You’ll need to read Arabic to read
this
report from the respected Beirut Center for Research and Information. It
presents the results of an opinion poll carried out by the Center between
August 18 and August 20, with 800 respondents chosen for their representativity.
The questions are good ones, and I wish I had the time to translate them
all and the whole report here. If any commenters want to do a longer translation
of this report for me to put onto JWN, please gmail me (hcobban-at).
The first there question was “Do you consider that the resistance emerged
victorious from this war?” The responses came out at: 72% yes. (Broken down,
if you’re interested, as: 79.8% of Sunnis saying yes; 96.3% of Shias, 62.8%
of Druze, and 59.7% of Christians.)
If I were Nasrullah I’d be a bit worried about the softness of my support
among the Christians and Druze… but on the whole, given all that’s happened,
I’d feel pretty satisfied to have come this far with the poll numbers looking this
good.
If, on the other hand, I were Ehud Olmert, I would be extremely
worried about
these
very recent poll numbers in Israel. (Were they of all Israelis, or just of
“Jewish Israelis”, as that country’s opinion polls so frequently are, I wonder?)
Anyway, that report tells us this:
Some 74 per cent of Israelis asked thought Olmert’s performance during
the month-long war was ‘bad’, and 63 per cent said he should resign as a
result, said the poll commissioned by the biggest-selling Yediot Ahronot
daily.
Clausewitz 101: “War is an extension of politics by other means.” I.e.,
what really counts is the political outcome, not the kill ratios or other
metrics of physical damage caused.
At the level of politics we now have Nasrallah supported by 72% of his
public and Olmert supported by either 37 or 26 percent of his (depending
what you look at.)
And the winner is— ?
By the way, re the continuing leadership chaos in Israel, let me just
reiterate my previous warning:
The disunity in Israel’s national command authorities could allow some
devastating military adventurism to arise there. This, in a country with
(by conservative estimates) some 100 to 200 nuclear warheads…Please, will the adults in the international community pay attention
to this risk and exert all possible efforts to end the long-festering irresolution
of three vital strands of the Israeli-Arab conflict before things get even
worse?
Why does it matter how many Lebanese or Israelis think their own side “won” however you choose to define it? Both sides lost, and in the most important statistic (human lives) Lebanon lost by far the most. Triumphalism (especially the vicarious kind) won’t bring those people back.
& what exactly does “chosen for their representativity” mean?? … does this mean the sample isn’t random, ie not a true poll?
The disunity in Israel’s national command authorities could allow some devastating military adventurism to arise there. This, in a country with (by conservative estimates) some 100 to 200 nuclear warheads… I would add: that prospect coupled with this type of discourse emanating from the U.S. has the true markings of a worldwide disaster:
For our (the world’s) sake, I really hope that these are the expressions of a fringe minority!
Vadim, I quite agree that the loss of all those human lives– many, many of which would not have been lost if Israel, the US, and the UK had not acted for so long and with such great success to BLOCK the proposed ceasefire– was a vast nhuman tragedy.
However, your grumpiness does show a bit when you say, Why does it matter how many Lebanese or Israelis think their own side “won” I wonder, do you support the democratic principle of “the will of the people”, or do you think it is quite irrelevant?
(Yes, I grant a public opinion poll is not the same as a properly run election. But still, well run opinion polls can be highly indicative of political trends, don’t you think?)
Also, more pragmatically, we can see clearly now that Olmert is busy fighting for his political life: he has ditched the one major plank on which he was elected, and is subject to widespread questioning re his “right” to stay in office after the debacle of the 33-day war… While Nasrallah is now facing what?– Far fewer political constraints on his freedom of action than before July 12, I’d say…
So yes, I’d have to say their political popularity within their respectivenational publics matters a lot, whichever way you look at it.
Also, when I said the BCRI poll was conducted according to principles of ‘representativity’, that was my perhaps sloppy shorthand for what it says on that webpage which is that the 800 respondents were chosen “according to statistical techniques ensuring their [appropriate] distribution according to sect and geographical region.”
Helena,
And the winner is–?
Yes in political term Nasrallah win, and Ehud Olmert and his cabinet and IDF commanders they lost.
But in strategic term I guess Lebanon lost due to the huge lost of the state and its element which needs years to rebuild if there is will and a huge money pumping to Lebanon government in addition to the huge human loos will never recovered and those left behind they will suffer for years to come back to normal life and forgot this disastrous adventure.
I worry to much about rebuilding Lebanon it might follow same path that Iraq went through when billions from donors did nothing more than just vanished and Iraq went worst.
If we compare Al-Dawa’a party and its allies wining the majority in the Iraqi election in Iraq as wining case, see what the Iraqi got form that wining leaders, in fact nothing just promises.
And the Winner is?
from today’s New York Times:
by Hassan M. Fattah
MARWAHEEN, Lebanon, Aug. 24 — For months, the residents of this predominantly Sunni village near the Israeli border watched anxiously as the Shiite Hezbollah militiamen brought arms and rockets into town in preparation for battle. The residents grappled with whether they should accept the fighters’ presence and face a possible Israeli attack or try to eject them, with the more probable risk of retribution by Hezbollah.
On Thursday, as the village buried 23 people who were killed by Israeli warplanes while trying to flee on July 15, many had belatedly made up their mind.
“We kept beseeching them, ‘Stay out! Stay out!’ ” said Zainab Ali Abdullah, 19, who lost her father, brother and several other members of the family in the attack. “They said, ‘We’re all in the same boat together, so deal with it.’ But why should our children die for their cause?”…
“There is no way for us to stop them,” said Ibrahim, who lost several relatives in the attack and who asked that his last name not be used for fear of retribution. “These are not people you can say no to.”
On July 15, Israeli loudspeakers across the border warned villagers to evacuate after Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel from near the town. The families gathered in the center of the village and then went to a nearby United Nations base for shelter, but, they said, they were turned away…
Trucks would come and go in the middle of the night; and a suspicious-looking white van was parked at each end of the village.
