'Lebanon's Madoff' bankrupted after bouncing $200,000 cheque to Hizbollah
Businessman promised customers a 40 per cent return on their investment
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
EPA
The financier Salah Ezzedine heads one of Lebanon's most prominent publishing houses of religious books
More pictures
Everyone trusted Salah Ezzedine. A billionaire Shia Muslim businessman and financier from southern Lebanon, he organised pilgrimages to Mecca, ran a major Beirut publishing house and a children's television station, held major investments in east European oil and iron conglomerates, and – much more to the point – was a close personal friend of very senior leaders of the Hizbollah. Indeed, many members of the world's most powerful and successful guerrilla movement, along with the families of their "martyrs" in the war against Israel, placed both their faith and their inheritance in Mr Ezzedine's hands.
To the deep embarrassment of the Iranian-financed and Iranian-armed militia, however, Mr Ezzedine turns out to be an "Abu Madoff", declaring himself bankrupt, to the tune of $1.195bn (£760m), after promising his trusting investors an astonishing 40 per cent interest on their deposits – which, according to judicial officials in Lebanon, he eventually could not pay.
The Hizbollah have remained as silent as the grave – of which there are a lot in Lebanon – as well they might. For both Mr Ezzedine's radio station and his publishing business were named after Hadi Nasrallah, son of Hizbollah's general secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed leading a brave but suicidal attack on Israeli occupation troops in southern Lebanon.
But things were worse than this. It now appears that Mr Ezzedine's financial collapse became inevitable after he wrote a $200,000 cheque to Hussein Haj Hassan, one of Nasrallah's closest political advisers and a Hizbollah member of parliament. The cheque bounced. The response to this within Hizbollah's bunkers can only be imagined.
The movement, created in 1982 as a result of Israel's Lebanon invasion, had built up its prestige in the Arab world on its squeaky-clean reputation for financial and political probity. Middle East dictatorships and the third-rate leadership of the Palestinian Authority may salt their millions away in foreign bank accounts, but not the incorruptible Hizbollah. Or so the world thought, until the scandal that burst around Salah Ezzedine. He is now being interviewed by the Lebanese judiciary, and is allegedly being held in the grim old prison at Roumieh, north of Beirut.
The story seems a familiar one. Flushed with massive profits in the oil business, Salah Ezzedine – so say economists in Beirut – began investing the savings of Lebanon's Shia population, rewarding them with 40 per cent interest on their deposits – with the money from yet newer investors attracted by the rewards of his scheme. Whether Salah Ezzedine did this with the calculation of a Bernard Madoff or with a charitable desire to spread his own wealth among the largest single community in Lebanon, we do not know.
The Hizbollah – the "Party of God" in Arabic – has been strangely silent this past week, an unusual characteristic for such a publicity-conscious movement whose own millions – faithfully shipped in US currency bills to Beirut from Tehran – rebuilt dozens of Shia Muslim villages destroyed in Israel's bombardment of southern Lebanon in 2006. Hizbollah members could be seen handing out bundles of newly minted hundred-dollar bills to villagers and thousands of home-owners in the Dahiya area of Beirut whose property was "rubble-ised" in Israel's bombing. Many of these civilians, Lebanese newspapers are reporting, have now lost their money with Salah Ezzedine's collapse.
While traditionally ignored by the country's government and living in the stony hills of southern Lebanon – many grow tobacco crops – as well as the Bekaa valley, members of the Shia Muslim community have been emigrants to west Africa, Brazil and Holland and have made fortunes abroad (especially on the Antwerp diamond market). The size of their remittances home is made manifest in many of their ancestral towns. Villas of unseemly conspicuous wealth – replete with marble colonnades, Greek pillars and manicured lawns – sit on desolate hillsides, sometimes only metres from the Israeli border.
Of course, there is another reason why Hizbollah might want to keep quiet just now. Many Muslims believe that bank interest is un-Islamic, which is why the Lebanese Shia put their money in businesses run by Salah Ezzedine, who was known as a "pious" man – an optional extra for all friends of the Hizbollah – and whose Haj pilgrimages had become an essential element of that fixed part of the Muslim calendar in Lebanon.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The ever-green journalist –arguably the pre-eminent authority on Middle East issues amongst his peers- has been of late opining more than telling his faithful readers, yours truly one of them, facts. Indeed his abstract opinions bring him very close to proving speculations that Mr. Fisk has at last been bewitched by latter-day Beirut, Beirut of Sollidare and harir dynasty, and has abandoned his objective pen and the sea-front balcony of Ain Mraiseh, for numerous lunches (some in Beirut go as far as to add dinners that go on to the wee hours of the morning) in the palatial residence of the once war lord and eternally feudal lord Walid Jumblat.
Mr. Fisk’s choice of the topic for his dispatch from Beirut is conspicuous in the fact that he deemed the bankruptcy of a financier, as telling as it is, to be more important to the political impasse in forming a government of national unity with all the security implications that it might usher.
Moreover, Mr. Fisk’s latest contribution from Lebanon is bursting with Innuendo. As a reader I was left with the impression that Hizbullah is deep in this affair, and consequently stand to lose the high moral ground that the party and its leaders have occupied worldwide. This sentiment is a variation on the theme that Hizbulla’s adversaries, domestic regional and international have been for years busily trying to spread and make stick to no avail. The brain-storm among those is: we couldn’t ‘eradicate’ the threat –real or presumed- posed by Hizbullah by military means, and diplomacy failed, so let us try to discredit the party among its millions of followers around the world.
Fisk seemed to have picked up his information, first aired by Saudi owned and subsidised Al Arabiya News in Dubai, from his ‘reliable’ sources in the socialite Hariri-hosted salons in Beirut. While it is legitimate for a journalist/reporter to solicit ‘tips’ from anywhere, it is incumbent on him/her to check and double-check these tips and utilise the age-old journalism truism of being a sceptic and asking questions of all parties involved.
Mr. Fisk did not only disregard this maxim, but went as far as to choose to ignore official statements issued by Hizbullah senior members, whose names were linked to the scandal by Al Arabiya and others, refuting all allegations about their involvement. This, it is clear, was not a priority for Mr. Fisk. Neither, it seems, official Lebanese legal sources that assert that ‘Lebanon’s Madoff’ was initially arrested by Hizbullah security when the former was hiding somewhere in the southern suburbs. This last well published and uncontested ‘tip’ would perhaps have added more ‘balance’ and ‘objectivity’ to his ‘piece’, and made less conspicuous for its perceived intentions.
Similarly, Mr. Fisk decided that what Hizbullah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrullah had to say about the matter is not worthy of mention, let alone highlight as a main part of the jigsaw having come from the highest authority in the party.
