Nasrallah calls on Saudi Arabia to boycott the upcoming Middle East conference

Posted by Alex. Written by Idaf with commentary at the end by Alex

IDAF sent this summary of today's speech by Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

nspeech.jpg

On the Presidential Elections (Written by Idaf)
 
In short, Nasrallah gave the March 14 group 3 options:
  1. Accept the Berri initiative where the opposition would accept a consensus president in return for dropping its demand for a unity government.
  2. Amending the constitution one time only for a direct "one man one vote" for the president and drop the debate of "half+1" vs. "two thirds" (of votes in the parliament). This would sideline all the sectarian Zaiims and give power to the people.
  3. Hire 5 scientific polling companies to survey the Lebanese public on all presidential nominees and accept the findings in the parliament as the next president of Lebanon.
It'll be interesting to watch the debate in the next few weeks on these options.
 
On the Assassinations in Lebanon

But the most important part of Nasrallah's speech is his counter-offensive on the "who is behind killing politicians in Lebanon". He said that it is his "view and belief" and "not a hypothesis anymore" that it is Israel that is behind the killings in Lebanon.
 
He argued that Israel is "no ally of March 14" therefore they are potential Israeli targets whenever there's a political gains from killing some of them. He reminded us of how most of the assassinations took place in the areas where Israel historically had influence and security presence in Lebanon (implying to areas under control by the Lebanese Forces militia).
 
He said that these assassinations are carried out by Israel and "might or might not be in coordination with the US administration". He reminded everyone of a very interesting trend in the assassinations I mentioned few weeks ago. He said that these assassinations are designed to put the opposition on the defensive whenever it is gaining power or there's an initiative to solve a political problem. His argument is that Syria can't be putting its allies in Lebanon in this position repeatedly and shoot itself in the foot time and again. He listed "a sample" of 3 assassinations: Jubran Tuaini was assassinated less than 24 hours before the Security Council meeting on Syria to discuss the Mehlis report (a couple of days after returning to Lebanon). Pierre Gemayel was assassinated on the same day that there was a Security Council meeting for the international tribunal (days before the launch of the mass opposition movement in Beirut). Ghanem was killed on the day of another Security Council meeting on the proceedings of launching the tribunal (7 days before the parliament presidential elections meeting and 2 days after coming back from self imposed exile).
 
Here's the part of the transcript with Nasrallah's case and argument regarding Israel's motives for the assassinations:
 

في لبنان شهدنا في الآونة الأخيرة عمليات اغتيال وكان آخرها اغتيال النائب انطوان غانم، وجرت العادة عندما تحصل عمليات اغتيال من هذا النوع لأي شخصية من فريق 14 آذار أن يقوم هذا الفريق وفي الدقائق الأولى باتهام سوريا والبعض يذهب أبعد من ذلك باتهام أو تحميل مسؤولية أيضا لحلفاء سوريا في عمليات الإغتيال، ثمّ عندما تطالبهم بالدليل يقولون لك علنا وسرا هذا تحليل سياسي وليس لدينا معطيات أمنية أو قضائية. في المقابل تصاب المعارضة بالإحراج ونصدر بيانات الإستنكار والإدانة والشجب، ثمّ يخرج علينا بعض الفلاسفة من 14 آذار ليقولوا أنّ دليلهم على أن سوريا أو الفريق الآخر هو الذي يقتل هو أنّه ليس من المعقول أن تقوم قوى 14 آذار بقتل قادتها. صحيح ليس من المعقول أن تقوم 14 آذار بقتل قادتها…
 
وطالما أن المسألة هي مسألة قراءة سياسية ومعطيات سياسية وتحليل سياسي أنا الليلة لا أريد أن أتحدث عن فرضية في الموضوع الأمني وإنما أتحدث عن قناعة وعن رؤية وليس عن فرضية فقط بل أكثر من فرضية وهذه قناعتي ورؤيتي للموضوع الأمني وأعرض ذلك على اللبنانيين وعلى قادة 14 آذار وعلى جمهورهم أيضا وعلى عوائل الشهداء الذين قتلوا ظلما وعدوانا بهذه التفجيرات وليفكروا ويتأملوا ويدرسوا طالما أنّ المسألة هي مسألة معطيات سياسية وقراءة سياسية.
 
