Monday, August 14, 2006

Hersh and Young on the Causes of War

Two interesting background articles on the Lebanon war are Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker and Michael Young's in the New York Times Magazine.

Hersh argues that Washington backed Israel's use of the Hizbullah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as an opportunity to launch a far reaching war on Hizbullah, not only to destroy the Shiite militia, but also to provide a test-case for an eventual attack on Iran. Hersh writes:

"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran." A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House "has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah." He added, "It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it."
Michael Young's article, "Hezbollah's Other War," argues that Hizbullah was looking for a way to destroy the new liberal, prosperous, and open Lebanon that was emerging in the post-Syrian era. He writes,
"the radical Shiites are well on their way to destroying the creation of a new Lebanon, which may have been the point all along."
Both articles are important reading.

Washington's interests in Israel's war
New Yorker Magazine
Issue of 2006-08-21
Posted 2006-08-14

In the days after Hezbollah crossed from Lebanon into Israel, on July 12th, to kidnap two soldiers, triggering an Israeli air attack on Lebanon and a full-scale war, the Bush Administration seemed strangely passive. "It's a moment of clarification," President George W. Bush said at the G-8 summit, in St. Petersburg, on July 16th. "It's now become clear why we don't have peace in the Middle East." He described the relationship between Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria as one of the "root causes of instability," and subsequently said that it was up to those countries to end the crisis. Two days later, despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until "the conditions are conducive."

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

Israeli military and intelligence experts I spoke to emphasized that the country's immediate security issues were reason enough to confront Hezbollah, regardless of what the Bush Administration wanted. Shabtai Shavit, a national-security adviser to the Knesset who headed the Mossad, Israel's foreign-intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996, told me, "We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends. Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time. We had to address it."

Hezbollah is seen by Israelis as a profound threat—a terrorist organization, operating on their border, with a military arsenal that, with help from Iran and Syria, has grown stronger since the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ended, in 2000. Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said he does not believe that Israel is a "legal state." Israeli intelligence estimated at the outset of the air war that Hezbollah had roughly five hundred medium-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets and a few dozen long-range Zelzal rockets; the Zelzals, with a range of about two hundred kilometres, could reach Tel Aviv. (One rocket hit Haifa the day after the kidnappings.) It also has more than twelve thousand shorter-range rockets. Since the conflict began, more than three thousand of these have been fired at Israel.

According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. "It's not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into," he said, "but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it."

The Middle East expert said that the Administration had several reasons for supporting the Israeli bombing campaign. Within the State Department, it was seen as a way to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah. He went on, "The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy."

Administration officials denied that they knew of Israel's plan for the air war. The White House did not respond to a detailed list of questions. In response to a separate request, a National Security Council spokesman said, "Prior to Hezbollah's attack on Israel, the Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack. Even after the July 12th attack, we did not know what the Israeli plans were." A Pentagon spokesman said, "The United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program," and denied the story, as did a State Department spokesman.

The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military coöperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force.

"The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully," the former senior intelligence official said. "Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It's not Congo—it's Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, 'Let's concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.' " The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.

"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House "has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah." He added, "It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it." (As this article went to press, the United Nations Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution, although it was unclear if it would change the situation on the ground.)

According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term—and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah "may be the A team of terrorists"—Israel's campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. "If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can't pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million," Armitage said. "The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers' kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah. "Hezbollah, like clockwork, was instigating something small every month or two," the U.S. government consultant with ties to Israel said. Two weeks earlier, in late June, members of Hamas, the Palestinian group, had tunnelled under the barrier separating southern Gaza from Israel and captured an Israeli soldier. Hamas also had lobbed a series of rockets at Israeli towns near the border with Gaza. In response, Israel had initiated an extensive bombing campaign and reoccupied parts of Gaza.

The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. "They've been sniping at each other," he said. "Either side could have pointed to some incident and said 'We have to go to war with these guys'—because they were already at war."

David Siegel, the spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said that the Israeli Air Force had not been seeking a reason to attack Hezbollah. "We did not plan the campaign. That decision was forced on us." There were ongoing alerts that Hezbollah "was pressing to go on the attack," Siegel said. "Hezbollah attacks every two or three months," but the kidnapping of the soldiers raised the stakes.

In interviews, several Israeli academics, journalists, and retired military and intelligence officers all made one point: they believed that the Israeli leadership, and not Washington, had decided that it would go to war with Hezbollah. Opinion polls showed that a broad spectrum of Israelis supported that choice. "The neocons in Washington may be happy, but Israel did not need to be pushed, because Israel has been wanting to get rid of Hezbollah," Yossi Melman, a journalist for the newspaper Ha'aretz, who has written several books about the Israeli intelligence community, said. "By provoking Israel, Hezbollah provided that opportunity."

"We were facing a dilemma," an Israeli official said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "had to decide whether to go for a local response, which we always do, or for a comprehensive response—to really take on Hezbollah once and for all." Olmert made his decision, the official said, only after a series of Israeli rescue efforts failed.

The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel told me, however, that, from Israel's perspective, the decision to take strong action had become inevitable weeks earlier, after the Israeli Army's signals intelligence group, known as Unit 8200, picked up bellicose intercepts in late spring and early summer, involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader now living in Damascus.

One intercept was of a meeting in late May of the Hamas political and military leadership, with Meshal participating by telephone. "Hamas believed the call from Damascus was scrambled, but Israel had broken the code," the consultant said. For almost a year before its victory in the Palestinian elections in January, Hamas had curtailed its terrorist activities. In the late May intercepted conversation, the consultant told me, the Hamas leadership said that "they got no benefit from it, and were losing standing among the Palestinian population." The conclusion, he said, was " 'Let's go back into the terror business and then try and wrestle concessions from the Israeli government.' " The consultant told me that the U.S. and Israel agreed that if the Hamas leadership did so, and if Nasrallah backed them up, there should be "a full-scale response." In the next several weeks, when Hamas began digging the tunnel into Israel, the consultant said, Unit 8200 "picked up signals intelligence involving Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, saying, in essence, that they wanted Hezbollah to 'warm up' the north." In one intercept, the consultant said, Nasrallah referred to Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz "as seeming to be weak," in comparison with the former Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who had extensive military experience, and said "he thought Israel would respond in a small-scale, local way, as they had in the past."

Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, "to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear." The consultant added, "Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council." After that, "persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board," the consultant said.

The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon's infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon's large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign. The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week. (David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that Israel had targeted only sites connected to Hezbollah; the bombing of bridges and roads was meant to prevent the transport of weapons.)

The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was "the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran." (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)

Uzi Arad, who served for more than two decades in the Mossad, told me that to the best of his knowledge the contacts between the Israeli and U.S. governments were routine, and that, "in all my meetings and conversations with government officials, never once did I hear anyone refer to prior coördination with the United States." He was troubled by one issue—the speed with which the Olmert government went to war. "For the life of me, I've never seen a decision to go to war taken so speedily," he said. "We usually go through long analyses."

The key military planner was Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the I.D.F. chief of staff, who, during a career in the Israeli Air Force, worked on contingency planning for an air war with Iran. Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, and Peretz, a former labor leader, could not match his experience and expertise.

In the early discussions with American officials, I was told by the Middle East expert and the government consultant, the Israelis repeatedly pointed to the war in Kosovo as an example of what Israel would try to achieve. The NATO forces commanded by U.S. Army General Wesley Clark methodically bombed and strafed not only military targets but tunnels, bridges, and roads, in Kosovo and elsewhere in Serbia, for seventy-eight days before forcing Serbian forces to withdraw from Kosovo. "Israel studied the Kosovo war as its role model," the government consultant said. "The Israelis told Condi Rice, 'You did it in about seventy days, but we need half of that—thirty-five days.' "

There are, of course, vast differences between Lebanon and Kosovo. Clark, who retired from the military in 2000 and unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for the Presidency in 2004, took issue with the analogy: "If it's true that the Israeli campaign is based on the American approach in Kosovo, then it missed the point. Ours was to use force to obtain a diplomatic objective—it was not about killing people." Clark noted in a 2001 book, "Waging Modern War," that it was the threat of a possible ground invasion as well as the bombing that forced the Serbs to end the war. He told me, "In my experience, air campaigns have to be backed, ultimately, by the will and capability to finish the job on the ground."

Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, "Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I'm not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don't preach to us about the treatment of civilians." (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)

Cheney's office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams, a deputy national-security adviser, according to several former and current officials. (A spokesman for the N.S.C. denied that Abrams had done so.) They believed that Israel should move quickly in its air war against Hezbollah. A former intelligence officer said, "We told Israel, 'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.' "

Cheney's point, the former senior intelligence official said, was "What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it's really successful? It'd be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon."