It seems to me that Mr. Fisk’s main concern is that Hizbullah -as a party- saw it prudent to stay out of the media circus. To Mr. Fisk, this represents a clear indication that the party of the resistance has something to hide, thus the innuendo infested dispatch.
Did it not occur to Mr. Fisk that it is quite legitimate, indeed a requirement for all concerned to maintain a tight lip in a case that is pending before official investigative authorities until such a time as results are made public? Is this not the norm as taught to every budding journalist?
These indiscretions could be an oversight on behalf of Mr. Fisk. My concern, as an avid reader of him for many years, is that these indiscretions have become too many to the extent that it adds fuel to ‘speculations’ about his ‘politicised’ dispatches from the place that played a major role in Mr. Fisk’s rise to the position of THE source on Middle East affairs.
This opinion was drafted driven by respect tp Mr. Robert Fisk.
Regards
Then you have been very naive indeed if you believed that Hezbollah occupied any 'moral high ground'. That simply buys into the myth that Hezbollah 'defends' Lebanon against 'Zionist aggression' whereas their provocative conduct more probably invites it. Given that they are a fundamentalist religious party bankrolled by the democracy despising Iranian regime (and we have seen how Ahmadinejad and co are not averse to practising oppression) it beggars belief that anyone can seriously argue that Hezbollah has any moral standing.
You posted what would lead to an enlightening debate indeed. Alas, this is not at the core of the thread and my contribution, which is trying to understand Mr. Robert Fisk?s latest dispatch in the Independent, and whether it lacks in any way.
Regards
And guess what, at that time, there was no Hizbollah!
The Israelis claimed that they wanted to kick the PLO out.. The PLO left after a month of besieging Beirut, and the ITF stayed for another 18 years till they were kicked out, by who?
yes, Hizbollah!
This is not to mention the massacres in 48 in southern villages, the shelling of 68 and 69, and the military offensive in 78!
So, it wasn't Hizbollah that invited the ITF!
Hitler killed Jews with the help and financing of many prominent figures including western politicians and bankers (including some jews), --> radicalizing many Jews and forcing them into migrating to Israel (hundreds of thousands were refused entry to european countries and the US) --> their gangs began a reign of terror with the help and support of western countries --> they kicked out 800,000 palestenians and killed more than 15 thousends --> committed hideous massacres in southern lebanon --> occupied 7 small lebanese villages in the south --> Thousends of palestenians fled to lebanon and started forming militias in the 60s slowly paving the way for the civil war --> The ITF invades Lebanon, commits the worst massacres in the 80s, in 93 and 96 --> Still occupies Lebanese land and violates lebanese sovereignty every day
The ITF used to breach the lebanese villages in the south whenever they felt, kill some flesh, demolish some bricks, and they occupied half of Lebanon in few hours in 82.. In 33 days in 2006, they couldn't achieve anything with all their military advancements, and their soldiers were pissing their pants, and still have nightmares till this day!
So, yea, you have the right to hate Hizbollah if you're an Israeli! The fact of the matter is a few thousand men with primitive weaponry defeated you more than once, and if it wasn't for them, you'd still be occupying the villages in southern lebanon! Those men, are university students, engineers, taxi drivers, shop keepers, you name it; they're the inhabitants of the houses you used to raid, demolish, they're the sons of the people you used to kill for breakfast and put in jails unquestioned! So, whether you like it, or not, and whatever propaganda you like to spread, they defended their homes and kicked your ass!
But they didn't invite you guys here; you came uninvited and ignited this area with your theft and crimes!
If you want to play Hezbollah propagandist then that is fine by me. I might even attach some credibility if you were:
(a) to acknowledge that Hezbollah's 'victory' was a Pyrrhic one (after all they incurred, by Lebanese official stats, considerably higher fatalities than the IDF, and brought down huge damage to the country's infrastructure.
(b) acknowledge that Hezbollah playing the role of saviour to the Lebanese is questionable indeed - given:
1. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (which I accept was ill-advised) was brought about by the presence of the PLO who used the country as a base while sponsoring attacks on Israeli targets both within/without Israel. Entebbe, for example had occurred only six years previously and was just one of a string of terrorist operations against Israel.
2. There is no evidence that Israel wanted to be in continuing occupation of the Southern Lebanon once the PLO had been expelled and had the front quietened down they would probably have left without the need to be 'driven out' by Hezbollah. (Israel had already withdrawn from Sinai showing that it was prepared to return large tracts of land to secure peace and Egypt and Israel have been at peace ever since.)
3. The liberator (ie Hezbollah) is very much the oppressor. This was the point of my previous post in which I expressed considerable scepticism as to Hezbollah's supposed moral standing. It is absolutely opportunistic and given its association with Iran you can see where the future of the people of Lebanon is headed. Not only does Hezbollah consciously borrow the trappings of Nazi/Soviet militarism with their goose-stepping parades and retro-style uniforms and salutes it has not expressed any qualms about the Iranian regime's clamp down on the civil protests aganist the perceived rigging of the election results. Hezbollah, furthermore, are just as undemocratic as Ahmadinejad and his cronies and have threatened the Lebanese government as and when it has sought to follow an independent path.
Incrementally Hezbollah are putting the Lebanese people into a stranglehold and will force them to accept their sovereignty in due course. It is simply a matter of time. The Christian community is in decline as its members leave the country as they see where the wind was blowing. A not untypical situation where the Christian diaspora is reduced in Islamic states whereas its Muslim equivalent increases in states where there has been (at least nominally) a Christian majority.
If Hezbollah achieves anything at all it will be the reduction of Lebanon to an Islamic caliphate (just as Hamas are trying to achieve in Gaza) which is every bit as totalitarian in its treatment of those whose lives it can dominate as those of its secular 20th century precursors.
To give Fisk his due (and I disagree with him on most things) I believe he can see where this is all leading to. You are no friend to the Lebanese people if you entrust their future to the likes of Hezbollah.
And by the way, for the purpose of clarification, I am not Israeli.
a) Phyrric or none-Phyrric depends on how you assess loss or win, at the end it was a Military victory, a psychological victory, and a liberation on all scales; let's agree on those things:
1- Hizbollah won the war on the ground, not the one in the sky; they stopped the enemy from achieving any of its goals (didn't bring back the soldiers, couldn't finish up Hizbollah, couldn't stop the rockets, couldn't invade, couldn't even stay in one place more than a day or two). So, here man against man + tank + plane+ ship + helicopter + latest military technology; yes, man alone won. Hizbollah forced Israel to get out of Lebanon in 2000, and stopped it from invading in 2006.
2- It was Israel that destroyed civilian Lebanese infrastructure, and deliberately targeted civilians in Qana and Marwaheen and elsewhere; this wasn't Hizbollah, and Israel is not a natural disaster, or a divine reaction that can?t be blamed or questioned.
