Sunday, November 26, 2006

Hezbollah declares...

"Whomsoever dares to contemplate the idea of removing Hezbollah's weapons, we will cut off his hand and head, and we will snatch his soul"
Huge poster put up Thursday night on the outskirts of Beirut


  1. Hizballah and their provocative slogans have indeed become an inconvenience. The only way to get out of this vicious circle is a restructuring of the political system as it currently exists. Equality amongst all sects should be the goal.
    How that should take place is a huge question mark which hangs over Lebanon.

  2. Anonymous7:34 PM

    i think "inconvenience" is the wrong word to use. to most of us, "restructuring the political system" includes removing hizballah's weapons. this would be a major step in reaching "equality among all sects". hizballah is threatening those people who wish to change the political system, especially those from within the shiite sect. people are living in fear 24 hours a day in lebanon, and supporting a group that threatens to cut the heads off those striving for positive change doesn't bode well. time to wake up ya khayyeh.

  3. Take another look at the poster in the post. Think a moment about the muder of Pierre Gemayel. Now, watch this movie

    It makes you think.

  4. Hezbollah's statment fits the Iranian model - agressive, abusive and threatning. Hezbollah is a pawn of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran has clearly stated that any nation that makes peace with Israel is against Islam. They are not in favor of any peace.

    Iran has a long history of political assassinations as well. Hezbollah favors war over peace, death over life and does all this in the name of God.

    Just my two-cents, which won't even buy a penny candy these days.

  5. That doesn't sound/look/feel good ... sigh.

  6. very revealing video shafik...

  7. Anonymous12:51 AM

    Shafik, your site is obviously a propaganda site.

  8. Anonymous, I do not think that SOLELY the relinquishment of weapons will give equality to all sects and a result in a fair political process and a decrease in sectarianization. Dearming Hizballah is a part of that, but surely not the solution to all of our woes.

    The Taef agreement and political systems are flawed and this is something dire that needs to be addressed.

  9. Just a quick note, the words in this poster aren't new. They've been said a while ago. I wonder why they decided to put these posters at such a delicate point in time. It's as if they're looking for more tension in this country. I also wonder who is intended to hear these words. All in all, a very unfortunate and uncalculated move by Hizballah.

  10. upset4:38 PM

    Are we witnessing the demise of the Republic of Lebanon (Al Jumhuriyya al Loubnaniyya) and the birth of the Islamic Republic of Lebanon (Al Jumhouriyya Al Islamiyya Al Loubnaniyya)??

  11. Are any posters going up to counter this one?

  12. Anonymous9:10 PM

    well, sorry, but the March 14 have really been cornering Hizbullah.

    Any removal of Hizbullah's weapons prior to a concrete defense strategy under a strong government is allowing Israel to do have its way militarily in Lebanon... For me, Syria (and Iranian intersts working via Hibullah) is a much more manageable threat than Israel and focusing disporptionately on Syria and magifying Syria's menace to Lebanon is very wrong to the Lebanese. Hizbullah has already agreed that there weapons exist as a deterrence to Israel and to their removal once the south is guarenteed protection by the Lebanese state.

    Secondly, I think it is naive to think that Hizbullah wishes to establish an Islamist state in Lebanon. The Iranian 'Revolution' was in a nation with a vast majority of Shi'ite Muslims. Lebanon has three major and seperate blocks (Christians, Sunnis, Shi'ites) and if such a state is to be established massive emigration must occur (or continue to occur). So this Islamic state propaganda is just designed to instigate fear in my opinion.

  13. Anonymous9:40 PM

    No comment:

    New York Times quoting Walid Eido, March 14er.

    "The army will first protect us, but if we find ourselves obliged we will take to the streets, and a peaceful confrontation will be faced with a peaceful confrontation, and clashes will be faced with clashes,” said Walid Eido, a judge and member of Lebanon’s Parliament in the governing coalition, speaking of the challenge from Hezbollah. “We will sell our blood to buy weapons and confront them. We will never let them control the country.”

  14. Anonymous,

    The last time I checked it was clearly stated in Hizballah's manifesto that they want to create an Islamic republic in Lebanon- Similar to the Iranian revolution "mother of all revolutions". Not only that, two years ago you had Iranian flags flying over South Lebanon until a huge chunk of the population expressed their dismay. Now, if you feel ok with Syrian hegemony and Hizballah's weapons you're free, but know that your opinions will never be shared. An occupation is an occupation, period.

