Hizbullah won't give up rocket arsenal

Makes of himself a preening braggart towards the end. Some of the talkbacks are a bit mind-boggling.

Hizbullah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, speaking to the Lebanese daily A-Safir Tuesday morning, said his organization would not relinquish its missile and rocket arsenal, Army Radio reported.

Nasrallah said that Hizbullah would use the weapons only if Lebanon was attacked again on a large scale by Israel.

# Middle Israel: To Hassan Nasrallah

"We have just finished the war and are in no hurry to conduct operations in the Shaba Farms, although we reserve the right to do so. No one can send Israel reassuring messages on this matter for free," he said.

According to Nasrallah, the once legendary IDF "became an example of failure and embarrassment in this war.

Jpost

"From my cold dead hands!"

not giving the rockets to Lebanon to defend themselves against a large scale attack from Irael, should it come?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

giving up his right to attack israel (sheba farms).

News to me.

It is the responsibility of Israel. If the Shebba Farm was attacked and Israel stood by and did nothing, we would hear screams and cries how it was another "Sabra and Shatila." If, however, Israel responded, it would be condemned as "excessive and unnecessary, as it is not their land anyway, and they just hold it to provoke."

That about "sum it up?!"

If the Shebba Farm was attacked and Israel stood by and did nothing, we would hear screams and cries how it was another "Sabra and Shatila."

Sabra and Shatila are Palestinian refugee camps. The inhabitants of Sheba farms consist partially of Israeli colonists. The comparison falls to pieces at that juncture.

If, however, Israel responded, it would be condemned as "excessive and unnecessary, as it is not their land anyway, and they just hold it to provoke."

So...Sheba farms is not Israel then? That was, the very simple, question. A tangential (and somewhat histrionic) summation is tedious when a simple answer will do.

sheba farms as recognized by the UN does NOT belong to lebanon.

Is it Israel? You stated it was as a matter of course in your post. That is what I am asking. Very simple, very straight-forward question.

I'm somewhat bemused at your reference to what is "recognized by the UN". You are aware that the UN does not recognize Israel beyond the green Line, don't you. Also the UN does not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Odd that you would use the 'UN recognition' reference in such a selective manner.

But I digress, the kernel of my inquiry is all about if Sheba farms IS Israel, as you stated. Very simple question. Much like "Is water wet?"

is occupied by israel, but it isnt lebanese territory either.

also UN resolutions say israel should pull out of occupied territories to safe and defensible borders. that does not necessarily mean the green line.

additionally jerusalem was SUPPOSED to be an international city under UN control. the UN did not do its job and send troops in to protect it when jordan invaded and took over the old city in 1947. they did little between 1947-1967 when no jews were allowed in the old city.

since 1967 all religions have been allowed to go to their holy sites and pray. the individual holy sites should remain as they are, under the control of each of the respective religions. the city itself should remain as is. under no UN resolution is part of jerusalem supposed to go to Palestine.

Israel should pull out unilaterally to the approximate green line. build the wall at that point, not further in as it is now. if after that point there are still attacks on israel from palestine, then israel would have a right, as does any sovereign nation, to defend itself to the best of its capabilities and repel and destroy any attackers.

it is the palestinians and the worlds best interest, that the palestinian government and people fully recognize israel and be at peace with them. unlike now when hamas wants to destroy israel.

also the UN should do its job and fully disarm the illegal milita/terror group known as hizbollah.

Hizbollah did a much better job of beating the Israeli army than the Lebanese army could ever hope for. This is the new model that others will follow.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has said he does "not regret" the capture of two Israeli soldiers that led to Israel's offensive against Lebanon.

"The capture was exploited for the timing of the war ... but we think it hastened a war that was going to happen anyway and this was to our advantage and the advantage of Lebanon," Nasrallah said in an interview with the Lebanese daily newspaper As-Safir, published on Tuesday.

"I say we did not make a mistake in judgment. Our calculations were correct and we do not regret it."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7EC98E77-1FBA-4130-A0D2-0599A5B7991E.htm

:shrug:

"It Is The Job Of The Imam To Tell People What To Believe.

"So, look around, Lebanon. What you see is not death and destruction. It is the beautiful sight of victory, and the dead are all martyrs. Is it not glorious? Those may look like bomb craters, but they are really 'victory craters.' See that pile of rubble that used to be a house? That is blessed victory rubble, and all of Lebanon should be grateful for it. But best of all, Hizbullah has retained enough weapons to bring about another divine victory, perhaps as wonderous and glorious as the one that everyone is so happy and satisfied with today. Just think about it. After lebanon rebuilds, Hizbullah can once again give Israel the excuse to bomb Lebanon into another wonderous victory."

The Nasrallah interview does, as you observed, degenerate into something could have simply been reported as "Yadda yadda, coppers!" without much sacrifice in accuracy, and a great virtue of economy....

though the subject is rarly seen here,i do believe it has a major influence on the conflict.. cultures do have affects on war:

Lets try the basics: if cultures are different, that means some will be more succsseful and some will be less at different things (such is the definition of differences)

Israel for instance has a culture with a strong military influence, along with that a strong liberal press....and high demands from the people. When the PM goes on TV and claims "we won".....every israeli satire TV show has enough material to last a year.....The army may be respected and have influence, but not enough to screw up and get away with it.
Destruction and lives lost cannot be washed away with "victory speaches"


now, how shall we define "arab/islam/localized middleeastern culture, when they claim "they won"......nary a "squeak" from the arab TV, newspapers etc (locally, that i've read) making fun of Nassralla. For those who follow the arab press, this is usually a "given"...the question at hand, is how does it affect the continuation of the conflict....

anybody game to pick this up?

