deterministic spodogenous adopt nucin unfringed meshrabiyeh deprival nonirritant
Shifters: The Beast Within
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/bentham.htm

An interesting view. However, Hezbollah did not achieve its success in building an infrastructure using its own resources. Thus, what would have been the result if the support which it received from its benefactors had gone to the central government of Lebanon? Would not the result have been the same? Can we praise the actions of a clandestine organization that syphons precious resources away from the central government purely on the basis of its opposition to Israel and builds a counter culture that both threatens and weakens the central government? What we have with Hezbollah is nothing more than the religious groups fighting in Iraq, leaches on the system that claim legitimacy because they provide services to the very people they are harming.

the Iranian connection is a red herring the Bush boys drag out at every opportunity. the Lebanese people have many reasons, including Hizbollah spilled blood and the recapture of southern Lebanon from Israel, on which to guage Hizbollah an indigenous patriotic movement. The constant effort of the United States and its resident evangelical Zionist organizations to portray Hizbollah as a roving band of jihadists is not playing well beyond our own borders. The mere fact that Hizbollah receives material assistance from foreign powers we don't like doesn't make that assistance unusual or morally suspect. After all, we have openly aided indigenous movements of the same character (remember Afghanistan I?) and are likely doing so even as i write this.
Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa Farms area after retreating from the rest of Lebanon in 2000. the U.N. has in the interim documented one invasion after another of Lebanese airspace by extremely low flying Israeli f-16 jets that break the sound barrier at these minimal heights to scare the daylights out of Lebanese civilians. these are provocations enough for Hzbollah's reaction. Lamentable as they are, Hizbollaah rocket attacks did not commence until well after Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilian populations and Lebanese infrastructure had started.
Evangelical Zionists don't believe any part of the ancient Hebrew kingdom at its furtherest borders should now be the property of any other people than modern day Jews. Thus, from their perspective Hizbbollah cannot be a legitimate, indigenous resistence movement. Instead, it is seen as a godless obstacle to the "Lord's plan." It cannot be reassuring to Arab peoples in the Levant that while mayor of Jerusalem Olmert spent a lot of time on plane trips to the United States to receive the plaudits of extreme "Christian" Zionist "Reverand" Hagee, the same Hagee who urges Israel to hold on to and expand every inch of its so-called "God promised" lands and who can't wait for the big conflagration he and his co-religionists call "Armageddon." Who's the extremist? Is it a paramilitary group that struggles to maintain its nation's territorial integrity or one that consorts with extremist American "religous" leaders that proclaim that an expansionist agenda for Israel is mandated by God? These folks are George Bush's self-admitted friends. Beware!
Hizbollah disappoints with its rocket attacks aimed at civilian areas. This use of terror is mirrored by Israel in some of its own air attacks, e.g., Qana and the U.N. outpost that was bombed to smitereens after U.N. officials called the israeli command for over six hours seeking the cessation of its shelling. Both sides have hurt their moral stature in the wider world by their callous disregard of non-combatants.

Hezbollah will succeed because they believe their own cause and are willing to die for it and live thru all problems and opposition. At the end of the day, all they want is to be able to live in their own country and have tens of thousands of their prisoners returned back home. Israel must return these prisoners of war and/or its previous occupation.

Clearly this is a proxy war being fought by the US in the middle east - the extent to which they have armed Israel,repeatedly vetoed resolutions, blocked any efforts at enforcing resolutions already in place - and perhaps even provided it with nuclear technology to develop the bomb is indeed Gross. I hear Zatrap and company lamenting about the supply of some primitive missiles by Iran to Hezbollah, this is nothing but crass hypocricy. And even if they do, why shouldn't they? After all didn't the US provide chemical weapons to Saddam to use against the people of Iran? Ironically, it is the Israeli Ambassador, Dan Gillerman who coined the most appropriate phrase for those who fight proxy wars - his speech at the UN Security council on August 8, 2008 refers.

`Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah apologised late Thursday to a family of Israeli Arabs who lost two children in a rocket attack by the Shiite Muslim militia in Nazareth. "I ask this family for forgiveness, I know that apologies are insufficient, I take full responsibility," Nasrallah said in an interview with Arabic television channel Al Jazeera.'

Besides buying people's votes with Iranian oil money Hezbollah fires missiles intended to kill Jews. No other reason explains why he apologised to the killing of a passport carrying Israeli citizen.

Ah. Wisdom from the New World - spend more money on a more impressive army, and you too can run around kicking things over as you pursue your "strategic interests".

..Zathras, I doubt you really wish the rest of the world to copy the "western model", as you describe it.

"Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah apologised late Thursday to a family of Israeli Arabs who lost two children in a rocket attack by the Shiite Muslim militia in Nazareth. "I ask this family for forgiveness, I know that apologies are insufficient, I take full responsibility," Nasrallah said in an interview with Arabic television channel Al Jazeera."

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=July2006&file=World_News2006072225836.xml

Yes indeed Mr. Ettefagh because besides buying people's votes with Iranian oil money they fire missiles intended to kill Jews. No other reason explains why he apologised to a passport carrying Israeli.