The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely," he said. "It's an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.'s strictures, and if you complain about it you're out," he said. "Cheney had a strong hand in this."

The long-term Administration goal was to help set up a Sunni Arab coalition—including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. "But the thought behind that plan was that Israel would defeat Hezbollah, not lose to it," the consultant with close ties to Israel said. Some officials in Cheney's office and at the N.S.C. had become convinced, on the basis of private talks, that those nations would moderate their public criticism of Israel and blame Hezbollah for creating the crisis that led to war. Although they did so at first, they shifted their position in the wake of public protests in their countries about the Israeli bombing. The White House was clearly disappointed when, late last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, came to Washington and, at a meeting with Bush, called for the President to intervene immediately to end the war. The Washington Post reported that Washington had hoped to enlist moderate Arab states "in an effort to pressure Syria and Iran to rein in Hezbollah, but the Saudi move . . . seemed to cloud that initiative."

The surprising strength of Hezbollah's resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rockets into northern Israel in the face of the constant Israeli bombing, the Middle East expert told me, "is a massive setback for those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. And those who argue that the bombing will create internal dissent and revolt in Iran are also set back."

Nonetheless, some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the Administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should, the former senior intelligence official said. "There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," he said. "When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran."

In the White House, especially in the Vice-President's office, many officials believe that the military campaign against Hezbollah is working and should be carried forward. At the same time, the government consultant said, some policymakers in the Administration have concluded that the cost of the bombing to Lebanese society is too high. "They are telling Israel that it's time to wind down the attacks on infrastructure."

Similar divisions are emerging in Israel. David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that his country's leadership believed, as of early August, that the air war had been successful, and had destroyed more than seventy per cent of Hezbollah's medium- and long-range-missile launching capacity. "The problem is short-range missiles, without launchers, that can be shot from civilian areas and homes," Siegel told me. "The only way to resolve this is ground operations—which is why Israel would be forced to expand ground operations if the latest round of diplomacy doesn't work." Last week, however, there was evidence that the Israeli government was troubled by the progress of the war. In an unusual move, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, Halutz's deputy, was put in charge of the operation, supplanting Major General Udi Adam. The worry in Israel is that Nasrallah might escalate the crisis by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. "There is a big debate over how much damage Israel should inflict to prevent it," the consultant said. "If Nasrallah hits Tel Aviv, what should Israel do? Its goal is to deter more attacks by telling Nasrallah that it will destroy his country if he doesn't stop, and to remind the Arab world that Israel can set it back twenty years. We're no longer playing by the same rules."

A European intelligence officer told me, "The Israelis have been caught in a psychological trap. In earlier years, they had the belief that they could solve their problems with toughness. But now, with Islamic martyrdom, things have changed, and they need different answers. How do you scare people who love martyrdom?" The problem with trying to eliminate Hezbollah, the intelligence officer said, is the group's ties to the Shiite population in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut's southern suburbs, where it operates schools, hospitals, a radio station, and various charities.

A high-level American military planner told me, "We have a lot of vulnerability in the region, and we've talked about some of the effects of an Iranian or Hezbollah attack on the Saudi regime and on the oil infrastructure." There is special concern inside the Pentagon, he added, about the oil-producing nations north of the Strait of Hormuz. "We have to anticipate the unintended consequences," he told me. "Will we be able to absorb a barrel of oil at one hundred dollars? There is this almost comical thinking that you can do it all from the air, even when you're up against an irregular enemy with a dug-in capability. You're not going to be successful unless you have a ground presence, but the political leadership never considers the worst case. These guys only want to hear the best case."

There is evidence that the Iranians were expecting the war against Hezbollah. Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite Muslims and Iran, who is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and also teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, said, "Every negative American move against Hezbollah was seen by Iran as part of a larger campaign against it. And Iran began to prepare for the showdown by supplying more sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah—anti-ship and anti-tank missiles—and training its fighters in their use. And now Hezbollah is testing Iran's new weapons. Iran sees the Bush Administration as trying to marginalize its regional role, so it fomented trouble."

Nasr, an Iranian-American who recently published a study of the Sunni-Shiite divide, entitled "The Shia Revival," also said that the Iranian leadership believes that Washington's ultimate political goal is to get some international force to act as a buffer—to physically separate Syria and Lebanon in an effort to isolate and disarm Hezbollah, whose main supply route is through Syria. "Military action cannot bring about the desired political result," Nasr said. The popularity of Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a virulent critic of Israel, is greatest in his own country. If the U.S. were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Nasr said, "you may end up turning Ahmadinejad into another Nasrallah—the rock star of the Arab street."

Donald Rumsfeld, who is one of the Bush Administration's most outspoken, and powerful, officials, has said very little publicly about the crisis in Lebanon. His relative quiet, compared to his aggressive visibility in the run-up to the Iraq war, has prompted a debate in Washington about where he stands on the issue.

Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said that "there was a feeling that Rumsfeld was jaded in his approach to the Israeli war." He added, "Air power and the use of a few Special Forces had worked in Afghanistan, and he tried to do it again in Iraq. It was the same idea, but it didn't work. He thought that Hezbollah was too dug in and the Israeli attack plan would not work, and the last thing he wanted was another war on his shift that would put the American forces in Iraq in greater jeopardy."

A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. "He is angry and worried about his troops" in Iraq, the diplomat said. Rumsfeld served in the White House during the last year of the war in Vietnam, from which American troops withdrew in 1975, "and he did not want to see something like this having an impact in Iraq." Rumsfeld's concern, the diplomat added, was that an expansion of the war into Iran could put the American troops in Iraq at greater risk of attacks by pro-Iranian Shiite militias.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war's implications for the American troops in Iraq. Asked whether the Administration was mindful of the war's impact on Iraq, he testified that, in his meetings with Bush and Condoleezza Rice, "there is a sensitivity to the desire to not have our country or our interests or our forces put at greater risk as a result of what's taking place between Israel and Hezbollah. . . . There are a variety of risks that we face in that region, and it's a difficult and delicate situation."

The Pentagon consultant dismissed talk of a split at the top of the Administration, however, and said simply, "Rummy is on the team. He'd love to see Hezbollah degraded, but he also is a voice for less bombing and more innovative Israeli ground operations." The former senior intelligence official similarly depicted Rumsfeld as being "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse."

There are also questions about the status of Condoleezza Rice. Her initial support for the Israeli air war against Hezbollah has reportedly been tempered by dismay at the effects of the attacks on Lebanon. The Pentagon consultant said that in early August she began privately "agitating" inside the Administration for permission to begin direct diplomatic talks with Syria—so far, without much success. Last week, the Times reported that Rice had directed an Embassy official in Damascus to meet with the Syrian foreign minister, though the meeting apparently yielded no results. The Times also reported that Rice viewed herself as "trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties" within the Administration. The article pointed to a divide between career diplomats in the State Department and "conservatives in the government," including Cheney and Abrams, "who were pushing for strong American support for Israel."

The Western diplomat told me his embassy believes that Abrams has emerged as a key policymaker on Iran, and on the current Hezbollah-Israeli crisis, and that Rice's role has been relatively diminished. Rice did not want to make her most recent diplomatic trip to the Middle East, the diplomat said. "She only wanted to go if she thought there was a real chance to get a ceasefire."

Bush's strongest supporter in Europe continues to be British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but many in Blair's own Foreign Office, as a former diplomat said, believe that he has "gone out on a particular limb on this"—especially by accepting Bush's refusal to seek an immediate and total ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. "Blair stands alone on this," the former diplomat said. "He knows he's a lame duck who's on the way out, but he buys it"—the Bush policy. "He drinks the White House Kool-Aid as much as anybody in Washington." The crisis will really start at the end of August, the diplomat added, "when the Iranians"—under a United Nations deadline to stop uranium enrichment—"will say no."

Even those who continue to support Israel's war against Hezbollah agree that it is failing to achieve one of its main goals—to rally the Lebanese against Hezbollah. "Strategic bombing has been a failed military concept for ninety years, and yet air forces all over the world keep on doing it," John Arquilla, a defense analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me. Arquilla has been campaigning for more than a decade, with growing success, to change the way America fights terrorism. "The warfare of today is not mass on mass," he said. "You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network. Israel focussed on bombing against Hezbollah, and, when that did not work, it became more aggressive on the ground. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result."


At 8/14/2006 08:56:00 AM, Blogger Ausamaa said...

Despite being two informative articles, one constantly gets the impression from American writers that the WORLDE REVOLVES AROUND WHAT THE US DO AND DO NOR DO. Or that the world see what is happening in it or to it from a Primarliy AMERICAN presepective.

We do not, so do does around three other billion inhabitants living in this planet. Ninimum.

To give you just a small example, whose speaches were more interested to the masses and rulers during Lebanon month-long war, Hassan Nassralah's or G.W. Bush???

