Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah gave an interview to As-Safir’s Talal Salman which is in the paper today. Here are the highlights from it. And here, in three parts, is the text: 1, 2, 3.
- (Btw, I think those URLs work only on the day of publication. On future days, to get to the same place, where the URL currently has ‘/today/’ you should replace that with ‘/oldissues/20060905/’. I think that’s how it works… though I don’t know why they can’t put them up with permalinks from the get-go. Grrr.)
Anyway, it looks interesting. Here’s a quickie Al-jazeera rendering of the main points in English.
It includes this:
- In an August 27 televised interview, Nasrallah had said he would not have ordered the capture of the two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.
But in the As-Safir interview, Nasrallah said his group fought a war that brought “strategic and historic victory” for Lebanon.
Nasrallah contended that Israel was unable to achieve any of its declared goals, including destroying Hezbollah’s rocket launchers and infrastructure, pushing its fighters away from south Lebanon and freeing the two captured soldiers.
He mocked Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, saying: “His only achievement was putting me in a shelter.”
Nasrallah went into hiding on the first day of the war and has not been seen in public since.
Here is a short UPI story about the interview, in English.
It includes this:
- In an interview with Beirut’s daily As-Safir Tuesday, Nasrallah said his party will keep its Iranian-supplied rockets in south Lebanon but will not use them against Israel unless in the case of a large-scale invasion or aggression against Lebanon.
“We will retain these rockets as we did from 1996 until 2006 without using them. These rockets will not be resorted to unless Israel launched an all-out military offensive on Lebanon,” Nasrallah said…
Nasrallah said he did not regret kidnapping the Israeli soldiers stressing that “the resistance movement did not commit a mistake, but its move was accurate and well calculated.”
Nasrallah contradicted what he told a local television channel only a few days ago that he would not have taken such a move had he known that the Israeli retaliation would be that harsh.
The black-turbaned cleric said he presumed Israel’s reaction to the kidnapping would be similar and as harsh as its offensive on Gaza after the abduction of Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hamas.
Nasrallah pointed out that the “resistance movement is present in an undeclared way south of the Litani River” and that “its role is to back up and support the Lebanese army.”
This strikes me as quite significant. He is saying in public what everyone knows, which is that Hizbullah will be keeping its rocket force (in south Lebanon only? or not specified by him thus in the text? anyone?) But hitherto, I think he and everyone else has been a little coy about stating this in public.
Does this signify a new self-confidence? A desire to tweak his opponents in Israel and elsewhere?
… Anyway, if anyone can point us to, or provide, translations of greater portions of the interview than this, or clarifications or informed answers to some of the above questions, that would be great. It looks like another important source.
Thanks!
Helena – In case you weren’t listening to DemocracyNow this morning, Robert Fisk said that Hezbollah was sending some rockets to Syria, presumably to protect them. He also had many first-hand observations about the recent war. He will be on again tomorrow.
I will try to help you with the interview of Hasan Nasrallah to As-Safire later today. It contains important points and I’m not very much astonished from the near complete negligence of the western media. Even Seymour Hirsch was complaining in an interview conducted with him on Al-Jazeera last month. For the time being I translated this piece published yesterday in the new Lebanese paper “Al-Akhbar” which looks to be affiliated with General Aoun and accordingly is a supporter of HA. Its editor in chief is Joseph Samaha who was an ex minister for culture and is a staunch supporter of HA and Hasan Nasrallah. I gave the link to the Arabic text at the end of the translation that follows. I am sure you can choose better words once you compare the Arabic version and my translation. This piece will help you understand what is going on regarding the weapons of HA. They are in the process of changing their tactics but not their strategy and this is happening – it seems – with complete cooperation with the Army. Most of the weapons are kept safe and those that HA consider important will be kept and no one will have any control of it except HA. However, the Hizb is actually concentrating more on the domestic side and with its alliances with other political forces like General Aoun, Karamy and Al-Houss from the sunni side and Franggia and Aoun from the Christian side. It is in constant talks with Al-Harriri and HN said in his latest interview that he has no objections to resume talks with Jumblat if he chooses to. They are even resuming talks and relations with Saudi Arabia about whom HN talked much in his interview. He is virtually opening all channels with all factions both domestically and in the region although he is forming a special alliance with those who supported him domestically.