3- If loss in property and life are the indicators of loosing or winning in war, then, we can safely say Russia lost World War II, or Veitnam lost its war of independence, as well as Syria, Algeria, India and other countries that were liberated, because they lost more than the aggressor, either in terms of property or lives. All countries that fought for their independence had to sacrifice for their gains, and Lebanon is no exception. Let's not forget how London was ruined in WW2.
4- Having the ability to destroy bridges, factories, ports, airports, ambulances, cars, shelters, and schools from an airplane thousands of feet above ground is no bravery. Yes, Israel is way more advanced, then, Hezbollah, and can definitely destroy more. Hezbollah's kills were around 80:20, in favor of Israeli militants; while Israel had a percentage of about 30:70 in favor of Lebanese civilian deaths and injuries, and we both know that Israel's weapons are more precise than the random rockets fired by Hezbollah, working on rough coordinate settings. It was Israel that first targeted civilians, used cluster bombs laser bombs and smart bombs violating the April Agreement of 1996; and therefore, I can conclude that Hizbollah has won the moral part of the war as well.
(b)
1- Yes, that's true. But why were there Palestenians in Lebanon to begin with? Where did they come from? And did they attack Israel because they were anti-semetic?
Did Israel take its revenge on Beirut's airport and wipe out an entire airline flee in 68, and its initial invasion in 78, other than the many retaliations on civilians? Did the Israeli army and the Israeli gangs attack any Lebanese civilians prior to the formation of Palestinian miltias in the 60s, in the 40s, and 50s? Did Israel implant its intelligence in Lebanon even prior to 48 until present day?
2- Israel had to withdraw from Sinai after the result of the 1973 war, and it signed a peace agreement with Egypt in order to contain it, naturalize it, and see how it contained and submissive it is now. Although it was a good strategic move, Bagin wasn't very happy about the loss of Sinai, and he expressed his regret that he didn?t have enough population to occupy and protect Sinai.
Anyway, you're comparative logic is not something to build on. It's like saying; a racist Nazzi criminal didn't kill that Jewish person when he had the chance, therefore, he couldn't have killed any other Jewish person. Please, don't play this ignorant tone, every land has its properties, every war has its considerations, and every enemy has his own strengths and weaknesses.
Another example is the Golan Heights, which Israel didn't give back and doesn't want to give up; it built colonies and stole its waters. Why? Because it more convenient to colonize and make use of!
The PLO left after the first month of the invasion; Hizbollah didn't form until 85-86, didn?t become organized until 90-91, and didn?t become a true rival on the ground until 95-96. So, why did they stay?
There's nothing for you and me to agree about whatsoever. All you are demonstrating is that you are irrevocably committed to believing that Hezbollah 'won the war' irrespective of the consequences that this had for Lebanon. I believe if one man in Hezbollah was left standing you would have declared 'victory'.
Let's examine a few of your indicators of military success>
"they stopped the enemy from achieving any of its goals"
As Israel's stated goals were badly defined and appeared unrealistic from the outset that was not hard to achieve. If Hezbollah set the bar (for proclaiming victory) so low as to include their suvival then it would be very hard not to be victorious. They only had to avoid direct confrontation most of the time and to shelter among the civilian population to avoid outright defeat impossible.
Indeed even Nasrallah Hussein admitted, immediately after the war, that had he would never have authorised the attack that precipitated the conflict had he foreseen the Israeli reaction. It was only subsequently that he started declaring a victory which clearly served propaganda purposes and into which Hezbollah sympathisers (and Israeli pessimists) were only too willing to buy into. In other words, Hezbollah and its anti-Zionist acolytes were desperate to provide a revisionist account that turned defeat into victory. That is about as credible as saying that Hamas won the war in Gaza. How many 'victories' like that can they sustain?
"didn't bring back the soldiers, couldn't finish up Hizbollah"
Obviously not. They couldn't could they as the soldiers were already dead by then. Anti-Israeli insurgents don't have a very good record of keeping their captives alive, do they? Had Hezbollah simply informed the Israelis of this fact (as I believe they are required to do under international obligations) it is inconceivable that the Israelis would have attacked simply to recover their remains. As for finishing off Hezbollah, that was never a realistic prospect as well you know. Insurgent forces, wherever they are can melt away and then regroup.
What can one say is that clearly they received a battering. Lebanese stats are that about 500 Hezbollah fighters were killed while Israelis suggest about 600. That is a large amount out of 12000 men. One understands that they can be replaced but it is one hell of a hit.
The IDF were constrained from going further not by Hezbollah's capabilities in the field but by pressure that was exerted upon it by the international community and public opinion at home (the latter in very much the way that Americans were forced to withdraw from Vietnam).
So what we have is a situation where one side is trounced but the other side is condemned for its very operational success and the 'disproportionality' of its response. If it is sensitive to these criticisms and disengages its opponents then claim the victory and they can do so because they do not share the same moral and humanitarian concerns and can be utterly profligate with their own people's lives.
Quite simple, really.
"Hizbollah forced Israel to get out of Lebanon in 2000, and stopped it from invading in 2006."
As above. 2006 was not an invasion. It was an operation (utterly unnecessary) to recover the two kidnapped soldiers. And had Hezbollah simply disclosed the fact that the soldiers were already dead (or were they subsequently murdered?) it would never have been taken place. How can you then give Hezbollah credit for resisting this 'invasion' which their own provocative actions and misinformation brought about?
Actually victory was declared from day one, and his name is Hassan Nasrrallah. And yes, he admitted that, which is also brave of him, but that doesn't mean, hizbollah lost. He also said, which was later confirmed by many journalists, that the war was actually planned ahead, it was hastened by the kidnapping; it wasn't the sole reason, or THE reason for the war; even the Israelis forgot about the soldiers and stopped mentioning them a couple of weeks into the war. The war had bigger goals than 2 soldiers; let's not forgt what your ally Condi Rise had said about the new middle east being born out of the lebanese womb, or wound I should say; dont be too naive.
And please don't get me into the If's! If Hizbollah set a different goal, or if Israel had set a different goal, this is silly. Hizbollah is a resistance and the ITF is an army, you cant expect hizbollah to wipe the ITF. But if you truly followed the war, you'd see how much damage Israel suffered and why their public opinion were pressuring them. Israel never received hits that deep in its mainland where their citizens had to stay more than 30 days in shelters. This is other than the destruction of the mega ship Sa'er, and the destruction of tens and tens of Mercavas (have you seen pictures of those). For a resistance movment, yes, that's more than a victory!
The french resistance, jewish resistance all hid within civilians in cities; while hizbollah fighters were mainly roaming almost empty villages in the south.
"international obligations"
LOL, you're funny, very funny...please, there are more than 60 international resolution defied by Israel, other than the genueva convention and human rights..