. . lies in the amount that the minds of the average citizens are infected with ideology.

Arab cultures in the ME would come out pretty high on that score. Probably as high as anywhere in the world.

I see Israel as much more like Europe.

Ideology is not the same as religion. Religion can be strongly ideological as Evangelical Christianity is and as Islam is. American liberal Christianity is quite non-ideological - its mission is more nurturing than prescriptive - as is I think, much of Judaism.

Ideological religion is certain that only it is the true religion - and followers must organize their daily lives proving their faith in that premise.

There are ideological religionists in Israel certainly, but their effect on national politics must be filtered through a strongly secular political process. (Am I right, Pelsar?)

Bush has shifted our political process significantly in the ideological direction - which include religious aspects. With our nuclear capability that makes the US a very dangerous nation in the world - far more dangerous than Israel.

Secular governments don't always make the right decisions, but they have much less problem changing course when they figure that out - than those who believe they are following the path their God set for them.

from what ive observed with my limited exposure, it seems the arabs ive met are very cautious about publicly expressing dissenting views... almost to the point of compromise of ones own public opinion.

in private though i know these issues are discussed and toyed with... and what is presented publicly(by the govt or other such spokespeople) may be very different than how the general public feels. youll never know this though if youre not "in the loop"

perhaps the core of it is eurpoean/western sort of attitudes may be viewed somehting like one of other families where all the kids are misbehaved... running around and talking back to the adults... though i suppose the easiest parallel for me to draw would be the saddam regime... those who verbally disagreed with him "disappeared". now thats not to say theres someone, or a group of people going around the west bank and gaza "disappearing" people... but i think we all know what im getting at here.

nobody wants a spanking because you talked back to the adult.

I dont doubt for a second that within the various arab homes (be it lebanese/palestenain, etc) their opinions are being heard...what is important to me, is that those opinions get out and be heard. Its not a matter whether or not i agree or disagree with them, but the idea of "freedom of speach"....the understanding that one can disagree loudly with the govt and in fact demand that ones voice be heard, is crucial to a free society.

my experience is actually quite different as the arabs that i get to talk freely to, are israeli arabs who, though remain more cautious then the jewish israeli citizen, still will speak out.

Nasralla was instrumental in occupying s. lebanon, beruit, e. lebanon, attacking a neighboring country, arming his own militia....this is not the kind on man that Lebanon or any other country needs.

he is fast becoming the ideal of the "non state actor"....fed and armed by a foreign country, having a milita stronger than the host country and taking over slowly via politics its host......and with no responsabiity toward the countries institutions.

The lebanese and other countries (especially the arab ones with direct connections: family and culture) should be mighty afraid of this..and start speaking out loud and clear.

a similar sort of dialog has been going on over how the west views china and the issue at hand is not about freedom of speech as much as it is the freedom to disagree in public. individuals are free to speak and free to think. they are monitored less by their govt than they are by the IDF. in fact im sure the US govt monitors its civilians more than the arab states monitor theirs. i do feel however a good amount of the debate should be about whether the people (chinese, lebanese, arabs in general) want this western version of freedom of speech... because it doesnt fit with their cultural codes. traditionally asian cultures are very polite. kids listen, they dont talk back. in public theyre not to be fussy like their american counterparts, whose parents can be seen yelling and tugging at them at the local market.
but it would not be polite or proper for me to approch a parent in the market and tell them how to manage their child... or to pry into personal family matters. its actually somewhat embarrassing to see how some americans treat their kids, and how their kids have grown to be so misbehaved... and i think thats how many arabs feel about verbal dissenters... embarrassed. sort of an 'as if we arent having enough trouble solving our problems, you have to let the gossip out and now we have people outside the conversation sharing their unwanted opinion'

i actually think it is an insult of sorts where civil societies with free speech either:

1) are too lazy and ignorant to use it
or
2) those who voice it are ignored, neglected or marginalized by their elected reps, who obviously have a different agenda

why would you offer the luxury or seduce the notion of free speech if the only thing it does is polarize society? america is notorious for having all the free speech in the world and having done so little with it. in fact if you look at our 'international follies' in the past could decades youd really wonder where the american public has been?

--------------

what you said about nasrallah is true, however much the same could be said about the state of israel... just on a larger scale.

so israelis have freedom of speech. you also have a democracy. yet you also have scandal, a polarized public, an expansion of settlements in the west bank and all the rest of the mess. the tides are shifting here, not just in arab states but in your country and mine. they thing is what are we to going to do about it?

"Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you."

Doing an Olmert, you might say, or "Pulling a Bush."

He looked better when he was showing a little modesty.

Nothing beats Mr. Newman's "Political Science"....

It has long seemed to me that should be the national anthem, and whenever one of out diplomats meets others in a conference, its singing by a chorus of men, in flannels and hard-hats and the like, should proceed our diplomat's entrance, and his or her opening words should then be, "Now, you see what I have to deal with, my friends...let's make this good...."