أنا لا أقول أنّ قوى 14 آذار تقتل قادتها وشخصياتها، وإنما أقول أنّ الإسرائيليين هم الذين يقتلون شخصيات وقيادات 14 آذار، إذا أحدٌ من 14 آذار يتعجب فيكون ذلك من العجيب أن يتعجب! لماذا لا يريدون قتلكم؟ هل أنتم أصدقاء إسرائيل لكي لا يقتلونكم، هل أنتم إخوانهم كي لا يقتلونكم، هل أنتم حلفاؤهم كي لا يقتلونكم؟ كلا وأنتم تقلون كلا ونحن نقول كلا، إذاً أنتم لستم حلفاؤهم ولستم أصدقاءهم ولستم إخوانهم، فما هو المانع الأخلاقي والسياسي من أن يُقدم الإسرائيليون على قتلكم؟ هذا أولا.
 
ثانيا سوابق إسرائيل، الإسرائيليون الصهاينة قتلوا يهوداً في أوروبا الغربية والشرقية وفي أماكن مختلفة من العالم، يهوداً من أبناء دينهم وأبناء جلدتهم من أجل إجبارهم على الهجرة إلى فلسطين المحتلة، لأنّ مشروعهم كان بحاجة إلى أن يقتل هؤلاء اليهود فقتلوهم. اليهود تعرضوا للقتل أيضا من قبل الصهاينة. إسرائيل لها مشروع سياسي في لبنان والمنطقة وهي تخدم مشروعها السياسي، إذا كانت الدماء التي يجب أن تسفك لخدمة مشروع إسرائيل السياسي هي دماء من 14 آذار فليكن. في حرب تموز سفكت دماء من قوى محسوبة من قوى 8 آذار ومن مختلف أبناء الشعب اللبناني، ولكن الحرب شنّت على المقاومة وعلى من يحتضن هذه المقاومة. لا فرق في الدم، هل هناك طفل يفرق عن طفل آخر أو امرأة عن أمرأة أو دم عن دم بالنسبة إلى الإسرائيلي؟، بالنسبة إلى الإسرائيلي مشروعه هو الأساس.

وهذا الذي يقدم عليه الإسرائيليون قد يكون بعلم الأمريكيين وهذا ما أعتقد به وقد لا يكون بعلمهم، ولكن اليد التي تقتل هي يد إسرائيلية. هناك نموذج وهو اغتيال النواب : النائب جبران التويني والنائب بيار الجميل والنائب انطوان غانم. أنظروا للملاحظة المشتركة، اغتيل النائب جبران التويني قبل يوم من اجتماع مجلس الأمن ـ أو يمكن بنفس اليوم ـ لإقرار المحكمة الدولية بالمبدأ، واغتيل النائب بيار الجميل في اليوم الذي كان هناك اجتماع لمجلس الأمن لإقرار نظام المحكمة الدولية، والثالث اغتيال النائب انطوان غانم في اليوم الذي كان مجلس الأمن مجتمعا ليستمع إلى التقرير التنفيذي لقيامة المحكمة الدولية والتي يشتكي الأمريكيون من تباطؤ تشكيلها، ما هذه الصدفة؟

لا أريد الدفاع عن سوريا، فسوريا هي أكبر دولة متضررة من المحكمة الدولية تقتل جبران التويني في يوم إقرار المحكمة وبيار الجميل في يوم إقرار نظام المحكمة وانطوان غام في يوم تقديم التقرير التنفيذي لتشكيل المحكمة ! أو أي أحد من حلفاء سوريا ؟ ولكن من الذي يفعل ذلك؟ يفعل ذلك إسرائيل وأمريكا. في لبنان أهالي الشهداء لهم مصلحة في المحكمة الدولية بأن تكشف القتلة ولكن أمريكا وإسرائيل مصلحتها في المحكمة الدولية مختلفة لأنّها من خلالها تريد أن تسقط آخر نظام عربي ممانع في هذه المنطقة، ومن خلالها تريد أن تفرض على سوريا تسوية على مستوى المنطقة في الموضوع العربي وفي الموضوع الإسرائيلي وفي الموضوع العراقي…
 
أنا لا اتهم أهالي الشهداء الذين يعملون بالليل والنهار من أجل إقامة المحكمة الدولية، ولكن اتهم إسرائيل نعم. ولاحظوا هذه العمليات الثلاث في أي منطقة جرت؟ كل المراقبين الأمنيين والأجهزة الأمنية تجمع أنّ هذا العمل الامني الذي نفّذ هو عمل دقيق ومحترف وبارع وأنّ الجهات التي نفذت هذه العمليات لديها إحاطة معلوماتية عالية وقدرة عملاتية عالية، في تلك المناطق من الأقوى، أليست الشبكات الإسرائيلية التي لها تاريخ تواجد أمني عريق في تلك المناطق ولها إحاطة معلوماتية ولها قدرة عملاتية؟ الذي له مصلحة أكيدة وقوية في الإغتيال في لبنان هي إسرائيل. لماذا أيضا لأنّ مشروع إسرائيل في لبنان هو مشروع الفتنة، مشروع أن يتقاتل اللبنانيون.
 
