Brothers in Arms?
(The above flag is that of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards; the lower of Hezbollah)
Even though we all know that Hezbollah is trained and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, it is rather surprising to see the shocking resemblance in their flags. Apart for the colors and the Arabic writing, the rest of the flag (hand, weapon, globe and leaf) are exactly the same.Hezbollah is such a highly trained guerilla force, that it is now compared to the special forces of the Revolutionary Guards. Any thoughts on this close-partnership?
posted by beirutlive at 9:38 AM
16 Comments:
Just a thought;
I can't read Arabic but the symbol on the IRG flag under the hand/gun reminds me of the on screen ident of the Hezbollah sponsored TV channel.
Beirut Live Bloggers,
enough is enough.
We will from now on enforce one thing on this blog so that we can keep good, fruitful and smart discussions.
We will only allow people who have a user account to post comments. So if you want to join the conversation, please sign up to blogspot. Its an easy two-minute affair.
If this will not eradicate the childish conversations, then we will have to report abuse of the users who continue on insulting and bashing.
Sorry, this is not the way we intended to do things. We wanted an open forum, but it seems there is too much bashing going on. From now on, the amount of comments will be reduced, but hopefully it will also increase the quality.
Please keep blogging us at Beirut Live.
Lilu
Yellow and red are chosen by Burger King and other fast fooders because those colors are very noticeable and are associated with good eating.
Hot colors are some of the best colors for advertising when it comes to products like fast food. Bright red and yellow are hot colors, indicative of fire, and they stimulate excitement. Warm and hot colors will encourage people to eat more, which translates to revenue. Virtually all logos, advertisements and menus of fast food chains feature these colors, which is no accident. Companies rely on the extensive research that has been done in this field, to get the most for their advertising dollars.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-best-colors-for-advertising.htm
Black panthers used to use the raised clench fist. It was a protest against existing conditions in the US and a show they intended to fight those conditions. Most - it was a symbol of solidarity in a cause which now has come to be seen as righteous.
A question, Lilu: You have been eloquent in your expositions. You have indicated a fair minded approach to the "situation" by saying, for example you don't agree with all the Israeli government has done. And, parenthetically, I see now the reservists in Israel are calling for an inquiry about readiness and mothers are calling for an inquiry about why their military children died in a war that did not accomplish its announced goal.
You also are eloquent in your condemnation of most things Hezbollah - including the flag.
And, of course, we've heard (and I've been one of them) loud condemnations of Israel from many on this blog. My point is that it seems we all pretty well agree about who hates who and that the "war" is not really the answer. Again, parenthetically, I cannot imagine how an "international force" could even pretend to be effective in accomplishing what Israel and the United States says is necessary.
So - with that long introduction, my question is this: Is there any middle ground in your estimation? Is there any solution short of annihilation of one or the other? Short of complete assimilation of one society into the other? Short of always being on guard for the next air raid or the next rocket?
I would think that such a question must be answered as an absolute pre-requisite to war - if "war" is really a violent extension of national policy when diplomacy fails. Because if the question is not asked and answered, the war really is an attempt at annihilation or, at the least, subjugation. Isn't it?
I really hope some of the thoughtful Lebanese and others who oppose Israel would comment as well. Perhaps we can talk about alternatives to hate and insult to the end of seeking a path with a little more sunshine and a lot fewer minefields. Or not.
Not just fast foods, but also the oil companies logos use these colors.
reason - simple, attractiveness. grey is hardly attractive. :)
The clenched fist and rifle and other threatening aspects of the flags are understood better if looked at through the eyes of the flag bearer. Israel sees the flags as symbolic of aggression and terror and armed force. While Hezbollah sees it as a symbol of resistance and defiance and ability.
Israel's blue and white flag is peaceful and tranquil in color with the star of david in the middle. But there's a similarity there of a ninja throwing star.
The "Gadsen Flag" (Don't Tread on Me) was yellow with a coiled rattlesnake in its center. It symbolized America's decision to become independent of Great Britain. It was a source of pride and symbolized determination.
Here's a blurb on the flag:
I like seeing all the American flags. I do have my complaints about the American government, especially about how intimately the Washington D.C. politicians feel they should be involved in the daily lives of their subjects, I mean, citizens. But the flag isn't just a symbol of the American government. It's a symbol of shared American values -- especially our highest common value: freedom.
