Nasrallah: Palestine belongs to Palestinians from sea to river

[oberliner]

No place for Israel in the Middle East? "Jerusalem and Palestine, from the sea to the river, belong to the Palestinian people, the Arabs and the Muslims, and no one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone from the holy land," Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said Friday evening.


Speaking in Beirut in honor of al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day, an Iranian-declared observance, Nasrallah added, "Its stones, olives and figs are scared, and no one has the right to give it up. This land must belong to its owners, and it will return, God willing.

"This day comes to stress a number of primary significations to the Muslims, so that the nation feels the intensity of the humiliation of past decades, when its holy places were occupied by racist Zionist hands.

"This is the greatest humiliation of this nation. The second message is to stress the historic, religious and legitimate responsibility of the Muslim nation towards Jerusalem, Palestine and the Palestinian people."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3602654,00.html

[maxsolomon]

1. if i were it's stones, olives, and figs, i'd be scared, too!

i do not believe i will see peace in the Levant in my lifetime. i have about 40 years left.

[Chulanowa]

2. Depends on what kind of peace you're looking for, I suppose

If you're hoping for a two-state solution with smiles and handshakes, yeah, you're going to be disappointed.

If you don't mind a nation demographically mutating into a new nation with a few years of freakout minority rule followed by a hot war for, oh, five years before things settle into a more peaceful parliamentary democracy with majority power, then things are a little brighter.

[azurnoir]

3. And the point is?

Does Nasrallah, now speak for the Palestinians, has he replaced Abba? Or is this an attempt to back up the claims that what is said or done in Lebanon by Lebanese should affect how the Palestinians are dealt with by Israel, except of course when it's Lebanese killing Palestinians then that is the Palestinians fault

[Violet_Crumble]

5. I was wondering the same thing. It must be a slow news week or something...

n/t

[oberliner]

6. I think it gives further insight into Hezbollah and their goals

Peaceful coexistence between Israel and Lebanon not being among them.

[azurnoir]

9. Then there is no attempt to equate

the goals of Hezbollah with the goals of the Palestinians, who seem to become one lump group for these purposes.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Hezbollah is just one of the players in the region

They certainly don't represent all Palestinians; but they're still an important group in their own right in Lebanon/Israel conflict and within-Lebanon internal conflict.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Further insight? It wasn't saying anything new n/t

[oberliner]

17. Further confirmation then?

Sadly, this organization and its hateful ideology is still alive and well in spite of UN resolutions calling for its disbandment.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. So tell me what he was saying that was giving anyone further insight?

There wasn't anything. This OP is similar to the incessant posting of everything Ahmanutjob says about Israel even though it's the same thing over and over and over. It just gives the same people the chance to do the same frothing at the mouth as they did the thread before and the thread before that. Which is probably really exciting for the frothers, but it doesn't give anyone any 'further insight' into anything at all...

[Boojatta]

19. Was there not controversy over the correct interpretation of

the Farsi spoken by the President of Iran?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. What's that got to do with this OP? n/t

[Boojatta]

21. Maybe nothing. I was simply responding to: "even though it's the same thing over and over" e.o.m.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Okay, but when it comes to Ahmanutjob it is the same thing over and over and over...

It's like clockwork. On an almost weekly basis he says the same crap he said the time before, an OP is posted here, and the thread is filled with 'OMG! I can't believe he said that!!! What a nut!' type of posts, and it's like both Ahmanutjob and those who react the same way to the same thing he says all have collective amnesia and forget they only said the same thing a week or so before that...

[oberliner]

25. Potential military conflict between Iran and Israel is a very serious concern

The world community is attempting to determine whether or not Iran is intending to develop nuclear weapons with an eye towards launching an attack on Israel (or assisting a group like Hezbollah in doing so).

While on the one hand, the Iranian leadership has made statements claiming that it would not initiate such an attack, on the other hand, both the President and the Supreme Leader of Iran have made statements suggesting that the termination of the existence of the state of Israel would be a positive thing.

As you note, those statements are being made "over and over and over".

Similarly, the leadership of Hezbollah, an organization whose long-standing ties to Iran are well-known, is making statements that make no bones about the desire to "liberate" all of what is currently Israel.