And btw 500 fighters of 1200 who faught that war, there are more than 50,000 trained men overall.
Even Isrealis admitt that Hizbollah is much more powerful than it was in 2006.
I don't care what stops Israel; this is not a video game, of how much weapons and arsenal you have, and if you kill more, you win.. this is real life, the lebanese in the south were more enduring, the fighters were much braver, and thats why they won..
Israel had no operational success; just go back to "Vinograd", the israeli investigation into the war, or any documentary about the war!
"2006 was not an invasion"
They attempted to invade up to Laitani, remember "The land operation" after a week or two of the war? or maybe not, coz you weren't in lebanon, and don't know what actually happened?
Have you heard of the battles in Maroon Al Ras, Bent Jbail and elsewhere? I don't think so!
Your ignorance lies in your statmeent comparing 2006 Lebanon, to 2008 Gaza!! You obviously don't see the differenece! you should ask Israeli soldiers, or perhaps watch Israeli documentaries!
"moral and humanitarian concerns "
yea, right... are you kiddin me? you're not an Israeli, but you must be an ignorant blind zionist to actually beleieve Israel has a high moral and humanatarian concern for non-jews!
You are simply demonstrating what I said earlier - that you are irrevocably committed to your belief that Hezbollah won the war because you cannot countenance the possibility that they did not.
Anyone can argue that they won a war providing they can refine defeat out of the equation.
Your belief in a Hezbollah victory is your comfort blanket and you will hold on to it tenaciously. So Nasrallah Hussein proclaimed victory from day one did he? Sheer bravado then and it doesn't square with his admission that had he been aware of the consequences of the campaign he would not have provoked the Israeli assault. Obviously you are unable to spot the inconsistency - why regret a 'victory' unless, indeed as I suggested earlier, it came at too heavy a cost (in other words it was Pyrrhic).
I could deal, as I said before with all your points, one-by-one but I see that as an entirely fruitless exercise as you will not be dissuaded from your point of view whatever the facts put before you. You are signed up to the Hezbollah position and clearly have more time to waste on this discussion than I do.
But I will part with this observation. If you feel that Hezbollah have any moral standing where do you think this comes from - Allah, as implied by the group's very name - 'Party of God'? Hezbollah are a fundamentalist Islamic sect who are not accountable to any moral authority other than God - which means that if the people's rights are not held to be the interests of God they will be ruthlessly stamped on.
Bankrolling Hezbollah is the Iranian regime and that is a pretty fair pointer of what lies in wait for the Lebanon if Hezbollah manage to achieve complete dominance. You might wish this on the Lebanese people - I don't. And by the way, I have an Iranian sister-in-law and she is in no doubt that the regime rigged the elections. Hezbollah and the Ahmadinejad's regime are two of a kind in one sense - they are profiundly obscurantist and anti-democratic. If democracy serves any purpose for them at all it is to confer upon them a spurious legitimacy (as per Hitler and the Nazis of the 1930s or like the Sinn Fein and their 'bullet and ballot' campaign).
The people of Lebanon will never be free if they have to 'saved' by Hezbollah.
Yes, he admitted that if he knew the consequences of the war (on civilian human life), he wouldn't have launched the kidnapping.
However, this doens't mean that he lost the battle on the ground, why don't you learn, and educate yourself about what happened on the ground in southern lebanon?
Yes, the cost was high, but they didn't ask for the war, they asked for a prisoner swap, and that's exactly what happened later on. Instead, you should blame Israel for launching a massive war to kick-start a new middle east, and didn't care about the children, women or animals it killed deliberately, or the factories, bridges and civilian infrastructure it destroyed purposely; instead of negotiating a prisoner swap right away; but no, they're the divine intervention, the "undefeated" army.. well, they were defeated, and they were forced to negotiate later on with their tales between their legs!
You don't really care about lebanese civilians to begin with, and I don't think you care about the infrastructure either. The families of the martyrs, and the southern people in general accpeted the price they've paid before to liberate their land in 2000 and to defend it in 2006; it's not you who determines if they won or lost, or if it's a phyrric victory or not!
Wow, an Iranian sister in-law, that solved the riddle, okay, I guess everybody he should submit to your authority!
And to me Hezbollah got their moral standing through their behavior even with the traitors (French resistance executed more than 10,000 French traitors, while Hizbollah didn't lay a hand on one) , and I really don't care what you think; they're a resistance movenement to an occupation force that violated their rights and land for more than 50 years. Their young men made your soldiers literally pee and shit in their pants, thats honorable enough.
As for Israel, it's a zionist entity in disguise of a hyppocritical democracy, a land theft Jewish fundemantalist corporation backed by bankers and western imperialism, basing their right on an ancient biblical promise, and jewish supremacy over other religions, and assuming that supremacy applies to a fictional race called the Jewish race conisisting mainly of white europians who date back to the khazarian empire. They use biblical texts and talmodic teachings to legitimize their theft, and call of the killing of women and children. And they use the western/Israeli version of the holucost to assume the eternal role of the victim! It escapes any enforcement of international law and any questioning whatsoever! and whatever crimes it commits, they tend to fly by, prejeduce Zionist people like yourself! It's the evil entity most global centers of power support and endorse!
And btw, what does your Iranian sis-in-law say about the nuclear program? Maybe she should brief the UN about it!
So you are saying that Hezbollah should be guaranteed immunity from attack if it chooses to embed itself within the civilian population? Of course Hezbollah has a responsibility to the community that it is claiming to protect. I have yet to see that Hezbollah lacks any scruples about attacking civilian targets. Indeed every rocket fired into Israel is more likely to kill civilians than it is to kill soldiers. Your accusation that Israel 'deliberately targeted civilians' simply shows the depths of your bias. While a military force must always take responsibility for the killing of innocent bystanders it is not axiomatic that the deaths it is responsible for were intended. There is no evidence here that you have allowed for the possibility of faulty intelligence which may have led to the deaths. Why not? Clearly, because it doesn't suit your propagandistic narrative which is simply to cast Israel as the villain of the piece.
"If loss in property and life are the indicators of loosing or winning in war, then, we can safely say Russia lost World War II, or Vietnam lost its war of independence, as well as Syria, Algeria, India and other countries that were liberated, because they lost more than the aggressor, either in terms of property or lives. All countries that fought for their independence had to sacrifice for their gains, and Lebanon is no exception. Let's not forget how London was ruined in WW2."
Well let's just take two of those examples and see what they mean in terms of the broad sweep of history.
The USSR 'won' WW2 (which by one measure it certainly did) but no longer exists. You can say that 'winning' the war brought it a further 45 years of existence at the cost of 27 million lives. Ultimately of course the seeds of its extinction were sown in the conduct of its conflict with Nazi Germany. A system that was prepared to sacrifice its citizens so brutally could not forever look to their loyalty despite all pretences to the contrary.