When the war broke out, rockets flew out of the village and a hilltop nearby, and the fears of many residents that trouble would come grew stronger…
Residents said Hezbollah was using them as human shields. “One man in this village was able to turn all our lives upside down for just a bit of money,” Ibrahim said. When the villagers left, he said, the fighters did too, as evidenced by the limited damage done to the town.
I wonder, do you support the democratic principle of “the will of the people”, or do you think it is quite irrelevant?
As far as I can tell, your poll doesn’t measure national will. The majority of Lebanese would (I hope) have found Hezbollah’s cross border raids and missile attacks against their nation’s interests, and would (I hope) never have authorised them before the fact. That poll never occurred because Hezbollah doesn’t answer to Lebanon’s elected authorities. It controls a tiny number of seats in the Parliament that is nowhere near a majority. It has no legal authority to conduct cross border raids on behalf of Lebanon or negotiate international treaties. It’s very existence as an armed group violates several articles of international law. It amazes me to see anyone who cares about international law and democracy defending them.
Opinion polls like this one measuring “national pride” are silly measure of ANY war’s success. This poll (as you’ve represented it) is no more a measure of “who won” than similar polls in the US following the fall of Hussein’s government. “We won!” whoop di do!!
which is that the 800 respondents were chosen “according to statistical techniques ensuring their [appropriate] distribution according to sect and geographical region.”
ie, not a random sample and totally unscientific. given the smallish sample size, I’d expect a huge margin of error.
Right, Truesdell, I read the NYT this morning, too. One Sunni village there, and two people in that village that the perennially anti-Hizbullah Fattah was able to quote. Less than massively impressive.
Ditto your quibbles, Vadim. Ensuring representativity according to relevant indicators like sect (inside Lebanon) and geographic spread is a standard statistical technique, as you probably know, and a sample size of 800 out of that size of a national population is also very respectable.
Seems like you guys are very sore, very frustrated? I wonder why.
vadim,
Hizbullah and its honourable leaders promissed to inflict as much pain on the savage invaders.
They have never promissed what they can not accomplish. They announced earlier, that this is the year they want their prisoners of war to be freed by the zionist entity, if not they said they will take some hostages, The Plan They Executed was known to ALL parties in many countries. Just a quick reminder, this party represents the same group of people that welcomed these same invaders couple of decades ago with rice and flower eh??
Why are you so obssesed with this poll, your government was betting on the anger of Lebanese towards Hizbullah after the shock and awe campaign, that succeeded greatly in accomplishing unity between Shia and Sunnis around the Muslim world- for that we thankyou and yours- as for Hizbullah his popularity grew immensely.
Israel so far achieved good public relations on the international level,the pictures we saw on our TV screens spoke volume, the return of the captive soldiers needs to be negotiated and a new election is on the loom as well more money needs to be spend on military equipment, seems that israel is more concerned with its military power than loss of lives on all sides. Peace is the cheapest deal, do you agree.
Opinion polls establish the “success” of a military campaign no more than FOX polls (or any US poll) establishes the “winner” of the war in Iraq. This shouldn’t be so hard to grasp.
Seems like you guys are very sore, very frustrated? I wonder why.
I admit it bothers me that you seem so eager to prove that one side or another “won” at all. Lebanon lost. Israel lost. Lebanon lost far far more, in human life, militarily & materially. It doesn’t need vicarious thrill seekers cheering its trigger-happy militia [and the hapless people they dominate] toward more destruction. It needs stronger more democratic government and a military that answers to this elected government. Not {inapt} boxing metaphors and “postgame” prize ceremonies: “And the winner is…!” Please.
One Sunni village there, and two people in that village that the perennially anti-Hizbullah Fattah was able to quote. Less than massively impressive.
fair enough…let’s hear from others then:
Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism:
“The fact that the masses of Shiites fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name.”
Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic writing in An-Nahar last week:
“A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone.”
Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist:
“If Hezbollah won a victory, it was a pyrrhic one. They made Lebanon pay too high a price-for which they must be held accountable.”
(all quotes supplied by Iranian author Amir Taheri)
Not only do polls not establish the success of a military campaign, they cannot justify the illigitmate actions of a non-governmental militia and its leader in forcing a country into war. The fundamental fact that Hizballah initiated this conflict cannot be changed by poll results, irrespective of how much Helena is enamored of the organization or its leader.
And by the way Helena, where do you get the information on which you based your snippy remark about Israeli polls not including non-Jewish participants? Where relevant, pollsters sometimes who results with our without specific groups, or break down the results to show the influence of specific groups, but I don’t seem to recall any polls that asked about questions seriously affecting the entire population where a representative sample including all ethnic, religious and socio-economic groups wasn’t included.
Seems like you guys are very sore, very frustrated? I wonder why.
Helena, this is the most childish thing I have read in the entire universe of Israel-Lebanon commentary. I am sure Shirin has some arabic incantation I should shower you with. Help me out Shirin…
The IDF -HZA border incident has already been well documented and spinning it is no longer possible. One last time for the record: HZA attacked a stupidly isolated and uncovered soft target across a hot border, in conjuction with a diversionary rocket attack. That in sum was a war crime of a certain magnitude. The IDF botched the rescue of their captured soldiers, and that escalted to the execution of an existing invasion plan, something I noted earlier. Many Lebanese soldiers were certainly killed by the IDF, but they were not committed to battle by the Lebanese government. Lebanon wasn’t; as a sovereign state, herslef forced into war, she and her army were simply bombed and their territory invaded by the IDF, along with hundred of her innocent civilians and much of her infrastructure, destroyed wholesale, in Israeli war crimes of a very serious order, as has already concluded by Amnesty international. During the IDF invasion HZA resisted the invasion of Lebanese soil heroicly and very effectively. Despite that active resisatnce it’s hard to see from the casualty stats that HZA was more an IDF target than lebanese regulars, and appears less of a target than unarmed lebanese women and children were. HZA should not have attacked the IDF across the border on 12 July, and Israel should not have retaliated as she did, making heroes of them whom a majority of Lebanese unsurprisingly now see as competent defenders against a menacing and ruthless foe.