When it comes to symbolizing freedom and the spirit of '76, I do think there's a better American flag. With all due respect to the stars and stripes, I prefer the yellow Gadsden flag with the coiled rattlesnake and the defiant Don't Tread on Me motto.
The meaning of Old Glory can get mixed up with the rights and wrongs of the perpetually new-and-improved government. The meaning of "Don't Tread on Me" is unmistakable.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html
Don't get wrapped too tightly about flags and their symbolism. Take pride in your own and understand others do the same.
I just wonder if there is a single Israeli or Lebanese who don't aware of the connection between Hizballa and Iran ...
I personally think , that the conflict between USA and Iran is inevitable.
And when Ayatollas fall , Hizballa will fall or at least diminish. Hamas will follow.
So there is a hope for peace after these events.
With the best wishes ,
emil
hcb
If there were to be a potential solution to this conflict that doesn't involve war, would Hezbollah and the ppl of Gaza accept it? Would Isreal?Especially if that culture's ultimate objection is annihilation of another? Seems to me that violence is the progress that has worked the best for them, or at least worked best in their favor. And which one is "them" anyway???
The thing that gets me as an ignorant American is that I have no relation to this conflict. I'm neither Jewish or Arabic. The US really has no such history with anybody else, where a deeply rooted hatred and bitterness is passed down from one generation to the next, and encouraged by extremists to the point of seemingly random violence. And this is from both sides of the war! The closest I can think of is maybe the history of Native Americans way back in early America. So, it makes sense to me to say they should just quit fighting and negotiate a package from which to build - kiss and make up already! Then I feel kinda stupid when others tell me to wake up and smell the bombs. Yet, I can't "wake up" from a nightmare that is not my own. At least blogs like this offer a chance to gain a different perspective.
Anyway, on another ignorant side tangent, how is "Hezbollah" correctly spelled anyway??? Think I've seen half a dozen ways the past month.
Ooch
I think Doc's right about the short term - the apparenty meaningless destruction and resulting horror, homelessness and hate can't be ignored by anyone. But Israel doesn't only ignore it, Israel piles threats and more damage on what's already been done. How can a rational person not understand that hatred will simply be increased? And the people who already hate all things Israeli will be joined by other people who see the assault as overdone and driven by an even greater hatred fueled by meanness. Israel also ignores that Hezbollah lives ONLY because there is so much turmoil and hate and despair. A terrorist organization cannot survive in a stable environment where at least basic needs are assured - there's no need for the terrorists.
But - that's the short term. What about the real problem? That everyone in the area except Israel thinks Israel should pack up and move away? What about the idea that Israel says it simply wants to live peacefully but it needs a secure place to do that? Is there any possibility that Israelis and Palestinians or Lebanese or Iranians can EVER at least co-exist peacefully? Or is Israel simply the latest player in a long history of tribal and sectarian warfare? And, if the latter, is there any solution which leads to the peaceful life Israel insists it wants short of annihilating all the people who say "go seek peace in __________. Just leave?"
And, daooch - in addition to the "native americans" I think there still are some pretty deep seated hatreds in the US that bubble over from time to time - not to the extent of air raids and rockets but still pretty bad. Watts comes to mind. Chicago. Puerto Ricans in New York. Red necks in Texas. The difference is degree. But the hate is at the least equivalent.
Calling a country or it's culture "boring" is rather trivial. Anyway, the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world, if anything just by its sheer size and demographic origins. If you mean boring by it's relative lack of conflict - then thank gawd! :-)
BTW,
"And to live around people who have no idea how the world operates, no sense of geography, only speak 1 language and thinks the world revolves around them..."
holds true of most countries in this world. I wonder how many ppl in Japan or Brazil or Zimbabwe could point out on a map the location of Angola or Malaysia or Ecuador. Not many I mind you. The difference is that we may be ignorant of others but we insist on being involved in their business to a further extent. That does kinda suck ....
Ooch
Doc
In response to a previous post, lemme ask our fellow bloggers this question. If Syria and Iran and whoever else are behind Hezbollah's motivations and strength ... and it seems Hezbollah is really a source of social services and support for most of southern Lebonan and Beirut ... why wouldn't the other Arab countries push to integrate hezbollah into the Lebonanese gov't? Sounds like the social network and military oraginzation combined w/ Lebonan's political support would be a valuable asset to the country, no? Instead of getting rid of them, would Syria and Iran back an integration. Or, does the Middle East have a grudge of some sort against Lebonan?Whether the west would approve of such a move would prolly be totally different but it seems to be step in the right direction. This could eventually get Syria and Iran out of the way...this could allow Hezbollah to negotiate politically w/ Isreal instead of militarily....
