I logged on to my account at wordpress this morning with a plan to write something about Egyptian politics and what I’d do were I president or in some way in charge of this country.
Of course, I don’t start writing the moment I hit the PC, so I went over to Manal and Alaa’s to check out the new post on their aggregator. It was then that I found this post over at Big Pharoah‘s Blog.
Now I’ve never really been a big fan of Big Pharoah’s stuff, and I’m sure he wouldn’t like the things I say were he to visit my blog. He’s more of the Sandmonkey persuasion… and I’m not too hot on that.
But anyways, since he uses a wordpress platform for his blog, he should have noticed the incoming link from my post, if he checks, so please continue reading while I address this post to him. I’d also like feedback from anyone who reads this, and I mean it in all sincerity, because I do want to understand something there.
So, Big Pharoah’s (BP from now on) post was about him wanting Hezbollah to lose. (I’m just going to forget about Mubarak and all the other Arab leaders because they are as close to non-entities for me as anyone could be.)
What strikes me as strange are the conclusions reached by BP. It seems the criteria upon which we judge and analyze the situation differ and diverge to such an extent that someone’s conclusions (his or mine – I was not implicitly referring to him) are somewhat skewed.
To begin with, it is obvious that he is a recognizer (if I may use the word) of Israel’s right to exist. I, on the other hand, do not. To explain my view I’d have to explain that this does not stem from some pan-arabist, pro-palestinian point of view. It’s just that I think they’ve taken land which doesn’t belong to them, plain and simple.
I don’t know any Israelis, and while I’m sure that there will be non-arab Israelis that might appeal to me, this will not change my view that sometime ago, almost 60 years now, the “founding fathers” of Israel claimed land which belonged to someone else (with the help or, I should say, with the tacit agreement of an occupying colonizer).
The thing is, of all NGMGs (Non-Governmental Military Groups) in the Middle East, I would have to say that Hezbollah is the only one that without any shred of doubt or a moment’s hesitation cannot be called a terrorist organization. (I wrote this a bit ago, check out the links where I mention why they aren’t – Keep in mind that the US is signatory to any agreement I’ve linked to.)
If you want to discuss Iraq, it gets wishy-washy… what about Egypt and its NGMGs? I would probably actually agree with BP (I’m theorizing) on that. BUT, not with Hezbollah.
It annoys the living hell out of me when I hear arguments like:
- Resolution 1559 says that Hezbollah has to disarm completely. 1559 my ass! SC resolution 242 and GA resolution 181 say a lot of shit that Israel has been ignoring for what? Almost 40 years now? Let them wait 40 then (or however long it takes them to implement those resolutions) before 1559 is applied.
- Hezbollah kills Israeli civilians. WTF? Only after Israel started bombing Lebanon and killing Lebanese Civilians. Hezbollah holds two prisoners of war and wants a prisoner exchange. I see no problem with that at all. Let’s not forget what Israel did with Arab prisoners of war in the 1967 war.
- Hezbollah hides within the Lebanese Civilian Population. And this is based on… what? I sincerely and surely want to know what source has mentioned this other than nice little reporters and writers sitting in their neat little posh offices in New York, London, Tel Aviv, Baghdad or where ever else and have said so. But wait! There have been reporters who wrote the exact opposite, how come what they say is never used as source material by people like BP and SM (Sandmonkey)? Besides, keep in mind an important thing. Hezbollah might be funded from Syria and Iran, I won’t discuss the sources of their finances… mainly because I don’t care, but they’re still not a government army. They cannot afford to go out and build military compounds and barracks and all that because (a) Israel would destroy them within a week (b) they obviously do not have the equivalent manpower from which to draw upon as a national government would.
- Hezbollah fires its rockets from Civilian neighbourhoods. What kind of idiot would believe something like that? This, technically and militarily, is not the smartest thing to do… and I sincerely doubt that Hezbollah would attempt to do this, at least on a large enough scale, in such a manner as to actively decrease their chances of havign successful launches.
- The Ta’ef agreement of 1989 ALLOWS HEZBOLLAH to exist in southern Lebanon arms et al. All the other militias were merged with the army or disarmed, but Hezbollah was to leave Beirut and gets to keep their weapons.
These are really the main points I wanted to make in reference to that. I still want to know BP’s sources because it occurs to me that our radically different viewpoints must be based on something more than simple ideology.
So, BP, if you so happen to read this (or anyone else for that matter) please give me your sources. And oh! One last thing, I sincerely doubt that Hezbollah emerging more popular in this war will lead to civil war inside Lebanon. That condition alone should not be sufficient. I can imagine it being a catalyst with Christians fearing the increase in power and then the Sunni Muslims (usually the last people to act – which isn’t because they’re calmest or most politically astute) and Palestinians reacting to that and then all hell breaking loose… I can imagine that.
But you know what? I also think that if civil war breaks out again, and no one interferes, the Lebanese have a better chance of reaching a solution which satisfies most parties and is durable and sustainable.
And that’s the way I see it.