Seeing how frequently these statements are made and the reception they receive seems relevant to understanding why there have been Israeli (and US) threats to take some kind of military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We are all hoping that there will be no military conflict and that economic sanctions and international pressure will be enough to dissuade Iran from any desire they might have to pursue nuclear weapons.

It would certainly be encouraging if the rhetoric coming out of Iran and from its affiliated organizations was tempered somewhat. Sadly, the opposite seems to be the case as the OP and other recent articles demonstrate.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Sorry, but that's a load of complete crap...

Seeing how frequently these statements are made and the reception they receive seems relevant to understanding why there have been Israeli (and US) threats to take some kind of military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely no justification for the threats coming from the US and Israel. What we're looking at is a bunch of morons who behave as though rhetoric from anyone from themselves is an excuse to launch military attacks...

[oberliner]

32. Thank you for sharing your perspective

I tend to agree more with the opinions of Senator Obama on this subject. To wit:

"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Those remarks are from his speech to AIPAC.

I agree with Obama when he says that military action should absolutely be the last resort, but I also agree with Obama when he says that everything in our power must be done to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. No worries. I was just pointing out the bleeding obvious...

There's a lot I agree with Obama on, but what I don't respect him for is any crap about how the US should be able to attack other countries that aren't posing a risk to the US....

[oberliner]

39. Well, it's not obvious to Obama - I think he would disagree with your assessment

I think he's right on this issue, clearly you do not.

Hopefully, non-military tactics will be successful and President Obama will not have to contemplate this last-resort scenario.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. That'd be my assessment that people who think rhetoric = excuse for attack are morons?

Because that's what I said, wasn't it?

But here's what I find disgusting about yr view on this. Voicing platitudes about hoping that diplomacy works, but then going and supporting the US attacking a country that hasn't attacked it or another country is every bit as bad as those who are imo much more honest and just want someone to bomb the crap out of Iran right now...

[oberliner]

42. I did not realize that agreeing with Obama would be considered "disgusting" on a board like this one

My view is Obama's view - so it is his view you find disgusting - I just agree with him!

In any case, I do not think that Senator Obama is "voicing platitudes" - I think that he genuinely hopes that diplomacy works - and, as I mentioned, I share his hope.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. And I didn't realise I found it disgusting that anyone agrees with Obama...

What I said was that I found *your* view rather disgusting because you do support a pre-emptive military attack on Iran. Instead of going on about how you agree with Obama, maybe you could explain why you (and do it without bringing Obama into it for a change) believe that the US has a right to launch pre-emptive attacks on any other country...

Also, unless you are actually Obama posting here incognito, I was referring to yr platitudes I've seen here constantly. If yr platitudes are Obama's, then so be it...

[oberliner]

45. All I did was post a quote from Obama and express agreement!

I'd like to know what platitudes you've seen here constantly that I have posted on this subject.

I do not believe that I have ever made any statement supporting a pre-emptive military attack on Iran.

I support diplomacy and sanctions as the methods that the United States ought to use to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. And then go on to indulge in *hiding behind Obama*...

I told you what platitudes you've posted only a post or so ago...

Yes, you are supporting a pre-emptive attack on Iran when you state that you support a military attack as a last option. Doesn't matter if you support it first, somewhere towards the middle of a list of options, or at the end - it's still support of the US launching an attack on another country when that country hasn't attacked the US or any of its allies it has treaties with....

[bemildred]

30. The World Community doesn't give a crap about that.

If the US stops whining about it, nobody else will say boo.

[oberliner]

33. UN drafts Iran nuclear demands

A draft resolution under discussion at the United Nations Security Council will call on Iran to "fully comply, without delay" with previous council resolutions demanding it halt enriching uranium.

Reuters news agency reports the resolution, which a German official has said could come to a vote on Saturday, will also call on Iran "to meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors."

The IAEA has said Iran is not cooperating enough with its inspectors who are seeking to determine the extent of Tehran's nuclear program.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200809/s2375821.htm?tab=latest

[bemildred]

50. Which DOES NOT mean the "World community" gives a crap about it.

It is obvious that the number of states that actually give a crap about it are very few.