THe world does not end at New Hampshire or at San Diego, it extends far beyound. So the US and the US ADminstration's estimates, appraisals, opinions, planes, propaganda, public relations, and self-assigned inportance ends mainly there. Of course it can go a little further once its accompanied by a three-tone GPU, but it still remains that. Like it says on the DOLLAR. One Among MANY. THe World does not really give a damn about US elections, the efects of a $100 as a price of oil at it's gas stastions, what Bush said to Condi, and what this said to that.
THe world is different. And the US, by its own faulty designs and actions be it on account of being foolish, or on being mislead by foolish idiots, is not the center of the universe. Not anymore. Two, fine, educated and well informed writers; and look at what is thier majore reason of concern and worry!!!!!

THe US, now, it stands naked, ugly, alone and most important of all, not-really-feared-or-respected.

Join Israel in the forthcoming dammage assessments. Or do whatever you want. But for God's sake, stop fooling yourself and the American people -as you have no one else left to fool-. They, and thw world, deserve better.

At 8/14/2006 11:56:00 AM, Blogger Atassi said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 8/14/2006 11:58:00 AM, Blogger Atassi said...

Dr .Assad please stop giving us the empty talk and worthless speeches, too many peoples died, too many dreams shattered with this none sense conflict, YOU must give the Lebanese peoples time to morn and try to recover, Dr, Assad, You need spear us your rhetoric’s and empty talks, we all know you can’t deliver. It’s not your time for celebration and it’s not an opportunity to steal the moment. Please Spear us your worthless speeches. WE have NO FATH on you.

At 8/14/2006 04:27:00 PM, Blogger SimoHurtta said...

Seymour Hersh's interview in Democracy Now about the article.

At 8/14/2006 04:34:00 PM, Blogger t_desco said...

Some interesting quotes on Syria:

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, you've also written about the U.S. rejecting overtures from Syria in dealing with the war on terror. Can you talk about that, as, of course, you can't talk about Lebanon or Iraq with this administration without talking about Syria and Iran?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, look, this is an administration that still refuses to deal with people it doesn't like. You know, I don't know. When my children were in pre-nursery, you know, little boys will get into a fight, and the nursery school teacher would take the two little boys who were fighting and say, “You two shake hands and go back to the sandbox,” and they would. And so we have a president that won't talk to the Iranians, although they’ve wanted to, and there’s been a lot of stories written about that. And they won't talk to the Syrians.

And I’ve obviously -- maybe not so obviously, but I’ve interviewed the President of Syria, Bashar al-Asad, a couple of times. And one of the last times, with great pain he told me -- I think he showed me, even showed me, he was -- this was in 2005. He's written letters to George Bush, saying, “Let's get together. Let's talk. We have a lot in common. We can help you. We and Iran basically both have more -- we can do more for you in Iraq than any other country. Why aren't you using us? We don't need a Somalia on our borders. We're not interested in chaos there.” And this White House doesn't believe it. And the letters weren't answered, he told me. His ambassador here in Washington, Imad Mustafa, is absolutely isolated. All this talk that the White House has made, Condoleezza Rice, about having openings to Iran, to Syria, are just, you know -- they're not worth much. There's been some low-level talk. Nobody has made any efforts.

Syria has, as I’ve written in the New Yorker years ago, was one of the biggest helpers we had after al-Qaeda struck us, because Syria is -- the old man Asad, the father of the current president, hated Jihadism. He did not like the Muslim Brotherhood. They were his opponents. And he kept the best books going on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is very closely connected to al-Qaeda. In fact, we learned more about al-Qaeda from Syria after 9/11 than from any other country. Asad, the president, gave us thousands access -- agreed to give us access to thousands of files. And I wrote a story, I think in ’02 or ’03 for the New Yorker, in which I quoted a senior intelligence official of Syria saying, “We're willing to even talk about our support for Hezbollah with you. We want to see you win the war on terror.”

So it's been an amazingly horrific performance by this White House, which is of par. You know, I don't think any of us -- I certainly won't breathe easy until we get to 2009, inauguration of a new president. But there's just no question that if we were to approach Syria right now, something else I didn't write at the time -- that's because I wasn't writing about it -- I don't think there's any question that Israel was interested in talking to Syria in ’03, even about the Golan Heights, which is a tough issue for them, and --

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, Sy --

SEYMOUR HERSH: Let me finish this. And we discouraged Israel from doing it.


SEYMOUR HERSH: I don't know. I guess we didn't want our friends to talk to our enemies.

AMY GOODMAN: You wrote in 2003 about the U.S. bombing of a convoy inside Syria that once and for all smashed the attempts of Syria to communicate with Washington.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, it didn't really. At the time, it did. But there he is again, the President of Syria, Mr. Asad, tried again and certainly in ’05, the letter he sent me, I saw, had just been written. He was still trying to make contact with Washington, because, obviously, in his view, he had a lot to offer us about resolving the crisis in Iraq. And it's a crisis for Syria, too, in Iraq, because there's now 400,000 or 500,000 Iraqi refugees living in Damascus and elsewhere, a couple hundred thousand now of Lebanese. And so real estate property has gone out of sight there.

The irony is that as much as we can't stand Syria, for the first time in their life, the Syrians are getting an awful lot of foreign investment, because, you know, with the oil at $75 a barrel, all of the Gulf countries, which are -- they're just washed with money. They don't know what to do with the money they're making every day. And they don't want to invest anymore in America, because some of them have contributed money to charities that have been put on a watch list by the United States. So there's a fear in some of the Gulf countries that if they invest the hundreds of billions of dollars they’ve collected in Washington or real estate here, they might have the property seized for being aiders and abetters of terrorism, so they're dumping money into Syria right now. They were dumping a lot of money into Lebanon, too, but not any more.
Democracy Now!

At 8/15/2006 03:22:00 AM, Blogger qunfuz said...

Why can't democracy go hand in hand with nationalism. What's wrong with Michael Young? How can he go on and on about democracy and refer to Hizbullah as 'radical Shiites' who need to be sidelined. Hizbullah have solid support among the Shia, who are 40% of the population, and plenty of support among other sects as well. Who really is the majority in Lebanon? Lets have a census in Lebanon, let's have a proportional representation voting system, and see what happens. Has Young not yet learnt how much his friends in the US and France respect Lebanon. This war was an American war as much as an Israeli war against the Lebanese people and infrastructure. If Young wants prosperity, he should realise that real sustainable prosperity will not be possible for Lebanon until there is a regional solution to the zionist problem. He should be proud that Lebanon has produced the first organisation in the Arab world able to effectively resist zionist racism and US imperialism, in an intelligent way. As Hizbullah sets about rebuilding, I salute them. And no, this isn't a Syrian comment on the need for Lebanon to suffer while Syria sits comfortably. The Golan front should be opened to resistance, and the resulting 'punishment' from Israel is no excuse for Syrian dictatorship. I want a free, democratic Syria that respects the rights of its people, and I want Syrian resistance to zionism. Enough postponement of both.

At 8/15/2006 03:43:00 AM, Blogger aLi Hassan said...

What I have found interesting as one of the outcomes of this conflict is the change in public opinion in the Middle East.

I believe that prior to this conflict the people of the Middle East did care about Western public opinion to show sympathy towards us as the continuous victims of Israeli aggression. Following this conflict specifically western public opinion no longer matters to us. It has been clear that it is useless. It has become 'us' and 'them' as opposed to the previous school of thought of unity with the globe. Many moderates and liberals like myself, why still remaining liberal, have lost complete hope in western allies.

Not only has this effected Arab public opinion but I believe it has sounded alarm bells within many Arab government circles to rethink their so called relationship with our western allies, as it has proven to be useless. Arab governments have to now focus on putting more weight on local public opinion rather than the opinions of their so called 'allies'.

As Sayed Hassan Nasrallah said in his last speech "a historic victory" is completely true as it has united the Arab people not only in Lebanon but across the Middle East and across all sects and religions. Not only has Hezbollah emerged stronger politically in Lebanon, but the entire Arab people (regardless of nation, sect, religion, moderate, conservative, liberal, capitalist or socialist) have emerged stronger speaking with one voice, chanting "United we are ONE, Death to Israel, Death to America".

At 8/15/2006 03:50:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


You are plianly quite ingnorant and backward, sitting in the comfort and safety of your home wherever you are, with your family, and your TV, electricity and clean running water.
Naasrala represents the ignorance and backwardness of a people that a from the dark ages and they are sucking our people in to the abyss.
There are people who educate their people for science and art and PROSPERITY and there are those who maleducate their people for war, blowing themselfs up, abusing their women and human-rights horror. Wake up you ignorant! - tell us which one are you?

