Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy.
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
.
August 14, 2006
SouthAmerica: Regarding the Israel/Hexbollah cease-fire my educated guess is that they donât have a chance in hell about implementing the latest UN resolution.
Hezbollah is alive and well and their status in the Arab world is very high. From their point of view Lebanon has already been destroyed. If the fighting continues it is bad publicity to Israel and to the United States since people from around the world is watching on television Israel annihilated Lebanon and destroy the entire countryâs infrastructure and kill a lot of civilians.
The only thing that Israel can do from now on is to keep killing more and more Lebanese civilians for the entire world to watch. That is not the kind of tough guy publicity you want the world to see it.
I guess when the cease-fire goes into effect the members of the Lebanese military can come out from under their beds. It is safe for a little while until Israel starts the bombings all over again.
In my opinion the Lebanese army is not worth even to mention about â what kind of army does nothing to defend its people when your country is being turned into rubbles? The Lebanese army is an embarrassment by any reasonable measure. And these cowards are not going to disarm anyone and never mind a superior fighting force such as Hezbollah.
When Israel started dropping bombs all over Lebanon â if the Lebanese army was worth anything they would have started fighting against the people who were attacking their country.
In my opinion, there is no excuse for the Lebanese army to play dead until now. I would not trust the people in charge of such army. The Lebanese people will be in better shape in the long run if they trust Hezbollah at least you know that they will fight to their death to defend their country.
The Lebanese people should be ashamed of their armed forces that were nowhere to be seen when the bombs started falling all over Lebanon.
Who needs an army like that?
I donât know if the cease-fire will be able to last even a few hours never mind a few days â but I am sure the cease-fire will not last that long.
It is clear that the Israeli army is having a lot of trouble fighting against Hezbollah. The longer Herbollah can hang on against the Israeli army â the more discredited the Israeli army will become in the eyes of the Arab world. Basically, Hezbollah is showing to the rest of the Arab world the best way to fight against the Israeli army. Even tough the Israeli army is superior in numbers, in armaments and everything else - they are having a terrible time fighting against a small group of Hezbollah fighters.
Hezbollah has broken another myth: that the Israeli army is one of the best in the world. A picture is worth a thousand words.
No one on any television news here in the US has made a case as yet of why Hezbollah should stop fighting right now? They are creating havoc in Israel and the Isareli soldiers know they are fighting the ultimate warrior â the one that is not afraid to die â and if he dies he is accomplishing the greatest feat of his life.
That kind of warrior can be âVery Scaryâ to the best armies in the world when these armies have soldiers who expect to return home to their family and friends and go on with their lives â and they would do anything to survive the war to be able to go home.
.
August 14, 2006
SouthAmerica: Regarding the Israel/Hexbollah cease-fire my educated guess is that they donât have a chance in hell about implementing the latest UN resolution.
Hezbollah is alive and well and their status in the Arab world is very high. From their point of view Lebanon has already been destroyed. If the fighting continues it is bad publicity to Israel and to the United States since people from around the world is watching on television Israel annihilated Lebanon and destroy the entire countryâs infrastructure and kill a lot of civilians.
The only thing that Israel can do from now on is to keep killing more and more Lebanese civilians for the entire world to watch. That is not the kind of tough guy publicity you want the world to see it.
I guess when the cease-fire goes into effect the members of the Lebanese military can come out from under their beds. It is safe for a little while until Israel starts the bombings all over again.
In my opinion the Lebanese army is not worth even to mention about â what kind of army does nothing to defend its people when your country is being turned into rubbles? The Lebanese army is an embarrassment by any reasonable measure. And these cowards are not going to disarm anyone and never mind a superior fighting force such as Hezbollah.
When Israel started dropping bombs all over Lebanon â if the Lebanese army was worth anything they would have started fighting against the people who were attacking their country.
In my opinion, there is no excuse for the Lebanese army to play dead until now. I would not trust the people in charge of such army. The Lebanese people will be in better shape in the long run if they trust Hezbollah at least you know that they will fight to their death to defend their country.
The Lebanese people should be ashamed of their armed forces that were nowhere to be seen when the bombs started falling all over Lebanon.
Who needs an army like that?
I donât know if the cease-fire will be able to last even a few hours never mind a few days â but I am sure the cease-fire will not last that long.
It is clear that the Israeli army is having a lot of trouble fighting against Hezbollah. The longer Herbollah can hang on against the Israeli army â the more discredited the Israeli army will become in the eyes of the Arab world. Basically, Hezbollah is showing to the rest of the Arab world the best way to fight against the Israeli army. Even tough the Israeli army is superior in numbers, in armaments and everything else - they are having a terrible time fighting against a small group of Hezbollah fighters.