إسرائيل تنظر إلى المقاومة، في كل يوم هدوء في لبنان تعتبر إسرائيل أنّ المقاومة تزداد قوة، وفي كل يوم يحدث فتنة وقتال في لبنان يعني جر المقاومة إلى الداخل لترتاح إسرائيل. البعض يقول الآن مما تخاف إسرائيل فلا شيء في الجنوب؟ إسرائيل تنظر إلى المقاومة من باب القلق الإستراتيجي لأنّ المقاومة كقوة دفاعية عن لبنان تمنع إسرائيل من تحقيق أطماعها وطموحاتها وأحلامها في لبنان، ولذلك هي تريد استنزاف وإضعاف وإرهاق وجر المقاومة إلى صراع وقتال داخلي وهي المستفيد الأول من أي قتال داخلي وفتنة داخلية تحصل في لبنان، كما هي الآن في فلسطين حيث المستفيد الأول من أي تقاتل داخلي هو الإحتلال الصهيوني وكذلك الحال في لبنان.
 ..

هناك فريق سياسي في لبنان جاهز، أي اغتيال وأي تفجير هو يحمل هذا الدم والمتهم جاهز وتركيب النتائج جاهزة، هم لا يوجهون فقط اتهام بل يتهمون ويقاضون ويحاكمون في آن واحد، ولذلك توغل إسرائيل في القتل. قلتم أنّ إقرار المحكمة الدولية يوقف القتل فلم يوقفه، وقلتم سابقا تشكيل لجنة تحقيق دولية يوقف القتل فلم توقف، وحتى لو تشكلت بالفعل وحقيقة، ما دام أنّ الذي يريد القتل في لبنان يحمل مشروعا سياسيا ويسفك دما من هذا النوع وهو بمنأى عن المحكمة الدولية وعن التحقيق الدولية وحتى عن اتهامكم وأعني إسرائيل، طالما أنّ القاتل الحقيقي بمنأى عن الإتهام والتحقيق وعن المحكمة ويحقق أغراضه فلو شكلتم مئة محكمة دولية فهو سيستمر في القتل.
 
(…) أنا أتهم بصراحة بالقرائن والمعطيات والمستفيد والقراءة السياسية المحلية والإقليمية والدولية والمصالح التكتيكية والإستراتيجية أقول إنّ إسرائيل هي التي ترتكب أعمال القتل والإغتيال التي تحصل في لبنان. يجب على اللبنانيين جميعاً أن يرتبوا حساباتهم على هذا الأساس وأن لا يخطئوا في الحسابات وأن لا يأخذوا بلدهم بالظن وبسوء الاتهام وبسوء التقدير إلى حيث تريد إسرائيل من سفكها لهذه الدماء التي تقتل ظلماً وعدواناً. 
في موضوع اغتيال النائب انطوان غانم أيضاً، هناك مؤشر سياسي آخر، بعد أن طرحت مبادرة الرئيس بري ووافقت عليها المعارضة، (..)

لكن من الذي يريد، من الذي له مصلحة أن لا يكون هناك رئيس توافقي في لبنان؟ بعض الناس قالوا سوريا! أنا أضمن لكم أن سوريا تقبل برئيس توافقي وهي جادة بهذا الموضوع وأنا أعرف ذلك. الذي ليس له مصلحة بالدرجة الأولى برئيس توافقي في لبنان هي إسرائيل، لأن الرئيس التوافقي يعني حكومة وحدة وطنية، يعني بالنسبة للإسرائيلي هو لا يرى في لبنان إلا سلاح المقاومة، حكومة وحدة وطنية ورئيس توافقي يعني ليس رئيس مواجهة ، إسرائيل تريد رئيس تحد، رئيس مواجهة، رئيس ملتزم  وليس حيادياً في مسألة سلاح المقاومة، فضلاُ عن أن يكون متفهماً، فضلاً عن أن يكون ملتزماً بهذا السلاح. إسرائيل ومن خلفها أمريكا  تريد رئيساً ملتزماً بنزع هذا السلاح  وبالقضاء على المقاومة، تريد رئيس مواجهة، تريد رئيس فتنة لأن مشروعها في لبنان هو مشروع الفتنة.
قُتل النائب انطوان غانم لقطع الطريق على مبادرة الرئيس بري، هذا أيضاً مؤشر إضافي.