At 8/15/2006 04:00:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 8/15/2006 04:04:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


From H Al Sabah in Beirut
You are plianly another ignorant and backward idividual.
Hizbollah may have emerged stonger - yet lebanon and the people of the civilized world remain definatley not united on the your assinine point- we are discusted with ourselves, and are depply ashamed.

We have been sent into the dark ages here in Lebanon -right where the Nasrala wants all of us. Uneducated, homeless and dependant on handouts from tehran.

While the entire world advances - -we remain united in shame - you hopeless idiot

At 8/15/2006 04:18:00 AM, Blogger Ameen Always said...

No matter where I stand, I still feel that any thing Islamic scares the hell out of me.

At 8/15/2006 04:31:00 AM, Blogger Ausamaa said...

Inverse constant

Apart from your other fashionable thoughts, I really loved that one: "the darek ages..right where Nasralah wants us to be".

Well buddy, count your blessings; Now we seem to have a CHOICE at least.

Either you get Bush to HAVE US where HE wants us to be (i.e, The NEW MIDDLE EAST Renaissance Period ala-iraq, etc....),

OR you have the Nasrallah side "have us" where they wants us to be.

Unfortunatly for certain people, the usually ever-preset "other" choice of "where Israel wants us to be" does not seem applicable at the moment as "they" themselves do not seem to know WHERE they currenty are, or WHO got them there???!!!!Or WHAT they need to do next??

I personally would go for the Nasrallah side choice. Less headach, less pain, more dignity, a clear sense of direction, we speak the same language, AND on the winning side too.

Heck, is that not what FREE CHOICE IS ALL ABOUT???

At 8/15/2006 04:44:00 AM, Blogger Ausamaa said...

Ameen Always

"Anything Islamic scares the hell out of me"

Heck man,you shoud be really scared if you think like that.
And keep running, cause there is more than a billion of those scary people in the world today. And watch out every step you make also, because "some one" is also after those Muslims to "contain" them -for thier own good!!!. They do not like the idea, and they are seem to be fighting back.

So, watch out man....

At 8/15/2006 04:45:00 AM, Blogger qunfuz said...

Inverse Constant

You are quite right that I am comfortable, and those who have suffered have more of a right to be heard than me. The most the war has affected me is that my aunt had to leave her house in Beirut (the one she rebuilt after Israel smashed it in 82) and went to Syria. And my wife's best friend has lost 27 members of her extended family. Actually, no, she didn't 'lose' them. They were murdered by zionism. But me, my wife, my children, the house I live in, alhumdulillah, we're fine.

If you ask the people who have suffered, however, (and i have asked them, as well as seeing them on TV), the vast majority agree with the sentiments I expressed earlier.

As for your other comments: can you give me an example of a Hizbullah fighter blowing himself up during this conflict? No, you can't. I'm not Shii, or an Islamist. I'm an agnostic liberal of Sunni background. I certainly don't support pressure on women to follow any so-called rules they don't want to follow. In South Beirut, south of the Litani and in the Bekaa you see girls in make up and revealing clothes walking next to their muhajiba sisters. On alManar you see women with hair flowing freely invited onto talk shows. So please give me some examples of Hizbullah abusing women. And examples of 'human rights horror' as you call it from Hizbullah please. I see human rights horrors perpetrated by all the states in the region, by the surrendered client states, by the US in Iraq and at Guantanamo, by Israel, but not by Hizbullah.
I made it quite clear that I am a supporter, naturally, of prosperity. I love science (used well) and art too. But resisting oppression does not preclude these things. The two can go together.

At 8/15/2006 04:49:00 AM, Blogger Ausamaa said...

Hi Joush,

This site is becoming more exciting by the day.

Where do you find "them" at???

At 8/15/2006 04:49:00 AM, Blogger aLi Hassan said...

H Al Sabah,

You are absolutely right we should be ashamed that with all the wealth of our Arab countries and our marriages with the most powerful countries in the world, our governments still could not stop the destruction of another Arab country.

We should be ashamed of ourselves that our allies were asking one of the poorest Arab countries and a non-Arab country to get involved, and had sidelined the richest and the supposed regional 'powerhouse' Saudi.

We should be ashamed that our rich powerful Arab nations really have no control over their own land.

We should be ashamed that Iran is the one helping Arabs and not Arabs countries helping Arabs. Example you should particularly be ashamed of is Kuwait sends $500 Million to Hurricane Katrina Victims and vows $20 Million to its Lebanese brothers.

In all of this you are right we all should be ashamed.

However, you are completely in the wrong when you say Sayed Nasrallah wants to send Lebanon to the dark ages. Let me remind you that it was Israel that said it will send Lebanon 20 years back and not Sayed Nasrallah. It like clock-work every time a neighbor of Israel is on the verge of Economic prosperity it must crush it.

You my friend should have realized from this conflict that our western allies do not value our government's opinions, they are the ones that want you to remain silent, uneducated, and dependant on their handouts.

I may friend am not the hopeless one, for the outcome of this conflict has filled our Arab streets with hope like never before.

It is interesting to me how you speak about being civilized and then have to resert to name-calling in a desperate attempt to make an invalid point valid.

My friend it appears to me that you are the one who appears hopeless having realized you have no real friends in the west or at home.



At 8/15/2006 04:50:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


You are lost, impotent, humiliated and incompotent. That is why people like you support Nasrallah. You have become mal-educated, abused by your leaders and your thoughts molded in the absolute wrong direction by the struggle between the culture of modernity of the 21st century and one of the dark ages.

Do feel bad, or complain, or retaliate. Go and learn how to be useful to the world, contribute to art or science, start a global business, or start a charity that upholds peace and freedom. Or - go blow yourself up in cafe, abuse women, and fund and support evil dictatorships.

Chose one, - but please, please, please don't come online and show the world how backward and ignorant you truly are.

Hassan Beirut

At 8/15/2006 05:02:00 AM, Blogger aLi Hassan said...

Just a question, did any of you actually read the article before you started posting comments?

Because I'm pretty sure, now I could be wrong, but it appears to me that it clearly says that Israel was planning this all along.

Stop calling each other ignorant and READ the ARTICLE!!!

At 8/15/2006 05:07:00 AM, Blogger qunfuz said...

Hassan (if that's your name),

Could you please address some of the points raised by Ausama or me instead of repeating your strange accusations about blowing ourselves up and abusing women.

At 8/15/2006 05:10:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


You are a truly lost individual, icompotent and humiliated by your dictatorship leaders. It is only by earning respect through positive conributions to humanity as whole, that the muslem world will be successful.

It is not by dividing peoples, (chsitian/muslem/jew) that communities succeed, but by competing with each another in business and science and humanly.

You blame the Gulf kingdoms for our problems - WAKE UP - who supports a nation that is constantly destroying itself - only idiots. That means people like you!

Support Nassrala more and more - and one day, I assure you, it will creep into the back of your mind that - indeed you are a humilated person, incompetent, abused and mal-educated by your criminal leaders you so BLINDLY follow - poor you

H Al Sabh

At 8/15/2006 05:19:00 AM, Blogger Ausamaa said...

Inverse Constant,

I thank you for your free phsycoanalysis and -believe me-, I do understand your emotions. A "Defeat" of some body would certainly have its "after-effects" on other uninvolved bystanders. It is normal. Don't worry.

As to your advice, I will think about it. Charity work? HMMMM, with all the wars the US is getting everyone into especially around here, sounds like a good proposal. Abusing women?!!! I do not think so, too much competiotion by US soldiers in Iraq. Support evil dictatorships??? Heck, Bush is doing his best and he is not getting much success, what can humble me achieve???? Blow myself up? Needs good training by those US trained OBL operatives and I am not "that" dedicated or desperate.

See, I do not have many choices, but YOU have the ones I offered you earlier. Give it a thought.

At 8/15/2006 05:35:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


My name is Hassan - I am married to an Iranian - Ilive in beirut without constant electricity, fule and medicine. My wife like me, now, has watched her country-people on TV for the best part of 20 years discrace themselfs before the world. In what worldly dimension can you consider what Nasrala and Ahmadi Najad are doing good for people. For you not to realize this you are simply mal-educated.

Tehran is one of the worlds richest nations in natural resources, it has petrol, minerals, diversified industry and 80 million people. It is a self sufficient nation one of maybe a few in the world. Yet the Iran has been in decline YEAR ON YEAR ON YEAR since their revolution. How can this be explained, other ignorance, incompetence and or criminal intent.

Same goes for Nasrala, - he through the funding of Iran has brian-washed our people in schools, home and the media, into supporting beliefs that have made it acceptable for our homes and lives to be destroyed, in the name of the Shaba Farms.

You and truly deluded, stop propagating your ignorance and helplessness. Its shameful.

At 8/15/2006 05:41:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...


