of one camp against the other-Stephen Zunes has written an excellent piece on this process.
    What other options did Israel have? This is the key question for me-As a person who believes in non-violence and seeks an end to the use of torture, enforced disappearance, of course I wish Hezbollah returned the soldiers, and also exercised other options-however, Israel courted this-Hezbollah played along, and the entire people of Lebanon, directly or indirectly paid the price-this is called collective punishment!

  25. And the bombardment of Northern Israel wasn’t collective punishment?
    It’s nice of you to wish that Hizballah would have returned the two soldiers to their families. It would have also been nice had they not crossed the border and kidnapped them in the first place. Even now, it would be nice if they abided by the Geneva Conventions and allowed visits by the Red Cross or other international organizations. And, barring that, maybe Hizballah could at least provide some sign of life to the families. Or, perhaps, they have been summerily executed as, apparently, were the three soldiers kidnapped in 2000.

  26. A few thoughts here, JES. Convoluted? I disagree. What I have written is factual and is verifiable. The perspective you purport is unchangeable-it seems that you assert the right to declare war-an incredibly disproportionate reaction. Moreover, had Israel not had US backing (and perhaps some US based Phalangists as well) this would not have occured. It was an election year-the Israeli lobby gained enormously from this-while Lebanon lost on all fronts.
    Yes, Hezbollah, according to the International Crisis Group is “reloading”-but Israel is as well. Thus, two wrongs always make right? I disagree.
    Israel declared WAR-I do not believe that one can hardly have anticipated that what happened in Northern Israel was going to be a surprise? What happened in Northern Israel no doubt a tragedy, is a consequence of war-what Israel opted for.
    It would be nice for Israel to have stayed out of Lebanon-however, they did not. The Mossad was caught in Lebanon prior to the border incident. How do you justify this?
    Yes, the IRC ought to have access to the soldiers-and SOLIDE/SOLIDA has in fact called for this.
    What is in question is proportionality-do you really believe that negotiation could not have occured prior to a declaration of war? In fact you are negotiating now. Moreover, what of the disappeared persons from the 1982 invasion? No one is sanctioning war over their disappeared status. Their lives matter less-from my purview, they do not.
    Thank you for engaging in a lively discussion!

  27. KDJ,
    Just one last thought.
    Israel did not “declare war” as you say. Israel reacted to an overtly aggressive action by an armed militia operating in a vacuum created by the inability, or unwillingness, of the sovereign government of Lebanon to secure its own borders.
    In point of fact, not only was no war declared, but as Uri Sagie, former head of Military Intelligence for the IDF, has pointed out, it is wrong to call this a war. Sending three divisions into Lebanon for 72 hours is, at best, a campaign, not a war.
    Finally, what disappeared persons. I have not seen any specific demands by Hizballah (again, an armed militia, not the sovereign government of Lebanon) for the release of “disappeared persons”. In fact, the only name that I have seen openly presented since the two soldiers were kidnapped is that of child-murderer Samir Quntar, who, far from being disappeared, has a Web site and has managed to complete a university degree paidfor with my tax money.

  28. JES:
    Thank you for your reply. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated upon the abduction of the two soldiers “This is an act of war”.
    I am not referring to Samir Qantar-I am referring to persons whose kin I have interviewed in Lebanon who (one was a teenager) remains disappeared after being abducted by the SLA/Israeli forces, taken to Khiam Prison and remains to this day, disappeared. Another person I refer to from Lebanon was taken during the 82′ invasion by the IDF and his whereabouts remain unknown.
    Regarding the reloading of Hezbollah-It is known that UNIFIL has in fact intercepted weapons-thus they ought to be able to do their job without provocations by the IDF.
    Regarding the comments about Hezbollah’s status and the Government of Lebanon-in fact if you argue that they are not the sovereign government, which is a complex issue-one could more accurately assert that Hezbollah acts within the government as well as engaging in “non-state” actions, how then could the Government of Israel hold the entire Government of Lebanon culpable for the abduction of the two soldiers?
    A note to the moderator: At times when the security code is entered, the message received indicates that the posting has failed due to an error-Thus I attempted several times to repost-unfortunately, the comments I have noted were posted numerous times-apologies!

  34. KDJ, I’m sorry about the tech problem that led you to multiple-post there. I deleted the multiples.
    Thanks so much for the link to Elizabeth Kucinich’s blog entry there.

