Iran's tool fights America's stooge

A delicate balance between Christians, Druze, Sunnis and Shias has broken down. Reassembly will be hard

See article

Readers' comments



I do agree that appropriate action is necessary on the part of the IDF, but that action should be reasonable. If Hizbullah kidnaps 2 Israelis, instead of negotiating for their return, they should not have bombed them to the stone age, causing the most severe damage to their infrastructure, not to mention the human lives. I have lived in Israel, and I know the way that Arabs are treated. Even if they are not killed, they are dehumanized. I've seen many occasions where security forces harass the Arab population. Animals are treated better than them, it is sick. I, for one, believe that an Israeli life is just as valuable as an Arab life. I don't believe that the worth of your life comes from your ethnicity or religious affiliation.


gooz: You fail to consider the consequences of Israeli inaction. In my opinion, Israel is far too restrained in its response to terrorism as it is, attempting in vain to appeal to world opinion instead of focusing solely on what it needs to do to eliminate threats to Israel's survival. If Israel were any more restrained (i.e., not bombing potential rocket launchers or staging raids into Palestinian territory) it would empower its enemies even more. The defensive attacks on terrorist positions are necessary to ensure the safety of Israeli civilians. This is not murder. Israel does not intentionally murder innocents as a policy, although (as I'm sure you will say) it does happen occasionally. Compare this to the policies of Hamas, the PLO (including Fatah), Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc., who intentionally target civilians in universities, dancehalls, restaurants, and shopping malls. That is their wartime strategy. Israel may make mistakes, but that is generally what they are--mistakes. Murder is no mistake for Palestinian terrorists.


"Heroes stand between the violent and the defenseless. The IDF qualifies and Hezbolla does not."

Kind of like what happened with Rachel Courie when she was flattened by an Israeli bulldozer on its way to demolish a Palesitnian home.

Or maybe like what happened in the village of Qana during operation grapes of wrath when your "Heroes" killed over 100 refugees?

Or maybe, like the massacres of Sabra and Shatilla. Where these heroes facilitated some of the worst civilian massacres
in history.

Or maybe even it would be like the thousands of dead civilians in the "occupied territories".

If you consider murderers heroes, then I dont know what to say.

In this day and age, when a country is able to acquire territory by force, and settle on it, and skirt UN action b/c the US, a p-5 member, has no moral balls when it comes to what Israel wants then that is a dangerous precedent. No wonder Saddam thought it was ok to take Kuwait, b/c Israel had been doing it for so long.....then again, saddam never had AIPAC.

Also, it is understandable, from your perspective, that Israel does carry out these activities. They do live in a neighborhood that is kind of like the wild west. The closest semblance of a democracy comes from Lebanon, Iran, and Israel, although none of these countries is truly democratic...except maybe Lebanon.


"...but Hizbullah insisted its noble cause was resistance to Israel, despite the Jewish state's abandonment of all but a tiny corner of Lebanon"Is the Economist now a mouthpiece for Hizballah? The only people to say Har Dov (Sheba Farms) is part of Lebanon is Hizballah. As everyone knows, including I'm sure Economist editors, the UN declared Israel to have fully withdrawn to the correct Israel/Lebanon boundaries. Har Dov has nothing to do with Lebanon or Hizballah and is simply a lame excuse for them to continue their jihad against Israel, which Hizballah spokesmen have said will continue even if Har Dov is transferred to Lebanon. Hizballah considers all Israeli territory to be occupied Islamic land. The Economist should be ashamed of peddling such distortions and terrorist apologetics.