Because the USA especially led by Bush junior is guilty of so much destruction of its own, it doesn't mean you have no choices. To get respect you have to earn it - you do that by making clearly positive contributions to the world and not by upholding warmongering criminals who sow nothing but ignorance, dictatorship, human rights abuses and destruction

H alSabah

At 8/15/2006 05:54:00 AM, Blogger qunfuz said...


You're still not talking about Hizbullah.

I visited Iran this summer. I don't suppose, judging by your insulting tone, that you're interested in my opinion, but I found a country full of people who are sick of the government's interference in their private lives. Not just bourgeois young people feel like this, but almost everyone I met, including the working class. I agree with them. It would drive me mad if I had to live there. Iranians also complain about the govt for economic reasons. I can't really agree with them here. The country didn't look as good as it should, but still looked better organised and more prosperous than the rest of the middle east, including Turkey. Given the population explosion, Western sanctions and the general condition of Middle Eastern economies, they seem to be doing very well. I noticed that people complain much more freely and confidently than they would in Syria or in a client state like Egypt or Saudi. But Iran needs radical change, I agree.
I didn't praise Ahmedinejad, anyway, I praised Hizbullah. Yes, they are funded in part by Iran. So? Israel, Jordan and Egypt and funded by the US.
I agree absolutely that dividing people is a bad idea. I have no problem with Jews, or any other sect, religion or ethnic group. I was talking about fighting oppression.
If you like 'positive contributions' and peace, it would be nice if you could start by debating in a peaceful and civilised manner.

Best wishes

At 8/15/2006 06:15:00 AM, Blogger Inverse constant said...

qunfuz Ausamaa aLi

Fact: Hizbalah has divided our nation of Lebanon without consent. It has helped bring back the stigma of war that this country has with its shattered lives rebuilt, - only to bring it back to ruins.

The entire world will NEVER look at this country the same way. With your beliefs and your support for this champion of criminals you will keep ourselves and supposed nations like mine - lebanon firmly in the dark ages, where there is no justice for anyone except the powerful.

No welfare, except for those that blindly follow their criminal leaders. No good education except for those who can somehow flee their pariah-status nation, where Corruption is the only way of getting thing done . The list of crimes are endless

There are many books on the planet, the civilized worlds reads from all of them - you, you backwards people are stuck on a single page of a very small book indeed - humiliated, ignorant and locked in place by your backward culture of primitives

At 8/15/2006 06:20:00 AM, Blogger qunfuz said...


I think it very likely that I've read more books than you. It's a shame you won't calm down and debate properly. I'll have to leave you to your emotion now. Enjoy the enlightenment!

Best wishes

At 8/15/2006 07:45:00 AM, Blogger annie said...