Hezbollah has broken another myth: that the Israeli army is one of the best in the world. A picture is worth a thousand words.
No one on any television news here in the US has made a case as yet of why Hezbollah should stop fighting right now? They are creating havoc in Israel and the Isareli soldiers know they are fighting the ultimate warrior â the one that is not afraid to die â and if he dies he is accomplishing the greatest feat of his life.
That kind of warrior can be âVery Scaryâ to the best armies in the world when these armies have soldiers who expect to return home to their family and friends and go on with their lives â and they would do anything to survive the war to be able to go home.
.
funny, other than another wacko impotent US senator speechifying around to monkeys like u guys with this story there doesn't seem to be any solid historical evidence of that story... another conspiracy i guess
besides, why waste a good pig? dropping / bleeding guys like u over the average muslim terrorist shld do the trick fairly well AFAIAC
isn't that what the viets did to u guys??dude, go wank yrself with holmes if u must...
nobody's afraid of hezbollah... its nothing new that guerilla tactics can do a lot of damage, remember vietnam? isreal can take care of that shit by wiping out lebanon... believe or not, they are actually exercising restraint at the mo', trying to blow up only what they judge is necessary... seems they have misjudged a bit or are somehow bowing a bit to the international pressure, but rest assured they'll finish the job, and nasrallah doesn't have to many xmases ahead of him... another thing, agree there is no lebanese army, but lets see what happens when the UN forces step in... yeah i know, past experience blah blah blah... just wait and see
enough of that shit for me... ciao all
.
August 15, 2006
SouthAmerica: "Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said.
I guess, when âHezbollah fired 250 rockets into Israelâ on the last day before they started the cease-fire â It seems to me that is a very convince type of propaganda for anyone.
Israel was the winner on this conflict in the same way that the United States is winning in the Iraq war â just on the head of a bunch of fools â people who donât have a capability to think about anything.
The war was Israel against Hezbollah. As far as I know Hezbollah was firing missiles at will into Israel up to the last minute before they started the cease-fire. The Hezbollah freedom fighters are everywhere and they Israel had a real hard time handling the Hezbollah fighters, and after 34 days of a nasty campaign against Lebanon â Hezbollah, still armed, still ready to go for more war against Israel and if they want they still can fire missiles at will into Israel.
Israel still has not recovered their 2 soldiers, which was the reason for them to go after Hezbollah. And Israel was not able to secure the portion of Lebanon that they said they were going to do it.
Whatâs the basis for George Bush to claim that Israel destroyed Hezbollah?
The facts donât agree with the perception that George Bush has of that war. Thatâs true he also thinks that the United States is winning and has everything under control in Iraq.
That guy is in La La Landâ¦â¦â¦..
Sure, Israel won a war against the Lebanese people. Israel destroyed their countriesâ entire infrastructure, and the Lebanese army did not even made an effort to defend their country against the Israeli aggression.
It is easy to drop bombs from airplanes on people who donât have the capability to fight back. That is not much of a victory. Any fool can do that.
But when you consider the war between Israel and Hezbollah, then it is a different story even tough the Israelis are armed with superior weapons.
If you canât see all of that then go back to your world of illusions.
*****************
âBush says Israel defeated Hezbollahâ
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
AP â Associated Press
August 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.
Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.
The United States backed Israel in the war, and Bush made clear he was determined to help the Israelis in the post-fighting struggle of words about who wound up on top.
The president portrayed the war, which killed about 790 Lebanese and 155 Israelis, as part of a broader struggle between freedom and terrorism. He said one can only imagine how much more dangerous such a conflict would be if Iran possessed nuclear weapons.
Bush said Hezbollah lost, though Israel didn't knock out the guerrillas.
Israel's prime minister and Bush said the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, however, declared that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" over Israel.
"Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said.
"But how can you claim victory when, at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force?"
On Bush's first day back from vacation, his motorcade traveled between the White House and State and Defense departments for meetings on transforming the U.S. military, on homeland security and on the warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sectarian violence has surged in Iraq and created what some consider the greatest threat to stability there since Saddam Hussein's government was toppled three years ago. Meanwhile, efforts to get North Korea and Iran to restrict their nuclear ambitions remained stalled.
"We live in troubled times, but I'm confident in our capacity to not only protect the homeland, but I'm confident in our capacity to leave behind a better world," Bush said at a meeting at the Pentagon where he sat between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
*****************
âHezbollah fires 250 rockets into Israelâ
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer
AP â Associated Press
Sunday, August 13, 2006
JERUSALEM - Hezbollah fired more than 250 rockets into Israel on Sunday, the fiercest attack against northern Israel since the fighting began more than a month ago, the Israeli army reported. One Israeli man was killed.
