Nasrallah speaks - 3 main points
1) It appears as if deterrence may have been restored based on some of Nasrallah's comments:
"We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station.
2) Contrary to my beliefs, Nasrallah seems convinced that there will not be a round 2 to this war anytime soon:
"Their displaced people are going back and they have started to rebuild the north. Someone who acts like that doesn't seem to be going to war. We are not heading to a second round."
3) And finally, Nasrallah made mention of possible negotiations for the release of IDF's kidnapped soldiers:
"Contacts recently began for negotiations," Hezbollah said. "It seems that Italy is trying to get into the subject. The United Nations is interested and the negotiations would be through [Parliamentary Speaker Nabih] Berri."
Read more about his interview here
"We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station.
2) Contrary to my beliefs, Nasrallah seems convinced that there will not be a round 2 to this war anytime soon:
"Their displaced people are going back and they have started to rebuild the north. Someone who acts like that doesn't seem to be going to war. We are not heading to a second round."
3) And finally, Nasrallah made mention of possible negotiations for the release of IDF's kidnapped soldiers:
"Contacts recently began for negotiations," Hezbollah said. "It seems that Italy is trying to get into the subject. The United Nations is interested and the negotiations would be through [Parliamentary Speaker Nabih] Berri."
Read more about his interview here
posted by ehurwitz at 11:18 AM
5 Comments:
so what do you think? Where does this leave Israel in its assessment of the war? I think it's ridiculous that Nasrallah cites an article by Seymour Hersh. Suddenly, a Jew is worth quoting?
Here in Israel people have been criticizing the government for the poor management of the war, including weak tactics that were used, the lack of strategy and the inability to bring about more significant results as it relates to Israel's security - the elimination of Hizbollah.
Israel (Olmert and the government) has acknowledged this and will be forming a committee to investigate where Israel went wrong.
At this point Israelis are showing a bit of patience in anticipation of what will be when the new UNIFIL force is fully deployed in Southern Lebanon.
I think that everything that comes out of Nasrallah's mouth, and even Ahmadinejad's mouth is pure junk. What is scary is that millions and millions of people intake this junk as sacred dialogue.
efri i think being in israel has hurt your objectivity, which i guess is to be expected.
it's a huge error to discount everything nasrallah and ahmedinejad say as pure junk, particularly ahmedinejad. i grant that he's a rabid anti-semite and should therefore be viewed with skepticism and caution, but he's also a democratically elected leader. i see one of his main goals as calling out the west on perceived hypocrisy, which is undoubtedly the root of much of the anger in the middle east. you're allowed to have nuclear power and we're not? why, exactly? the west attempts to enforce its will against iran without answering that question. why do we avoid answering? in my opinion, because the answer is based on an _assumption_, as opposed to a rational argument, that only the nations the U.S. deems trustworthy can be trusted. ahmedinejad is challenging assumptions. that the west is the big decision maker, that israel has a right to exist, etc. we operate under assumptions that these things are correct (not to say that they aren't), but fail far too often in providing logical underpinnings for our opinions, reverting instead to the "we're not going to engage in debate about this" argument.
maybe at some point in the not so distant past the answers to ahmedinejad's questions were perfectly clear. but that's faded with time. i'm not saying this to condone violent reactions, or anti-semitism (obviously), or the blind desire to wipe israel off the map -- in any measure. i'm just saying that swatting away debate is dangerous. if we're right, we should be prepared to engage.
First off, you make some good points and I agree with your holistic approach to being objective and your ability to question everything. That is how progress is achieved and propelled. I wish there were more people like you in Iran and in Syria asking the same questions you’re asking. I still maintain that pure junk comes out of their mouth, but that’s one man’s opinion.
The main assumption here is that Western life is “better” for the globe. Not whether or not Iran is a threat. We are in a clash of civilizations (always have been), and we are seeing how that is being played out in the modern world with modern weapons. Iran has been sponsoring anti-Israel terrorism for years, which is empirical action taken against the Jewish nation. Iran is at a proxy war with Israel.
Thus there is no room for assumption or speculation, we know that Iran despises Israel, is already fighting Israel, and in his own words will attempt to “wipe Israel off the map”. Seriously, what more do you want to convince you that Iran is indeed a viable threat to Israel.
The reasons for this are plenty. We know the USA played dirty in Iran which most certainly resulted in an anti-USA sentiment. Israel, serving the interests of the USA is always the one to take the punishment (seeing Israel is in the region and is a more realistic target than the US). Second, Iran has interest in purifying the region, and Israel’s “colonial” establishment sponsored by UN 181 in 1948, goes against their goals for a purely Muslim region.
We say Iran can’t have nuclear weapons because during these somewhat sensitive times, Iran, considering her nature and history is absolutely capable of taking action.