Truesdal:
With all due respect, Sayyed Ali El Amin is not the grand old man of the Lebanese Shiia. Just in case you missed it, he is a Sayyed, not even a Marjeea’. Just in case you missed it, the grand old man of the Lebanese shiaa is Moh’d Hussein Fadelallah, and his views I am sure, are less reassuring from your perspective. As to Mona Fayyad, she became a respected academic after she wrote an article in the right wing Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar criticizing Hizballah. The key word here is “after: she was a non entity before being lionized by the right wing lebanese then by the western press (she remains a non entity in Shiia circles). As to Walid Abi Mershed, he is one voice of several, with others supporting the resistance in Lebanon (How about Joseph Samaha, the dean of the Lebanese commentators? His views are again less reassuring from your perspective). As to Hassan Abdel Fattah of the New York time, his articles are so biased and substandard that they are not to be seriously considered. As to Amir Taheri, he is a neocon propagandist. It is telling you use him as a reference.
Truesdell,
Take no notice of “tc”. This is typical of the “Hizbolobby”. I am not surprised by the ticking off of reasons why each person mentioned in the article shouldn’t be listened to. I was expecting it. They know exactly how and who to discredit to further their spin.
Say Truesdell, I noted above you strung a few quotes that you note are indicated by one Amir Taheri. Presume you know his reputation – calling him “an Iranian” is shameless. He’s a neocon monarchist and gets top billing in Mdme Benador’s stable of neocon hitmen. He’s also the one who spun the whopper about the alleged Iranian dress code for minorities (total fabrication – never mind it made “headlines” around the world… Mdme Benador still stands behind the “story” – as it served the cause, which was something other than truth.)
Ah, but even a blind squirrel finds the nut once in a while, so do you happen to have a more specific link for Mr. Taheri’s latest? (Or a source) I’d like to check it out – and compare with my sources on the quotes. (Sorry, Mr. Taheri is notoriously unreliable.)
World Peace makes a very central point here. The declared aim of the Israeli leadership in inflicting all that terrible pain on Lebanon– its country, its people, its national infrastructure– was to use that horrible destruction and pain to try to turn the Lebanese public and government against Hizbullah. That was a central and openly stated war aim.
(Of course, this is also a classic definition of terrorism: to use violence against a civilian population in order to coerce them into acting politically the way you want them to.)
But that is why the attitudes of Lebanese toward Hizbullah now, in the post-war period, are important. The polling data and the all the evidence we have on the ground indicates that Hizbullah considerably improved its political standing in Lebanon as a result of everything that happened since July 12.
(Though of course Hizbullah’s support is less than 100%… No-one has ever claimed it was 100%. Commenters can therefore cease submitting items on the order of “But this individual Lebanese person here criticizes Hizbullah!” We all already know that there are individuals, indeed, around 28% of the national population who think that.)
But this does mean that Israel failed to realize the very central war aim, of turning the Lebanese public against Hizbullah, that had been enunciated by Olmert, Halutz, and Co.
I believe this is a matter of non-trivial political significance?
Also– quoting Amir Taheri!! I was falling around laughing when you did that, Truesdell. Taheri has zero credibility as a facts-based Middle East ‘analyst’– especially since May 19 when he breathlessly revealed to the world that the Iranian government was about to make Jewish Iranians wear yellow stars on their clothing…
JES, you surely know it’s a fact that many Israeli pollsters have over the years and until recently conducted their polls only of Jewish Israelis– a fact that they mention in fine print somewhere in their reports. Ignoring the relevance of the views of the 20% of citizens who happen not to be Jewish is just as demeaning to non-Jewish Israelis as it would be to, say, non-white Americans if pollsters here were to conduct allegedly “national” polls in which their views were similarly quite discounted.
I was just raising that as a question re the Dahaf/Yediot poll I linked to.
Ho, ho, ho. Imperialist discourse-domination attaempts popping up here again! JES, who makes no claim whatsoever to being a Lebanese and has shown little evidence of knowing much about Lebanese politics and society, tells us we should simply “ignore” another commenter who, as it happens, grew up in the bosom of Lebanese society.
JES, c’mon! Surely you can bear for people to share ideas and expertise here without wanting to stamp down on the discussion? Restrain your discourse-quashing instincts if you can!
Presume you know his reputation…
…his articles are so biased and substandard that they are not to be seriously considered…
…he was a non entity before being lionized by the right wing lebanese…
Boy it’s a good thing the tc’s and Scotts of the world are around to establish (with a regal wave of their plastic scepters) who’s credible and who’s not. Let me see if I have it right: editorials we don’t like = propaganda. Commentators we don’t like = “right wing” neocons. Got it. {I think this is called “poisoning the well,” ie more ad hominems for the growing heap.)
I’ve been meaning to ask: what represents the “left wing” of Lebanese politics? Is it meant to be Hezbollah?
Scott, Taheri’s quotations are found in the WSJ on August 24, 2006.
Getting a bit snippy, are we Helena. Perhaps it’s just that you’re a bit sore and frustrated? Maybe it’s an “estrogen” problem?
[cut]
Distinctly outside the guidelines re basic courtesy, JES. Also, feminophobia. (Let’s hope your daughter who’s a soldier is not also exposed to such attempts to create an anti-woman public and/or work environment.)
I’ll delete your comment when I have the time to. Or edit it.
Say, Helena, I forgot to ask. What is the declared aim of Hizballah? As I recall, it’s to place so much pressure on the decadant Israeli society via rocket attacks and the threat of attacks that it will fall apart and, as Nasrallah has, I believe, stated, the Jews will go back to where they came from on the same ships that brought them to “occupied Palestine”.
That sounds a lot like a blueprint for “ethnic cleansing” to me.
And as for what “World Peace” claims Hizballah promised, I recall seeing Hasan Nasrallah “promise” to shell Tel Aviv if Israel bombed Beirut, a “promise” that he did not keep. I believe that his credibility has futher been damaged by his claims of having sunk, not one, but two Israeli warships (a lie in both cases), and his organization’s consistent under-reporting of their own losses as well as rediculous claims of their successes.