I thank the readers for taking time to read my commentary.

I am not sure how Zathras wants to relate issues in Lebanon to be compared with Iran and the Iranian government's performance. Mr. Khalil Mohajer's comments above cover much of those questions and in any case, the topic proposed by the moderator is about Lebanon and change of dynamics in the Middle East. Billy's analysis is quite to the point.

Iranians were the first country in the region to revolt against a corrupt regime. Iran is celebrating the 100th year of its first revolution for calling for a democratic state with a parliament and elections. No other country in the Middle East of those days had such a forward looking vision.

Frankly, the period of 1954-1979 was a period when Iran experienced substantial restriction of the people's right to vote and the Shah's declaration of a single state-approved political party was not so different from the USSR.

Any how, all of that is past and we all must look to the future. Except Iran and Turkey, no other muslim country in the region has regular elections. Lebanon started in 2005.

The Middle East is merely in line with the rest of the world. All secular systems or designs have collapsed or severely weakened. Religious parties are the most organised and serious opponents, from Algeria to Iraq. To compare ultra-religious parties in Israel are coalition maker/breakers and the Christian Right in USA, the Christian Democratic Union in Germany join the first regular church-going prime minister of UK for as long as the British remember. The Russian Orthodox Church is gaining strength at substantial speed. Pope John Paul was the most politically-charged and motivated leader of Catholics for centuries.

None of it is, in my opinion, some sort of a temporary political cross-dressing or some violent video game. It is reality. It must be dealt with with clarity of mind and dialogue, fairness and an even turf.

Not long ago in history, wars were fought over spices and salt. If we can talk (and not fight) about banana trade or spices at WTO with even and clear rules, we ought to be able extend such self-controls to real regional issues instead of talking acout crusades. There is no need for meddling in internal affairs of Iran or Iraq or Lebanon. The era of pitting the Sunni Saddam Hussein against the Shiite Iran with the limited and mere aim of busting up OPEC to make Reagan's Economic Miracle work is long passed alas, and unfortunately, all that we have to show for that era are millions of dead and chemically injured people that loved their countries. I trust the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters also love their country and their home.

The immediate evidence is that one of the services Hezbollah has provided for its constituents involves dragging them into a pointless war with Israel. I suppose every effort to improve the public welfare has its ups and downs.

On the other hand its provision of other services must be very efficient indeed, as of the $100 million Hezbollah is said to receive from Iran every year a substantial portion evidently comes in the form of armaments. These are needed for the next time Hezbollah decides to start a war against the Israelis, for self-defense. In the Arab context this is all perfectly logical, and Hasan Nasrallah a great hero.

What about the Iranian context? What, really, does Iran get out of its relationship with Hezbollah? Iran's president has made very clear that he doesn't like Jews very much, and I suppose he's entitled to his opinion. But I've never understood what Israel has ever done to Iran to justify Tehran's fierce enmity. The two countries do not share a border; they do not compete for resources; in the Shah's time shared distrust for the Baathist Iraqi government formed the basis of cordial relations. The only Israeli military action I can recall that touched on Iran's interests was the Osirak raid of 1981, which one would think would have occasioned Iranian gratitude, not resentment. I can certainly understand Iranian interest in its disadvantaged co-religionists in places like southern Lebanon. But surely their disadvantages are mostly related to their position within the countries in which they live. War with Israel does not suggest itself as an obvious remedy to any problem they might have. And most of Lebanon's Shiites seem very much worse off now than they were a month ago, which suggests that Iran's efforts to help them have not been entirely successful.

There is a popular view in Washington that Nasrallah's War is all part of a big Iranian plot, to divert attention from Tehran's nuclear weapons programs or for some other sinister purpose. I have to say this is not the way things look to me. I rather think instead that Nasrallah decided to begin his war without even consulting the Iranian government, taking its support for granted and assuming that Iran's president in particular was someone he'd be able to lead around by the nose. In this calculation at least Hezbollah's leader appears to have been correct. It's not a very dignified position for the government of an aspiring Great Power to find itself in but, you know, Death to Israel! That makes everything all right.

Incidentally, we in America hear claims that our "model" is not the right one for other countries all the time. Indeed we heard it from the Communist countries for over half a century. Today we hear it from the governments -- not so much the people, but the governments for sure -- of countries like Burma, Zimbabwe, Belarus and of course Iran. Usually a ruling elite determined to keep its grip on a country's wealth and ensure its dominant political role is trying to appeal to similar elites in other countries. No doubt Iran's government is far more public-spirited and less self-interested than most of these others. Or maybe it just has access to vast oil revenues and the others do not. In any event I seem to recall reading about an earthquake in Iran a couple of years ago that killed some 30,000 people -- not an isolated event, either, as much of the country is apparently in a earthquake zone and could be struck by a similarly deadly temblor at any time. I'm pretty sure the Israelis have nothing to do with this problem. Moreover this seems to be one of those areas in which the Iranian government "...could play a far more effective role."

