Could Lebanon Have Controlled Hezbollah Before the War?

i don't think most people know about the topic enough for it to have any meaningful impact on their opinions. when i talk to people about what's going on between israel and hezbollah right now, they have a very black/white understanding with very little historical perspective.

 

It's a combination of all of the above. Except for the minority Shi'ite population, they didn't want Hezbollah, but there's nothing they could do to remove them as they were pretty powerless. Then, you factor in the fact that they were aware that Hezbollah was the only thing capable of protecting them from further Israeli agression, and you see the uniqueness of the situation.

 

Someone please explain this further for me.
Someimes Hezbollad seems like a political party
they have representation, etc

Rocket River

 

They are represented. They own 14 seats in the Parliament.

 

Interesting discussion question. I thought this might be relevant. It an interview with the head of Hezbollah where he details that he clearly told the Lebanese government of his intentions and tacitly approved.

Interview with Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah
By Al-Jazeera, July 22, 2006; Al Jazeera in Arabic
Al-Jazeera interviews Hezbollah chief - text
Text of report by Qatari Al-Jazeera satellite TV on 20 July
Interview with Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah, by Al-Jazeera Beirut Bureau Chief Ghassan Bin-Jiddu, on 20 July.


[Bin-Jiddu]At any rate, your eminence, some say that Hezbollah might be strong militarily on the ground now, at least as you have said, but it seems that it is internationally isolated, excluded, and chased. It is also politically embarrassed at home. Even your former allies, the political forces with whom you used to hold discussions at home, do not conceal their dismay. True, they say there will be time for accountability, but they do not conceal their resentment. Moreover, they say: How could Hezbollah involve the country and take it hostage after a unilateral decision? The government was neither aware of that decision, nor does it bear its consequences or adopt it. Is this reasonable to happen?

[Nasrallah makes a short statement and then goes back to this question - Hayesstreet]

[Nasrallah] Let me go back to your question about not telling them [the Lebanese Government] or asking them. First, the government statement, on the basis of which we participated in the government, talks about the Lebanese Government's endorsement of resistance and its national right to liberate the land and the prisoners. How could a resistance liberate prisoners? Go to George Bush for example? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you talk about the resistance's right, you are not talking about the Foreign Ministry's right. You talk about an armed resistance, and you establish in the government statement its right to liberate the land and the prisoners. So, I represent a resistance and I have weapons. This was the government statement according to which the government won the vote of confidence from the Chamber of deputies. That was the first point.

Second, all that was said at table of dialogue is available on tapes, as some have now begun to say Al-Sayyid [Nasrallah] said so and so. Yes, I told them we would maintain the border calm. That was our policy. However, there are two issues that stand no... [Nasrallah changes thought]. I used to say there are four points, two of which can stand delaying, procrastination, and making reminders about them. No problem about that. The first issue was the continued occupation of the Shab'a farms. In this respect we can take our time. This is a limited piece of land. We do not want to go to war because of the farms, not a war like the one taking place now. The second issue is that of the air and maritime violations, and even the land violations. We can put up with these. Yes, violations of our sovereignty are condemned, but we would not raise hell because of them. However, there are two issues that can stand no postponement. The first is the prisoners' issue, for this involves humanitarian suffering. The second is any attack on civilians. I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be.

[Bin-Jiddu] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers?

[Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners' issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

[Bin-Jiddu] Clearly?

[Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country. I do not want to mention names. When the time comes for accountability I will mention names. They asked whether this would resolve the prisoners issue if this happens. My answer was that it was logical for such an act to solve the prisoners' issue. I assure you that our assessment was not wrong. I am not being stubborn. In the entire world, tell me about any state, any army, or any war that was waged because some people kidnapped two soldiers, or even took hostages, not military soldiers. Tell me about a war that was waged against a state because of two soldiers. This has never happened in history. Nor has Israel done it anytime before. However, what is happening today is not a reaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I repeat that this is an international decision and an Arab cover. It is a decision that has to do with...[changes thought]. I stress to you that had we not captured two soldiers in July, which could have happened in August, September, or some other time, the Israelis would come to this battle and would create for it any pretext and any excuse. The issue of disarming and finishing the resistance could not be achieved domestically, regionally, nor at the negotiating table. The Americans were well aware that this issue cannot be addressed domestically. Therefore, the Lebanese were told to step back and to let Israel terminate and disarm Hezbollah. But a cover was needed. So they provided an international and an Arab cover. This is what the issue is about. Finally, I will tell you how any resistance in the world operates. If I want to kidnap or capture two Israeli soldiers, the political leadership would make the decision and hand it to me, but even my brothers [in the leadership] should not know that this would happen at such a time and such a place. If 60 to 70 people know such details, would a capt uring operation be successful? No, no such operation would be successful, let alone when informing a government of 24 ministers, three key leaders, political forces, and political blocs. On the table of dialogue, we hold discussions, and only one hour later the minutes of the sessions become available to [foreign] embassies. So do you expect me to tell the world I am going to capture [soldiers]?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/25/02424/8890

 

admittedly, mine has too.