Let’s recall that, for Hizballah, this was a “victory” because Nasrallah, quite wisely, set rediculously minimal requirements for success and, as Young wisely pointed out, is no different than the “victory” claimed by the Egyptians in 1973. I’m certain that there are a large number of Lebanese who are capable of understanding all this, even if you and the other experts can find superficial reasons to discount those opinions.
. . . the “victory” claimed by the Egyptians in 1973.
Which led to the Israelis returning the Sinai.
I am rather new to this whole blogging world and and find this whole string fascinating.I thought that Helena’s original posting was thoughtful and interesting as well as professional, given the nature of the medium. This is not a heavily researched and edited tome. A few of the responses were of the same order. But others quickly degenerate into almost childish name-calling and nit picking which really add nothing to the discussion. Regardless of who is a real Lebanese or Israeli, the indisputable facts seem to be that Hezbollah has more Lebanese support from all groups than before the war and the Olhmert government less support from Israelis in general.
These are important facts which have immediate consequences and will continue to have consequences and will influence future behavior on all sides. Hezbollah was clearly surprised that their arrest/ kidnapping of the Israeli sodiers as hostages for another prisoner swap with Israel, in accordance with the existing informal custom set in prior similar episodes, produced the reaction that it did. It certainly appears that the Israeli campaign was pre-planned waiting for an appropriate time and spark, but apparently started before the plans were complete. Israel achieved none of its stated objectives,i.e. return of the soldiers, destruction of Hezbollah military capability, turning of Lebanese opinion against Hezbollah. Hezbollah had only one objective at the outset: a prisoner swap which it has not yet achieved. Once the war started their main objective was survival which they achieved at a terrible cost to Lebanon.
Whether intended or not they also succeeded in greatly enhancing their reputation as a fighting force and a political entity both in Lebanon and in the region and damaging the invincibiliy reputation of the IDF.
The terrible signifigance of the polls is that this may encourage the Ohlmert regime to another reckless military adventure to save itself politically or encourage Hezbollah to further recklessness to cash in on its gains. Both sides have other options and certainly it seems for now that Hezbollah prefers to consolidate its gains and use its new stature in the political arena. Winners have that option. Losers have fewer options. That, to me, is the real signifigance of the winner and loser remark.
Which led to the Israelis returning the Sinai.
Yes, but only because Sadat felt able to come to Jerusalem, and because Israel felt strong enough to enable it to give up the strategic depth of Sinai.
Jack, you appear to give a good dispassionate and objective summary of the situation.
One thing that I would caution about the polls, however, is that while these may indicate a significant drop in support for the Olmert government (not “regime”), there does not appear to be a change in the perception, among Israelis, for the necessity for the war. Olmert doesn’t have to go to war to survive politically. He merely has to make it past an independent board of inquiry that will probably issue findings short of directly blaming his government. There are a variety of reasons why this will probably happen, notably because: (a)there has not developed a single focus around which the recent protesters can unite, apart from the very unpopular anti-disengagement movement, (b)the majority of the political parties making up the coalition (and some of those in the opposition) have shown a clear aversion to going to early elections at this time, and (c) independent boards of inquiry have tended to spread blame around enough to avoid actually toppling governments.
At the same time, the polls indicating the opinion on the part of Lebanese that Hizballah was victorious do not necessarily imply approval of Hizballah as a quasi-government, or of its capacity to wage war on their behalf. I would also point out that, in their euphoria, those supporting Hizballah tend to underplay the serious losses in men, equipment and infrastructure that Hizballah must have suffered during that month of fighting.
If we can return to courteous, respectful discourse here, JES, I’d like to respond to your query: What is the declared aim of Hizballah?
I have just been re-reading Hasan Nasrullah’s very important speech of August 8, posted on Hizbullah’s website in English on August 9th. (Scroll down for the link there… It’s a JavaScript Pop-up.)
In the context of pursuing this war, his focus in that speech was abolutely on maintaining national unity in Lebanon and finding and keeping a good working relationship with the Lebanese government.
He’s a very political guy, with (as I’ve noted elsewhere, many times) a political ear finetuned to the subtle interplay of forces within Lebanese politics.
Here are some excerpts:
since the beginning, we have been stressing on a main principle. This is the unity of line coupled with the national and public solidarity as well as the official solidarity pertaining to the level of the state and its institutes. We also worked on strengthening the position of the state, particularly that of the government pertaining to the negotiations and the preservation of the national rights…
First: we must not join any political or informative debate with any Lebanese team, party, or figure, regardless of the addressed criticisms or words that may be said. Unfortunately, some people are reiterating exactly what the Israeli officials and press are saying. Nevertheless, I stress on all my brothers as I confirmed in the past not to be engaged in any political or informative debate regarding these matters. Our priority is steadfastness coupled with the political, public and national solidarity that flow in favor of our country’s interest in general. The other sensitiveness, obsessions, trivialities and some behaviors that damage the truth and does not serve our country’s interest must be overlooked…
Third: Regarding the city of Beirut in particular, we have already wished and I wish again to say to [requesting] the youth organizations, brothers in the parties and the people in general, we want to avoid any demonstrations or huge rallies so that they will not provide a fertile ground through which some people may sneak in to create a security flaw or to establish opposite slogans. This will lead to divisions on the street. The most important issue regarding this filed resides in our keenness and quest to establish a governmental and political solidarity in the country on the two political and official levels…
we acted and behaved with responsibility when the Prime Minister presented the 7-points plan, which was discussed by the cabinet… [T]he Lebanese government presented the 7-points plan to suggest a proposal or a concept regarding the political solution required to stop the aggression and war. After that, we relied on this plan to be presented to the international community and Arab countries. Consequently, the Arab countries came to support and approve the Lebanese governmental 7-points plan, a part of which pertains to the deployment of the army…
If you read the whole speech (which makes fascinating reading) you will see that that was the sum total of what he was saying Hizbullah was fighting about in this confrontation. In fact, he and the Olmert govt were both , fighting for exactly the same thing: the loyalty of the Lebanese government to their respective projects.