Vietnam too 'defeated' the Americans but there is no doubt which of the two nations was more damaged - and I have seen Vietnam for myself. It is a little ironic to see how the Vietnamese are so keen to court their defeated enemy for inward investment. The very system they fought for has crumbled away.
I am aware that, due to time constraints, I haven't answered all your points but I can assure you that I do have answers for all of them. However, you will see that I am by no means persuaded by your arguments that Hezbollah won the war or can dump moral responsibility for its out break upon Israel. I don't think Israel should have launched the operation in 2006 (or at least it should have been far more realistic in terms of its proclaimed goals) but this is very different to saying that it lost the war.
Like the bombing of the UN Base in Qana in 96, where more than 100 civilians took refuge, and were killed?
Or the bombing of the family building in Qana which didn't hold any hezbollah fighters or weapons, and killed more than 20 children in 2006?
Or how about the people fleeing from Marwaheen in 2006 based on Israeli orders, they were refused entry to the near-by UN Base (wondering why?), and as they left the outskirts of the village, an Israeli fighter from small range, seeing them with their white flags, and some even dangled their children out, still shot and wiped out entire families?
What about the 1000 lebanese civilians killed and more than 5000 wounded?
How about more than 1,000,000 cluster bombs scattered in southern lebanon killing farmers and children till this day?
Hizbollah's fighters weren't in Beirut or Qana, they were on the borders fighting them everyday!
How about the confessions of Israeli soldiers in their war against the people in Gaza, that they deliberately targeted civilians? How about the Israeli human rights aganecy (Bet'saleem) and Amnesty International which condemned Israel for deliberately targeting civilians? how about the "one shot, two kills" t-shirts? How about the rabbies tutoring of Isreali soldiers and the verses from the old testiment and the talmud that allows killing children and women?
Or is all this part of propagandistic narrative?
I don't want to dwell too much into your comparative logic assessing victory in terms of historical timeline; Hizbollah fighters defeated Israel, which Israeli assessment of the war admitts as well, they defeated them on the ground; that's all there is to it! Israel lost becasue, they couldn't acheive any of their goals in 33 days, its ships sank, its tanks destroyed, and its soldiers shitting their pants (fact btw); so, whether you like it or not, your beloved Israel lost!
And if you want me to take you seriously! How about you prove to me that Israel didn't target civilians, or cared the least about them in the light of what I mentioned above?
Otherwise, you dont have to answer all my points, coz your lack of knowledge is not just annoying, it's devastating!!
Like the bombing of the UN Base in Qana in 96, where more than 100 civilians took refuge, and were killed?
Or the bombing of the family building in Qana which didn't hold any hezbollah fighters or weapons, and killed more than 20 children in 2006?”
So it wasn’t faulty intelligence was it?
Let’s see Israel deliberately attacked the UN base for no other purpose than (a) to kill civilians and (b) to secure international condemnation.
How likely is that? About as likely as the theory advanced by anti-Zionists that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 which is still being served up by those who can offer no explanation as to why Israel should seek to provoke its only effective ally at the time while it was in the process of fighting a full-scale war and would need all the assistance and support it could get.
Do you honestly think that Israel’s intelligence is so superb that it doesn’t make mistakes? Do you prefer to credit it with omniscience rather than occasional incompetence in order that you can impute to it the most sinister of motives.
This is just typical of your approach. Never investigate what lies behind the facts if it serves to ruin a good story. “Israel has killed civilians (fact) so it must have intended to kill them (unsubstantiated assertion) which is totally in line with what I would expect from a Hezbollah-sympathising propagandist.
So to turn to this:
“And if you want me to take you seriously! How about you prove to me that Israel didn't target civilians, or cared the least about them in the light of what I mentioned above?”
You are making the allegation the burden of proof rests with you. Unless you know what intelligence was available to the Israelis within real time you cannot know (as you claim to know) that Israel targeted civilians. You may wish to believe that they did but a wish does not morph into a fact. You can hold Israel accountable (as I do) for their deaths but it is more likely to be an error than an intended act of murder. If I was persuaded that it was the latter then I would have no compunction in saying so and would be just as keen as you to see all those responsible punished for the crime of murder.
Murder is murder whoever commits it – a point that might have been remembered by those who celebrated the release of Samir Qantar and treated him as a returning hero.
“Qantar was responsible for shooting dead Danny Haran and killing his four-year-old daughter Einat by smashing his rifle butt into her head. Haran's wife, Smadar, hid in their bedroom with their second daughter, Yael, who was two, and as she tried to stifle her daughter's cries she accidentally smothered her to death.”
Now there was no mistake there, eh?
I was in Lebanon, and Isarelis do target civilians, and they did that before!
This is not in line with Hezbollah-sympathising propaganda as you say; this is in line with anybody who followed the crimes in Lebanon and Gaza! It dosn't take a popagandist or a rocket scientist to see that! The crimes were comitted with cold blood and explanation!
It's not about intelligence, its about negligance and carelessness; they don't really care how much they kill, in fact, they think, the more civilians die in an explainable manner (which is what you're doing now)the more it's likely that Hizbollah would loose its popular support, which it can't live without.. faulty intelligence, yea, right..
How can you prove that Marwaheen's massacre was faulty intelligence, or the numerious massacres! destruction was pretty much random in 2006, as in Gaza 2008.. More than 20,000 air strikes alone and more than 1,000,000 cluster bombs; you think all were based on intelligence.. please!
And btw, Qantar denies that, and tell me, who should I believe, the lies I got used to hear from Israelis, or you, with all your denial and self-rightiousness!
I don't really care, if Qantar indeed committed that while he was 17 or not, thousends of your Zionist men committed worse than that, from Deer Yaseen to Gaza, and I bet you have an explanation for all those deaths!
That is the problem - neither did considerable numbers of Lebanese. Given what they were told his crimes were the very least they could have done is not treat him as a returning hero.
At 17 one is expected to have sufficient mental competence that killing a child is wrong. Close up and personal there can be no mistake. If you attack a target from a distance there is always the possibility of a mistake - that is why every effort must be made to use air weaponology sparingly. Innocent Lebanese have as much right to life as innocent Israelis. But the responsibility for ensuring their safety rests as much with Hezbollah as it does with the Israelis.
And you're right about the age of 17 if in fact, he committed those crimes!
But take a look at Israeli heroes who climbed the ladder from being criminals, killers, and rapists to being ministers, prime ministers and presidents!