Comments welcome. Just trying to be constructive :-) Later!
Ooch
Lilu
I of course was not serious when I said violence does work best for anybody. But, I consider the following: Isreal has traded terrorist captives in exchange for it's own ppl abducted by Hamas and HZ militia - in one culture's mind violence worked. Isreal negotiated and implemented a pull-out of southern Lebanon and parts of Gaza(or is it the other way around - out of Gaza and parts of southern Lebanon?) after innumerable terrorist acts upon the Isreal - in one culture's mind violence worked. Isreal bombs southern lebanon to smithereens and executes a naval blockade to at least force the international community to deal w/ HZ and here we all are - in one culture's mind violence worked.
So, I was in effect agreeing with you, that it seems to work short term. But, my point was if there was a "middle ground" to solve this conflict, how popular would it really be among the masses when one side is bent on the annihilation of the other? And that other side is bent on breaking the first side into submission? And the habit of both side to achieve these goals is to resort to more violence - how can this habit be broken when, thus far, it's what's worked best for them? And, not necessarily "them" that pull the trigger or martyr themselves by taking others with them. But "them" who support the cause of the aforementioned...share their extreme values....water the roots of hatred from one generation to the next....market "an eye for an eye" violence confident that the other will give in first even if it takes a millenia - "them".
That was my ponderance of the moment when a light came on - "and who is 'them' anyway?" You, lilu, and most of the bloggers here don't sound like one of "them". I can only hope there are enough of "you" to outnumber "them". In time, I believe that will happen. But, how it comes about is what we're really dealing with here, I guess.....
Wow, I can really go on a rant. My apologies for getting maybe a bit carried away but thanks for your time and patience.
Ooch
Lilu, with respect, the "middle ground" of which you talk requires a great deal of "them" but not much of Israel. In fact, you say Hezbollah "must be elimintated" and, if I'm understanding you correctly, that is an absolute condition precedent. The heart of your position, I think, is: "The Israeli government would be much more inclined to negotiate and compromise with a non-violent organisation and government." Is that not the same as, "Hezbollah is much more inclined to negotiate and compromise with a nonpviolent organization and government?" In other words, both sides would be saying, "yes, but, I won't deal with YOU." Olmert is making that clear when he rejects, even, contributions to the "International Force" from countries with whom Israel does not have diplomatic relations. He makes clear Israel doesn't trust anyone and doesn't want to have anything to do with anyone not considered a friend. That's the Bush approach - he absolutely refuses to deal with "terrorist organisations" Period. So, he won't permit the United Staes or Israel to talk to Iran or Syria. At the same time, though, he and Olmert say Iran and Syria are the real problem. If that's so, talking to France about the terms of a "cease fire" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
For there to be a "middle ground", doesn't Israel have to give up something? Maybe not land - I don't know. But maybe it needs to talk about the "right of return" (we're talking a little about that in the topic above this one.) Or about providing aid - with US assistance but directed by Israel. It seems clear to me, though, Israel MUST get off = or at least moderate - the hard line about Hezbollah and Hamas. That doesn't mean I think they are even "good" organizations. And that doesn't mean the longer term goal shouldn't be their "elimination." But for the short term, Israel is saying exactly what they are saying - they want rid of Israel and you want rid of them. (I know - they are not states and Israel is - that's not the point.)
Israel MUST get off it's high horse - don't you think? Look what has happened with Bush and Olmert so high in their saddles: America is now hated in more parts of the world than ever before and the hate is truly intense. Way back when I was travelling in Europe and the mideast, danger never entered my mind. Now I'm a target simply because I'm American. And, as impossible as it seemed just a month or so ago, Israel is hated and distrusted even more and by more people than before. The lead topic on this blog this morning is about Israel's "war crimes." Being a free country, you have internal inquiries and investigations into the conduct of the war demanded. Being a free country with a leader like Bush, your leader is saying, "no - let's don't look at what was done, look, rather, at what must yet be done." Israel has become the world's favorite country to hate - well, actually the SECOND favorite country to hate. We're first.