  15. Anonymous12:24 AM

    Yes you are right Ib. Occupation is occupation. But just because some Hizb'ies put Iranian flags doesn't mean Iran was imprisoning, occupying, oppressing and stealing in Lebanon. Such practices were done by Syria and Israel, but not by Iran.

    Hizbullah is a Lebanese party with a huge following and they can not be ignored. They may have a greater vision for Lebanon in terms of its Islamization but I do not think it is one that they plan to enforce through violence. At any rate, I think it is very far from the Islamic Revoluation of Iran, and even the Lebanese Shi'ite population would not accept such a radical system.

    As for Syria's hegemony, let us be realistic... Syria's essence is embedded in Lebanon. Michel Murr, Suleiman Franjieh, Omar Karami, Rafiq Harriri & Walid Jumblat (at one time) and Nabih Berri are some of the 'heads' of Syria's rule in Lebanon. They have there followers and they are not minor.

    But what is the bigger threat? In my opinion, we can benefit from Hizbullah's weapons now. But not forever. I say no to a return to Syrian occupation and no to Israeli occupation as well and it is the latter that I believe is more severe and more harmful. Right now Syria stands at the door of Lebanon and we as Lebanese need to find a way to have a good relationship with Syria... neither occupation nor cold relations (as is the case now).

  16. Anonymous Patriot1:29 AM

    Anonymous you need to grow up! Cold relations? Would you call assassinating a former Prime Minister cold relations? What about the journalists, MP's, and Ministers that followed? Is that cold enough for you?

    You and everyone like you are the problem in Lebanon. You bitch and whine about cold relations and Israel attacking us but when its time to resist a real threat you don't have the balls to say anything against them!

    Go get comfortable in Asem Qanso's lap you muppet. Go cuddle with Wiam Wahab, and go suckle on Berri's bossom. Your saviors are coming back don't worry.

  17. just a few questions for anonymous (just use ur name, we won't get mad):

    1) how can we improve relations with syria when they're killing our deputies, ministers, prime ministers, journalists, etc...?

    2) didn't hizballah's weapons start the july war in the first place? and if the israelis were planning it, why did HA accelerate it instead of trying to prevent it for the sake of the hundreds of children who died?

    3) can u elaborate on the "syrian essence"?

    4) if hizballah are so patriotic and only work for the good of lebanon, why don't they demand the syrian govt compensate us for the crimes they committed in lebanon? why don't they demand the release of lebanese prisoners from syrian jails for example?

    I think you're the one who needs to get real. if a lebanese group entered syria, killed 8 soldiers and took 2 hostage, what would the syrian response be? probably not much better than israel's. it's time we unite against all of lebanon's enemies, arab or not, under the auspices of the UN and the international court.

  18. Hey guys, we don't want this to become a bashing forum so everyone please keep your suckling to yourselves keep this environment constructive and respectful.


  19. Anonymous5:37 PM

    Nick, I will do my best to answer you questions as I see it...

    1) how can we improve relations with syria when they're killing our deputies, ministers, prime ministers, journalists, etc...?
    a. I am all for the investigation of these crimes. But I am not sure it is only Syria that is involved. I am not trying to absolve Syria from guilt but Lebanon has many enemies.
    b. Our current PM Sanioura was kissing Condeeleza while the US was sending the biggest bombs to Israel... how can we even have relations with the US?... in the same way, we can not ignore Syria like this.

    2) didn't hizballah's weapons start the july war in the first place? and if the israelis were planning it, why did HA accelerate it instead of trying to prevent it for the sake of the hundreds of children who died?
    a. There has been war on our southern border for years. People were dying every once in a while by live fire from Israel before this war.
    b. Other than that I really dont know. But I do believe that Israel intended and intends to acquire south Lebanon for itself and HA is a great obstacle for that goal.

    3) can u elaborate on the "syrian essence"?
    Just as the Maronite church has historical and political ties to the west so do many factions, parties, sects and tribes with Syria. This is what I mean by 'essence'. We have strong ties with Syria (irrespective) of the current Baath regime of Assad. Its a reality...

    4)if hizballah are so patriotic and only work for the good of lebanon, why don't they demand the syrian govt compensate us for the crimes they committed in lebanon? why don't they demand the release of lebanese prisoners from syrian jails for example?
    a. Replace HA with LF and Syria with Israel. How would you respond?
    b. the committee for Lebanese prisoners in Syria (SOLIDE) has repeatedly stated that HA is the only party that has done anything to help them concretely. So they have helped and much more than any of the March14ers who were collaborators and partners of the Syrian regime in Lebanon and the 'October 13' Imprisonments...