Sharon, Shamer, Bagin, Peres, the list could also include Livni's parents, Avraham Stern (who Israelis celebrate his memorial every year as a national hero, he actually offered his help to Hitler in return of exporting the Jews to Palestine), Rabin, n' even ben gurion can be included in the list for his role in the palestenian exudes and the list could go on n' on on..
This is other than the warm welcoming of the heroes of operation "Cast Lead", who some blew the whistle of how civilians were targeted in cold blood (or maybe they're Hamas propagandists along with Bet'saleem who actually went to Gaza and investigated each and every death); on the other hand, some other ITF heroes chose to wear T-shirts that say "One Shot, Two kills" n' other criminal psycho t-shirts n' logos taking pride in killing pregnant palestenian women, children, and their crimes against the less human people of Gaza!
How about that ITF soldier calling Palestenians, animals and not humans like Jews (probably learned that in a Talmud teaching session)? Or how about the Israeli families picnicking on hills facing Gaza, to see the fire works of white phosphorous and other lethal weapons killing children and women by the hundreds(ouh, well, maybe they deserved it for voting for Hamas, right?)? Or how about the Israeli children signing the rockets of love sent to the Lebanese children?
Now, an innocent Israeli = an innocent Lebanese or Palestenian
That's interesting; I agree with that, but your fellow heroes and rabbies don't. How many Israelis (Probably less than 100, or 150 and it's due to the lack of accuracy on Hizbollah?s small rockets that were fired as a response to the Israelis violating the 1996 April agreement that neutralized civilians) were killed in 2006 and how many Lebanese were killed (More than 1000 due to the use of bombs that penetrate shelters and can penetrate 8 story-buildings, other than the hundreds of thousands of prohibited cluster bombs, and despite the use of the latest accurate and presice technologies)? How many Palestenians died in 2008 (More than 1000, mostly children, and were targeted randomly and intentionally, and some of them from close range as well), and how many Israelis (6 civilians)? How about if we compare figures since 1948 to see how often Israelis attacked and killed civilians? This is not to mention that the aggressor is the occupier who sill defies international laws and regulations and has total control of land, air and see, not the occupied who lives in extreme conditions of poverty and has the least options to fight back!
As for age and understanding, I think any child of 6 and older knows that stealing somebody's property, or destroying it is morally wrong, and is plain theft, not to mention the murders committed in Gaza, Qana, Marwaheen and elsewhere.
Anyway, just stop accusing others of being Nazzis and facsists just to paint some picture to convince others, who don't know much, that you're fighting the same people you fought in WW2 and for the same reason; this is fraud, manipulation, and a disgrace to the souls of the Jewish martyrs who died on the hands of Hitler and his financiers; enough using their agony and pain to inflict agony and pain on others! And achilles, before pointing fingers, how about some self-criticism, and a little less Zionist self-righteousness?
Grow up. You can't accept anything can you and certainly not when it involves the application of common sense? The Israelis don't accuse all Palestinian 'terrorists' of committing such vile atrocities so the fact that this particular individual was accused adds credibility to their account. So Quntar denies the story does he? Well, I imagine he would be hard pressed to justify his actions don't you?
"And you're right about the age of 17 if in fact, he committed those crimes!"
there is no "if" about it! The evidence borders on the irrefutable.
The situation in the US now is very revealing about what happens when the world lets people with such limited cognitive skills continue feeding each other ever more bizarre claims without serious refutation by the media, or more responsible persons in the political leadership.
Go check out an ebook written by Dr. Altemeyer summarizing his decades of research into the problem. Google the terms.
As well, DHS has more about the fear, aggression, intolerance of ambiguity, fear of uncertainty, cognitive simplicity, unintegrated thoughts, cherry-picking of stimuli to process, refusal to change a strategy long after it has proven unworkable, projection, denial, ...it goes on and on. Everyone knows who and what hey are /except/ those who need to know the most....the voting public.
Well, as you are so keen on discussing collaboration with the Nazis let me make a few points about that.
1) Jews are either attacked because they supposedly acted provocatively and aggressively because they called for the destruction of Nazi Germany or cravenly because they ‘collaborated’ with the Nazis. A real damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you don’t situation which many anti-Zionists exploit to the hilt.
2) The so-called ‘collaboration’ was generally an attempt (probably misguided) to help Jews in Nazi occupied Europe. In general some Jews thought that their people might be better served by a degree of complicity – if Jews were being persecuted in Europe why not try to get them out of there and to a country (Israel) where they would be free from persecution. That would have seemed a not unreasonable proposition at the time.
3) It is quite clear that Jews like many others of the time thought that a deal could be struck with the Nazis and failed to appreciate the precise nature of the demon that they were supping with. The actual extermination programme did not go into overdrive until 1943 (apart from the activities of the Einsatgruppen).
4) So the Jewish ‘collaboration’ (in so far as it existed at all) was to retrieve the best that they could from a near-hopeless situation given that nearly 2/3 of world Jewry lived in Europe and most of them came under the control of the Nazis. Effectively, they were being held to ransom. Should they have been abandoned to their fate?
5) You omit to mention the Palestinian collaboration with the Nazis. Why does that not surprise me? The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler and even met him on one occasion. That form of collaboration was uninhibited, unqualified and utterly malevolent. It was complicit with the persecution of the Jews and there is little reason to believe that the Grand Mufti did not know of the plans that Hitler had in store for them or did not thoroughly approve.
6) Clearly there was both Jewish and Arab collaboration with the Nazis and it is disingenuous to refer to the former without acknowledging the latter or paying regard to the different circumstances which explain why it occurred. (Indeed if Hamas are, as it is claimed, a creation of the Israelis there must have been collusion between the two parties at some point. Are Hamas to be indicted for collaboration with Zionists in the way that you would like to indict the Jews for collaborating the Nazis. Or will you, following your usual line of argument, have an excuse prepared for one while condemning the other?
7) Throughout the Arabic world there was widespread support for the Nazis. One can understand the wish to shake off the colonial yoke but to look to the Nazis as liberators (of all people!) given the ferociously aggressive policies that they had pursued, their violent rhetoric and militant expansionism is simply inexcusable.
8) The warm feelings to the Nazis carried over into organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ba’ath party who readily copied their tactics or borrowed elements of their anti-semitic ideology and to a large degree survives to this very day usually surfacing as paranoid conspiracy theories implicating Zionist agents where and whenever possible.
9) Collaboration between the oppressor and the oppressed has been taking place since time immemorial – the Jews are no exception and neither are any other group of people. The French pride themselves on resistance to the Nazis during WW2 but it is almost certain that more collaborated than resisted – and unless one is placed in their position one cannot appreciate the pressures that led them to do so.
10) Finally, the charge of collaboration against Jews is usually whipped up and exaggerated by anti-semites who seem to get some kick out of peddling the notion that they were particularly prone to betraying their own. It’s a particularly distasteful and underhand allegation that is quite typical of the tactics that we have come to expect from this quarter.