Since the end of the cold war it is been increasingly clear that: Deterrence = Weapons X WillingnessA pacifism bred in the luxury of western lifestyles is canceling out the economic and technological advantages western powers have in warfare by decreasing our willingness to fight. The effect of this pacifist movement is to encourage conflict against the west that would otherwise be suicidal. We have recently witnessed a victory handed to the terrorist not on account of their military prowess but, due to a growing pacifism in the west. So the conflict continues, antipathy propagates, and more lives are lost.gooz - Your standard for fighting wars would make any nation you ruled utterly defenseless.ANDIf your family died because Hezbolla stationed a missile launcher in your neighborhood might your antipathy shift targets?ANDHeroes stand between the violent and the defenseless. The IDF qualifies and Hezbolla does not.ANDThe analogy holds: What is not to get - if the terrorists cease their attacks then Israel would not be dropping bombs on anyone. The terrorist and his ideology are the source of 100% of this violence.


Ashh82-If the firefighter used water to put out the fire, rather than bulldozing the whole house, then you may have a point. I don't know who the hero you are referring to is. People that kill children and innocents cannot be considered heros. Im sure there are great intentions, but the collateral damage is devastating. If you take out a whole building full of people, to kill one guy, then are you the hero? One thing I think Israel and the US need to understand is that people in Arab/Muslim countries are people to. If a person dies, there is grief, loss, and anger. If im sitting with my family in Lebanon, and a big bomb that is made in USA, is dropped by an Israeli pilot, kills my family, then i think i may have a justification to be angry. If you want to kill the people that you think are responsible, go right ahead, but dont take the neighbors out to.


Iran and Syria have forced Lebanon into a difficult position. Lebanon is now host to terrorist who provoke Israeli reprisals and undermine her government. The government, and the mass of the people cannot resist either force.If Israel focused its reprisals on Syria it could allow the government of Lebanon to regain control of the situation while focusing on the real culprits. Currently Israel (an the US in Iraq) is like a dog bitting at the stick that it is being beat with. Israel needs to bite the sticks wielder in order to deter future attack.gooz - Do not confuse the fire damage caused by the arsonist with the water damage caused by the firefighter. You mistake a hero for a villain. What the arsonist fails to destroy is only protected by efforts of the fireman. What the fireman destroys he destroys out of necessity, error, or foolishness, not out of malice, hate, or ideology. Save your scorn for the terrorist.BTW: Hammas has been known to strap children with bombs.


Wow,With all that's going on here in the States, I truly try to keep up with the Middle East. But lately I just really don't care if there is a giant fight in Lebanon. I simply curse Bush for putting America in such a horrible position in that part of the world, but I really want the U.S. to leave them to their wars and let the chips fall where they may.


There are actually many governmental organizations that participate in terrorism everyday. You can see examples of this on a daily basis in the occupied territories. When an Israeli soldier shoots a 12 year old palestinian girl, is this terrorism? When a US made hellfire missile destroys an apartment building in Gaza, killing everyone inside including children that are between 6 months to 10 years old, is this terrorism? When a US navy ship deliberately shoots down a jumbo jet carrying 290 passengers, including 66 children, is this terrorism? When Israel bombed Lebanon in the early 80's killing an untold number of civilians with napalm, phosphorus, and fragmentation bombs would that be terrorism? How about the most recent 2006 bombing of Lebanon that killed over 1000 innocent Lebanese....was that terrorism? Maybe these killings were all repetitive, perpetual accidents, but if individuals in the US and Israel do not start to recognize that perhaps some of their actions could be terroristic in nature, then no peace will ever be achieved.


gooz: That is simplistic and simply not true. The US considers the Basques in Spain, the FARC in Colombia, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, and the IRA in Ireland to be terrorists, despite the fact that none of these organizations are Muslim. You need to recognize that while it is true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is equally true that most terrorists these days are Muslims.A terrorist organization is defined as a non-governmental organization that advocates violence against civilian targets for political, ideological, religious, or other reasons.