After a stormy debate Sunday, Israel's Cabinet approved a Mideast cease-fire, agreeing to silence the army's guns in less than 24 hours. The Israeli military and Hezbollah both embarked on a last-minute barrage, trying to inflict as much damage as possible before the cease-fire began.
Israeli warplanes ranged across south Lebanon, rocketing south Beirut and other areas with 23 missiles that killed at least 15 people.
⦠The Cabinet session was overshadowed by rising Israeli casualties. Twenty-four soldiers were killed Saturday and at least 73 wounded.
Hezbollah appeared to be fighting as fiercely as ever. The guerrillas shot down an Israeli helicopter, a first in the war, and killed five crew members.
Other troops were killed by Hezbollah anti-tank missiles. The army said it killed more than 50 Hezbollah fighters. The guerrillas reported three deaths but gave no date.
The violence has claimed more than 900 lives: at least 763 in Lebanon â mostly civilians_ and 147 Israelis, including 109 soldiers. On Saturday, 19 Lebanese civilians were killed in Israeli air raids.
.
August 15, 2006
SouthAmerica: "Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said.
I guess, when âHezbollah fired 250 rockets into Israelâ on the last day before they started the cease-fire â It seems to me that is a very convince type of propaganda for anyone.
Israel was the winner on this conflict in the same way that the United States is winning in the Iraq war â just on the head of a bunch of fools â people who donât have a capability to think about anything.
The war was Israel against Hezbollah. As far as I know Hezbollah was firing missiles at will into Israel up to the last minute before they started the cease-fire. The Hezbollah freedom fighters are everywhere and they Israel had a real hard time handling the Hezbollah fighters, and after 34 days of a nasty campaign against Lebanon â Hezbollah, still armed, still ready to go for more war against Israel and if they want they still can fire missiles at will into Israel.
Israel still has not recovered their 2 soldiers, which was the reason for them to go after Hezbollah. And Israel was not able to secure the portion of Lebanon that they said they were going to do it.
Whatâs the basis for George Bush to claim that Israel destroyed Hezbollah?
The facts donât agree with the perception that George Bush has of that war. Thatâs true he also thinks that the United States is winning and has everything under control in Iraq.
That guy is in La La Landâ¦â¦â¦..
Sure, Israel won a war against the Lebanese people. Israel destroyed their countriesâ entire infrastructure, and the Lebanese army did not even made an effort to defend their country against the Israeli aggression.
It is easy to drop bombs from airplanes on people who donât have the capability to fight back. That is not much of a victory. Any fool can do that.
But when you consider the war between Israel and Hezbollah, then it is a different story even tough the Israelis are armed with superior weapons.
If you canât see all of that then go back to your world of illusions.
*****************
âBush says Israel defeated Hezbollahâ
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
AP â Associated Press
August 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.
Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.
"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.
The United States backed Israel in the war, and Bush made clear he was determined to help the Israelis in the post-fighting struggle of words about who wound up on top.
The president portrayed the war, which killed about 790 Lebanese and 155 Israelis, as part of a broader struggle between freedom and terrorism. He said one can only imagine how much more dangerous such a conflict would be if Iran possessed nuclear weapons.
Bush said Hezbollah lost, though Israel didn't knock out the guerrillas.
Israel's prime minister and Bush said the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, however, declared that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" over Israel.
"Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said.
"But how can you claim victory when, at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force?"
On Bush's first day back from vacation, his motorcade traveled between the White House and State and Defense departments for meetings on transforming the U.S. military, on homeland security and on the warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sectarian violence has surged in Iraq and created what some consider the greatest threat to stability there since Saddam Hussein's government was toppled three years ago. Meanwhile, efforts to get North Korea and Iran to restrict their nuclear ambitions remained stalled.
"We live in troubled times, but I'm confident in our capacity to not only protect the homeland, but I'm confident in our capacity to leave behind a better world," Bush said at a meeting at the Pentagon where he sat between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
*****************
âHezbollah fires 250 rockets into Israelâ
By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer
AP â Associated Press
Sunday, August 13, 2006
JERUSALEM - Hezbollah fired more than 250 rockets into Israel on Sunday, the fiercest attack against northern Israel since the fighting began more than a month ago, the Israeli army reported. One Israeli man was killed.
After a stormy debate Sunday, Israel's Cabinet approved a Mideast cease-fire, agreeing to silence the army's guns in less than 24 hours. The Israeli military and Hezbollah both embarked on a last-minute barrage, trying to inflict as much damage as possible before the cease-fire began.
Israeli warplanes ranged across south Lebanon, rocketing south Beirut and other areas with 23 missiles that killed at least 15 people.