3- Hizbollah?s moral standing.
a) How is it the opressor?
b) What is it in Fisk's piece that incriminates them? What is it in Fisk's piece that can be considered evidence to Hizbollah's wrong-doing?
c) Did you know that Hizbollah asked for a re-assessment and a full scale investigation of this man's assets, in order to return some of what he has taken?
d) Where does it say that if you're in alliance with Iran, or if Iran helps you militarily, then, you're an evil villain, and if America and the UK arms you, then, you're the good guy? What makes America better than Iran? How many people did America kill, and how many did Iranians kill? How many countries did the US attack in the past 50 years, and how many did Iran attack? What kind of weaponary is more lethal against civilians, the ones provided to Hizbollah, or the ones provided to Israel? What does the protests in Iran have to do with Hizbollah's moral stance, or its legitimate cause to fight occupation and aggression? Why do you keep mixing things? What's your evidence that Najad actually forged the elections other than western journalists telling you so? Didn't Bush forge the 2000 election and oppress the demonstrations in Florida and elsewhere?
e) Lebanese government and independent path don't fit in a sentence, and will never do! You really don't understand Lebanon or the type of democracy they have! Hizbollah never threatened, they protested peacefully, their supporters were killed and targeted more than once; a whole sect (Shia) that represents more than 35% of the population was excluded from any decision making, and more than 70% of chirstian vote was ignored in the government, thanks to the unconditional support and tutoring of America and the west to the one-legged government of 14 March to corner Hizbollah, and convincing you by repeating rhetoric that represents the lebanese system of democracy as a simple majority rule, contrary to the situation in Lebanon, contrary to its history and its constitution! The situation boiled when the government wanted to disarm Hizbollah by force!
"The Christian community is in decline as its members leave the country as they see where the wind was blowing."
The Christian community was more than 50% in 1948. Lebanese in general and christians in particular started leaving since the civil war started; until they were reduced to around 35%; this is also due to the birth-rate of muslims being higher. Also, the economic situation in Lebanon is the main driver of christians and non-christians out of Lebanon. The unemployment rate is very high, wages are low, and the national debt is exceeding 50 billion dollars. This is not Hizbollah's fault; this is the future movment's responsibility after the civil war, who were responsible for finances and rebuilding the country. Before that, it was the responsibility of the Palestenian factions, Israel, the Lebanese militas, and the imperialist powers that fueled the war.
If the palesetenians and the leftists win, christians will be forced out, paving the away for a solution for the refugee problem.
If the phalangists and right-wing militia win, the PLO would suffer a blow; Lebanon would become a strong point of influence (go back to 58 when American Marines arrived in Beirut as "peace keepers") in the middle east, and Arafat will have to negotiate from a very weak position. You can also go back to what's been known as Kessenger's plan.
I think you speak from a mindset, that puts all muslims together against christians and jews, which I despise. Anyways, let's see why chrsitains are leaving the middle east:
In Lebaonon: Due to the civil war, which was ultimately due to the creation of Israel, and the economic situation, in which IMF and imperialism are playing a big role in enslaving the Lebanese economy.
In Iraq: Due to the illegal occupation of Iraq by US and the UK, many were killed at the beginning of the invasion and many left, and other left after the sectarian situation worsened, and mercenaries were all over the country, where no body knows who committs what anymore, in an obvious effort to divide Iraq, and make it submit on all levels.
In Palestine: Christians were around 40% in 1907, while they're only 1-2% in historical Palestine. Thanks to who?
Answer this please, how come Syria and Iran are the best places for middle eastern Christians to live and migrate to?
As for an Islamic Caliphate, Gaza is nothing like Lebanon!! Do you even know that?
Do you know Hizbollah's main allies since 2005 are the christian majority in the parlimant?
There's no way Hizbollah can impose an Islamic caliphate in Lebanon, not even in the south; it's not realistic, not pragmatic, and not even in their favor. You really don't know Lebanon or Hizbollah for that matter. I urge you to investigate before you jump into wrong conclusions, ignorant generalizations, false assertions and illogical associations.
Er, really? If they are then what does that say for the ME in general. Conditions must be desperate mustn’t they?
And I notice you have nothing to say at all about Jews. With good reason because most Jewish communities in most Arab states have all but ceased to exist!
Perversely, the largest Jewish community in the ME is in Iran and it does appear to be tolerated but only because it is perceived to be compliant and can be used to showcase the Iranian regime’s supposedly tolerant nature. And of course at about 30,000 strong it couldn’t constitute any conceivable threat. Perhaps the Iranians have learned from the Iraqi experience with Jews – the public hanging of supposed Zionist agents. The Iranians have quite enough of their own people to hang – either individually from cranes or en masse in their prisons (if they don't rape them first!).
Most Christians are almost certainly leaving for the West and they will be accompanied by many Muslims too and the reasons for the emigration are not purely because of the better standards of living. A great many do so because of the political oppression that occurs in their homeland.
It is only a matter of time that a society that oppresses its own people will move to oppressing others. As with Arab states Iran is using Israel for diversionary purposes in to distract their people from their own oppression. And how the mask has slipped with almost certainly fraudulent elections! How do I know they were fraudulent? After all I hate conjecture as it tends to affirm what you wish to believe. Quite simple really – had the Iranian regime’s conduct of the elections been beyond reproach what risk would it have run by re-running it under independent monitoring?
The Iranian regime sees democracy as purely cosmetic. The Iranian people will never be allowed to vote the Islamic state out of existence or even to vote for a president that does not have the supreme leader’s favour. The vast majority of people will never be allowed to be anything other than Islamic and to be subject to the sharia code regardless of their individual beliefs. Other religions will be tolerated only so far as they are not deemed to be a nuisance – I do not believe that tolerance extends to Zoroastrians who are being persecuted out of existence.
In Palestine, christians and muslims are one people, holding the same values, speaking the same accent, and holding the sam cause dear to heart; remember George Habash.
In Iraq, they've always been an integral part of the society celebrating muslim holidays with the muslims, and forming a unity unique to the outside world, where sunnis, shia, kurds, christians, n' jews used to eat from the same plate. And even in Saddam's darkest days, he never mistreated Christians as a whole; they were only targeted when Bush's mercenaries came to Iraq.
In Lebanon, they enjoyed a good relationship with almost all sects, except the Druze for some time who they fought with over power in the 1800s; other than that, they've always lived side by side with muslims, and there are many intermarriages over there.
So, yea, conditions are quite desperate!
As for christians being singled out and facing oppression; that couldn't be any farthest from truth, especially in countries where they exist like Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iran. They have freedom of worship in all those countries and they practically enjoy the same rights as others. Many people are oppressed for different reasons including muslims; as a matter of fact, the oppression faced by muslims in Egypt is much more than that faced by christians due to the media attention on minorities especially on chirstians.
