US and Israeli Governments and Media are Lying About Hezbollah (As Posted on the DFA blog with a Reply and My Response)

The central issue that the American and Israeli governments have at present is that, as they assert, Hezbollah is using Southern Lebanon as a "sanctuary" from which to launch attacks against Israel. This culminated with the incidents which occurred on 25 June 2006 and 12 July 2006 which HR 921 calls "...completely unprovoked attack(s) that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory..." When I questioned Dr. Noam Chomsky of MIT about these issues, he replied about the events of 25 June by saying, "...the current upsurge in hostilities did not begin on 25 June. Rather, the day before, when the Israeli army carried out another attack in Gaza, swooping in to kidnap two civilians, a doctor and his brother. The kidnapping of the soldier the next day was probably retaliation, some Middle East scholars believe." Thus, these so-called "unprovoked attacks" are actually in retaliatory in nature, and the US ostensibly recognizes nations' rights to defend themselves.
So, why does the US not recognize Hezbollah's right to defense. Perhaps it is because the US State Department has identified Hezbollah under the highly nebulous and arbitrary label of "terrorist group." Furthermore, in March 2005, the House of Representatives voted 380 to 3 for a resolution condemning "the continuous terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah." However, before the events of 25 Jun 06 Hezbollah had not been credited with a major terrorist attack since the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center. This means that when the House resolution passed Hezbollah had not been given responsibility for a major terrorist attack in 11 years.
This bit of foreshadowing by Congress is all too appropriate. Irony seems surround respective US and Israeli stances on Hezbollah. The American news has been reporting that Israel may want the Lebanese army to execute a relief-in-place after they have destroyed Hezbollah elements in Southern Lebanon near the Litani River. It is ironic that the Israelis want to fight Hezbollah but not the Lebanese army, though Hebollah is a democratically-elected major party in Lebanese politics, holding roughly 1/5 of the seats in the Lebanese parliament. This can certainly be construed as an attempt to undermine Lebanese democracy, which the US purports to support.
In response to my questions about the events of 12 Jul 06, Dr. Chomsky responded by saying:
"Turning to July 12, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. Two reasons were given, accepted by virtually all serious scholars and journalists (though the White House and Israel have a different story, and the US media toe the line so closely that they are ridiculed even in the business press in England): some support for Palestinians under vicious attack by an invading army, and prisoner exchange. Analysts differ on the relative weight of the two factors, but each is quite plausible. Is it wrong to capture soldiers? Sure. But for the US and Israel to take this stand is possible only because of the remarkable obedience of the educated classes. In most of the world, it's regarded as a sick joke, certainly in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where the facts are not concealed."
It is quite clear that the US and Israel are both being dishonest about their intentions with Lebanon. On a 21 July interview on Larry King Live, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that it was obvious Israeli intentions in Lebanon go beyond the recovery of two soldiers. With Israeli troops deploying to the border an Israeli invasion of Lebanon seems imminent. Perhaps the Israelis are merely inspired by and trying to emulate the actions of their parent state in Iraq. This is all a dangerous and foreboding trend, and one hopes for some honest coverage by the mainstream American media about the issue before uniformed tacit support for violent foreign policy once again leads to the deaths of American troops.
by Nathan Jaco on Saturday, 07/22/06 @ 05:46 AM | Edit post | Avg Rating: -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments

Hezbollah Are Terrorists!

Make no mistake, Hezbollah has been and is a terrorist organization. If the ACLU was responsible for our nation's defense, they would be one as well. The Lebanese government, for whatever reason, is incapable of defending their own country from Israel, Hezbollah, or any other attacking force. The fact that they use Hezbollah for their national defense does not make them okay...it makes them hostages to the will of Hezbollah and extremist factions.

In your article above, you said, "So, why does the US not recognize Hezbollah's right to defense. Perhaps it is because the US State Department has identified Hezbollah under the highly nebulous and arbitrary label of "terrorist group."

Since when does any non-nation have a right to defend itself? They use terror to control the Lebanese government, and are dedicated to the extinction of the Jewish people. They have not and never will ahve a right to self-defense when they carry out military actions against nations. As long as Hezbollah is not part of the Lebanese army (under Lebanese Government control), they do not have rights to self-defense.

If DFA were a military force and attacked Mexico because we insist we represent the government, what would that make us? Terrorists. Hezbollah as a political entity in Lebanon is one thing...a separate military power is another, entirely. Attacking Hezbollah instead of the Lebanese Army is supporting a Lebanese democracy, free of external military forces. 20% government participation does not represent the Lebanese people.

You also quoted, "In most of the world, it's regarded as a sick joke, certainly in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where the facts are not concealed."

Since when are facts not concealed in any governmental system? This is a ridiculous statement. I respect Noam Chomsky, but these quotes from him sound completely out of context.
by David Reiter on Tuesday, 07/25/06 @ 09:46 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________

I am very surprised to read a post like this on a progressive group's website. These sound like the kinds of arguments I get from my conservative acquaintances. I actually expect this though, there are certain systemically implicit things that one just cannot criticize in American society without invoking opposition even in a progressive group, and Israel is one of them. The problem you are having, to use a cliche, is that you are thinking inside the box, a very recently constructed box from a historical perspective. America's standing military and the centralization that went along with it is, in fact, new, it was established after WWII. While the US was developing, there were militia-type minor organizations that were tolerated by the US government because we, as a republic, did not have a standing army. This centralization of military and government authority was a product of our development as an industrialized nation and it is now the way we think of "legitimate" military forces, but that is only a matter of perspective. The fact that Hezbollah is a major political party in Lebanon with a military capability, that it naturally utilizes in ways that aren't repudiated by the other power arrangements in the government, essentially legitimizes Hezbollah's activities from the perspective of the Lebanese government. They simply don't have the degree of sophistication we have in their military powers, and that is to be expected since Britain and the US have been mismanaging and interferring with the Palestinians since 1917, with the Balfour Declaration under the Mandates System. The one highly inexplicable thing (though it is tangential) is the sort of implicit ideological connection you attempt to draw between terrorist organizations and the ACLU. I am highly surprised that a a member of the DFA would be so inclined. Furthermore, I assure you that I did not take Dr. Chomsky's words out of context, especially since he has been a member of the Anti-Zionist movement since he was a college student. I would suggest that you review some of his work if you are unsure. I have met with a great degree of intellectual resistance from many people on the issue of Anti-Zionism and that just serves to demonstrate how far to the right political dialogue in this country has shifted. Even amongst highly progressive groups there is a stark differential in attitudes about neoliberal imperialist foreign policy as it relates to our favorite client state.