⦠The Cabinet session was overshadowed by rising Israeli casualties. Twenty-four soldiers were killed Saturday and at least 73 wounded.
Hezbollah appeared to be fighting as fiercely as ever. The guerrillas shot down an Israeli helicopter, a first in the war, and killed five crew members.
Other troops were killed by Hezbollah anti-tank missiles. The army said it killed more than 50 Hezbollah fighters. The guerrillas reported three deaths but gave no date.
The violence has claimed more than 900 lives: at least 763 in Lebanon â mostly civilians_ and 147 Israelis, including 109 soldiers. On Saturday, 19 Lebanese civilians were killed in Israeli air raids.
.
.
August 16, 2006
SouthAmerica: A Folha de Sao Paulo published an article on August 16, 2006 about the official visit that the Brazilian Secretary of State Celso Amorim made on Tuesday to Beirut, Lebanon.
He said that Brazil is willing to help Lebanon with humanitarian help, but not with soldiers.
â¦Amorim said that Brazil condemn the kidnapping of two soldiers of Israel by Hezbollah. But Brazil condemn with more intensity the reaction that Israel had to the actions of the Shiite groupâ¦..
*******************
âAmorim promete solidariedade ao LÃbanoâ
PAULO CABRAL - da BBC Brasil, em Beirute
A Folha de Sao Paulo â August 16, 2006
O ministro de Relações Exteriores, Celso Amorim, prometeu solidariedade ao LÃbano e toda a ajuda possÃvel para promover a paz no Oriente Médio na visita oficial de um dia que fez nesta terça-feira a Beirute.
"O Brasil não tem nenhuma expectativa de ser o (principal) mediador de uma crise desta natureza. Agora achamos que por nossa experiência, mesmo internamente no Brasil, em resolver pacificamente as questões entre as comunidades, a gente tem condições de ajudar neste sentido", disse Amorim.
Mas nas três ocasiões em que falou com a imprensa depois dos encontros com as autoridades, a mesma pergunta se repetiu dos jornalistas locais.
Queriam saber se o Brasil vai enviar soldados para ampliação das Forças da ONU no LÃbano que terão, junto com o exército nacional, a função de patrulhar o sul do paÃs e desarmar o Hezbollah, de acordo com a resolução aprovada pelo Conselho de Segurança da ONU.
"Não estamos discutindo esta possibilidade no Brasil. Há várias maneiras de auxiliar e nós devemos nos concentrar em ajuda humanitária. Acreditamos que há militares (de outros paÃses) com experiência e disposição para assumir agora este papel", disse o ministro.
Camisas e Bandeiras
O chanceler Celso Amorim chegou pela manhã ao aeroporto de Beirute em um avião militar C 130, da Força Aérea Brasileira, um modelo com condições de pousar na pista danificada pelos bombardeios de Israel.
Amorim foi recebido pelo ministro de Relações Exteriores do LÃbano, Fawze Sallukh, que o levou para um passeio de carro por umas das áreas mais destruÃdas de Beirute, o subúrbio xiita de Dahye.
"Vi várias pessoas vestindo camisetas do Brasil nas ruas, o que me deu mais uma prova da profunda ligação dos nossos paÃses. Mas também vi em meio aos escombros camisetas e bandeiras do Brasil, o que me trouxe um momento de tristeza e choque", disse Amorim ao fazer declarações ao lado de Salukh após a visita.
O ministro libanês disse que o apoio do Brasil é importante porque o paÃs tem canais abertos de diálogo com diversos paÃses envolvidos neste conflito.
"O Brasil é mais do que uma nação amiga. à uma nação irmã e o apoio do Brasil é sem dúvida importante e muito valorizado", disse Sallukh.
O ministro Celso Amorim manteve encontros também com o presidente da república Emile Lahoud; com o primeiro-ministro Fuad Siniora; e com o presidente do Parlamento, Nabih Berri.
Israel
Amorim disse que o Brasil condena o "seqüestro" de dois soldados israelenses pelo Hezbollah mas que "condena com mais veemência" a reação israelense à ação do grupo xiita.
"Essa é nossa opinião e não podemos deixar de dá-la", disse Amorim.
Mas o ministro afirmou que o Brasil continua em bons termos com os israelenses e que, em breve, o enviado especial do Itamaraty para o Oriente Médio, embaixador Affonso Celso de Ouro-Preto, vai fazer uma visita ao paÃs.
"O Brasil é amigo de Israel e é amigo do LÃbano e dos outros paÃses árabes. O que nós condenamos são ações e não paÃses", disse.