No matter the righteousness of your position and idea, it cannot work as suggested. You would say, "yes, I want a middle ground, yes I want peace, but, here's what you must first do if you want me to talk about it seriously." And the question remains - what is the middle ground even after your condition precedent has been satisfied?
What about the Golan Heights? What about the wall? What about reconstruction in Palestine? In Lebanon? What about the "right to return?" What about the store of nuclear weapons? Especially, what about the nuclear weapons?
What about future relations with neighbors - cooperative? Or simply tolerate? Strict borders? Or open?
For there to be a middle ground, both sides have to move in that direction. I don't think it's possible to get to the "middle" by having only one of the sides move in the direction of the other. Because the "middle" keeps moving toward one side.
Lilu: I hadn't read your subsequent comment before I responded. You said:
" And there has been a great shift towards moderation, calls for dialog. People are beginning to get realistic. See last year's diengagement from Gaza - the settlements used to be supported and cuddled and regarded as a strong part of the fight. Then people got realistic, and the disengagement was supported by the majority. That's a very significant change. And even now, with all the violence and the soldier abductions, people's opinions haven't changed much. People are beginning to understand."
I think you are entirely right. You make the point that the government is deaf to the people. Olmert now has announced the end of "disengagement" in the Gaza. His cabinet agrees it's no longer realistic. Olmert says it's so the money that would have been spent on disengagement can be spent on rebuilding and fortifying the north.
Meanwhile, there will be no pullout of Lebanon, the blockade continues and Amnesty International condemns Israel (and parenthetically Hezbollah) for war crimes that must be investigated by the UN.
I hope the no confidence in Olmert vote happens quickly. For Israel's sake. It's unfortunate we don't have a similar parliamentary procedure here.
Lilu, you make eminent sense and, "realistically", I suppose I agree with you nearly completely. I think you read more into what I've said (or maybe, less) than what I intended.
I do NOT mean that Hezbollah is a viable government or even a viable leader - certainly not in the long run. But that organization presently is a force to be reckoned with - Israel has emphatically said so with the bombs and tanks. However, if I understand the current situation, the bombs and tanks method didn't work. It may have weakened them tactically for the moment, but they appear to be gaining strength now that they appear capable of "standing up to" the Israeli Defense Force. My conclusion that Hezbollah must be dealt with differently is based in that fact - it simply is impossible to "destroy" the organization. No matter how evil, no matter how wrong and no matter how right you are that it will never negotiate in good faith.
But the way Israel goes about its business(and I don't mean simply Olmert in that regard - read, for example, Jaeger's comment in the post above this one)assures Hezbollah is seen as viable by ALL your enemies. Couple that with a general refusal by Israel and the US to even talk to Iran, Syria or Hezbollah about what can or should be done, and there are no alternatives to continued violence. Are there?
We put some pretty smart people in our diplomatic corps - some of them not so smart as others but, generally, pretty smart. What has to be done, I think, is to give those people broad guidance that "we want to stop this and we want you to figure out how to do it." Anyone trained in diplomacy will quickly realize that it is not successfully conducted at the end of a rifle barrel.
Of course Israel will not work for peace "at any price." That is not "peace" and I would never do it myself. That's what the Ameican Revolution and Civil wars were all about. But we don't have a classic set of belligerents anymore. Read, for example, the very good book The Transformation of War. As you correctly point out - Hezbollah is not a country and it is not a government. Then how do you propose they surrender? But Israel blames Lebanon for permitting Hezbollah to operate there and, therefore, blows up Lebanon. Go to Lebanon and work (with US or French or German or Bangladeshi assistance if it will help) to the end of ridding Lebanon of the "cancer." Determine a way to do that by helping Lebanon rather than blowing it up.
And talk to Syria and Iran. About the Golan Heights, maybe. Again, if I've read it correctly, Syria was ready to do that but the US backed Israel away from the table.
I think the REALLY real problem is Israel's neuroses. They are well based, of course, but they also prevent thinking about solutions without thinking first about adverse results. That's why it may be helpful to have someone friendly at the table - at least initially, Someone like a thoughtful American who would say, "listen - Israel is here in good faith and is taking a helluva chance. We want to see it work and hope you do too. But if we're wrong and you decide to trick us, you are going to be a radioactive lake. Now - let's talk reasonably about how we can all live together."
I surely do wish we could have a beer now. My head is hurting again. As is my heart.
Wha'?
Post a Comment
<< Home