[oberliner]

54. The UN Security Council is vaguely representative of the world community

Certainly not every single country of the world is interested in keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but I would hardly agree that "If the US stops whining about it, nobody else will say boo."

[bemildred]

55. No, it is not. The General Assembly is sort of representative.

But that's as close as you get to representing the "World Community".

The UNSC is a small clique, and the "sanctions" are a sham which are ignored whenever one wants. I do wish the UN was more than it is, and I don't deny that it has some utility, but it does no good to pretend that speaks effectively for the "World Community", it does not.

[oberliner]

59. Can we compromise?

Can we agree that it is neither the "world community" nor only the United States (and Israel) who are interested in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Somewhere between the two?

[bemildred]

61. Yeah, that works.

The only way Iran will be prevented from getting nukes is by making them not want them. Look at N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel, all of whom were highly motivated to get nukes. They (nukes) are actually a pain in the ass. Expensive, and they make you a target for the same. Nobody in their right mind wants them for any reason but as a deterrent. So if you want state so-and-so, which is toying with nuclear power, to not think about that, you give them security assurances, you make nice, perhaps negotiate verification, and you do business so that it becomes too painful for them to bother with and they don't see that they need them.

[oberliner]

23. Perhaps it may be useful to those who seek more information regarding the Iran/Israel conflict

The further insight would be that they continue to maintain this absolutist position regarding Israel whereas other groups (Hamas for example) have made some adjustments in the way in which they present their views. In addition, they are making a point of promoting this extremist rhetoric on a holiday created by Iran to promote anti-Israeli sentiments.

There have been several articles posted regarding Israel's bellicose statements regarding possible conflict with Iran. It seems that statements from powerful paramilitary organizations like Hezbollah which is funded by Iran would also be relevant to understanding the potential conflict between Israel and Iran that some feel is forthcoming.

Some version of the article was posted by news sources across the region, from Haaretz to the Pakistan Post to the Lebanon Daily Star. A variety of editors found these remarks to be newsworthy. Perhaps someone much less familiar with Hezbollah than you will learn something about this organization from reading the most recent remarks of their current leader.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. That's not further insight. There's absolutely nothing new in there...

It's just posting the same crap over and over. I don't have any great knowledge of Hezbollah, but even I get bored with attempts to pass off what Nasrallah has said many times before as something gaspworthy...

[oberliner]

27. Again, it was widely reported - some editors thought it was significant

I would say that it is important to understand that a very influential organization in Lebanon with military ties to Iran continues to step up its rhetoric regarding the destruction of Israel.

Iran has substantial influence over Hezbollah. That they are comfortable having Hezbollah go full blast with these sorts of comments, even in the face of the potential threat of an Israeli strike against their nuclear sites, seems of interest.

Israel's actions make no sense without the context of Hezbollah's and Iran's statements and behavior.

[bemildred]

29. Israel's policy WRT Hesbollah has failed.

The sooner that is admitted, the sooner one can consider other approaches that might yield better results. For example, if one wants Iran to influence Hezbollah in a "positive" way, one ought to consider what one could do for Iran in return, something more substantial than not threatening to bomb them anymore. Iran and Israel are natural allies, one ought to try to make use of that.

[oberliner]

35. What do you think Israel should do for Iran?

Can you give some examples of steps that Israel could take that you feel would improve relations between Israel and Iran and/or would be a better policy in terms of dealing with Hezbollah?

[bemildred]

49. Stop threatenting to bomb them. nt

[oberliner]

51. You wrote: "something more substantial than not threatening to bomb them anymore"

Can you give an example of what you meant by that?

[bemildred]

52. First you have to stop threatening to bomb them.

Then, obviously there is trade (energy for Israel, technology for Iran, etc.) and mutual support in international relations. The point it that Israel and Iran "naturally" have common enemies, e.g. the Sunni states, and common interests. Those should be exploited.

[oberliner]

53. Do you think there is an opening on the Iranian side?

Do you think that Iran would respond favorably to such overtures from Israel?

[bemildred]

56. What the hell else would I mean?

What do you think "common interests" are all about? They get legitimacy, they get to sell oil, they get technology, they get security, there are lots of possibilities. What other bases for peaceful relations do you have to choose from? That doesn't mean it would happen next week, it would be touchy, the way would have to be paved, the Saudis would do everything they could think of to prevent it. But yeah, I think you could find Iranians who would think it was worth working towards. Of course all the Israeli yap-politicians would have to find someone new to run their yaps at.