  35. Greetings, Helena!
    Thank you for your incisive analysis, your spirit of hope for the Middle East, and your willingness to toil for a just world!
    Helena, I am interested in organizing a fundraiser for Lebanon here in Toronto with PeaceCry, are you keen to be the keynote? Perhaps RN might address the gathering as well?
    I do hope RN will write further on UNIFIL. Indeed, it is important to understand how the US Congress has responded to continual UNIFIL violations and provocations-particularly during this crucial period of powersharing negotiations in Lebanon.
    With very best wishes,
    KDJ

  36. Greetings, Helena!
    Thank you for your incisive analysis, your spirit of hope for the Middle East, and your willingness to toil for a just world!
    Helena, I am interested in organizing a fundraiser for Lebanon here in Toronto with PeaceCry, are you keen to be the keynote? Perhaps RN might address the gathering as well?
    I do hope RN will write further on UNIFIL. Indeed, it is important to understand how the US Congress has responded to continual UNIFIL violations and provocations-particularly during this crucial period of powersharing negotiations in Lebanon.
    With very best wishes,
    KDJ

  38. Friends, an important “PS”:
    While most of the pictures in fact depict “Muslims” as being displaced, in fact many secular and Christian people were among the deeply war-Important in our destabilizing the construction of this conflict.

  44. Latest from ICG on Lebanon
    INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP – NEW BRIEFING
    Lebanon at a Tripwire
    Beirut/Brussels, 21 December 2006: Lebanon is at risk of renewed collapse unless domestic and especially international actors abandon their zero-sum struggle and seek compromise.
    Lebanon at a Tripwire,* the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, warns that a political divide and sectarian split in a context of heavy outside interference will have tragic human consequences and dangerous regional ramifications. The conflict is now concentrated on the issue of the international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri and the composition of the government. The political impasse has led both sides to call out their followers.
    “Street politics have replaced institutional politics”, says Crisis Group analyst Patrick Haenni. “Huge demonstrations on one side trigger colossal protests from the other. Civil war remains unlikely. But with heightened polarisation, intensified confessionalisation and heavy outside interference, it is again becoming thinkable”.
    The conflict reflects deeper local and international struggles: a vision of Lebanon anchored in the West against a militant, pan-Arab outlook; Syria against Israel; the U.S. administration against the Syrian regime; pro-Western Sunni Arab regimes led by Saudi Arabia against ascendant Iran and Shiite militancy; and, hovering above it all, Washington against Tehran.
    Any viable solution must reflect a broad consensual package deal: a joint majority/opposition commission to review and amend the international tribunal statutes to guarantee independence and non-politicisation; simultaneous parliamentary approval of those statutes, a unity government and a new electoral law; early parliamentary and presidential elections. Lebanon must also address domestic problems that enable and encourage outside interference. This means strengthening state institutions, ending a corrupt patronage system and de-confessionalising politics.
    A sustainable resolution of the conflict also requires immediate U.S. re-engagement with Syria, for Damascus has made clear that it will destabilise Lebanon if its vital interests are ignored.
    “This conflict is not about coup plotters against democrats or a popular uprising against an illegitimate state”, says Crisis Group Middle East Director Robert Malley. “It is one street against the other, one Lebanon against another. Neither side can afford to lose, and neither can govern alone”.
    ——————————————————————————–

  51. Friends, from the uncivillized/A haunting work of art:
    For those of us who remain haunted by the horrors of the war on Lebanon,
    sanctioned by our tax dollars, legislators (indeed what other country in the
    world must rush to seek US Congressional APPROVAL for waging brutality? Is
    there not something seriously wrong with our Foreign Policy?)
    Toward a common hope-and collective action
    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5407.shtml