I believe what is needed is an accurate and universal definition of terrorism. Here in the US, the definition requires that one be of the Muslim faith in order to be a terrorist.


ashh82: Fair enough. The old definition of terrorism may have to change. However, although I strongly support the United States' actions against the Taliban, you must admit that the invasion of Afghanistan has not entirely solved the problem al-Qaeda presents. An important criterion for being a terrorist organization is that it must be interstatal. If one state is invaded in an attempt to root out terrorists, they can move to another state, or already have cells in another state. While I fully support your conclusion that we must act decisively against state sponsors of terror, I feel that this cannot be the only solution. We must convince people who might support terrorist actions against us that we can offer a brighter future than al-Qaeda. Perhaps a combination of left and right-wing strategies.


mrsf - Almost there. The "Bush Doctrine" (only once applied) acknowledges the truth, that terrorists are extensions of their sponsor governments (Hizbulla:Iran) or themselves control a state (Hammas:Gaza). Terrorism requires an outside funding source.

Currently terror offers unscrupulous states a method of projecting power without suffering reprisals. The distinction in many western minds between the terrorist and those who sponsor them is the root cause of terrorism as a tactic. Erase this distinction and states would be reluctant to sponsor terror.

The west is responsible for terror, not because it has angered people around the world, but because it has given those who hate us a tool to attack us with impunity and without reprisal.

There is one recent example of a proper response to terror, the US ouster of the Taliban after 911. It is up to the west to determine what terror is unacceptable. The US has done so with attacks on its homeland, but not on attacks on its forces in Iraq. We need not invade each terror sponsor, but certainly no terror sponsor should posses a floating ship, functional power grid, or usable air base. Economically speaking; we must increase price of terror beyond its possible benefits.

The ability of the West to disrupt a state is unimaginable, its ability to confront terrorists directly is pathetic. Let us leverage our strength.


gooz: I was referring to the situation in Lebanon, not Iran or Iraq. The US has made many mistakes in the region, and continues to do so. It is doubtful whether these actions are even in America's best interests. However, you cannot blame the US for Lebanon's strife. Neither the US nor Israel created the animosity between different ethnic, religious, and tribal groups in the country, and cannot make these people fight each other (although they can facilitate it). If you are really looking for outsiders to blame, blame the British and French for creating Lebanon in the first place. I maintain, though, that the Lebanese themselves have the power to stop fighting; they just don't.


Peter C -

The UN's track record on preventing conflict is hardly impressive. I do believe UNIFIL was in place when Hizbollah mounted their ambush that sparked the 2006 invasion. Then there's Rwanda, Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, Somalia, Bosnia...

The UN is a useful organization that provides vital support to many impoverished people. Peacekeeping, however, is not its strong suit.


mrsf: I agree with you about the need to get rid of the PLO from Lebanese soil, that is indisputable. The attacks on Israel's northern territory were prolific. The massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps were probably unnecessary. Although the Israelis did not carry it out, they did facilitate the phalangist movement in carrying out the most horrid massacres ever. I disagree when it comes to putting the US to blame. The US overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh's govt in Iran back in 1953, to reinstall a brutal dictator for their oil interests. The US also supplied an abundant amount of WMD to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis used these WMD's and Chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner murdering 290 Iranian civilians in 1988, without ever an apology or recompensation. The current demonic administration has allocated $300 million to overthrow the govt of Iran. I think the US is to blame, and has a lot to apologize for.


gooz: It is easy to try to blame the US for all the world's problems, but I distinctly recall Lebanon being an undemocratic and dangerous place before the Bush administration, and even before the Israeli invasion.The Israeli invasion was meant to render the PLO incapable of attacking Israeli civilian centers, which it had been doing from Lebanese soil until 1982. If the Israelis had simply left, the PLO would have regrouped and continued its activities. However, as you say, the invasion created the Hezbollah movement. There really are no good solutions here.