Is Hizb Allah shaping a resistance strategy of a new sort?
Did Hizb Allah begin disarming voluntarily? And is there a new strategy for the working technique of the resistance?
Certain political sources that are closely following (studying) HA acceptance that the (Lebanese) army deploys its forces to the outskirts of Shabaa Farms and the hills of Kafr Shouba.
These sources say that the Hizb (party) would not have accepted this step unless it has “great confidence in the army” and that the Hizb “never looked with any degree of suspicion to the incident that has happened in the Army barrack of MargAyoun because the Hizb understands that the Lebanese combined security force was not granted any authority that enables it even to give a ticket to a car driver who violates the laws and that it is not –from the start- equipped to face an Israeli attack but this does not nonetheless mean that the high officers are innocent (of misconduct).
These sources added that the confidence that the Hizb has in the army has facilitated its deployment near Shabaa Farms and Hills of Kfar Shouba and that what has been circulated lately that the resistance has evacuated some of its locations is nothing more than an “military” evacuation of some observation and reconnaissance posts rather than an evacuation of fighting locations.
These sources explain that what has been announced lately regarding the confiscation of arms storehouses is just something meant for the media and the public, since the Hizb has decided to support the army with some (those) forms of arms or weapons that has become “outside or beyond its new strategy , and that may be nothing but a burden for him and for his resistance apparatus (organization or branch) . “This resistance apparatus is heading now towards (or is shaping) a new sort of work that will be secret until they decide the suitable time to announce it and make it public”.
Observers following the Hizb closely say that “HA gained valuable lessons from the most recent confrontation and the Hizb is seriously contemplating to put all his previously “untouchable” cards on the table for an pure internal discussion with his loyal allies who has not stabbed him in the back during the last aggression . Those allies who were the most faithful and who formed a protective internal net in the domestic Lebanese front and who stood fast for some Lebanese politicians who tried to shake this internal front by waging a psychological offensive no less fierce than the Israeli offensive.
Observers close to the free national group {or current as they call it i.e. the group of General Aoun which some estimated that it represent 70% of the Lebanese Christian population} say that HA has “proved that he is a staunch supporter of the national interests and of the true independence and sovereignty of the country. HA is dealing with the issues at hand with a spirit of high responsibility and no one should feel astonished of his declaration that he will offer the army with all the heavy arms (weapons) that can help the army to confront any Israeli offensive acts. All the domestic goals that the Hizb has opted for are almost close to being fulfilled. Victory in the battle of liberating the Lebanese captives in Israel is very close. Liberation of Shabaa Farms is only a matter of time. The army which both the political leaders and the public base of the Hizb firmly support will be the responsible authority to implement a defensive strategy to defend Lebanon and its independence”.
Several observers from other political factions say that Hizb Allah has “achieved a big victory and no one even those who have differences with HA can say that the Hizb was defeated. We should all admit that victory and salute the the resistors who showed lately a different style of work that may embarrass all political groups in Lebanon who aspire for sovereignty, liberty, and independence.” They add “ What more do we ask HA after it agreed to let the Lebanese army deploy in the south , and welcomed the UNIFL forces and gave assurances and guarantees for European countries that want to send forces to the south , and finally is tightly and responsibly controlling its weapons.”
Secuity sources observing what is going on on the ground in the south , and which consider the sector of the occupied Shabaa farm part of its security duties and responsibilities , –these sources- offer the following detailed description of developments taking place on the ground in the south “ HA did not say that it will stop taking its resistance responsibility , and all indicators on the ground looking for the movements of the Hizb and its forces particularly in the area south of Litany river and to the east of Hasbaya river indicate clearly that the Hizb is offering great help for the process of deployment of the army and this help will be extended later to the forces of UNIFL. What is being talked about concerning his evacuation of certain locations should be regarded as part of his new tactic which is related to a strategy that the Hizb never deviated from, despite the fact that some modifications were adopted after the last Israeli aggression. The new resistance action will be even more secretive than before because the rules of the game require a new pattern of confrontation. Every one knows that HA never held fixed positions in the hills of AaRquob to evacuate now. All it has is reconnaissance locations that were evacuated after the aggression.” These sources do not exclude the possibility that the Hizb may deliver its heavy arms to the army in an organized and quite manner away from the eyes of the media and the political disputes. This is different from the disarming that some hope to happen; those who know nothing about rules of the game and secrets of the struggle with Israel that was taking place through the last six years south of the Litani river and in Shabaa farms.