He won, i think.
As for his longer-term goals, based on the research I did for this lengthy article last year, I’d say that Nasrullah is at this point prepared to accept any resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem that the Palestinians agree to. He has said that repeatedly (and there has been considerable evidence on the ground to this effect, too) that he does not have any territorial ambitions for Hizbullah or for Lebanon inside Israel proper.
As you know, the Shebaa Farms are not in Israel proper. They are territory under military occupation whether their most approrpiate subsequent sovereignty designation is as Lebanese or Syrian. (And really, that question is none of Israel’s business once y’all withdraw from occupied Golan.)
As for Hizbullah’s launching of rocket attacks against Israel proper? That is, as I discussed here, the foundation of their ability to deter Israeli military attacks against Lebanon… So let’s move rapidly from mutual deterrence to real, regionwide peacemaking, don’t you think?
The point is not whether Nasrallah “won” (whatever that means)…it is whether the Lebanese people won or lost…not the same thing.
And I guess for that, friend, we have to let the Lebanese people speak for themselves. As in, for example, the poll I linked to in the main post…
Interesting, your edits. I would like to propose the following, which contains the substance of my response to your accusation, while removing any personal or “gender” references. Thank you.
You claim that I am supposedly practicing “imperialist discourse-domination”, whatever that is because I noted tc’s attempt to discredit other Lebanese for no other reason than that they say things he (or she) doesn’t like. That’s fine, but you do so right after Scott, [cut] question[s] whether or not Amir Taheri is an Iranian, apparently because of Taheri’s association with Benador Associates. I’d say that Amir Taheri is much more of an Iranian than is Scott, but then I could be mistaken. [cut] to discredit all of Taheri’s analyses because he once reported something that turned out to not be exactly as he interpreted it. [cut] Come on, let’s not discredit and dismiss people simply because we don’t agree with them.
Getting back to reality, perhaps you’d like to substantiate your claims that Israeli pollsters regularly omit Arabs and other non-Jews from their sampling? They may report the results with a certain ethnic or religious group first, when that is important, but that doesn’t mean they don’t poll a sample representative of the entire society and report complete results as well. They also sometimes report results without haredi Jews as well. Your assertion appears to be just a crude attempt to villify Israeli social scientists. [cut]
Well, Jes, Vadim, Truesdell, your desperation has certainly reached new heights and new levels of transparency! Attempting to counter clear evidence by citing a carefully selected tiny handful of individuals is desperate enough, but surely you could do better than the gang of ideologues, liars, and thieves you chose!
What a surprise that the unabashedly biased fake journalist Hassan Fattah managed to find a couple of people in a single Sunni village who would make comments he wanted to hear!
According to what standards is Ali
Al-Amin, a mere Sayyid, “the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism”? Or perhaps that was merely a reference to his size and age? And what kind of illogical nonsense is he spouting? Since when is fleeing from a massively deadly and destructive attack a sign of anything but trying to avoid death and maiming and terror?
Mona Fayed is prominent according to whom? Anyone who agrees with her dishonest, agenda-serving, contrafactual nonsense?
And Walid Abi-Mershed is free to hold and express his opinion, but that only tells us what his opinion is, and tells us nothing at all about the rest of the Lebanese people.
But what really shows your desperation most clearly is the fact that you used – and actually admitted you used – quotes supplied by the completely unprincipled proven liar Amir Taheri. Or perhaps you still believe his ridiculous tale that the Iranian government is forcing Jews to wear yellow stars.
In the interest of coureous respectful discourse, I’d just like to respond to your response to my question and then let others continue on this thread.
I agree with you that Hassan Nasrallah is a highly political person. I, therefore, don’t find it at all surprising that his “address to the nation” would try to project that what he did he did for the Lebanese people. But it is precisely because he is such a political person, and because he was under a great deal of political stress on August 8, that I don’t believe a word of it. Of course, as you say, it’s up to the Lebanese people to decide, and I think that there is a lot more to their decision – particularly as to whether or not they want to accept a virtual coup d’etat from this man – than the result of a single poll. So, why don’t we just wait and see on that.
I know that the Shebaa Farms are not part of Israel proper. But the UN has ruled that they are also not part of Lebanon proper. While it is not up to Israel to decide, it is also not up to Hassan Nasrallah to dictate the status of that particular piece of real estate. I am certain that the Shabaa issue will be settled within a year. I am also sure – and we can check back at that time – that once Shabaa is no longer occupied, Hizballah will come up with a new claim to substantiate their false position as “the resistance”; in this case most likely the seven purported graves of Shi’a holy men in northern Israel.
Finally, what makes you think that Israel has any interest in attacking Lebanon in the absence of aggressive actions by Hizballah? I really think that, if you want to be an honest analyst and commentator on the region, you need to look at Israeli actions with a bit more of an open mind, and not simply as a reflection of Hizballah. As I pointed out earlier, Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years, during which time it could have liquidated Hizballah, carried out complete ethnic cleansing and colonized every square inch. Israel did none of this, and I think that you would be hard pressed to show that Israel has any desire to do so now or in the future.
“The point is…whether the Lebanese people won or lost…”
The majority of Lebanese people appear to believe that overall they won. But of course, to the colonialist mindset, what the natives believe about their own situation is of no significance.
Looking at it more objectively, it appears very clear that one of the major things Olmert helped the Lebanese people to achieve is a sense of unity that they probably have not experienced at any time in their history. This is a huge, huge plus, especially if the Lebanese can continue and build on this. Whether or not this and other achievements sufficient offset the price extracted by Olmert and his military is, to my non-colonialist (and admittedly more “native”) mindset, not for the likes of you and Vadim and Truesdell, but to the Lebanese people to decide.
“…it is also not up to Hassan Nasrallah to dictate the status of that particular piece of real estate.”
JES, as your desperation increases, the quality and logic of your arguments continues to decrease.
1. It is not Hasan Nasrallah who is dictating the status of “that particular piece of real estate”, it is Israel that is doing so by insisting upon continuing to occupy land that, to whomever it rightfully belongs, does not belong to Israel.