im ern:1. You cite one crucial factor in the Israeli decision to go to war in 2006, but ignore a more important one; while Hezbollah was attacking the Israeli soldiers in Israeli territory, killing eight and kidnapping two, it was also firing hundreds of rockets at Northern Israel. These were not the rudimentary rockets that Hamas uses. These were Iranian-made Katyushas (of Russian design) that inflict greater damage and travel much farther and more accurately. The Israeli response was justified given the extent of Hezbollah's bombardment. Hezbollah chose this war, not Israel, and Israel absolutely must work to eliminate any threats to its civilian population, even if the threat is in Lebanon.2. Israel's nuclear arsenal is more a reflection of direct US support during the Cold War than anything else. The Soviets supported many Arab states, though apparently not as much. These days, the West prefers to work with Israel because it is the only democracy in the region, and the only stable country.3. Israel trapped Yassir Arafat in Ramallah after it had been determined that he was not working for peace. Not only had Arafat turned down the Camp David/Taba Accords without making a counter-offer, he deliberately incited a campaign of terror against Israel. If Israel had wanted to kill him, it could have; Israel knew exactly where he was. Israel did not kill him because it did not want to make a martyr of him.4. You claim that because Hamas has inefficient weapons, Israel should ignore the threat. Go to Ashkelon and then tell me these weapons never hit Israel. The only reason more Israelis have not died as a result of constant Hamas rocket fire is that Israel has bomb shelters that people run to when the air raid sirens sound. Should Israel be expected not to act against an enemy that bombards its citizens daily?5. You talk about Israeli disregard for UN resolutions, but I distinctly remember UN resolutions condemning terrorism that the Palestinians have ignored. There was also one recently that said that all paramilitary groups in Lebanon must disarm, but apparently Hezbollah did not get the memo. Bias is one of many of the UN's problems; impotence is another.6. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority could absolutely have acted against terrorism; they simply chose not to. Stopping terrorist activity is, according to Palestinians, akin to acting against the "resistance," which could get a politician killed. This mentality exists to this day. And then the PA complains that there is no peace.7. A significant portion of Israelis have been directly affected by Palestinian terrorism, and the reason terrorist acts have declined of late is a reflection of Israeli security, nothing more. Palestinians still try to commit acts of terror, but are foiled by arrest raids, checkpoints, and the border fence: the very things you whine about.8. The ball for peace is absolutely in the Palestinians' court. If they stop the terrorism, Israel will stop the arrest raids, etc. But not bloody well until.9. Hamas and Hezbollah are not traditional political parties; they are militias who are dabbling in politics. You see what happens when the political process works against their interests. Hamas overthrew Fatah in Gaza, throwing opposition members off rooftops, and Hezbollah lay seige to Beirut.10. How can you expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah? Both groups are fighting to destroy Israel, and openly claim to want nothing less. What is there to negotiate? Israel is not going to talk itself to death. Once there is someone to talk to, then Israel can negotiate.11. I do not necessarily blame Palestinians for siding with Hamas, or Lebanese for siding with Hezbollah. However, they do have to live with the consequences of their allegiances, one of which is supporting a terrorist war against Israel instead of a peace treaty. You cannot blame Israel for opposing these groups, and for labeling population who support them as hostile. These organizations are terrorist organizations; they deliberately target and attack civilians for political reasons, and work outside of any government. Therefore, they are terrorists. That is the definition of terrorism, literally.


normaroo wrote: SO much for "One State" solutions****************Loool. Good point. And it's true. This region has now reached a state when in one single country up to three civil wars can be fought at the same time. And this is with most kings and dictators still at the helm. When they finally go the Soviet union and Yugoslavia will look like a child game compared to what's going to happen here.Despite all these one state lunacies the direction the history is taking here is towards more states and not less of them.


Hizbullah, as an organization, arose out of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Shiites, originally, welcomed this invasion. The PLO was taking over many aspects of Lebanese life, including harassing Shiites. Hizbullah gained influence b/c Israel chose to stay/occupy Lebanon, something they have done to the surrounding Arab countries as well, with the full support of the US. Hizbullah, now has become a more effective social/political organization than the Lebanese Government. If the Lebanese government can offer the Shiite population security/social programs, then Hizbullah's utility will eventually dissipate. Currently the Lebanese government receives direction from an unbelievably inept US administration with an idiot at the helm, and Satan (vp cheney) calling the foreign policy shots. When an administration arises out of this next election cycle with a little more nuance to foreign policy other than YEEEE HAAW, we might see a stable lebanese government with democratic potential.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