http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/3614
Mideast wire just posted a partial translation of the Nasrallah-Bassam interview from New TV..
http://www.mideastwire.com/topstory.php?id=10401
1- Until I begin to do some translation of portions of the lengthy interview with Hasan Nasrallah ( hopefully tonight) here is an article I read today in Haaretz which shed some light on a very short segment of the interview.
Nasrallah: ‘Even I don’t know where my hideout is located’
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759167.html
Nasrallah: We’ll hold on to rockets
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3299844,00.html
2- It is true that the links you gave do not work beyond the day of publication. The paper provides an archive of the last 2 months. Open the front page of the site. On the right side of the page slightly down there is a title “previous news”. Click and then a page appears where you can enter the date you want. In this case enter date 5, month sep. and you will get the front page where you can reach the interview.
Anyway, here are the permanent links. Replace today in the URL you provided with : /oldissues/20060905/.. .
The first link is a brief summary for the important points in the interview.
The second link is for the first part of the interview. It deals in principle with what happened in the confrontation and the meaning of victory and defeat, the consequences inside Israel and inside Lebanon. The article of Haaretz deals with this part.
The third link is for the second part of the interview. It deals mainly with the points that you want more detail about.
The fourth link is for the third and final part of the interview. It deals mainly with the relations of the Hizb with the Arab countries particularly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar. The relations of HA with three main authorities in Lebanon ( the President, PM , Parliament leader) , with other sides (Harriri, Gumblat, Al-Hoss, etc.) and his opinion regarding a wider government.
The last link is the story of the interview and impressions of the editor in chief of As-Safir.
http://www.assafir.com/iso/oldissues/20060905/front/493.html
http://www.assafir.com/iso/oldissues/20060905/local/489.html
http://www.assafir.com/iso/oldissues/20060905/local/490.html
http://www.assafir.com/iso/oldissues/20060905/local/491.html
http://www.assafir.com/iso/oldissues/20060905/local/492.html
Jon, thanks so much for that link. I found the refs there to Terje Larsen’s role particularly interesting and shall probably write more about this– also in conjunction w/ a recent review I read of Hilde Henriksen Waage’s new book in Norway on the pro-US and pro-Israeli character of the whole “Oslo” peace process in which Terje and his wife were such “stars”.
MH– thank YOU so much for your work here, especially the translation of the Akhbar article. It confirms my growing understanding that HN judged (correctly) from the beginning of the recent conflict that what was actually being fought over, most of anything, was the “soul” (!) of the Lebanese state… and this included both at the political level (hence his cooperation in formulating and upholding the 7 points, and contributing to the winning and stabilizing of the ceasefire) as well as at the ‘operational’ level, i.e. the level of the national army and security forces. From this point of view you could say that the Hizb may be considering merely handing over some of their weapons to have the Lebanese army do the boring work of maintaining and storing them until such time as the Hizb might want to regain control of them… There are other ways of describing this plan, of course. But it hinges crucially on questions of political loyalty and operational security.
Personally, I think the Israeli security bosses never had an inkling of what they were up against this time. They didn’t even know what it was they didn’t know… (As in Rumsfeld’s infamous “the unknown unknowns”… ) At least in 1982 Sharon and Lubrani– remember him? now there was one sad sack of a faux ‘expert– had all those “phalanxes” of political and operational allies inside Lebanon… And they couldn’t even “win” then. This time, they had almost exactly zero internal allies when they started the big escalation, and almost zero intel capacity inside the country either. And they hoped to win? Unbelievably reckless.