 

Think the provisional IRA their subgroup Sinn Fein. The two combined are/were comprised of everything from simple nationalistic idealists who support the movement in abstract, to substitutes for local police and civil services, to full-blooded terrorists, to criminals, to the slickest of politicians.

They are many things, sometimes contradictory, all at once.

 

I think the Lebanese people want Hezbollah now, this current conflict has enraged the lebanese people and rightly so. I think many Lebanese are now fully backing Hezbollah even if they weren't before.

I shouldn't fully backing but backing them in this particular case

 

I agree it's complicated, but it's worth noting that while Shi'ite Muslims in Lebanon are an overall minority, they're still easily the single largest ethnic group in Lebanon; roughly 40-45% of all Lebanese are Shi'ites, and Hezbollah as a movement is entrenched in that community, not to mention that nationalists from other ethnic minorities support Hezbollah in their ongoing conflict with Israel.

 

Since it isn't public... I'm in the "The Lebanese government is incapable of stopping Hezbollah" crowd.

I don't blame Lebanon per se, but I do think they could have at least helped the IDF find the jerks, and encouraged the people to evacuate as the leaflets and announcements suggested they do.

Their infrastructure must be horrible.

 

Hezbollah can not be disarmed militarily. The Lebeanese govt. knew that and therefore didn't try. It would have costs lives, possibly started a civil war, and disrupted their newborn democracy.

Lebanon was in an ongoing process to disarm Hezbollah through negotiation. How effective that would have been is anyone's guess. Now, their support is higher than ever, and they have proven to be fierce combatants.

It will take many groups working together to come up with a diplomatic solution to disarm Hezbollah, the military one doesn't work, and is a waste of human life, resources and funds.

 

Very well put...

 

Dude, you are absolutely ridiculous. You remind me of this guy:



Hisbollah are terrorists. They were not protecting Lebanon, they kept shooting rockets at Israel from all over the place, kidnapped people, etc. Israel merely reacted. They are the ones who are at fault that this war even takes place.

To answer the thread starter's question - yes, they could have and should have. The problem in Lebanon was the influence of Iran and Syria (countries ruled by fanatics) who armed Hisbollah and destabilized Lebanon.

 

I don't think Hezbollah can be disarmed through force, only negotiations.

Most likely the easiest path to disarming or 'neutering' them will be Israel giving up the Sheba farms back to either Syria or Lebanon, thereby ending any justification for their continued presence as an armed movement.

Hezbollah is unique amongst militant groups in that they actually possess a state-like military ability (weaponry) and -- in fact -- could probably rival a few states in that regard. Their presence/influence is feared -- and respected -- by some Sunni Arab states, who would no doubt welcome the demise of Hezbollah.

There is a lot of politics involved in this, and the situation is much more complicated, and involves a lot more actors behind the scenes, than most would care to know.

 

Syria is ruled by fanatics?

 

Syria sponsors terrorism

 

Thank you. This is the forgotten (or unknown) fact about Lebanon. Shia's aren't some small minority of which Hezbollah is a splinter. In numbers, they are the dominant group of people in Lebanon.

 

You will forgive me if I don't take the official stance of the U.S. on Syria to heart. Our government doesn't like anyone that undermines or counters our interests in the region, we immediately throw out the 'terrorism' card.

Unless the U.S. gov't condemns itself for being a state-sponsor of terrorism against Cuba and other Latino nations, or labels Saudi a state-sponsor of terror, then hypocrisy will remain a constant, therefore I can't take them seriously.

Government propaganda aside, the current Syrian regime is one of the most pragmatic regimes in the region. Despite Israeli occupation of the Golan, they have maintained peaceful borders with Israel. The alternative? That would be the Muslim Brotherhood. The Israelis themselves are fully aware of that, which is why they are disinterested in the idea of 'regime change' for Syria.