I have tried to take excerpts from what I hope may be considered a "neutral source" - this being the WikiPedia files on Lebanon and the various groups that have been engaged in the fighting there.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
For example:
"The continued existence of Hezbollah's military wing after 1990 violates the Taif Agreement that ended the Lebanese civil war, which requires the "disbanding of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias" and requires the government to "deploy the Lebanese army in the border area adjacent to Israel." The Lebanese government did not try to disarm the Hezbollah during the 1990-2000 period, justifying its position by the fact that Hezbollah was a legitimate national resistance force, fighting for the liberation of the south, then occupied by Israel."Pete's Points:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#History
Is this information accurate? If so, then the continued existence of well armed Hezbollah group members is contrary to the agreement that ended the Civil War in Lebanon and its continued existence can be laid at the door of the current government!
"Hezbollah abducted three Israel Defense Forces soldiers during an October 2000 attack in Shebaa Farms, and sought to obtain the release of 14 Lebanese prisoners, some of whom had been held since 1978. On January 25, 2004, Hezbollah successfully negotiated an exchange of prisoners with Israel, through German mediators. The prisoner swap was carried out on January 29: 30 Lebanese and Arab prisoners, the remains of 60 Lebanese militants and civilians, 420 Palestinian prisoners, and maps showing Israeli mines in South Lebanon were exchanged for an Israeli businessman and army reserve colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum kidnapped in 2001 and the remains of the three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers mentioned above, who were killed either during the Hezbollah operation, or in its immediate aftermath."Pete's Points:
If true, this information would suggested that crossing the Israeli border to abduct Israeli soldiers is not something that Hezbollah undertook for the first time just recently. Thus it is interesting to consider why the Israelis took a different course of action this time than the one that they took last time.
"The civilian wing participates in the Parliament of Lebanon, taking 18% of the seats (23 out of 128) and the bloc it forms with others, the "Resistance and Development Bloc", 27.3% (see Lebanese general election, 2005). It is a minority partner in the current Cabinet.Pete's Points:
If this information is true, then it is interesting to ask who is running the country of Lebanon? Is it the 27.3% of the Lebanese parliament or the majority remainder of the people elected by the people in the Lebanese general election last year?
The civilian wing also runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Its Reconstruction Campaign (Jihad al-Bina) is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructural development projects in Lebanon."Pete's Points:
If this information is true, then it is interesting to contemplate whether the infrastructure which has been bombed to smithereens by the Israelis, and has been referred to by them as "Hezbollah infrastructure" and by others as "Civilian infrastructure" cannot be both at the same time.
On September 2, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1559, coauthored by France and the United States. Echoing the Taif Agreement, the resolution "calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias." Lebanon is currently in violation of Resolution 1559 over its refusal to disband the military wing of Hezbollah.Pete's Points:
On October 7, 2004 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council regarding the lack of compliance with Resolution 1559. Mr. Annan concluded his report by saying: "It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past. The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history."
The January 20, 2005 UN Secretary-General's report on Lebanon stated that "The continually asserted position of the Government of Lebanon that the Blue Line is not valid in the Shab'a farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions. The Council has recognized the Blue Line as valid for purposes of confirming IsraelÂ’s withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425 (1978). The UN Security Council has repeatedly requested that all parties respect the Blue Line in its entirety.
On January 28, 2005 UN Security Council Resolution 1583 called upon the Government of Lebanon to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south, including through the deployment of sufficient numbers of Lebanese armed and security forces, to ensure a calm environment throughout the area, including along the Blue Line, and to exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it.
On January 23, 2006 the UN Security Council called on the Government of Lebanon to make more progress in controlling its territory and disbanding militias, while also calling on Syria to cooperate with those efforts. In a statement read out by its January President, Augustine Mahiga of Tanzania, the Council also called on Syria to take measures to stop movements of arms and personnel into Lebanon.
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has stated that the government considers Hezbollah arms to be a domestic affair and that stated policy should reassure Hezbollah that the government will protect its military wing. Hezbollah was trying to convince the government to clearly state that the Shiite group's military wing was a resistance group, not a militia, and therefore did not have to comply with the resolution.
Druze leader MP Walid Jumblatt has repeatedly insisted that he objects to the disarmament of Hizbullah, according to the international resolution, describing the party as a "resistance group" and not a militia. He engaged in an electoral alliance with Hizbullah during last year's parliamentary election, with one of the titles of the alliance being "the protection of the resistance," but is now calling on Hizbullah to be integrated into the Lebanese Army and hand in its weapons over to the government."
If true, these quotes seem to indicate some explicit cooperation by senior members of the Lebanese government in supporting and maintaining the armed wing of Hezbollah in spite of numerous UN resolutions and the use of different language to justify this stance. It is interesting to note that the same people are now calling on the UN to broker a cease fire and it is even more interesting that Israel is not paying any heed to this call, but has not stated explicitly that since one side can get away with ignoring the UN so can the other.
In December 2001 three Hezbollah operatives were caught in Jordan while attempting to bring BM-13 Katyusha rockets into the West Bank. Syed Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of Hezbollah, responded that "It is every freedom loving peoples right and duty against occupation to send arms to Palestinians from any possible place."Pete's Points:
If true, then this quote seems to indicate what Hezbollah intends.
It is interesting to note that the Palestinian authority actually complained about the Hezbollah as set out in the following quote:
In February 2005 the Palestinian Authority accused Hezbollah of attempting to derail the truce signed with Israel. Palestinian officials and former militants described how Hezbollah promised an increase in funding for any occupation resistance group able to carry out an attack on Israeli military targets.If one then looks at the relevant WikiPedia page to see the weapons that Hezbollah actually has in its arsenal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hezbollahsmissiles.png#file
it may be possible to understand why the Israelis have finally had enough of the 'freedom loving people' on their northern border.
I am still of the view that the killing of civilians is inappropriate and to be condemned by all. I am still of the view that what is happening in the middle east is a tragedy for all.
However I am asking a few more questions about what is propaganda, what is disinformation and what are the facts in the reportage that seems to come down to us via the free to air press in this country.
My advice to my readers is for them to be as horrified as I am by the loss of innocent lives on both sides, but to ask some serious questions about whether all of the lives that are being lost on both sides are as innocent as they are made out to be in the press reports.
No comments:
Post a Comment