Nasrallah's speech

السيد نصر الله: نحن أمام نصر استراتيجي وتاريخي للبنان والمقاومة وكل الأمة

أطل الأمين العام لحزب الله سماحة السيد حسن نصر الله على شاشة المنار في يوم الانتصار على العدو الإسرائيلي ليبارك للعائدين المنتصرين عودتهم وليقول لهم أنهم أهل الأرض وشرفها، بهم تعمر الديار وتقوم الكرامة ويصنع التاريخ. وفي حديثه المتلفز طمأن السيد نصر الله أصحاب البيوت التي لحق بها ضرر وما زالت صالحة للسكن، أنه سيتم تقديم العون لأصحابها سريعاً للترميم اعتباراً من يوم غد. وبالنسبة للبيوت المهدمة، قال سماحته أن الوعد الذي قطعه أثناء الحرب بترميمها قد حان وقت تنفيذه الآن وأضاف:"على أصحاب البيوت المهدمة أن لا يقلقوا، سيتم التعاون معهم اعتباراً من يوم غد وسيتم تأمين مبلغ مالي لاستئجار منزل لمدة سنة وسيقدم مبلغ آخر لشراء أثاث للمنازل إلى حين الانتهاء مع عملية إعادة الإعمار، وسيتم البدء برفع الأنقاض لبناء كل المنازل خلال أشهر، كما كانت وأفضل." كما دعا سماحة الأمين العام الشباب اللبناني لا سيما شباب حزب الله إلى التطوع والمساعدة في إعادة البناء. "حجم الدمار بالبيوت والبنية التحتية لا سابقة له في أي حرب إسرائيلية على لبنان وهذا تعبير عن العجز،" بهذا وصف السيد نصرالله حالة الدمار التي تسببت بها آلة القتل الصهيونية. وتطرق الأمين العام إلى السجال الداخلي الدائر حول مستقبل منطقة جنوب الليطاني وسلاح حزب الله ونشر الجيش والقوات الدولية، وأسف لتسريب بعض الوزراء ما جرى خلال جلسة مجلس الوزراء الأخيرة إلى الإعلام، مشدداً على أن حزب الله كان مع الحوار وما زال مع الحوار، وأن النقاشات حول هذا الموضوع كانت قبل صدور القرار 1701 وبعده. كما لفت سماحته نظر بعض الساسة اللبنانيين إلى أنهم أخطأوا في التوقيت على المستوى النفسي والمعنوي والأخلاقي، إذ أن لبنان كان ما زال يقصف، وكان الأوفر حظاً من هذا القصف لجهة التدمير والقتل والتشريد هم أبناء الجنوب والبقاع والضاحية الجنوبية أي الشريحة الأكبر من المؤمنين بالمقاومة، ليأتي من يتحدث وينظّر على الناس حول موضوع سلاح المقاومة ويتكلم بلغة خشبية. وإذ أكد سماحة السيد نصرالله أن الحزب فضل عدم الدخول في سجال من هذا النوع لأن ذلك من مصلحة العدو وليس من مصلحة الوطن، سأل "العظماء" الذين يطلبون تسليم سلاح المقاومة للجيش، هل جاءوا بحل لمزارع شبعا المحتلة، أو لقضية الأسرى أو حل لإبعاد لبنان عن دائرة التهديد الإسرائيلي؟ وقال السيد نصرالله إن الحزب موافق على بسط سيادة الدولة ولكن الدولة القوية القاومة والعادلة والمطمئنة، وتسائل: "هل الدولة القائمة حالياً هي كذلك تجاه كل الناس من كل الشرائح؟" وأن ذلك يحتاج إلى تأمل. وأضاف سماحته أن الجيش اللبناني كما هو الآن والقوة الدولية، ولو كان قوامها 50 ألف جندي، لن يستطيعوا حماية لبنان من العدو الإسرائيلي عندما يقرر الاعتداء على لبنان، والتجربة هي البرهان. هذا ودعا السيد نصرالله إلى عدم تضييع عنصر القوة في البلد بالعودة إلى طاولة الحوار لأن السجال يفقد لبنان قوته، فقوة لبنان هي المقاومة والوحدة الوطنية، وبهما تبنى الدولة القوية بكل مؤسساتها. فيما يلي النص الكامل لحديث سماحة الأمين العام "في هذا اليوم العظيم والجليل، والذي يعود فيه أهلنا الشرفاء والاطهار الى قراهم وديارهم واحيائهم، أتوجه اليكم برسالتي هذه، وأود في هذه الرسالة أن أركز على بعض العناوين والمواضيع. اولا: ما نحن اليوم فيه، لا اريد ان ادخل في تقييمه ولا في الحديث التفصيلي عنه، وانما استطيع ان اقول بكلمة مختصرة أننا امام نصر استراتيجي وتاريخي، وليس في هذا اي مبالغة للبنان كل لبنان، وللمقاومة وللامة كل الامة، ما معنى هذا المختصر، ما هي آفاقه، وما هي ادلته، وما هي وقائعه، هذا ما سأتركه للحديث في الأيام المقبلة لأن الحديث في هذا السياق يتوجه بالدرجة الاولى الى الشهداء، الى تضحيات الشهداء من شهداء المقاومة، من كل الأحزاب والقوى المقاومة الشريفة الى شهداء الجيش، وشهداء القوى الامنية وشهداء الدفاع المدني وشهداء وسائل الاعلام الى الرجال والنساء والاطفال المدنيين، الذين قتلوا وخصوصا شهداء المجازر، ابتداء من مروحين في الايام الاولى، انتهاء بيوم أمس في بريتال ومحلة صفير ومحلة الرويس ومجمع الامام الحسن عليه السلام، في الضاحية الجنوبية، لان الحديث في هذا السياق هو حديث عن المقاومين والتضحيات والثبات والصمود والناس والاهل والاحبة والاصدقاء والصبر والثقة والتحمل والاوفياء الذين وقفوا معنا في لبنان وفي خارجه طيلة هذه الحرب لا اعتقد انني مؤهل واستطيع ان اعبر عما يجول في عقلي ومشاعري، وان اشرح هذا الامر وانا اجلس على كرسي في قبالة الكاميرا، وانما المكان المناسب هو اللقاء القريب مع الناس، مع الاحبة، مع المجاهدين، والخطاب المباشر معهم. لذلك، ما يرتبط بهذا الموضوع سأتركه لتلك المناسبة القريبة، ان شاء الله، لنتحدث عن هذا كله عن الاسرى، عن معاناة بقية الارض المحتلة، عن غزة معاناة أهلها، عن فلسطين، عن التضحيات، عن المظلومية عن المسؤولية التاريخية عن المفصل التاريخي عن المرحلة المقبلة. الموضوع الثاني الذي اود ان اتحدث عنه، ما يرتبط بالنازحين وعودتهم الى ديارهم وما بعد هذه العودة بالتأكيد وبالدرجة الاولى يجب ان اتوجه بالتحية الى كل الذين صمدوا في ارض المواجهة. وفي الحقيقة، تحملوا ما لا يطاق لان حجم القصف من الجو والبر والبحر لا سابقة له في تاريخ لبنان، وان حجم الدمار الذي الحقه العدو الاسرائيلي بالبيوتن اضافة الى البنية التحتية، ولكن البيوت يعني يلحق الاذى المباشر بالعائلات لا سابقة له في اي حرب اسرائيلية على لبنان، وهناك دمار وخراب كبيران خلفهما هذا العدو الذي عبر لنا عن حقده ووحشيته وعجزه فقط في الايام القليلة الماضية قام بتدمير آلاف المنازل في الجنوب والضاحية الجنوبية والبقاع وفي مختلف المناطق اللبنانية ولكن كان هناك تركيز كبير جدا على مناطق الجنوب اللبناني وعلى الضاحية الجنوبية والهدف طبعا هو إيلام الناس ومعاقبتهم على موقفهم على شرفهم على شهامتهم على التزامهم على ايمانهم على انسانيتهم وعلى شموخهم. في كل الأحوال الشكر يجب أن نوجهه والتحية الى الذين صبروا في مرحلة النزوح والتهجير وعادوا اليوم الى مناطقهم والى أرضهم والى ديارهم حتى ولو كانت مهدمة. وأخص ايضا بالشكر كل السكان وأهالي المناطق وكل الطوائف وكل التيارات السياسية والدولة ومؤسسات الدولة وكل الهيئات الانسانية وكل من ساعد وساهم في احتضان أهلنا المهجرين والنازحين خلال فترة الحرب الصعبة. وأتوجه الى العائدين والى الصامدين والى الباحثين في مسألة ما هدم من بيوت أو لحق به الضرر من البيوت هنا صنفان ونوعان وأنا سأتحدث عن الوحدات السكنية والبيوت وما سواها من أمور ترتبط بالبنية التحتية بالأوضاع الاقتصادية بالأمور الأخرى التي لحق بها خرابا ودمارا. أؤجل الحديث عن هذا الأمر الى مرحلة لاحقة وأعتقد ان ما هو ملح الآن هو مسألة المنازل والبيوت لأنها المكان الذي يؤوي هذه العائلات الشريفة. بالنسبة للبيوت التي لحق بها أذى أو ضرر ولكن ما زالت صالحة للاستخدام والسكن ابتداء من الغد صباحا، إن شاء الله الأخوة في البلدات، في القرى، وفي المدن أيضا هم سيبادرون ويتصلون ويجولون على أصحاب هذه المنازل لتقديم العون المباشر والسريع للبدء بترميم هذه المنازل والسكن فيها في أسرع وقت ممكن. بالنسبة للبيوت المهدمة وهي الموضوع الأصعب أود أن أؤكد أولا وأن أطمئن هذه العائلات الشريفة أن عليها ألا تقلق، يعني ما قلته في الأيام الأولى للحرب لم يكن هو كلام فقط لتصمدوا، اليوم هو يوم الوفاء في هذا الكلام وبهذا الوعد وأنتم إن شاء الله لن تحتاجوا لأن تطلبوا من أحد ولا أن تقفوا في أي صف أو أن تذهبوا الى أي مكان. إخواننا الذين هم إخوانكم وأبناؤكم في كل المناطق والبلدات والقرى سيكونون في خدمتكم وايضا ابتداء من غد صباحا وسنتعاون نحن وإياكم في هذه المسألة. لا نستطيع أن ننتظر طبعا أمر الحكومة والمعدات المعتمدة لديها وما قد تستهلك وتحتاج لبعض الوقت. بكل الأحوال ما ستقوم به الحكومة ويمكن متابعته خلال الفترة القريبة المقبلة ولكن ما يمكن أن نتعاون به هو أن نعمل سويا على خطين وفي وقت واحد وابتداء من الغد. الخط الأول هو تأمين مبلغ مالي معقول لكل عائلة يساعدها على أن تستأجر منزلا لمدة سنة وتشتري أثاثا للمنزل، أثاثا لائقا ومناسبا لهذا المنزل لأن عملية إعادة بناء البيوت والمنازل والأبنية وبالتأكيد هي تحتاج الى شهور ومن الطبيعي في هذه المرحلة أن يستأجر الانسان منزلا ويشتري أثاثا لهذا المنزل وهذا ابتداء من غد. إن شاء الله وخلال أيام قليلة أستطيع القول انه سوف يتم تغطية كل هذه الحالات وإن كانت حالات كبيرة وخطيرة. حتى هذه اللحظة الاحصاء الأولي المتوفر لدينا في ما يتعلق بالبيوت المهدمة تهديما كاملا يتجاوز الخمس عشرة ألف وحدة سكنية وأنا أعرف ان هذا أمر كبير وخطير ولكن إن شاء الله نحن نملك إرادة هذا العمل وهذا الانجاز. والخط الثاني هو البدء برفع الأنقاض وأعمال البناء عسى ولعل أن نتمكن نحن وإياكم إن شاء الله وخلال شهور قليلة من بناء كل هذه المنازل التي هدمت، هنا المسألة أيضا هي مسألة إرادة. الارادة والايمان والصبر والتحمل والجدية والتخطيط والدقة والعمل الدؤوب الذي من خلاله استطعنا أن نواجه العدوان وأن نصمد وأن ننتصر بنفس هذه المعاني وبنفس هذه القيم والمشاعر نستطيع أن نخوض محنة وتجربة إعادة البناء وننتصر بها إن شاء الله. في هذا السياق أدعو جميع المهندسين ونحن هنا لا يكفي أن نوفر المال إنما هناك حاجة الى التضامن والتطوع والتعاون من المهندسين وتجار البناء وتجار مواد البناء وتجار الأثاث المنزلي، يعني لا يجوز أن يقدم أحد على رفع الأسعار نتيجة ازدياد الطلب، يجب ان يتصرف الكل بمسؤولية وبمسؤولية وطنية ايضا. نحن في حاجة الى الجهد المباشر، الى اليد العاملة امام هذا الحجم من اعمال البناء التي نحتاج اليها. قد لا تتوافر اليد العاملة الكافيه بسبب الظروف التي عاشتها البلد خلال الشهور الماضية، هنا جميعا يجب ان نتطوع ونعمل الى جانب اصحاب هذه المنازل في اعادة البناء. وهنا، ادعو الشباب اللبناني الى التطوع بالروح الوطني نفسها، التي شاهدناها خلال مرحلة المواجهة والاحتضان والاندفاع المدني والغيرة والحمية مع المودة والمحبة واللهفة على الناس، واوجه النداء بالتحديد الى شباب "حزب الله" الى اخواننا في كل المؤسسات والاطر والمجاهدين الى شباب التعبئة والطلاب والنقابيين والمهن الحرة، الى الجميع يجب ان ننزل الى الارض في معركة البناء وفي كل قرية وفي كل حي وفي كل مدينة، فلندع اعتباراتنا الشخصية جانبا وما يحتاجه هذا البناء حتى على مستوى العمل العادي البسيط يجب ان نساهم فيه، وان نكون حاضرين فيه، واعتقد ان الاعداد الكبيرة والالوف المؤلفة التي نعبر عنها لو اخذنا من كل اخ ومن كل شخص يوم او يومين او أيام عدة او ساعات عدة في كل يوم نستطيع ان نقدم جهدا كبيرا ونوفر امكانات مالية كبيرة. في كل الاحوال، هذا جهد عظيم وضخم، وايضا المتبرعون والمغتربون الذين اعتدنا على دعمهم في كل انحاء العالم، المجال مفتوح امامهم ايضا لهذه المساهمة والمشاركة لان استكمال النصر انما يكون باعادة البناء، وخصوصا بناء البيوت والمنازل، كما كانت وافضل مما كانت ليعود اليها هؤلاء الشرفاء الذين لولا صمودهم لما كان هذا النصر. الموضوع الأخير في رسالتي هذه يرتبط بمسألة الجدل الذي بدأ قبل أيام حول سلاح المقاومة، وأنا بالتأكيد لا أريد أن أدخل في هذا الجدل وإنما أريد أن أقارب المسألة بطريقة مسؤولة وحريصة. أيها الأخوة والأخوات، أثناء القتال وعندما كان أحباؤكم وأعزاؤكم مجاهدو المقاومة يسطرون البطولات والملاحم ويصنعون المعجزات كان هناك نقاش في الغرف المغلقة والقنوات الخاصة حول صورة الوضع الذي يمكن أن يكون عليه الجنوب ومنطقة جنوب نهر الليطاني بالتحديد وحول مسألة المقاومة والجيش اللبناني هناك ومسألة الحدود وقوات الطوارىء الدولية، وفي حال حصول هذا الانتشار ما هو مكان المقاومة وموقعها وسلاحها وكيف ستتصرف المقاومة؟ وكانت هذه النقاشات مسؤولة وجادة وحريصة وكانت تدار هذه النقاشات في الحقيقة من خلال أخينا الأكبر الرئيس نبيه بري الذي يشكل بحق ضمانة وطنية كبرى، وأنا آمل من كل أولئك الذين فتحوا هذا الملف في الاعلام أن يصغوا اليه ويستمعوا الى صوته ويقفوا عند كلمته في معالجة هذا الأمر الحساس والخطير والمصيري. في كل الأحوال هذه النقاشات كانت قائمة قبل صدور القرار عن مجلس الأمن وبعد صدور القرار الى آخر جلسة للحكومة اللبنانية، طرح هذا الأمر وحصل نقاش ما حوله وفوجئنا أن بعض الوزراء في الحكومة قاموا بتسريب هذا الأمر أمر النقاش والاختلاف في وجهات النظر الى بعض محطات التلفزة المحلية والعربية وبدأ الجدال والنقاش يتسع ويتسع ويكبر، وما كان ينبغي أن يبقى نقاشه في الغرف المغلقة تحول الى نقاش علني وهذا طبعا برأيي ليس فيه مصلحة وطنية وليس مناسبا على الاطلاق. لكن في كل الأحوال أدعو مجددا الى إعادة هذا النقاش الى قنواته الطبيعية المسؤولة وهي معروفة. في كل الأحوال نحن فضلنا أن لا ندخل في هذا السجال لأننا نعتبر انه لا يخدم المصلحة الوطنية وإنما يخدم العدو, العدو الذي الآن بدأ بالداخل سجالات حادة في داخل المؤسسة العسكرية بين المستوى العسكري والمستوى السياسي وبين الحكومة والمعارضة بين اليمين واليسار في الصحافة في الشارع ويبدو ان البعض يريد أيضا أن يدخل لبنان في سجالات هي ليست لمصلحة لبنان. أنا هنا بكل حرص ومحبة وهدوء ومسؤولية أريد أن ألفت بعض هؤلاء السادة والجهات السياسية الذين نقلوا النقاش الى المستوى الاعلامي والعلني وأود ان ألفتهم الى بعض الأمور حول خطئهم في هذا المجال. أولا هناك خطأ في التوقيت على المستوى النفسي والاخلاقي، يعني اليوم وخصوصا عندما بدأ النقاش يعني قبل وقف إطلاق النار أو ما سمي بالأعمال الحربية فتح هذا النقاش، لبنان كان يقصف، تدمر بناه التحتية، كل المناطق أصيبت كل اللبنانيين أصيبوا ولكن بالتحديد كان الحظ الأوفر هو لأهل الجنوب وأهل البقاع وأهل الضاحية الجنوبية، وهؤلاء يعبرون عن شريحة كبيرة جدا من اللبنانيين في الوقت الذي يعني هنا أريد أن ألفت الى التوقيت النفسي الخاطىء، في الوقت الذي كانت هذه الشريحة الكبيرة المؤمنة بالمقاومة كغيرهم من بقية اللبنانيين والمتمسكة بسلاح المقاومة والمعتزة بالمقاومة والتي تقدم تضحيات جسيمة في الوقت الذي كان ما يقارب المليون نازح عن بيته، في الوقت الذي كانت بيوت هؤلاء تدمر وقلت قبل قليل لقد تجاوز العدد التقريبي حتى الآن ما يزيد عن خمس عشرة ألف وحدة سكنية، في الوقت الذي غالبية الشهداء المدنيين والمجازر هم من أهل الجنوب والبقاع والضاحية الجنوبية في الوقت الذي شاهدتم فيه العائلات على شاشات التلفزة تنزح وغالبيتها من النساء، الأطفال والشيوخ، الذين بقوا في جبهات القتال هم الشباب الذين كانوا يقاتلون بشهامة وبشجاعة وبصمود ويصنعوا معجزة حقيقية ويقف العدو الاسرائيلي أمامهم حائرا خائرا ضعيفا جبانا مهزوما لا يستطيع أن يحقق شيئا من أهدافه، في هذه اللحظة النفسية العاطفية الصعبة والمصيرية يأتي بعض الأشخاص ويجلسون خلف مكاتبهم وتحت المكيف ويتحدثون بأعصاب هادئة وينظرون على الناس بسلاح المقاومة ويتكلمون بلغتهم الخشبية. هم دائما يقولون عنا اننا نتكلم بلغة خشبية، بينما هم الذين يتكلمون باللغة الخشبية، ولم أدخل الآن في مادة هذه اللغة الخشبية هذا أمر غير أخلاقي وغير صحيح وخطأ وغير مناسب بمعزل عن صحة الفكرة التي يتكلمون فيها او لا هل يتصورون ان هؤلاء الناس هذه الشرائح الكبيرة جدا من المجتمع اللبناني ومن يحتضنها ومن يؤمن بها ومن يدعمها اهؤلاء بلا مشاعر بلا عواطف هل يمكن ان يتصور ان هؤلاء كلهم يعني هم قادة سياسيون على درجة عالية من الوعي يتجردون من عواطفهم واحاسيسهم ومشاعرهم، ماذا يفعل هؤلاء ماذا يقول هؤلاء، هل هؤلاء الناس مجرد يعني احجار او مجرد عبيد عندما تكلم بعض النخب السياسية في لبنان عليها ان تسمع وان تصغي وان تطيع هذا خطأ هذا خطأ كبير، طبعا نحن بذلنا جهدا كبيرا حتى لا تكون هناك ردات فعل بأن ما حصل مسيئا، وانا ادعو الناس وجمهور المقاومة ومحبي المقاومة مؤيدي المقاومة الى تجاوز ما سمعوه وما يمكن ان يسمعوه لان التضامن في البلد ووحدة البلد هو اغلى ما يجب ان نحرص عليه، نحن صبرنا على القتل وعلى الهدم وعلى التدمير وعلى الجراح وعلى التهجير، يمكننا ان نتحمل بعض الاذى ممن يصدر عنه الاذى في هذا المجال وان كنت انا ادعو هؤلاء الى الكف عن هذا الاذى ادعوهم بكل حرص وبكل مسؤولية ومحبة ان يستوعبوا جيدا الوضع القائم،الوضع النفسي والوضع العاطفي وايضا الوضع المعنوي، يعني هم لا يتحدثون مع قوم صحيح دمرت بيوتهم وقتل اطفالهم ولكنهم خرجوا منتصرين في معركة كانت تهزم فيها جيوش عربية طويلة عريضة، نحن اليوم خرجنا من معركة مرفوعي الرأس وعدونا هو المهزوم وهو الذي سيشكل لجان تحقيق وهو وهو وهو. اذا انتم هناك وتتحدثون مع اناس منتصرين ولكن يوجد تضحيات كبيرة في ثمن هذا النصر الذي حصل عليه لبنان والامة والجميع. هذا امر يجب ان يؤخذ بعين الاعتبار من جهة اخرى. ثانيا في المضمون، المستغرب انه ما كان يدور النقاش حوله هو وضعية السلاح والمقاومة في منطقة جنوب الليطاني الان لا يطلب احد حتى العدو هو الان لا يطالب لبنان ولا المجتمع الدولي يطالب لبنان بأن يسارع الى نزع سلاح المقاومة، هذه المسألة وضعت في اطار المعالجة البعيدة الامد والحل الدائم وما شاكل ولكن للاسف الشديد وجدنا بعض الاصوات التي جاءت لتقول اذا كان المطلوب ان يكون جنوب النهر منزوع السلاح اذا ما هي فائدة السلاح شمال النهر وما هي فائدة سلاح المقاومة في كل لبنان اذا فلنبادر من الآن ونناقش كل هذا السلاح ليس لنناقشه، هم يطالبون بإنهاء وحسم هذه المسألة، هذا الأمر يا أحباءنا ويا أعزاءنا لا يحسم بهذه الطريقة وبهذه العجلة وأنا أنصح بأن لا يلجأ أحد الى الاستفزاز والى التهويل أو الضغط للاعتبارات الانسانية والاعتبارات الأمنية، نحن نعرف أن من أهم الأهداف الحقيقية للحرب الاميركية الاسرائيلية التي قامت في لبنان مؤخرا من جملة أهدافها هو نزع هذا السلاح وإنهاؤه وعزله وأنا أدعوكم أيضا الى ان تقرأوا وتسمعوا ما قالته وزيرة خارجية العدو أن أقوى جيش في العالم لا يستطيع نزع سلاح حزب الله. ثم هذا الأمر لا يعالج لا بالاستفزاز ولا بالتهويل ولم يعالج لا بهدم المنازل ولا قتل الأطفال والنساء ولا بخوض أشرس معركة في تاريخ لبنان. وفي هذه النقطة يجب أن نكون دقيقين، المطروح للنقاش هو الوضع في منطقة جنوب النهر ونحن كنا وما زلنا نناقش هذا الموضوع في الأطر المسؤولة والجادة ولذلك ايضا في المضمون أنتم ترتكبون خطأ أنتم تذهبون أبعد مما يطلبه الاميركي والاسرائيلي الآن من لبنان وهذا أمر مستغرب في الحقيقة. وثالثا في حيثيات المسألة يعني الذين جاؤوا اليوم ليقولوا نحن نطلب من حزب الله أن يسلم سلاحه للدولة، هؤلاء العظماء هل جاؤوا ومعهم أرض مزارع شبعا وسيتمكن أصحاب هذه الأراضي من العودة اليها، هل جاؤوا وهم يطلبون منا ذلك ومعهم الأسرى في الجنوب، هل جاؤوا ومعهم ضمانات حقيقية بحماية لبنان وان العدو الاسرائيلي الذي ما زال يهدد والآن قبل أن أدخل الى التسجيل كان اولمرت يهدد لبنان الذي ما زال في دائرة التهديد واحتمال الاعتداء عليه في أي وقت. من الذي يدافع عن هذا البلد من الذي يلقن العدو درسا من الذي يجعل هذا العدو يدفع ثمنا باهظا. اليوم نعم نحن نستطيع أن ندعي بالاعتزاز أما أي قرار تريد أن تأخذه الحكومة الاسرائيلية في المستقبل ستأخذ بعين الاعتبار أن الحرب مع لبنان ليست نزهة وان الحرب مع كل لبنان مكلفة جدا في البشر وفي الحجر وفي الاقتصاد والكرامة وفي الصورة في الحيثية هذا الأمر الآن يدرس في كيان العدو في شكل دقيق والأيام المقبلة سوف تكشف الخسائر الحقيقية على أكثر من صعيد نتيجة هذه المواجهة القائمة،اذا ما هي البدائل التي جئتم بها. الجيش اللبناني نحن نؤيد انتشاره في الجنوب اللبناني لكن الجيش اللبناني في وضعه الحالي في إمكاناته وقدراته الحالية هل يستطيع أن يخوض حربا لو فرضت الحرب على لبنان قوات الطوارىء الدولي لو عززت بعشرة آلاف أو عشرين ألفا أو خمسين ألفا عندما تعتدي اسرائيل على لبنان سوف تقف قوات الطوارىء الدولية لتدافع عن لبنان وتحمي لبنان، هذا أمر غير مطروح إذ هناك مسألة ترتبط بمصير البلد بحماية البلد ولا يجوز أن نتعامل معها بهذه العجلة وبهذا التبسيط، هذه المسألة معقدة ونحن قلنا كلنا جاهزون للحوار وما زلنا جاهزين للحوار، الى طاولة الحوار تحدثنا طويلا ودائما الحجة الدائمة وأنا أعتقد هذا دخل باللغة الخشبية. نحن موافقون على بسط سلطة الدولة ونحن أصلا في الدولة هل نحن خارج الدولة نحن في الحكومة ونحن في المجلس النيابي ونحن جزء أساسي من هذا البلد ونؤمن بالدولة لكن أي دولة، الدولة القوية القادرة العادلة المقاومة المطمئنة التي يشعر كل اللبنانيين انها تمثلهم وهذا ما أجمعنا عليه على طاولة الحوار هل الدولة القائمة الآن هي هذه الدولة القوية القادرة المقاومة العادلة المطمئنة لكل الشرائح والتيارات السياسية في لبنان هذا يحتاج الى تأمل على طاولة الحوار، دائما كان النقاش وأنا أصر على هذا المعنى، البعض يأتي ويقول ان سحب سلاح المقاومة شرط أساسي لبناء الدولة القوية القادرة وأنا أقول العكس ان بناء الدولة القوية والقادرة والمقاومة المطمئنة هو المقدمة الطبيعية لتأتي هذه الدولة الى الشعب اللبناني والى أهل الجنوب وتقول لهم يا أهلنا نحن دولة قوية مقتدرة ومقاومة نستطيع أن نحمي كرامتكم ودماءكم وأعراضكم وعزتكم وشرفكم ولستم بحاجة الى أن تكونوا في أطر شعبية اسمها مقاومة أو سلاح خاص اسمه او سلاح المقاومة. لبداية تبدأ من بناء دولة قوية قادرة على حماية الناس وكرامة الوطن ولا تنتهي هنا هذه مغالطة كبيرة جدا في كل الأحوال أريد أن أختم بالقول فلنعد النقاش الى مكانه الطبيعي والاستمرار في سجال حول هذا الموضوع أنا أتصور أنه يفقد لبنان قوته الآن قوة لبنان في مقاومته ليس بالمعنى الخاص مقاومته العامة التي تشمل الصمود والتضامن وايضا الحضور المباشر في الميدان والمقاومة الخاصة المقاومة والوحدة الوطنية واذا حافظنا على عنصري القوة نستطيع أن نبني الدولة القوية القادرة بجيشها ومؤسساتها الأمنية ومؤسساتها السياسية والمدنية، وبالتالي تشكل الحل لكل المشكلات القائمة حاليا في البلد. لا تضيعوا عنصر القوة الحالي في البلد، يعني لا تدخلوا في امور وفي سجالات تضيعوا المقاومة وتضيعوا الوحدة وان هذا لا يساعد على بناء الدولة القوية والقادرة التي نجمع جميعا على لانها الحل والمخرج الوحيد لمستقبل لبنان لنعيش جميعا في لبنان في ظل هذه الدولة التي تحمي الجميع وتحافظ على كرامة الجميع وتدافع عن الجميع وتطمئن الجميع اذا فلنعد هذا النقاش الى دوائره الطبيعية والى نقطة النقاش الحقيقية الان وبالتالي انا اقول من خلال المناقشة الجديدة من خلال الحكماء الموجودين لدينا في البلد احساسنا جميعا بالمسؤولية وبعيدا عن المناقشات الاعلامية والعلنية والمزايدات انا واثق اننا نستطيع ان نصل الى المعالجات المناسبة التي تحقق المصلحة الوطنية من جهاتها المختلفة. ختاما، ابارك للعائدين الى ديارهم عودتهم المنتصرة واطمئنكم واطمئنهم.انتم اهل هذه الارض انتم اصحابها انتم شرفها انتم كرامتها بكم تعمر الديار وتقوم الكرامة ويصنع التاريخ.