2. In any case, Hasan Nasrallah is not dictating the status of “that particular piece of real estate”. That status has already been decided and agreed upon by the only parties who actually have standing in the matter. Syria has been very clear that it ceded that land to Lebanon long ago, and produced documentation to show it. Lebanon agrees. Therefore, the two parties who have standing agree. Therefore there is no real dispute as to the status of that land, except in the self-serving insistence of Israel, who has no standing as a party to any dispute.
Give it up, JES. You guys are not convincing anyone. It is hard to believe that you are even convincing yourselves.
3. It is completely obvious
Syria has been very clear that it ceded that land to Lebanon long ago, and produced documentation to show it. Lebanon agrees.
And yet, neither Lebanon nor Syria breathed a word about the matter for 33 years.
JES, your Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years, during which time it could have liquidated Hizballah, carried out complete ethnic cleansing and colonized every square inch..
Israel certainly tried to liquidate Hizbullah during that time, assassinating many of its leaders and cadres, imprisoning hundreds of its supporters, torturing some of them even to death, kidnapping civilian supporters including clergy members, taking them (of course, quite illegally) to Israel, torturing some of them, and holding them extra-legally in israeli secret prisons for more than a dozen years.
Your government failed to liquidate Hizbullah. But don’t imagine for a moment that that was for lack of trying.
Israel “could have carried out ethnic cleansing and colonized every square inch”– but what, chose not to? Good. I am so glad it made that choice. Would you rather it had made the other choice?
I’m afraid I don’t get your drift in that part of your argument, though. Are you saying Israel was somehow “civilized” and showing restraint because it made those choices? But (1) how could you reach such a conclusion in light of the known facts about the ways it certainly did oppress and commit war crimes against the people of southern Lebanon (hit “Khiam” in the search box here for details…)? and (2) Why on earth did it (a) occupy Lebanon in the first place in 1978 and 1982 and (b) maintain that occupation nonstop until 2000? That whole pattern of actions does not indicate “civilization” and restraint but aggressivity, bullying, and disdain for international law.
UNSC 425 of 1978, remember, had called for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon “forthwith.” Took ’em 22 years.
Restraint? Or militaristic bullying?
David Tomlin,
1) Completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that a) There is no real dispute over whose land it is since both parties with standing in the matter are in agreement. b) Even if there WERE a dispute Israel would not have any standing at all in the matter. Israel’s. c) What is not and has never been in dispute is the fact that it is not Israel’s land.
2) Perhaps they did not “breath a word about it” until Israel made it an issue by refusing to withdraw from it, and basing that refusal on the claim that it is Syrian territory. (As if that would somehow make occupying it legitimate.)
The bottom line is that regardless of whose territory it is, everyone, even the most hard core Israel-firsters are in agreement that it is not Israel’s. Therefore, Israel is trespassing. And that is really all that needs to be said on the matter.
Perhaps they did not “breath a word about it” until Israel made it an issue by refusing to withdraw from it . . .
Nonsense. Lebanon made an issue of it in 2000 by announcing a claim on it, after Israel had occupied it since 1967.
I’m not a partisan of Israel, as you can quickly verify from some of my other comments. But even I can see that the Shebaa Farms issue is trumped up nonsense that doesn’t pass the laugh test.
“Lebanon made an issue of it in 2000 by announcing a claim on it, after Israel had occupied it since 1967.”
Lebanon brought it up in 2000 when the terms of Israel’s withdrawal from its 22 year occupation were being negotiated. What does not pass the laugh test is the implied claim by Israel and its supporters that if the land does not belong to Lebanon, that makes Israel’s continued occupation of it legitimate. As for whether it is trumped up or not, one could ask trumped up by whom? Of course, Israel’s desperate efforts to justify refusing to withdraw from that small bit of land tells us everything we need to know about whether it really wants peace with Lebanon or not.
In any case, the bottom line is this: Regardless of whether it is part of Lebanon or part of Syria, the land does not belong to Israel. Any discussion beyond that is just white noise.
Helena,
his focus in that speech was abolutely on maintaining national unity
I don’t know why Helena so sympathetic with Nasrallah and also I found here so sympathetic with Iraqi Iranian Shiite Asistani in Iraq when she write about Shiite in Iraq!!!
Nasrallah calling for national unity!!!….Nasrallah refusing to drops his arms and weapons before the war, the Lebanon’s government struggle to get south Lebanon as same as any part of that country not hold by Nasrallah himself and his armed militia?
There are many Lebanones writes about Nasrallah and his “for national unity” like this (Arabic text)
Also ” Someone who appears only too cognizant of this is the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. He can hardly be considered a natural ally of the Shi’ite militia, yet in almost every speech since Israel’s bombing spree, he has called for national unity and praised the resistance for its noble defence of Lebanon.”
When Nasrallh call through his speech “the Lebanese who were evacuated from their homes, which in addition to infrastructure, were destroyed unrelentingly by Israeli forces. He informs these people that Hezbollah will operate outside the government and provide the displaced Lebanese with enough money to rent a home for one-year and to purchase furniture, in addition to removing ruins. Further, Nasrallah calls upon engineers, contractors and furniture dealers to aide with the reconstruction effort and not inflate prices to capitalize on the situation. ”
Is this what you call it “maintaining national unity”? This Nasrallah way of national unity isn’t?
Helena, I think Nasrallah calling for the unity he needs that unity at war time in fact his acts before and after the war not translate his speeches and his calls for unity.
If you believe Nasralla got it right, he is the winner; in ME we saw a lot of this sort of leaders and war/Victory winners…
The first one Jamal Abdul Nasser his victory of nationalizes the Sewes Canal in 1956, then we saw his disastrous defeats in 1967 with speeches calling to through Israelis to the sea, then at 8am on 5th Jun 1967 his air defence commander General Mohammed Abdul Hakim Amer (his Son in law) caught on the Cairo bridge when Israeli fighters bombing and destructing most of the Egypt’s air defence system and bases, he and his high commanders the night before the Israeli bombing spent the nigh in a club to lat hours on that day.. (This info reported by articles after the 1967 war).