Perhaps all the money Tehran is spending on missiles for Hezbollah would help in that regard. Perhaps not. Perhaps the Iranian people are so deeply imbued with solidarity for Lebanon, or for Hezbollah, or for whomever that it has never occurred to them to ask the question. Or perhaps when they see their money spent on weapons for Lebanon they think of it as they used to when the Shah spent lavishly for state dinners, jewels for the royal court, and that sort of thing -- an acceptable vanity for the entitled leadership, just the way things are done.

It's also possible they might see subsidies for Hezbollah as a waste of money that would be better spent on Iran's own needs. But I admit that taking this opinion into account would be tantamount to following the Western "model," and might not leave much room for Death to Israel.

To Zathras

The writer has clarifed your question in the article as Hizbollah is an indigenous political group in Lebanon. They are Lebanese first and foremost and they may have friends and a financial sugar daddy or two. Nothing wrong with that, really. Israel since birth, and UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Turkey, Greece and Italy also had (and have) financial sugar daddys called Uncle Sam.

It is widely reported by the CIA and other sources that Iranian support for Hezbollah is about $100m a year, which sums up to less than $100 per Lebanese Shiite a year, or a pair of McDonald's Happy Meals a month! Even if that figure is under-reported by 10 times, it is still much less than money required to live in Lebanon (and I have been there personally!).

So, Iran certainly has a very high rate of return on its investment in Lebanon, does it not? But it is not just about throwing money at the place. At the end of the day, it was the Lebanese Shiites in the south that decided to improve their own lives even if it meant to reach out to sponsors and supporters. To compare, the Palestinians bilked all Arab countries for decades, but they still cannot show a clean street in Gaza. Ask London casinos where the cash is deposited!

Zathras comments pose a valid question and should be addressed since there are much confusions and misinformation regarding Iran and the Middle East. It is true that Iran is facing many social and economical problems which the government could play a far more effective role. However Iran has surpassed the pre revolutionary era with a remarkable pace in many fields crucial to its vitality such as education, industrial and agricultural output, building highways and airports and harbors, widening utilities outreach such as electricity, gas and water to the most remote villages and many other accomplishments namely increasing urban middle class population, upgrading its provinces centers to large metropolitan cities with sophisticated transportation routes and social services and political participation and elevating social and cultural awareness within only 26 years which 8 years of it spent in a destructive war with US supported Iraq and under a very harsh economic embargo posed by America and while our population doubled. Our major problems are not unique to Iran but it is global. West does not have any solutions for economic, political, social and cultural deprivation and its approach is failing the entire universe. I am not claiming that Islamic Republic of Iran has all the answers, but we simply reject your model as simply an illusion and I'm suggesting not to blame us for trying other avenues. We would like to learn from west's accomplishments but we do not want to close our eyes to its detrimenatl shorcomings.

Unlike west we advocate self reliance and independence. We help our friends but most importantly we teach them not to rely on us or anyone else. Hizbollah is fighting Israel on its own terms and its own capabilities and have defeated Israel in both conflicts. Contrary to Hizbollah's stance in the world, it is Israel that cannot stand on its own for even one day. Israel is fully dependant on American tax payers and the global jewish contribution and its military is simply an extension of US armed forces. The only Israeli product in this war worth mentioning is Merkava tanks that once met its match looks more like a tin can in smoke.

The problems of Lebanon and Palestine are many, but it is not difficult to discern what the desired and just end for all would have to encompass.

Palestine: Democratic Palestinian government engaged in negotiations with Israel about all the small and big issues facing both communities. Hamas is legitimate representative of Palestinian population and better choice than corrupt Fatah. However hard an requirement, not recognizing the chance to strike a deal with Hamas is the dearest mistake of Israel (and US) diplomacy. Hamas's terrorist clout could be set aside in exchange for recognition of Israel. The both sides would have to accommodate their positions, but the positive process would be going.

The final peace should include:
*doubtless democratic Palestinian community, free of foreign undemocratic influences;
*Israel's withdrawal to pre-67 borders (including Jerusalem) and acceptance of all UN resolutions together with the right of refugees to return or be justly compensated;
*Democratic Palestinian state on the complete territory of West bank and Gaza strip with a capitol different then Jerusalem;
*Israeli settlements to remain as they are so there are going to be Israeli Arabs as well as Palestinian Jews. Some sort of transitory security arrangement should be put in place until mutual trust is built.

Lebanon: Stable country should be possible on the following basis:
*foreign influences (Iran, Syria) eliminated;
*all militias disbanded;
*strong central government with integrated army and nation building program;
*all ethnic groups involved into negotiations with no terrorist labeling to any.

To me it looks the only just cause to follow. This is the road with many obstacles, off course, but the one worth undertaking. It will not do good, though, to close the eyes to the most formidable obstacle facing any settlement of the kind: the Iranian newly born ambitions in the area.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if our correspondent could tell us how Hezbollah's record of delivering services to its constituents compares with that of the Iranian government.

That comparison was left out of this lengthy post for some reason, which is odd because Iran pays for at least some of the services Hezbollah delivers. I'm sure this was just a coincidence.