O ministro diz que o Brasil acredita que a solução para o conflito entre Israel e o LÃbano depende de um plano de paz mais amplo para todo o Oriente Médio.
"Sem discutir a questão palestina não há como resolver a crise entre Israel e LÃbano. O Brasil apóia e sempre apoiou a existência do Estado de Israel mas também apóia a criação de um Estado para os palestinos em um território viável", disse.
.
August 16, 2006
SouthAmerica: A Folha de Sao Paulo published an article on August 16, 2006 about the official visit that the Brazilian Secretary of State Celso Amorim made on Tuesday to Beirut, Lebanon.
He said that Brazil is willing to help Lebanon with humanitarian help, but not with soldiers.
â¦Amorim said that Brazil condemn the kidnapping of two soldiers of Israel by Hezbollah. But Brazil condemn with more intensity the reaction that Israel had to the actions of the Shiite groupâ¦..
*******************
âAmorim promete solidariedade ao LÃbanoâ
PAULO CABRAL - da BBC Brasil, em Beirute
A Folha de Sao Paulo â August 16, 2006
O ministro de Relações Exteriores, Celso Amorim, prometeu solidariedade ao LÃbano e toda a ajuda possÃvel para promover a paz no Oriente Médio na visita oficial de um dia que fez nesta terça-feira a Beirute.
"O Brasil não tem nenhuma expectativa de ser o (principal) mediador de uma crise desta natureza. Agora achamos que por nossa experiência, mesmo internamente no Brasil, em resolver pacificamente as questões entre as comunidades, a gente tem condições de ajudar neste sentido", disse Amorim.
Mas nas três ocasiões em que falou com a imprensa depois dos encontros com as autoridades, a mesma pergunta se repetiu dos jornalistas locais.
Queriam saber se o Brasil vai enviar soldados para ampliação das Forças da ONU no LÃbano que terão, junto com o exército nacional, a função de patrulhar o sul do paÃs e desarmar o Hezbollah, de acordo com a resolução aprovada pelo Conselho de Segurança da ONU.
"Não estamos discutindo esta possibilidade no Brasil. Há várias maneiras de auxiliar e nós devemos nos concentrar em ajuda humanitária. Acreditamos que há militares (de outros paÃses) com experiência e disposição para assumir agora este papel", disse o ministro.
Camisas e Bandeiras
O chanceler Celso Amorim chegou pela manhã ao aeroporto de Beirute em um avião militar C 130, da Força Aérea Brasileira, um modelo com condições de pousar na pista danificada pelos bombardeios de Israel.
Amorim foi recebido pelo ministro de Relações Exteriores do LÃbano, Fawze Sallukh, que o levou para um passeio de carro por umas das áreas mais destruÃdas de Beirute, o subúrbio xiita de Dahye.
"Vi várias pessoas vestindo camisetas do Brasil nas ruas, o que me deu mais uma prova da profunda ligação dos nossos paÃses. Mas também vi em meio aos escombros camisetas e bandeiras do Brasil, o que me trouxe um momento de tristeza e choque", disse Amorim ao fazer declarações ao lado de Salukh após a visita.
O ministro libanês disse que o apoio do Brasil é importante porque o paÃs tem canais abertos de diálogo com diversos paÃses envolvidos neste conflito.
"O Brasil é mais do que uma nação amiga. à uma nação irmã e o apoio do Brasil é sem dúvida importante e muito valorizado", disse Sallukh.
O ministro Celso Amorim manteve encontros também com o presidente da república Emile Lahoud; com o primeiro-ministro Fuad Siniora; e com o presidente do Parlamento, Nabih Berri.
Israel
Amorim disse que o Brasil condena o "seqüestro" de dois soldados israelenses pelo Hezbollah mas que "condena com mais veemência" a reação israelense à ação do grupo xiita.
"Essa é nossa opinião e não podemos deixar de dá-la", disse Amorim.
Mas o ministro afirmou que o Brasil continua em bons termos com os israelenses e que, em breve, o enviado especial do Itamaraty para o Oriente Médio, embaixador Affonso Celso de Ouro-Preto, vai fazer uma visita ao paÃs.
"O Brasil é amigo de Israel e é amigo do LÃbano e dos outros paÃses árabes. O que nós condenamos são ações e não paÃses", disse.
O ministro diz que o Brasil acredita que a solução para o conflito entre Israel e o LÃbano depende de um plano de paz mais amplo para todo o Oriente Médio.
"Sem discutir a questão palestina não há como resolver a crise entre Israel e LÃbano. O Brasil apóia e sempre apoiou a existência do Estado de Israel mas também apóia a criação de um Estado para os palestinos em um território viável", disse.
.
.