Iran has aspirations to purify the Middle East into a Muslim region. Israel is a continued disruption to this goal. What is needed is a mind set change amongst some of the more “extreme” Arab nations. Egypt and Jordan are decent examples of nations that became moderate in simply recognizing Israel’s right to exist. As long as Iran, Nasrallah, and all them mafia members deny Israel’s right to exist, we have a fundamental problem: survival.
We were supposed to learn our lessons, Alex. That’s what 6 million Jews died for - to remind us of the dark side of humanity, and where humanity needs to be. To teach us how important tolerance is.
It’s remarkable to me how liberal people continue to defend nations that don’t understand the meaning of tolerance. In fact, the vice versa is preached.
I can’t even comprehend this fact, considering the liberals are credited for so much positive in this world, especially in the USA – causing social revolution after social revolution. I guess it’s expected when your leader is George Bush and you want to automatically disagree with his policies, even if it relates to Israel’s survival.
I don’t demand that the President of Iran speak intelligently, shit, the president of the USA can’t even do that. But I do demand that at least some line of reasonable rationale come out of his mouth. Instead, you get ridiculous statements made to the world! about what he thinks of Israel and the holocaust.
You have problems with the USA and Israel? Let’s talk about them over coffee. Don’t go denying the holocaust – that IS pure junk.
Ahmad Tibi (an Arab MK) did that with a right wing Likud MK at a restaurant in Tel-Aviv. They talked about their differences. They don’t threaten to kill each other, send their cousins to blow themselves up and kill you, and continue to publicly preach hatred. They get in a forum and debate their differences. I guess it’s not as easy to do in a nation like Iran, striving to become a Shi’ite empire in the Middle East.
Israel, as a democratic nation housing over 3 millions Muslims, and a over 5 Millions Jews and Christians, is a model for a progressive nation that continuously sets new boundaries for humanity’s standards. What’s crazy is that the world simply sets double standards when it comes to Israel, and asks her to do the impossible. I have a problem with this, and all humans living in diverse and progressive societies should have a problem with this as well.
I am an idealist and have goals to restore humanity and establish peace and tolerance amongst all human beings; blind to gender, religion, race, or ethnicity.
I believe in dialogue and I know that we aren’t always right.
But, we don’t publicly threaten to wipe Iran off the map. We have Arab MK’s, and acknowledge the concept of diversity. We made peace with Arabs and Muslims, and even in Tel-Aviv you will see Muslims, Christians, and Jews strolling the same beaches and streets. We continue to break social barriers, like being the most advanced gay and lesbian rights society, or being one of the most advanced societies in technology, health and sciences.
These elements that are a reality in Israel is clear indication of the fundamental difference between Israel and her enemies: Israel cherishes, respects, and appreciates life. Our enemies appreciate life by blowing themselves up and as many innocent civilians as possible.
Do you not see an obvious difference in the behavior? Where there is no tolerance, there is no boundary. Our good friend Hitler taught us this.
But hey, for the sake of criticizing Bush and being liberal – turn a blind eye to all this evidence that is clearly out there – and continue to contribute to the anti-Jew/Israel build up. I guess it’s why I find myself being a bit more subjective than usual. If me being non objective for the sake of Israel’s survival and for the sake of humanity – then heck, I am in no way sorry.
Yet you've said that the positive changes for Israel are going to come through objective thinking -- which is it? Just like the Bush administration's equation of dissent with being unpatriotic, there's something wrong when objectivity is made tantamount to being anti-Israel and anti-Jew.
Iran as a threat to Israel, and the assumption that the western way of life is better are connected issues. I see the connection as pertinent to most of the problems in the Middle East; us big strong nations have the power and _will_ to enforce what we see as the correct way to live on others. Hence, resentment, fear, violent reactions on the part of the receiving end of our agenda. Again, I'm not condoning, I'm simply explaining.
Ahmedinejad is a person with a bullhorn who is making that perfectly clear. He may be crazy, but he isn't dumb, and he's trying to either cast light on the issue or attempt to engage in a debate about it (of course he also has extreme violent goals about which he's not so forthcoming, like the destruction of Israel). Whether or not he's crazy, though, I think this tactic is noteworthy and is something important that should not be cast off.
Perhaps _I'm_ crazy but I feel that getting back to the core issues (what Ahmedinejad desires) is important not only because a world leader is making us look cowardly for failing to address them, but also because our own moral justification is based on being clear on exactly how, and exactly _why_ we are right. These are issues we rarely address. And when they are addressed, I usually hear the same tired rhetoric that never really gets to the core. We need a serious intellectual consideration of where we're at, and we need to engage all the facets of the issue without fear of being proven wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home