    I prefer to remain anonymous, why should you insult your friend? Like this when insults will fall on me they will fall on an 'anonymous' not your friend.

  20. Ze Carioca6:52 PM

    Anonymus effendi - Either you are too young to remember the 50-60s or you are an ignorant when it comes to Israel. Up until the Cairo Agreement in 1969, when South Lebanon was transformed into FatahLand, the Lebanon-Israel border was one of the quietest one. Not a single shot. Only after the Cairo Agreement, did Israel start to react. REACT to attacks made from the Lebanese side of the border. So, I do not see where you found that Israel wants to take over South Lebanon. Yes, wake up...

  21. Anonymous,

    I can appreciate the effort you've put into trying to rationalize the old party lines you've so eagerly devoured and regurgitated in this comments section.

    I want to help you, to engage you in constructive conversation that can lead to constructive 'solutions', but when you whip out gems like "Israel intended and intends to acquire south Lebanon for itself", I really lose all hope of any progress, not because of the infallibility of your arguments (haha) but because I really don't think you're capable of looking at events objectively.

    I mean the reality on the ground today and in the past is there for you to see. You don't even have to resort to cases in which there is ambiguity (like the assassinations...) but just look at the war. Look at the dialogue that preceded it, look at the topics that were covered in that dialogue, the goals they were close to achieving, and the changed dynamics this war started by Hizballah has imposed on our nation's dialogue.

    By June of 2006 we were close to achieving a 'national defence' strategy which would have encompassed integrating Hizballah into the army, maintaining a sense of security for the residents of the south (if thats the way you want to approach the problem), and securing the sovereignty and internal coexistence of the country by depriving any one group from the ability to carry out unilateral actions with grave consequences on everyone. So as we approached his milestone of Lebanon's evolution what happened? I hope I don't have to remind you.

  22. anonymous,

    just a few counter-points for the sake of discussion:

    1) a. fact: syria is directly involved with the spate of assasinations and bombings throughout lebanon. they are trying to avoid the international court at all costs and just as bashar said, they are willing to break lebanon over the heads of those who oppose its plans.
    b. the govt took the lead in trying to end the war through diplomacy, which includes lobbying the US govt to pressure israel (the only real way to reach a cease-fire). HA was demanding an immediate cease-fire from the second day of the july war, and critized Rice for not calling for one early on. how do u expect to get a cease-fire if you boycott the americans?

    2) a. when HA has erected various military installations on the border of a country that has no respect for human dignity, they bear some of the responsibility for militarizing the region and endangering the lives of the people living there.
    b. annexing south lebanon is no longer a viable strategic option for israel. for one thing, south lebanon houses hundreds of thousands of palestinians. they would rather keep them in south lebanon.

    3) thanks for clarifying. the political parties and families in lebanon have strong ties with the baath regime (frangieh, berri, HA, murr, owmiyeh, aoun, etc..) the historical ties are there, and hopefully after the baath regime is gone we can build a real relationship with syria based on mutual respect, not tutelage. unfortunately, as long as the baathists remain in power, no reconciliation can take place.

    4) a. the LF has called for the release of lebanese prisoners from israel. also, the LF stopped recieving weapons from israel around 20 years ago, while HA is in the process of defending the syrian regime from prosecution in the killings of lebanese politicians.
    b. i am unaware of HA's efforts in releasing lebanese (LF and army) prisoners from syrian jails, especially since they walked out on the parliamentary session to release geagea (who was deemed innocent). also, aoun has denied he knows of any prisoners in syria taken on october 13th. nonetheless, i would be interested to see how exactly HA have helped SOLIDE.

  23. Anonymous,

    Let me ask you a question. Would the current Syrian allies (Franjieh, Kanso etc...) still be the allies of Syria without the current Baathist regime ? I guess they won't be and I would also guess you wouldn't be talking to us about an "essence" but rather opposing it. Clearly, they are the allies of the regime but not of Syria which is tremendously different.

  24. The Lebanese supporters of the Alawite regime in Syria are driven among others by sectarian motivations, once the Alawite regime is gone, they will be the first ones to oppose the "Syrian essense".