 
On the Peace Conference
 
Other points worth mentioning in his speech was a direct appeal to Saudi NOT to attend the "peace conference". As he put it, it'll be a "free normalization" gift that would boost the "weak Olmert government" without anything in return.
 

" أود أن أناشد قيادة المملكة العربية السعودية أن لا يعطوا لهذا لاإجتماع أي تغطية عربية. إذا كانت المحصلة هي التطبيع وفي المقابل ليس هناك أي نتائج جوهرية لمصلحة الشعب الفلسطيني "

 
He noted the irony of speaking about peace while Israel is actually stacking its army in the Golan Heights as an apparent preparation for war. He also said that in the last 3 weeks, Israel has expanded its violations of Lebanese skies up to Bikaa in an unprecedented scale in no-war times.
 
On the Strike on Syria
 
On the Israeli strike on Syria, he gave his analysis that this was to achieve 2 goals: "Shake Syria" before Bush's peace conference so that it would bring down its "resistance" OR it was a move to pull Syria into a regional war in coordination with the Americans (that could pull Iran in).
 
برأيي أنها كانت تستهدف فيما تستهدف هز الموقف السوري قبل المؤتمر من أجل التأثير على الممانعة والمقاومة التي يبديها هذا النظام في تمسكه بأرضه وحقوقه الوطنية المشروعة، ولا يستبعد أحد أن تكون هناك نية إسرائيلية منسقة مع الأمريكيين لجر سوريا إلى الحرب ولجر المنطقة بأكملها إلى الحرب

برأيي أنها كانت تستهدف فيما تستهدف هز الموقف السوري قبل المؤتمر من أجل التأثير على الممانعة والمقاومة التي يبديها هذا النظام في تمسكه بأرضه وحقوقه الوطنية المشروعة، ولا يستبعد أحد أن تكون هناك نية إسرائيلية منسقة مع الأمريكيين لجر سوريا إلى الحرب ولجر المنطقة بأكملها إلى الحرب

 

My (Alex's) reading of the speech:

Nasrallah's speech gave us one more reason to believe that events are more likely to be leading towards a confrontation in Lebanon, and perhaps throughout the Middle East. By announcing his preference for asking the Lebanese people to directly elect Lebanon's new president, he is preparing his moral arguments in case there is a breakout of hostilities in Lebanon in the near future. I can already imagine his speech three months from now in which he says "I offered those who call themselves "the majority" to let the people pick their own president, but they rejected my proposal and all other reasonable and generous offers"

Nasrallah felt for the first time confident enough to publicly declare his belief that Syria is innocent in all of Lebanon's political assassinations. In the past, he was always cautious whenever he commented on this sensitive issue. There was always some ambiguity in his position. But by clearly siding with the Syrians today, he is siding against some of the Lebanese who feel very strongly that "Syria did it". This could be an indication that Nasrallah considers the damaged relations between him and the March 14 group to be beyond repair at this point.

Finally, his call on Saudi Arabia to boycott the upcoming Middle East peace conference is also not the way the Saudis want him to communicate with them. The fact Nasrallah decided to convey that public message to the Saudis also reflects a change in his previously sensitive approach to dealing with the Saudis.

In case the Lebanese March 14 group fail to accept Nasralla's compromise solution (through direct elections), his speech suggests that he wants everyone to know that it is now fair if he seeks Syria's backing and support against Israel's attempts to destabilize his country.

In a day or two we will probably hear something from the March 14 group's leaders. I doubt they will accept a democratically elected president.

Alex.