  53. Friends, the overwhelming loss experienced in Lebanon-YES, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE-We remember the families who have suffered, and continue to suffer from a US foreign policy of death, terror and chaos.
    Lebanon Sees More Than 1,000 War Deaths
    By SAM F. GHATTAS
    BEIRUT, Lebanon – More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and combatants died during
    the summer war between Israel’s army and Hezbollah guerrillas, according to
    tallies by government agencies, humanitarian groups and The Associated Press.
    Israeli authorities put the death toll for the Jewish state at 120 military
    combat deaths and 39 civilians killed by Hezbollah rockets fired into northern
    Israel during the July 12-Aug. 14 conflict.
    Both sides have revised their figures of Lebanon’s war dead. The latest Lebanese
    and AP counts include 250 Hezbollah fighters that the group’s leaders now say
    died during Israel’s intense air, ground and sea bombardments in Lebanon _ more
    than triple the 70 they acknowledged during the war. Israel initially said 800
    Hezbollah fighters died but later lowered that estimate to 600.
    None of the counts of war dead include Lebanese killed since the fighting ended
    by exploding land mines or Israeli cluster bombs scattered around southern
    Lebanon. Such blasts have killed 27 people and wounded 167, according to the
    National Demining Office. No Israelis have been killed by war-related blasts
    since then.
    The Lebanese and AP counts of Lebanon’s war dead range from 1,035 to 1,191.
    Lebanon’s top police office, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, says
    1,123 Lebanese died in the war _ 37 soldiers and police officers and 1,086
    other people, including 894 named victims and 192 unidentified ones.
    The report lists the 1,086 dead as “martyrs.” It does not differentiate between
    civilians and Hezbollah combatants, because the government considers them all
    Lebanese citizens. It also can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because
    many do not wear military uniforms.
    A security official, who agreed to discuss the tally with AP on condition of
    anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said the figure
    of 1,086 was based on reviews of hospitals, death certificates, village
    officials, families of the deceased and eyewitness accounts.
    In a reflection of the confusion of wartime, the Higher Relief Council, an
    agency of the Lebanese prime minister’s office that deals with calamities, has
    a higher death toll _ 1,191 people, most of them civilians. The council says
    its number is based on figures from the health ministry, police and other state
    agencies.
    The United Nations Children’s Fund, meanwhile, says 1,183 people died, mostly
    civilians and about a third of them children.
    Human Rights Watch is still compiling a final list, said Nadim Houry, Lebanon
    researcher for the human rights group. So far, he said, the list has 1,119
    names, based on the group’s own visits to villages, information from mayors and
    a check of tombstones as well as other lists made by local media and rescue
    services. The names include civilians, military personnel and guerrillas.
    During the war, AP counted 855 killed, tallying only confirmed deaths reported
    by Lebanese police, security officials, civil defense and hospital authorities.
    That included 37 military personnel reported in official statements and 70
    Hezbollah guerrillas reported killed either by the group or by police.
    Adding the additional 180 deaths now conceded by Hezbollah raises the AP tally
    to 1,035.
    The higher Hezbollah figure of 250 killed was disclosed in mid-December during
    an AP interview with Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of the group’s ruling
    politburo.
    Komati dismissed Israeli claims that 800 guerrillas were killed in the war.
    Asked about the Hezbollah disclosure, Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin
    revised that estimate, saying: “We think that it’s closer to 600.”
    Some of the discrepancies in numbers result from the fact that three separate
    agencies were involved in search and rescue efforts in southern Lebanon’s hilly
    and remote terrain: the Lebanese Red Cross, Islamic ambulance services and
    government civil defense teams.
    The Lebanese security official who talked with AP said the lack of a central
    office to follow up accounts of dead and missing had made it hard to get
    precise numbers even months after the war’s end.
    In addition, determining an exact figure has not been a priority during the
    political strife that has snarled the country since the war. Lebanon is
    enduring its worst crisis in over a decade, with the pro-Western government in
    a standoff with Hezbollah and its allies.
    Hezbollah has come under fire from critics who blame it for the war, which the
    guerrillas set off by carrying out a brazen cross-border raid into Israel in
    which they killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others.
    So the disclosure of a higher Hezbollah death toll could bolster the group’s
    standing during the political fight by showing it sacrificed in defending the
    country. During the war, a higher Hezbollah toll could have hurt morale.
    The 192 unidentified victims included in the police count consist of body parts
    or remains of dismembered bodies, the Lebanese security official said.
    The official said it was unclear why relatives had not claimed them, but it
    could be because some were from whole families that had been killed. The
    “unidentified” also could include remains of Hezbollah fighters, the official
    said.
    A service of the Associated Press(AP)

  54. NB:
    This article also leaves out the tanks and soliders INSIDE Lebanon (Helena your article also seems to leave out Aita Chaab)…Indeed an interesting and CRUCIAL fact LEFT OUT!

Comments are closed.