[oberliner]

58. No need to bring foul language into this discussion!

I just wonder if there are folks on the Iranian side who would be open to coordinating with Israel in the manner in which you've described.

Are there any political parties or factions in Iran who have advocated working towards normalized relations between Iran and Israel?

[bemildred]

60. "Hell" is not foul language. I'll bring it in whenever I want to.

Iran's government is just like any other government, I would think. There are certainly politicians who have said conciliatory things, but to really find out, you have to be willing to talk to them. I have read that Israel has done a number of under-the-table deals with Iran (Iran-Contra comes to mind, don't know why ...), so we know it's possible. There is no reason to think that they are not pragmatic, and likely to become more so as time goes on. Israel gets along with Turkey, the logic is much the same with Iran.

[oberliner]

62. I was just trying to lighten the mood

I don't really think "hell" is particularly foul.

I'm not sure that I agree that Israel is the unwilling party in this relationship. Israel had enjoyed relatively positive relations with Iran prior to the 1979 revolution. It was Iran who severed relations with Israel at that point, I believe.

[bemildred]

63. Well, the Shah was really a dick.

Things are aways the way they are until someone decides to change them. I'm hardly suggesting it's all Israel's fault, or all anybodies fault, I don't really care that much about whose fault it is that things are the way they are. I'm more interested in figuring out where you want to go and how you might start to move in that direction. People don't behave well when you scare the crap out or them, that works with Persians just like it does with Israelis.

[bemildred]

57. And of course, Ahm-an-idjit would not like it at all.

But that hardly seems a reason not to do it. Pissing him off would be a duty and an honor.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. So what? Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are also widely reported...

People talk the same crap over and over and the same crap gets reported over and over because out there somewhere there's people who thrive on acting as though gasping with shock over the same old crap is intelligent discussion. But who am I to point out that this supposedly 'intelligent' discussion of Hezbollah is boring and old?

A question. Do you believe there's no justification for an Israeli military attack on Iran if it were to happen?

[oberliner]

34. If this were an entertainment forum I might post articles about them

As this is a forum dealing with Israeli and Palestinian issues, I would think people would want to read and discuss items that are relevant to that conflict (and other peripheral issues).

There is no "gasping with shock" from me (or anyone else to my knowledge) over the comments of Hezbollah. There is, however, concern that they continue to foment renewed conflict - possibly of an even more serious nature than we have seen to this point.

It is certainly your prerogative not to pay them any mind and to disregard their rhetoric.

In answer to your question, I am in agreement with the position of Senator Obama on that subject. See my citation of his remarks to AIPAC posted elsewhere in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And if I was posting in that entertainment forum I'd point out how boring and repetitive the OPs are

Just like posting the same news over and over and over again is boring and repetitive....

Speaking of rhetoric, why don't you give anywhere near a similar amount of attention to the rhetoric that comes from Israeli politicians? I mean, apparently words are so incredibly threatening and all....

Thanks for answering my question. I lose a fair bit of respect for anyone who supports a US military attack on another country that hasn't attacked it first...

[oberliner]

38. Your honesty and courtesy are greatly appreciated

I do not believe that I have ever raised any complaint about any post citing any comments from any Israeli politician.

It is hard to understand how agreeing with the positions of Senator Obama can lead to losing respect from fellow DUers, but there it is.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. You forgot 'have a nice day, now!' ;)

It is hard to understand how agreeing with the positions of Senator Obama can lead to losing respect from fellow DUers, but there it is.

I'll tell you what's impossible to understand. That's how anyone could read a post that very clearly said that I lose respect for anyone who supports a US military attack on Iran if Iran hasn't attacked first as reading as I lose respect for anyone who agrees with the positions of Obama. I didn't realise I had to be a mindless bot who wasn't supposed to disagree with any view if Obama thinks differently*.

Also, I asked you why you didn't pay even a smidgen of the attention to the rhetoric of Israeli politicians as you do to ones like Nasrallah and Ahmanutjob. I didn't ask you to confirm what I already knew, which is that you don't...