Comments (18)


1. Enlightened said:

Nasrallah is cornered, boys there will be no compromise. By resorting to let the people decide who they want “one man one vote” (which i like ) and he knows that it will not happen. If I were M14 i would call his bluff and accept this amendment but make the vote permanent.Although this would set a dangerous precedent for democracy in the ME, I cannot see the Zaims having the confidence or the courage to accept this, as this is a sure step to sideline the confessional system. Nasrallah must be confident with his numbers, otherwise he would not have suggested this. Meanwhile he and his allies and the opposition will continue to arm. And brace yourselves, it can mean only one thing, there will be no understanding, the mentality is its us versus them, Jumblatt is due in the states in the next week, hence M14 will wait for the outcome of this visit to see what support the Americans offer before confrontation is inevitable.

I have not seen the speech live, im leaving work in the next half hour and will catch the Five o clock news, so will see what he had to say.

I am surprised about one matter, that it has taken him so long to come out and say that the Syrian Regime is innocent. By doing so at this critical junction in time, he is letting his supporters know that he is firmly in Syria’s orbit of influence and this must sure be re assuring for the Syrian regime, as it tries to sidestep the tribunal.

On the potential peace conference, I think he has over stepped the mark here, he should have said either we all go or none of us, nothing more nothing less. Either full peace or the staus quo.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 6:08 am

 

2. annie said:

Quoting Enlightened :

‘By doing so at this critical junction in time, he is letting his supporters know that “he is firmly in Syria’s orbit of influence” and this must sure be re assuring for the Syrian regime, as it tries to sidestep the tribunal.’

What do you mean by being in Syria’s orbit of influence ?
He believes, and he is not the only one, that Syria is not the culprit in these assassinations. That the culprit is Israel. And that is what most people believe.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 11:36 am

 

3. offended said:

Interesting post, thank you Alex and Idaf for the analysis and for the commentary….
Nassrullah is also concerned about the Shite-Sunni sectarian strife, hence he asserts:
1- His staunch support for improving the situation of the Palestinian camps inside Lebanon.
2- His calling on the Arabs not to let down the Palestinians of the occupied territories…
3- His vehement rejection of partitioning Iraq…

This guy has a regional vision, he knows how to strum the emotional cords of the ordinary Arabs, yours truly included….

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 11:57 am

 
 

5. Alex said:

Offended,

That was a good point.

This was an announcement to his fellow Lebanese in which he basically said:

I will propose another reasonable way out of out problem (selecting a president through democratic elections) … M14 will turn it down. Now we need to be honest about what is going on … this is about regional politics, not about what is good for Lebanon. Saad and Walid are going to Washington to ask for help, they are getting Saudi help … I am telling you that I will not shy away from siding with Syria on this one, because the only reason siding with Syria is not kosher in Lebanon was that Syria is killing out political leaders in order to control us … and I don’t buy it anymore.

You will start hearing the Lebanese admitting more and more that their selection of a president will have to depend on an agreement between Syria and Saudi Arabia and the United states … just like the old days.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 2:52 pm

 

6. Alex said:

Annie said

“What do you mean by being in Syria’s orbit of influence ?
He believes, and he is not the only one, that Syria is not the culprit in these assassinations. That the culprit is Israel. And that is what most people believe.”

Annie, I agree … but that is what most people in Syria think, not in Lebanon. Nasrallah is a Lebanese leader, and in the past he was always careful not to offend the other Lebanese who hate Syria for killing Hariri. I would assume that 30% of the Lebanese strongly believe Syria killed Hariri and the other politicians and journalists.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 2:55 pm

 

7. Alex said:

Ehsani,

That new story proves that a large part, if not all, of the stories still circulating until today are fabricated.

This story says that the targets picked for the attack were decided few months ago. Yesterday’s story was that Israel targeted six trucks that were loaded on Sep 6th in Tartus …

Whatever.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 2:59 pm

 

8. why-discuss said:

Brilliant and bold speech! This US administration is in dissaray, nothing is working for them in the area:
-the “conference on Palestinians” is seriously compromise and it si been scaled down to an informative meeting…
-Iraq governement gave a blunt NO WAY to an attack on Iran –
-Dubai is calling for closer ties to Iran and warned the West about the impact on the relation if Iran is attacked.
Read this

-the sanctions on Iran fell apart and the great powers took great satisfaction in agreeing to postpone them!
-Blackwater scandal is making the Iraqis bolder about their caretakers, knowing that the latter are trapped in an endless role of security guards.
listen to this

What is left is just verbal threats that no one believe in anymore! Unless the Bush administration and Israeel, feeling weak an humiliated by all these failures make an irresponsible move.
Nasrallah did very well to take a position of strenght as this is the only language the US and Israel understand.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 3:16 pm

