Reply #42: Your comment is misleading.

[Shaktimaan]

Don't forget that the disarming of Hezbollah was a key provision in the ceasefire agreed to in 2006, which effectively ended the war. It was far from an unreasonable request as well.

The 2006 war began following unprovoked attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. Now one of the main criticisms of Israel's response was that since it was not attacked by Lebanon but by a militia, Israel had no right to take extensive actions commensurate with a declared war between two nations. As Hezbollah never disarmed, failing to fulfill their end of the agreement, (while Israel did fulfill their side), I wouldn't consider it unreasonable that Israel began making reconnaissance flights over Lebanon to determine the extent to which Hezbollah was rearming. Especially since the information gathered would ultimately benefit most Lebanese should war break out again, allowing Israel to more precisely bomb Hezbollah's rocket sites, resulting in significantly less collateral damage. After all, it isn't possible for Israel to attack Hezbollah without also attacking Lebanon, even if their war is not against the Lebanese.

Hezbollah poses a genuine threat to Israel and according to agreements signed by the Lebanese government itself, has no right to arm itself. Now you used the word "defend" to describe their actions, though unless they actually attack Israel, provoking a response, I can't see why they would need to "defend" themselves anyway. Especially from simple reconnaissance flights. Israel has never attacked Lebanon without provocation.

Quite simply, Hezbollah does not have the right to arm themselves at all, and especially not with weapons such as these which clearly threaten Israel's ability to defend itself. Now I have no problem at all with Lebanon arming itself with weapons like these, in fact I would consider it entirely appropriate. The argument here is NOT about whether Lebanon has the right to defend itself. It clearly does. The issue is whether Hezbollah has the right to do so and whether doing so even offers greater security to Lebanon in the first place.

The government of Lebanon has a clear responsibility to its citizens; seeing to their protection and well being is its central function. Hezbollah however, has its own motives and goals, which may or may not coincide with the majority of Lebanon's. They do not have the right to unilaterally make decisions about Lebanon's role in international conflicts and should never have the ability to involve Lebanon in a war of Hezbollah's choosing, for reasons of Hezbollah's own. It undermines both the stability of Lebanon and, more obviously, the fundamentals of democracy itself within Lebanon. Whether or not Israel is breaking international law, UNSC Resolution 1701, the ceasefire between their nations, or anything else is truly none of Hezbollah's concern. It should be up to the government of Lebanon alone to decide if and how to appropriately respond to any provocation.

Frankly, I fail to see how anyone could possibly defend the actions of a shadow government arming itself with weapons that should only be available to national governments. Had Hezbollah never attacked Israel then the war of 2006 could have been entirely avoided. Ultimately, the stronger that Hezbollah becomes the bloodier any potential conflict between it and Israel would be. I would think it was obvious that the best thing Hezbollah could do for Lebanon's security would be to abide by the cease fire agreement they signed, not provoking Israel by violating it. They are incapable of offering any real level of security for the people of Lebanon, only the increased likelihood of chaos. Their actions are so much more than merely illegal... they represent the abandonment of the rule of law and a rejection of governmental authority altogether. They represent a dangerous step backwards, away from the collective responsibility offered by governments and nations, towards the primitive tribalism of yesteryear and the breakdown of core tenets of democracy.