August 17, 2006
SouthAmerica: Today when I was reading the cover story âLost in the Middle Eastâ on the latest issue of âThe Economistâ â I noticed the following that the article said: ââ¦Note first that America is by no means as powerful as its friends and enemies think.â
The cover of the magazine gives a summary in a nutshell of what is happening to the US in the Middle East. You can see the cover at:
http://www.economist.com/index.html
************************
Hapaboy: Yay, Brazil to the rescue!!
ROLFMAO!
********************
SouthAmerica: I guess the Brazilians are not suckers.
What a government is going to say to its soldiers to send them to that trap?
Maybe this is a perfect chance for these governments to get rid of people that they donât like.
Here I have a nice assignment for you â You are going to be stationed right in the middle of two countries that are going to shoot at you ass and chances are many of you are going to get killed.
It is a lose, lose situation.
Good luck, and do your best to stay alive.
.
August 17, 2006
SouthAmerica: Today when I was reading the cover story âLost in the Middle Eastâ on the latest issue of âThe Economistâ â I noticed the following that the article said: ââ¦Note first that America is by no means as powerful as its friends and enemies think.â
The cover of the magazine gives a summary in a nutshell of what is happening to the US in the Middle East. You can see the cover at:
http://www.economist.com/index.html
************************
Hapaboy: Yay, Brazil to the rescue!!
ROLFMAO!
********************
SouthAmerica: I guess the Brazilians are not suckers.
What a government is going to say to its soldiers to send them to that trap?
Maybe this is a perfect chance for these governments to get rid of people that they donât like.
Here I have a nice assignment for you â You are going to be stationed right in the middle of two countries that are going to shoot at you ass and chances are many of you are going to get killed.
It is a lose, lose situation.
Good luck, and do your best to stay alive.
.
.
August 18, 2006
SouthAmerica: The current mess in the Middle East is happening with the compliments of George W. Bush and the Republican neo-cons.
The Financial Times article said: âClearly the Iranians were the real winners of the Lebanon conflict and will maintain their upper hand as long as Hizbollah is seen as a legitimate champion of the Arab cause, and not as part of the Shia crescent.â
George W. Bush and Dickhead Cheney are completely confused about what is going on in the Middle East. Here is why: They probably watch Fox News on a regular basis.
During a commercial on another station I tuned to Fox News to check what kind of misinformation they were giving to their viewers. They were showing a bunch of Iraqi soldiers raiding someoneâs house in the middle of the night â they claim that they were insurgents and that they had all kinds of weapons with them at home.
If you are watching Fox News you think that the Iraq war is under control and everything is going the US way. I wonder what kind of people believe in that type of propaganda it is so obvious that you have to be really a simple minded person if you canât figure it out.
**********************
âHizbollah has redrawn the Middle Eastâ
Published: August 18 2006
The Financial Times - UK
The perceived victory of Hizbollah in Lebanon may be short term but has highlighted some new and important developments. For the first time, the Israel Defence Forces were unable to prevail in an all-out war. More significantly, the winner this time is a Shia Muslim, non-state, armed movement supported by Syria and Iran. In Israelâs previous wars, from 1948 to 1982, the challengers were Sunni Arabs.
In fact, Israelâs effort this time to eradicate Hizbollah was no remake of past Israeli-Arab wars. It signified several complex â and seemingly contradictory â trends in the Middle East. First is the revival of a radical Islamic front that rejects the Arab-Israeli peace process. Second is the growing divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims in the Gulf region. Finally there is the changed political dynamic after the recent entry by radical Islamist movements â such as Hizbollah and Hamas â to mainstream electoral politics.
The alignment between Hizbollah, Syria and Iran in a radical front against a peace settlement with Israel promotes anti-US and Arab nationalist mottoes more than any Islamic ideology could do. The Sunni âArab streetâ has embraced Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollahâs leader, as the new Arab hero, the âNasser of our timeâ. But Mr Nasrallahâs elevation also works partly to lessen the appeal of Osama bin Laden in the Arab Middle East.
That this radical front is led by Shia or secular Shia (as in Syria) is also significant. Since the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003, Sunni Arab conservative regimes in the Gulf and Jordan have been concerned not with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but what they saw as a growing Shia âcrescentâ, bringing under Iranian patronage oil fields north of the Gulf (Iraq, Bahrain and the Saudi north-east). Saudi Wahabi clerics had issued fatwa, or religious edicts, condemning the Shia as heretics. But they and the Sunni clerics were forced to retreat after Hizbollahâs perceived victory. The same clerics who earlier condemned the Shia have issued new fatwa supporting Hizbollah in its fight with Israel. On the government level, the deafening silence from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia after the Lebanon ceasefire is a clear sign of embarrassment after their earlier hostility to Hizbollahâs actions.