  25. Anonymous9:38 PM

    One quick comment to Nick's response,

    4) The DailyStar reported about SOLIDE's thanking of Hizbullah as being the only party to have given them more than verbal support. The war broke out shortly after and I suppose that the issue of Lebanese detainees in Syrian jails is not a priority for most now. I remember the controversy surrounding the supposedly 'pro-Syrian' Aoun who said he did know of any of his soldiers from October 13 in Syrian jails: I think that he was misquoted... he was saying they were not soldiers of Aoun, or prisoners of his tayyar, but rather of all Lebanon i.e. he calls for their release not because they aoun'eh or otherwise but just because they are Lebanese.

  26. Anonymous10:27 PM

    It seems that 'regime change' in Syria is being touted by many Lebanese these days as being a pancea to all our problems. I have a problem with this and I challenge this way of thinking.

    1) If the Syrian regime changed there would still be, most probably, 'friends and foes' of Syria in Lebanon only they would be flipped. The 'Syrian essence' would remain in Lebanon, only it would be in different regions and amongst different people.

    2) I assume for Debate regime change is better on the condition that it is replaced by a non-Alawite regime, i.e. Sunni... why would that be better? I have heard from Syrians and others that Bashar Assad has protected many religious minorities and while many are not happy with Bashar they say 'Change Bashar, but not the Alawites'. They tell me that the Hama massacares are not forgotten and there is a great desire for vengeance. The sectarian talk is that the Sunni's hate the Alawites and Christians and group them both together. There is no denying that the Assad regime is brutal, but the point of this post; why must we, as a state, be involved in changing it.

    3) If the Baath regime is changed, why should the next one be any better, be it Alawite or not? Khaddam, the former vicepresident of Syria is a strong candidate amongst regime changers as a president of Syria; is he better (for us)? He is a strong ally of the Harriri family and he is one of the architects of Syrian occupation and oppression of Lebanon. Its interesting that Saad Harriri's closest Syrian ally was a mastermind of Syria's rule in our country. Maybe we should start having 'pro' vs 'anti-Assad' labels.

    4) Why are we even talking about regime change? Is the role of our government to change the Syrian regime or to lead and serve the Lebanese people? Is it up to us Lebanese to work to change other soverign nations' regimes... there is an opposition in Syria that is small but growing and taking considerable steps and we can provide careful support... We are not Syrian citizens to be part of that opposition.

  27. i think that regime change concept is based on overoptimistic perception of our region .. absolutely any change that happens here is eventually for worse

  28. Anonymous,
    is it implied in your analysis that protecting a minority justifies oppressing a majority ? If so, then no need for further discussion.
    Second, the word "essence" is completely wrong even when one follows your analysis. What you probably mean is political benefits and not "essence". I guess essence should be reserved for SSNP (Syrian Socialist nationalist party). Yours and others' logic is based on narrow sectarian justifications and in no way represents an "essence". Finally, most of the Lebanese don't want to take part in changing any regime; However, they will sternly ask that no regime will interfere in their internal business.

  29. Anonymous11:56 PM

    No it is not implied that protecting a minority justifies oppressing a majority... I wrote "There is no denying that the Assad regime is brutal, but the point of this post; why must we, as a state, be involved in changing it." You misunderstood me if that is the case.

    As for "essence" I mean that as long as Lebanon and Syria exist as states (irrespective of regimes) there will be pro-Syrian elements within Lebanon some because of tradition, others because of expediency. And that is perfectly natural.

    Finally, why are you painting me as one who supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? I do not support the occupation of any foreign force over Lebanon, namely, Syria and Israel. It easy to bash me once you label and stereotype me based on what I'm posting, but try not to.

  30. Anynonymous,
    I'm neither labelling you and nor stereotyping/bashing you. We're just engaged in a debate, but that's it. I still maintain that the lines of your analysis are not based on an essence. An "essence" would be to believe that Lebanon and Syria should unite, since they share common heritage, language and what have you (I guess you know what I'm referring to, 2aoumieh Sourieh). Anything else is based on realpolitik.

  31. Anonymous1:00 PM

    Welcome to Hezbollacity of murders, shame... Lebanon on sale.

  32. It seems that Hassan Nasrallah has a double speech. One where he issues death threats and treason certificates and then people start dying, and the other where he says he wants peaceful demonstrations. The conclusion is that this man has no principle whatsoever as long he can achieve the objectives of his masters in Tehran.


Powered by Blogger.