 

9. Observer said:

Today the NYT has a fascinating article about the preparation for a civil war in Lebanon with various Christian factions arming and training for an upcoming fight. The Christian community is split with one faction still clinging to the hope that they will remain in full power as if their minority status is non existent; and this the position of the Phalange party and the Lebanese Forces and the other faction saying we have to accomodate to the new reality and work with our friends and neighbors in Lebanon and these are all the other with Aoun and Franjieh as main players. Why-Discuss above may be correct in shwoing the disarray of the current policies in the US. However, count on all the dum and dumber and the vain and megalomaniacs in the Arab world to make sure that the Israeli US strategy gets to pass. Arabs are known to cut off their nose despite their face.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 4:12 pm

 
 

11. ausamaa said:

I doubt that a sectarian war in Lebanon is possible or fesible. The Lebanese (with the exception of few misfits) must have learned few lessons from what is on going around them. Besides, Militarily, Hizbullah+Amal+Aoun+al Marada+ SSNP+ other Sunnies control more ground fire power (if needed) that is sufficient to deter any other Lebanese faction from really tampering with them. Through in the Army, which most surly will side with them, then who can stand up to such an alliance.

More chaos, maybe, more assasinations to show that the Opposition and Syria are “bad for stability” yes, but not much more than that.

AS to Nassrallah’s reference clear reference to Israel’s responsibility (under US cover which he mentioned only once), the intention was I believe Not to defend Syria, but to FORCE the Lebanese to think in logical terms, hence resulting in them distancing themselves away from the FEb 14 Crowd (and the US line). Especially as the Feb 14 Crowd is now showing signs of disillusiment, inter-coaltion rivlary and disintegration.

His note to Saudi Arabia ( and other Moderate Arabs whom he portarayed as irrelevant by not even naming them) was intended 1) for the Arab and Palestinian Street, and 2) here I think he said what he believed in and what he said and had said he knew that “official” Syria would not say publically with Syrian Saudi relations being as tense as they are.

I loved the way in which he supported Aoun (and maybe Michele Suliman in a way) without naming a name by clearly painting him as The uncontested Person Lebanon needs right now.

Let Bush and the Feb 14 and the Saudies deciepher the speach and plot their next miss-step.

But in general, as Alex said, he is preparing the street for the heat wave which will follow in a way of: “We did all we could”, and “I told you so, so do not blame us in the future”.

Brilliant I think,sincere, convincing, full of confidence, and as defiant as is needed at this moment.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 8:31 pm

 

12. why-discuss said:

Does anyone know what is happening to the international tribunal, it seems bogged down and even Bush questionned it delay after he met with Hariri jr? What about Hercule Brammertz’s report?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 9:10 pm

 

13. Youssef Hanna said:

Dear All,

Sayyed Hassan used to face the accusation of the Syrian regime with asserting there shd be no accusation before the end of the trial; since he was always (rightfully) prompt to the contrary in accusing Israel of car bombs in Dahié before any judiciary investigation, his suddenly legalistic position appeared to reflect his intimate conviction that the Syrian regime he is allied to is the culprit; it looked like an attempt at delaying the political consequences of the guilt until after the trial starts if ever then comes to an end some years later. However his prudent position saved his rightfully vaunted credibility, and reflected his respectable genuineness (a rarity in the arab world, as he said yesterday).

The fllwg excerpt from his speech now expresses a change: “Since it is a matter of mere political reading, a matter of political data and of political analysis, I tonight do not want to talk of a hypothesis but of an intimate conviction and of a vision, not only a hypothesis but more than a hypothesis, as this is my intimate conviction and my vision of the security matter, and I expose it to Lebanese and to the leaders of 14 March and to their audience too and to the families of the martyrs so that they think and consider and study, as long as the matter is a matter of political data and political reading”. He thus openly moved, if a culprit must be fingered before any trial, to “political reading”, to “vision”, and “intimate conviction”.

He then expresses what he announced as his vision/intimate conviction: “MP Jubran Tuéni was assassinated one day prior to the Council of Security meeting held to approve the principle of the international tribunal, or maybe the very day; MP Pierre Gemayel was killed on the day of a meeting of the S.C held for the approval of the Statute of the International Tribunal; the third was the assassination of MP Antoine Ghanem on the day when the S.C was meeting to hear the Executive Report for the creation of the International Tribunal, the delay in the creation of which the Americans are complaining about. What a coincidence!”