At 8/16/2006 02:38:00 PM, Blogger Syrian Nationalist Party said...

Syrian Nationalist Front
Members Combined Pool Media Comments

SET TIME=60:00
POST PERIOD: 080806-083106
TITLE: Analysis in response to comment
REPORT NO: 4007 Combined Pool

[The comments posted here are combined pool release and may or may not be the opinion of the Syrian Nationalist Party, Syrian Republican Party, or any other member organization of the Syrian Nationalist Front. The opinion and comment expressed belongs exclusively to the author who may or may not be operating and posting anonymously. Reproduction and distribution are hereby granted-copy and distribute freely with or without credit].


خطاب القاه الثلاثاء في دمشق، هاجم الاسد مصر والمملكة العربية السعودية من دون ان يسميهما لانهما احجما عن دعم حزب الله الشيعي اللبناني، كما انتقد فرنسا ولم يوفر اسرائيل والولايات المتحدة والغالبية النيابية اللبنانية المناهضة لسوريا.

وتفرض العديد من الدول الغربية في مقدمها الولايات المتحدة وفرنسا شبه عزلة على دمشق

Syria have nothing to gain from these countries. They have never bothered for 40 years to enforce the United Nation resolution to
force Israel to give back the Golan peacefully. They have never bothered to implement all the Madrid Agreements and never hinted at Israel should do any of it. What do we have to gain from good relations with these countries, what have they done good for Syria and it's rights!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home