Just to see the strategic loose of that war one report said Egypt before 1967 war was 70% developed at that time comparing with South Korea, see what Egypt now comparing with S. Korea.
The other hero Mohammad Anwar Al-Sadat, who leads 1973 , it was a victory for all Egyptian people and its military, but then he use that to do his personal decision to go to Israeli and did the peace agreement which apposed by most Arabs, where is the unity and national pride from Al-Sadat then.
That peace agreement some leaking reports saying the victory of 1956 a Sewes Canal victory gone when Egypt no long in position to sanction any country or in full control of that water canal…
Then we got Saddam the most glorious hero in his time everyone knows what he did and what a hero he is.
I believe the coming days/ months or years will give us the prove, this war it’s a big loose for Lebanon done by adventurer like Nasrallah who is sort sited and running after his personal gain not for his nation and his future of his country and the Arab.
I can put these point to show how big the loose and leave to you to rest.
1- There were 6millions visitor candled their trips to go to Lebanon when the war started.
2- Most of the Lebanon’s infrastructures destroyed and this needs years to come back to the level were it was before the war, I am saying this as some one was experienced the war damages to infrastructures in a country and I know how its talks and what it needs.
3- The disastrous sea shore and that the oil spill happened due to the war will cause a huge devastation and trouble loos for Lebanon in different aspects from natural live to the clearing cost and loos of tourism.
4- Israelis win their dream to destroy and to breakdown neighbouring state which have some sort of mature democracy and inspiring future and have just came forward that the world looking to Lebanon one of the opportunity of foreign investment in the region and peaceful place for bigger market in ME.
5- Israelis win again that they make sure that neighbour state not be in future be compotator to the hidden and very quite project that Iraqi oil pipeline which some news reported last month there is approval and agreement to put the oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Tel Aviv, which may be considered the replacement of Kirkuk – Tripoli oil pipeline, so this will serve well this new project to be more save and dependent than Lebanon one.
6- What we see the politics war inside Israel and the voices to Israeli PM to resign to demonstrate the world the only democracy in ME works fine and determination to follow the right rules while we seeing the mature democracy in Lebanon brought down by adventurer like Nasrallah who celebrate his adventure victory where his adventure ruined Lebanon.
Sadly Helena your post talking about national unity and all of that, but your post not just this one also includes your posts on Iraq have same flavours un-unity talking and call with your sympathy and supports for parties/groups in both cases it’s really far from the national unity that you try to prompting.
I see its very disturbing that you put and highlights these case mix it with the unity of nation in time Nasrallah refused for years to be apart of one nation and one government on a one country, same as the Shiite / Iranians behaviours for decades in Iraq many times I comments about it.
Apology for long comment
Lebanon brought it up in 2000 when the terms of Israel’s withdrawal from its 22 year occupation were being negotiated.
Why didn’t the government of Lebanon bring it up in 1967, if the land in question had been part of Lebanon since the 1950s?
What does not pass the laugh test is the implied claim by Israel and its supporters that if the land does not belong to Lebanon, that makes Israel’s continued occupation of it legitimate.
I am not a lawyer. I have only a layman’s understanding of these matters, perhaps not a good one.
As I understand it, the issue arises because Israel has armistice agreements with both Syria and Lebanon, but the terms of the two agreements are different. Israel has agreed to withdraw from all Lebanese territory, while Syria has agreed to an armistice that does not require Israel to withdraw from all of its territory prior to a final peace agreement.
Regardless of whether it is part of Lebanon or part of Syria, the land does not belong to Israel.
I don’t dispute that.
“So maybe we both are chosen people.”
“There is a big enemy Israel is facing and the enemy is http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295173,00.html, not homosexuals. Do not confuse the two.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295173,00.html
More hatred massages…..
Contrary to what his fans here suggest, it doesn’t appear that Nasrallah himself believes Lebanon came out ahead in the war he initiated:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm
“…his fans here…”
Grow up, Truesdell, and try arguing like an adult now and then. People might take you somewhat seriously if you do, even if your arguments are not any better.
Shirin,
Don’t hold your breath. The record of Truesdell and crew (including JES, Vadim, Neal, Joshua, Davis, WarrenW, and other reincarnations of the same) is childish circuitous argument for the sake of obfuscating the heart of the matter.
Here’s a trip down memory lane when the issue being discussed was Walt and Mearsheimer’s “Israel lobby” and Israeli plans to put Palestinians “on a diet” in order to achieve Zionist territorial expansion.
Americans do not need AIPAC or any other “hasbara” to… sympathize with Israel.
Posted by: Joshua at March 16, 2006 04:27 PM
I’ll tell you, for a sinister plot those Likudnik-Zionist-uber-alles types sure do broadcast their agenda something fierce… I thought those Zionists were more adept conspirators — why can’t they keep their nefarious agenda under wraps?
Posted by: vadim at March 17, 2006 09:40 AM
The funny thing is that the side making accusation is really the one that has done more to try and bring others into submission if they support “the wrong side”…
Posted by: Joshua at March 17, 2006 10:11 AM
Please stay on topic. Baby-abduction, discourse-domination, lending money at interest. It’s disgraceful.
Posted by: vadim at March 17, 2006 10:45 AM
No one, least of all I, have ever called anyone here an anti-Semite. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone here making accusations of anti-Semitism to support their arguments…
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 09:40 AM
Like it or not, the US public associates the Arab and Islamic world with decades of suicide bombings & airline hijackings, … religious fatwas, conspiracy theories, religious and politcal repression, crowds chanting “death to america” and burning the US flag, emblem of ‘the great satan’….
Posted by: vadim at March 19, 2006 03:20 PM
Hey Seymour, Geh vaxen vie a tsiboleh! … And while you’re at it, take the rest of the Bundist shlobs with you.
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 11:38 PM
You can’t call anyone an “antisemite” on this board. That’s stifling debate and inquiry.