If his vision/intimate conviction is that the killers timed the murders so that they coincide with relevant meetings of the Security Council and disarm the reluctance of Russia & China, the fllwg need be clarified:

1. The killing of Jibran Tueni was not timed to occur concomitantly with a meeting scheduled for that day (or for the fllwg day): no meeting was originally scheduled. It is the killing of 12/12/2005 that triggered the 5329th meeting of the Security Council, of 15/12/2005, during which the Security Council “Acknowledges the Lebanese Government’s request that those eventually charged with involvement in this terrorist attack be tried by a tribunal of an international character » (Resolution 1644). The referred to Lebanese request was made by “the letter of the Prime Minister of Lebanon to the Secretary-General of 13 December 2005 (S/2005/783) requesting the establishment of a tribunal of an international character”, further to the killing.

Thus, Sayyed Nasrallah is only left instead, regarding this 1st point, with alleging that the murderers wilfully aimed at provoking the Lebanese Government into setting the stage for the ministerial crisis that ensued from its requesting from the S.C the creation of the tribunal. An opposite speculator is allowed to claim with some reason that Jubran Tueni’s killers bet to the contrary that Siniora wd not dare setting the stage for a ministerial crisis and requesting from the S.C the creation of an international tribunal. With all due respect to Sayyed Hassan, the allegation he wd be left with wd not be a substantiated “vision”, or a corroborated “intimate conviction”. It wd be a speculation of a lightness he did not acquaint us to.

2. To be honest, no meeting of the S.C was scheduled to approve the Statute of the international Tribunal on the day when Pierre Gemayel was murdered (21 nov.2006) (pls check on http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/). No meeting at all was held by the S.C on that day. Pls also note the Statute was only approved during the meeting of the S.C held on 30 May 2007 (six months later).

On 21 november 2006, the President of the S.C merely wrote to the Secretary-General to advise him that further to consultations undertaken with each of the members of the S.C he authorizes the Secretary General to proceed with signing with the Lebanese Government the draft agreement for the creation of the international tribunal distributed to the members as of 15 november.

Did Pierre Gemayel’s killers time their murder on 21 november in order to disarm the opposition of some members of the Security Council? Why not. Maybe Sayyed Hassan has a piece of evidence to support his vision. One may hold the opposite view as well, more rational i must say, that from the moment when the S.C took its resolution 1664 of 29 march 2006 (i.e seven months earlier) asking the Secretary General to negotiate with Mr. Siniora’s government the agreement aiming at the creation of the international tribunal, the problem for the international tribunal laid only in Imad Lahoud’s and President Berri’s ability to block the constitutional process of ratification, while the S.C members from their end had done their internal bargains and agreed on the international tribunal. Pls notice in this respect that when the parliamentarian majority requested the S.C to overcome the constitutional deadlock and vote the international tribunal as a mere Chapter VII decision, Resolution 1757 was voted as a mere formality.

3. Sayyed Nasrallah’s assertion that the killers of Antoine Ghanem timed the murder (19 september 2007) with the meeting scheduled for approving the report of the Secretary General for the creation of the International Tribunal, at the time when President Bush was complaining of delays in the creation, must deal with the precision that the report, which dates of 4 september, required no approval from the S.C members, and consequently received no such approval.

With all due respect to Sayyed Nasrallah, i continue to think that (i) judges in Beirut would stand a high risk of being impeded from investigating/judging, or even assassinated (ii) judges commissioned in Damascus to instruct and judge the Hariri case made no more progress than any judge during the Syrian regime rule in Lebanon for the murders of Salim Laouzi, Moufti Khaled, Soubhi Saleh, Nazem Kadri, Kamal Joumblatt, President Bachir Gemayel, President René Moawad, Elie Hobeika, Ramzi Irani (only murders perpetrated by an enemy of the Syrian regime were investigated and judged, i.e the murders perpetrated by Samir Jaja) (iii) judges in the Hague stand better chances of identifying the murderer state.

Sayyed Nasrallah should not capitalize on his credibility to obstruct justice.

Best regards

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 10:09 pm

 

14. Kamal said:

Nasrallah has steadily squandered his credibility since the day the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon. Until then I was able to set aside his character as a Shi’ite jihadi and view him as a National Resistance leader. Since then he has revealed himself to be a petty sectarian za’im like the rest, and a willing tool of the Iranian-Syrian regional project, as well.