On the other hand, Iran and Syria have been quick to claim victory for themselves, too. Syria wants to regain its influence in Lebanon and is quite happy to see Israel destroying an already weak central state â as long as Israel does not retaliate inside Syria.
But, paradoxically, Damascus is protected by its own weakness: a collapse of the regime would sooner or later put the Muslim Brotherhood radical Islamist movement in charge and, even if it is more moderate than its Egyptian or Jordanian cousins, neither Israel nor the west wishes to give any more opportunities to Islamist parties.
The Iranians are taking revenge for their defeat at Iraqâs hands back in 1988, when Arab Sunni nationalist and Islamist movements supported Iraq against Iran, and only part of the Shia population supported Iran (hence Tehranâs desire to help create Hizbollah as a client party from the Shia movement in Lebanon). Iran has never been able to unite the Shia under its patronage on a religious basis nor a purely political one. Now Tehran is playing the âArab streetâ and undermining the legitimacy of the ruling Arab regimes by leading this new alliance of Islamism and Arab nationalism in the near east. In Iraq, however, the same alliance works against Iran. Hence Iranâs leadership of the new radical front will not necessarily help bridge the Shia-Sunni gap in Iraq.
Besides settling their account with Arab regimes, the Iranians are managing a conflict by proxies against the west.
Tehran wants to avoid a possible military strike on its nuclear facilities and in this respect welcomes western anxiety about the high costs of military intervention. Cleverly, Iran has adopted a low profile on its borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing that time is working in its favour, while fuelling the crisis in the near east. To have European troops stuck in southern Lebanon, hostage to any escalation of tensions between Tehran and the United Nations Security Council on sanctions, suits Tehran well.
Clearly the Iranians were the real winners of the Lebanon conflict and will maintain their upper hand as long as Hizbollah is seen as a legitimate champion of the Arab cause, and not as part of the Shia crescent.
The key issue now is Hizbollah, which is positioning itself on three levels: first, it is signalling Shia solidarity with Iran. Second, it is appealing to Lebanese nationalism by presenting itself as a pivotal element in Lebanese domestic politics. Third, it is fomenting Arab militancy against Israel and the US.
Hizbollah triggered the conflict with Israel as an internationalist movement eager to relieve pressure on Hamas.
But Mr Nasrallahâs recent âvictory speechâ portrayed the organisation as the champion of Lebanese interests and nationalism. Hizbollah will not be disarmed or marginalised; the only way to deal with it is to push for a new Lebanese polity in which it plays a central role, as a Lebanese party.
If the west wishes to counter the synergy between Arab nationalism, Sunni militancy and the Shia crescent, which will link battlefields from Afghanistan to Lebanon, it must draw Islamist movements such as Hamas and Hizbollah further into the mainstream. This means encouraging a proper settlement in Lebanon involving all Lebanese actors without interference from Syria or Iran; supporting democratisation of Syria and negotiating with Hamas. It also means Israel must renounce its policy of âbunkerisationâ, withdrawing behind a fortified border and hammering at any perceived threat.
The writer, a professor at Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, is author of Globalised Islam (Hurst 2004)
.
August 18, 2006
SouthAmerica: The current mess in the Middle East is happening with the compliments of George W. Bush and the Republican neo-cons.
The Financial Times article said: âClearly the Iranians were the real winners of the Lebanon conflict and will maintain their upper hand as long as Hizbollah is seen as a legitimate champion of the Arab cause, and not as part of the Shia crescent.â
George W. Bush and Dickhead Cheney are completely confused about what is going on in the Middle East. Here is why: They probably watch Fox News on a regular basis.
During a commercial on another station I tuned to Fox News to check what kind of misinformation they were giving to their viewers. They were showing a bunch of Iraqi soldiers raiding someoneâs house in the middle of the night â they claim that they were insurgents and that they had all kinds of weapons with them at home.
If you are watching Fox News you think that the Iraq war is under control and everything is going the US way. I wonder what kind of people believe in that type of propaganda it is so obvious that you have to be really a simple minded person if you canât figure it out.
**********************
âHizbollah has redrawn the Middle Eastâ
Published: August 18 2006
The Financial Times - UK
The perceived victory of Hizbollah in Lebanon may be short term but has highlighted some new and important developments. For the first time, the Israel Defence Forces were unable to prevail in an all-out war. More significantly, the winner this time is a Shia Muslim, non-state, armed movement supported by Syria and Iran. In Israelâs previous wars, from 1948 to 1982, the challengers were Sunni Arabs.