I really don't know where you're trying to reach wtih this. I mean somebody who defends and supports a state that was built based on an ancient biblical text kicking out 800,000 people and taking their land; and slowly confiscating land from people solely because they dont belong to a certain religion or to an alleged race, and doing that methodically for 60 years, and still oppresses 6 million indigenous people and continues to violate a bunch of UN resolutions, other than the 5 million indigenous people abroad, talks about oppression in other countries. Mandella was right about Israel being no different than apartheid; its actually worse, since it uses God and the holocaust, and it has the unquestionable support of the powers that be, and anybody who dares to object must be an anti-semetic; which is weird since most Israelis aren't even semetic to begin with.
Is this suppoused to discredit me? Somehow you only chose to attack Iran which has more religious freedom than many middle eastern countries that are allies of the west. I'm not an advocate of the Iranian regime; and yet again, I'm no advocate of any regime; maybe something similar to the Swedish system, that's not a member of the NATO, and is not under foreign control. But for the sake of the truth, Iran treated christians, zorastrians, jews, sunnis all the same way giving them their freedom to practice their faith, and to be treated as full citizens, many even faught against the Iraqi army, in a war fueled by the west. I've heard that Bahai's are facing some discrimination now..
Lets also be clear on this, America and the west don't give a damn about democrasy in other countries, and what happened in 53 in Iran when the Shah was cutting hands, legs, noses and ears, while his Shavack are being trained by the CIA, and also what happened elsewhere in many countries in the past 60 years is clear evidence, that they would put their hands with any dictator as long as he serves their purposes and interests, no matter how ruthless the dictator was..
Now, as for democracy being cosmetic; I truly believe it's cosmetic all around the world in most countries, and Israel is the best at this, a state that deems itself a state for a specific alledged race based on ancient religious text while claiming to be secular and democratic, confiscates land from other races by schemes, limits freedom of speech by laws (banning celeberating the nakba for example), occupies and continues to steal land by citing words of God, puts children in jail claiming to fight terrorism, and gives citizens privileges based on their religion or race.. In America, and England it's cosmetic as well, and the system is similar to Iran's, except that you have invisible powers like bankers, corporations and lobbies instead of a supreme leader.. In fact, its more controlled in those countries.. For example, unlike Mousavi, Al Gore couldn't even open his mouth although he knew he won for sure, and the margin wasn't 10 million votes.. The right wing vrs. left wing debate between two parties keeps the citizens entertained and gives them the illusion that they have a choice.. At the end of the day, the power lies in the hands of who pays those people and who supports them.. It's in groups like the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral commission, CFR, AIPAC, War companies, Media companies, Oil companies, and most importantly world bankers, who control most western central banks; its not Obama or Brown who decide; thier advisors are probably more powerful than they are.. The only difference perhaps is the level of personal freedom being much higher in those countries.. And I must say, its the smartest thing ever.. Anyway, this is a long subject..
As for the Jewish immigration from the Arab World, it was mainly due to a policy enforced by Israel in corporation with the Jewish Agency, to bring in middle eastern jews to replace the Palestenian working force after 48.. many were braught forcefully even from Iraq by a deal between the Iraqi PM and the Jewish Agency.. And the bombs that went off in Synagouges were implanted by Agents of the Jewish Agency.. In Yemen, Many Jews were forced by Rabbies who persuaded them.. Yes, many were kicked out from Egypt, which is mainly due to Israel using many of them to commit terrorist attacks in order to destabilize Egypt and disturb its relations.. The same happened in Syria, many were used as spies; not that I agree with collective punishment, I think they have the same right to return or receive compensation, exactly like the Palestenians.. At the end, when the middle eastern jews arrived, they were treated like 2nd class citizens, and were placed in camps in the dessert, and thier children were taken away from.. Many Yeminite Jews' children went missing, and their parents were told that they died, however, their graves were empty.. And many middle eastern jews in Israel express their frustration with the way they're being discriminated against..
What brought this subject is you putting yourself on the side of jews and christians against muslims, who in your opinion are increasing in the "christian" west.. pointing to the radical right (the neo-fascists) claim of islamization of europe, which mainly focuses on how muslims dress and act.. the same way hitler despised the way jews wore their clothes and how they lived in their small communities.. If you really like to play that game of civilization clash, then, maybe you should join the unholy alliance of radical right and zionists in England, and march in their demonstrations.. What's weird is that they hold Israeli flags while they spread their hate towards muslims..
Whenever it comes to Iran or Hizbollah, or even Hariri's assasination, Fisk sounds really fishy for any person who knows the slightest bit about the middle east!
I used to respect him even when I disagreed with him. I thought he was one of the few western journalists that are clean, n' don't have an agenda..
What a shame!
Mr Robert
Just a note on the above statement,about the so called "neglection" of lebanese governemnt against this party supporters.without defending the government,as it is neglecting most of the people in lebanon,because of this party actions in most case since 1993.the supporters of this party after Israel shredded the country apart,destroyed people businesss,and closed companies,because of that visious war,these supporters were the only population that got compensations from the government,33000$ each,if they went and invested this money with this "holy man",they did it out of greed.
to keep hiding themselves behind this "haraket l mahromeen" that mousa el sadr started doesnt work anymore,because they are now the "richest poors" in lebanon,I think a 1.5 biilion wealth for 11000 families is quiet a good figure,to remove this logic that people know about this 99.99% same opinion sect of lebanese society.Please note that not only HEZBOLLAH is silent about it,even the people that lost their money are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you lose your life savings will you be silent about it?
that's the question to ask!!!!!!!!!!!
1- Was Hezbollah really silent about the issue? (Please check local newspapers and you'll find that the answer is no, they weren't.) P.S. Can Robert Fisk read Arabic? hm...
2- Indeed the events described above reflect negatively on Hezbollah, but he would know better than to think that any of the party's supporters would blame the party, especially when leaders themselves were "swindled."
3- Finally, the high interest rates offered lately were not the reason for his wealth, but the result of his losses on recent investments. He had to get some liquidity and at a time like this, cash was king.
Interest or no interest, the losses would've been booked because of the losses on investments.
In conclusion, I do think this is an important topic, but it's quite disappointing to see Fisk approach it from a distinctly uninteresting angle. Think about all those issues he could've spoken about instead (new banking regulations in Lebanon as a result? Potential conflict between Hezbollah's financial operations and the banking sector in Lebanon, financial hit to the party in terms of donations and returns, endless...)
To read more independent business and financial news from the middle east, please visit www.rpnnews.com or my blog at tamimakiki.blogspot.com
I will no longer read your articles and certainly not your books.