I grew up romanticizing Hizballa as freedom fighers resisting the Israeli enemy. I have not yet lost my admiration for Hizballa during that era. But the turning point, for me, was the March 8 rally: Hizballa’s first public reaction to the Hariri killing and the spontaneous movement for Lebanese liberation from Syrian tyranny and and the return of international support for Lebanon. So Nasralla came out and bellowed: “Shukran li Souriya al-Asad”. Not “thank you Syria”. Not “thanks to the Syrian people”. He said thanks to “Asad’s Syria”. Thanks to the murderous regime, at a time of when the Lebanese people were reeling from Syria’s bloody interference in Lebanon and celebrating our liberation.

Internally, this latest renewed message of solidarity with Syria will be understood as a big “F you” to at least 50% of Lebanon. It will be much easier now to drop the reverence attached to Hizballa and to openly accuse them of being treacherous tools of foreign interests.

Annie, I don’t know what planet you’re on, but to think “most people believe Israel is behind the killings” is ludicrous. Everyone knows it’s Syria aside from a handful of delusional Arab Nationalists, and a separate bunch of cynical propagandists.

The tragedy is that, regardless of the truth, regardless of justice, we are destined to lose our liberal Lebanon. The only “teeth” of our Independence Movement are gifts from the international community. They are sorely limited; they have not always been made available to us; they can be rescinded at any moment.

Unlike our internal opponents, we are simply not ready to kill and die for our cause. We tried before and lost, and we are much weaker now than then. If war broke out we would certainly lose, and aside from a tiny fringe, we do not have the stomach to even contemplate such an option. After all, we are not brainwashed jihadis who “love death and martyrdom”. We would rather emigrate to Canada, Australia and France to live middle class lives in peace and freedom.

As Lebanon becomes more like Syria or Iran, God forbid, I will watch sadly from afar, thankful that I escaped with my life, my family and my values intact. And I will keep some memories of Free Lebanon to reminisce from time to time.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 6th, 2007, 11:15 pm

 

15. Enlightened said:

Annie Said

Quoting Enlightened :

‘By doing so at this critical junction in time, he is letting his supporters know that “he is firmly in Syria’s orbit of influence” and this must sure be re assuring for the Syrian regime, as it tries to sidestep the tribunal.’

What do you mean by being in Syria’s orbit of influence ?
He believes, and he is not the only one, that Syria is not the culprit in these assassinations. That the culprit is Israel. And that is what most people believe.

Annie I do not profess to know who killed Harriri, I have never said on this site that i believe Syria or Syria’s Regime is to blame, likewise I have never said Israel is to blame, like wise I have never pointed the finger at anyone, if we logically look at the players in the arena, anyone could be responsible, even the within the Lebanese arena any of the Zaims or political leaders have a pretty decent record of murder and assasination from Gemyel to Jumblatt to Geagea ! Until we have a court case and see the evidence and see who actually did it will we really know.

The point is this Annie, Political murder and assasination should not be allowed to be perpetrated by anyone, even Bashar Assad in one of his interviews has said if anyone within Syria is found to be the perpetrator he will be considered a traitor!

So the sooner we see the evidence, and the trial (and as long as it is fair and not politically motivated) the better things will be.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 7th, 2007, 1:31 am

 

16. ausamaa said:

KAMAL said:

“Everyone knows it’s Syria aside from a handful of delusional Arab Nationalists, and a separate bunch of cynical propagandists.”

….and Serge Brammertz too, I would add….

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 7th, 2007, 4:12 am

 

17. Youssef Hanna said:

Ausamaa,

It may be Judge Brammertz is exhibiting no findings because the murderer left no clue whatsoever for any of the numerous killings.

It may be even the voluminous investigation file of 120,000 pages confirms Sayyed Hassan’s (late) “vision”, “intimate conviction”, and “political reading”.

We will soon know, provided that nobody in or out of Lebanon is allowed to block the effective functioning of the International Tribunal, which Sayyed Nasrallah again characterized as a U.S instrument aimed at breaking Syria’s resistance to a U.S engineered peaceful settlement.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 7th, 2007, 7:46 am

 

18. NEWS: Can Lebanon avoid civil war? said:

[…] Nasrallah calls on Saudi Arabia to boycott the upcoming Middle East conference Syria Comment, October 6, 2007 […]

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 7th, 2007, 11:18 pm

 

Post a comment