Posted by: Joshua at March 20, 2006 02:30 PM
No one is going to starve (among Gazans) … the Israelis have every right to convince Palestinians of the cost…
Posted by: Neal at March 23, 2006 04:07 PM
Maybe they should eat strawberries until they realize that they have a choice between bread and bombs.
Posted by: Davis at March 23, 2006 10:10 PM
frankly, HAMAS rules. It is the governing authority (so the Palestinian people should be deprived of food and supplies)… In WWII, should the West not have fought the Nazis because not all Germans voted for the Nazis? I think not.
Posted by: Neal at March 23, 2006 11:49 PM
As I said, Palestinian Arabs … would kill off the Israelis if they could.
Posted by: Neal at March 23, 2006 11:58 PM
How do we say it, ah, bull puckey… I will be 57 in two months, I live in a small house in a rural community…
Posted by: JES at March 25, 2006 12:10 AM
Fortunately for you, your self-soilings will shortly be rolling off the bottom…
Posted by: JES at March 25, 2006 11:41 PM
I think someone’s taken a beanball or two to the melon.
Posted by: vadim at March 25, 2006 11:49 PM
explain what Richard Perle has in common with Dennis Ross, without falling back to vapid generalities, dippy po-mo psychobabble about “narratives”
Posted by vadim at March 28, 2006 09:18 AM
“…his fans here…”
Grow up, Truesdell, and try arguing like an adult now and then. People might take you somewhat seriously if you do, even if your arguments are not any better.
“The record of Truesdell and crew (including JES, Vadim, Neal, Joshua, Davis, WarrenW, and other reincarnations of the same) is childish circuitous argument for the sake of obfuscating the heart of the matter.”
That is, after all, part of the standard Zionist arsenal – distract, divert, distort, misrepresent, obfuscate. If you have no argument to present, pretend your interlocutor has said things he has not said – the more absurd the better – and argue against those. And of course do not hesitate to make up whatever “facts” you need to make your argument. Most people will not know you are making it up, so you will at least fool most of the people some of the time.
And speaking of distortion, a careful reading of Nasrullah’s remarks in the linked article reveals that – surprise, surprise! – Truesdell misrepresented what he said.
Recently a number of writers have noted the remarkable turn of events in analysis of the Arab/Muslim world. In the past the Trues Dell’s of the world wrote contemptuously of Arab “Dream Palaces.” Ajami and fellow travellers like Bernard Lewis, Kramer, Pipes, etc., along with the obfuscating trolls of comments sections on this and other websites, puffed out their chests and pontificated about so much non-sense.
Well the last five years have given this bunch a chance to live out their make believe fantasies, and suddely we find they all inhabit the same Dream Palaces they built themselves. The War on Terrorism and Democracy at the Point of a Gun have all gone bust, and now the whole world is forced to confront the consequences. The Magic Kingdom of their palaces is like a rapidly deflating balloon, spluttering round this global 21st century thermosphere.
Trues Dell and Associates who are promoted at places like Benador should recall the words of a great US president:
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
This is the End Game, and reality is dawning.
a careful reading of Nasrullah’s remarks in the linked article reveals that – surprise, surprise! – Truesdell misrepresented what he said.
I deliberately linked the BBC article so that readers here could decide for themselves whether Nasrullah rued starting the war or felt vindicated.
In that connection note Helena’s own formulation of this matter:
I’ve been trying to figure out his motivation in making what could be read as a fairly damaging admission of the Hizbullah leadership having taken a very momentous decision based on a deeply flawed judgment regarding Israel’s likely response.
Truesdell, have you no shame? Can’t you, just once, argue honestly?
It is 100% clear from Nasrullah’s remarks that he “rued” capturing the soldiers and thereby giving Israel the excuse for its spectacular war crime spree in Lebanon. That was not, however, what you originally insisted. What you originally insisted was that the article shows that Nasrullah does not believe that “Lebanon came out ahead in the war he initiated”. That is not the same thing as saying he “rues starting the war”. Nor is it the same thing as what Helena wrote. In fact, it is not even the same thing that Nasrullah said.
I am beginning to believe that you guys could not argue honestly even if it gave you an advantage to do so.
try arguing like an adult now and then….
My God, that is funny!
Perhaps, Shirin, you can give us another lesson on how Israelis pronounce words like “terrorist” (at which time I was sorely tempted to start talking about the “brrrrudal oggubajun”), or Sd can start his rant about the echo chamber or what ever his ‘clever’ crap was. You people really are a entertaining!
You certainly have a way with words JES.
Here is a glimpse of reality:
One day, racist Southerners in America had to face the facts and end their fictitious system of “separate but equal.”
In later years, the Afrikaaners of South Africa had to face facts, and the system of Apartheid ended.
Even Germany’s Berlin Wall was torn down.
Some day in the futue, Israel’s grotesque “Iron Wall” of division that snakes its way through the holy city of Jerusalem, up and down the hills of Palestine, cutting off farmers and shepherds and their families from ancestral lands, will also be taken down.
And on that day the entire world will rejoice as all people of Palestine, regardless of race, sect, or other identity will again be free to move unhindered through their City of Peace, and all people will enjoy resting beneath their common groves of olive and fig trees.
And they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks….
Yes, JES, peoples all around the world, when they end conflicts, do indeed convert industrial processes previously devoted to lethal military technologies into technologies that are life-affirming and life-supporting.
Israel, which has ways the largest military-industrial complex in the whole region, and all of its neighbors can do the same, too.
This is a real (and to many people, a very engaging) possibility.
I hope you’re open to it? It sure beats being being a beleaguered Sparta for ever and ever
Sure I’m open to it! (Although I do think that Isaiah’s wording is much nicer.)
Oh, I certainly agree. But I wanted to give it a more contemporary interpretation. (It would be kind of nice if Israel and Hizbullah were fighting only with swords, wouldn’t it?)
In doing that, I wanted to bring the concept of conversiopn of military industries into the realm of the real, and truly conceivable, and also to see if really doing it — as opposed to, for example, citing some airy-fairy theological/historical text– you and others might truly be open to the possibility.
So I’m delighted that you say you are.
How, then, do we get from here to there? That is the question.