In fact, Israelâs effort this time to eradicate Hizbollah was no remake of past Israeli-Arab wars. It signified several complex â and seemingly contradictory â trends in the Middle East. First is the revival of a radical Islamic front that rejects the Arab-Israeli peace process. Second is the growing divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims in the Gulf region. Finally there is the changed political dynamic after the recent entry by radical Islamist movements â such as Hizbollah and Hamas â to mainstream electoral politics.
The alignment between Hizbollah, Syria and Iran in a radical front against a peace settlement with Israel promotes anti-US and Arab nationalist mottoes more than any Islamic ideology could do. The Sunni âArab streetâ has embraced Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollahâs leader, as the new Arab hero, the âNasser of our timeâ. But Mr Nasrallahâs elevation also works partly to lessen the appeal of Osama bin Laden in the Arab Middle East.
That this radical front is led by Shia or secular Shia (as in Syria) is also significant. Since the US military intervention in Iraq in 2003, Sunni Arab conservative regimes in the Gulf and Jordan have been concerned not with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but what they saw as a growing Shia âcrescentâ, bringing under Iranian patronage oil fields north of the Gulf (Iraq, Bahrain and the Saudi north-east). Saudi Wahabi clerics had issued fatwa, or religious edicts, condemning the Shia as heretics. But they and the Sunni clerics were forced to retreat after Hizbollahâs perceived victory. The same clerics who earlier condemned the Shia have issued new fatwa supporting Hizbollah in its fight with Israel. On the government level, the deafening silence from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia after the Lebanon ceasefire is a clear sign of embarrassment after their earlier hostility to Hizbollahâs actions.
On the other hand, Iran and Syria have been quick to claim victory for themselves, too. Syria wants to regain its influence in Lebanon and is quite happy to see Israel destroying an already weak central state â as long as Israel does not retaliate inside Syria.
But, paradoxically, Damascus is protected by its own weakness: a collapse of the regime would sooner or later put the Muslim Brotherhood radical Islamist movement in charge and, even if it is more moderate than its Egyptian or Jordanian cousins, neither Israel nor the west wishes to give any more opportunities to Islamist parties.
The Iranians are taking revenge for their defeat at Iraqâs hands back in 1988, when Arab Sunni nationalist and Islamist movements supported Iraq against Iran, and only part of the Shia population supported Iran (hence Tehranâs desire to help create Hizbollah as a client party from the Shia movement in Lebanon). Iran has never been able to unite the Shia under its patronage on a religious basis nor a purely political one. Now Tehran is playing the âArab streetâ and undermining the legitimacy of the ruling Arab regimes by leading this new alliance of Islamism and Arab nationalism in the near east. In Iraq, however, the same alliance works against Iran. Hence Iranâs leadership of the new radical front will not necessarily help bridge the Shia-Sunni gap in Iraq.
Besides settling their account with Arab regimes, the Iranians are managing a conflict by proxies against the west.
Tehran wants to avoid a possible military strike on its nuclear facilities and in this respect welcomes western anxiety about the high costs of military intervention. Cleverly, Iran has adopted a low profile on its borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing that time is working in its favour, while fuelling the crisis in the near east. To have European troops stuck in southern Lebanon, hostage to any escalation of tensions between Tehran and the United Nations Security Council on sanctions, suits Tehran well.
Clearly the Iranians were the real winners of the Lebanon conflict and will maintain their upper hand as long as Hizbollah is seen as a legitimate champion of the Arab cause, and not as part of the Shia crescent.
The key issue now is Hizbollah, which is positioning itself on three levels: first, it is signalling Shia solidarity with Iran. Second, it is appealing to Lebanese nationalism by presenting itself as a pivotal element in Lebanese domestic politics. Third, it is fomenting Arab militancy against Israel and the US.
Hizbollah triggered the conflict with Israel as an internationalist movement eager to relieve pressure on Hamas.
But Mr Nasrallahâs recent âvictory speechâ portrayed the organisation as the champion of Lebanese interests and nationalism. Hizbollah will not be disarmed or marginalised; the only way to deal with it is to push for a new Lebanese polity in which it plays a central role, as a Lebanese party.
If the west wishes to counter the synergy between Arab nationalism, Sunni militancy and the Shia crescent, which will link battlefields from Afghanistan to Lebanon, it must draw Islamist movements such as Hamas and Hizbollah further into the mainstream. This means encouraging a proper settlement in Lebanon involving all Lebanese actors without interference from Syria or Iran; supporting democratisation of Syria and negotiating with Hamas. It also means Israel must renounce its policy of âbunkerisationâ, withdrawing behind a fortified border and hammering at any perceived threat.
The writer, a professor at Ecoles des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, is author of Globalised Islam (Hurst 2004)
.