* Just some clarification here, though everyone who knows me already is aware of this. I'm not an American, and I live in a country where we don't tend to put our leaders up on pedestals and believe that any view they hold is sancrosanct and means others who support the party shouldn't be opposed to that view. There's some things I'm very critical of Kevin Rudd about, but overall the things I'm in agreement with far outweigh those I don't. Same goes for Obama. He's definately the best choice to be next US President (and I supported him over Hillary from the start), and I agree with many of his stances. But when it comes to support for the US launching attacks on a country that hasn't attacked it or any ally it has a treaty with, then that's a stance I have no respect for and I don't give a toss who supports it. And let's get real here. It's *your* views I'm disagreeing with. You just dragged in Obama as some sort of shield to hide yr arguments behind...

[oberliner]

44. With all due respect

I took a position that was identical to that of Senator Obama's. You seemed to be saying that my taking that position led to a loss of respect for me on your part. If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.

If I interpreted your statement correctly, then I find it surprising that voicing an opinion that Obama himself has voiced (using, in fact, his own words) would lead to a loss of respect from a DUer.

That's all I am saying. I am not claiming that anyone has to agree with every one of Obama's positions or put him up on a pedestal or any of the other things that you mentioned.

I find your comment about my not paying attention to the comments of Israeli politicians to be odd. I read all such comments, and, as I stated, I never accuse the person posting them of posting something redundant or irrelevant as you have done in this case.

To your post script: I am not dragging in Obama to shield my arguments. I didn't even actually make any arguments. I just posted a quote from Obama and said that I agreed with him. He's a lot more eloquent than I am!

[Violet_Crumble]

47. So yr saying that no left-winger is supposed to disagree with Obama on anything?

That's just incredibly silly!

I've been as crystal clear as I can possibly be that I don't care who holds the stance that it's acceptable for the US to launch a military attack on another country if that country hasn't attacked the US or one of its allies first. Yr making out that instead of me stating that the view is disgusting, that what I was doing was saying it's disgusting that someone should agree with Obama on issues. That's an entirely different thing and I honestly don't see how you could misinterpret what I said...

So if Obama was anti-choice and someone popped up quoting Obama and saying they agree with him, I take it that you'd think that I'm not saying the stance is disgusting, but that agreeing with Obama is? Or does this ony apply to Middle Eastern issues?

I find your comment about my not paying attention to the comments of Israeli politicians to be odd. I read all such comments, and, as I stated, I never accuse the person posting them of posting something redundant or irrelevant as you have done in this case.

No, why on earth would you think I was saying that you never posted saying rhetoric from Israeli pollies was redundant. What I asked you and what you have failed to answer is why you think that rhetoric coming from the likes of Nasrallah and Ahmanutjob are so dangerous when you don't ever state that sort of view about the rhetoric that comes from some Israeli politicians. I can't make the question any clearer than I have...

[oberliner]

48. I was not clear - let me clarify

I was not accusing you of saying that it is disgusting that someone should agree with Obama on issues.

I was expressing surprise that a view of Obama's (that I shared) would be considered disgusting.

There is a difference between disagreeing with Obama on an issue and finding his position on an issue to be disgusting.

The strong antipathy towards his (and my) position on this issue is what I found to be surprising.

Generally when someone expresses that they feel a position held by Obama is "disgusting" over in GD or GDP, they are pretty roundly given the business.

To your other point, I do think rhetoric from Israeli politicians is often dangerous as well. Hopefully politicians who make those sorts of comments will be marginalized in Israel and leaders with more reasonable positions will be elected. I would wish the same for the leadership of Hezbollah and Iran as well.

[LeftishBrit]

64. So does this apply to reporting extreme remarks on all sides?

Should one not report the statements of Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman, or the actions of the extreme settlers, just because they've been reported already and aren't something new?

Should one not continue to report the Armageddon-loving statements of American Christian Zionists because they've been reported already and don't give new insights?

I think it's important to recognize that this is a long-ongoing problem, and appropriate to report the continuations of the problem on all sides.

[azurnoir]

4. dupe delete n/t

[Vegasaurus]

7. Face it

All of these terrorists are not going to rest as long as there is a Jew left in the middle east.

They have no desire for two state peaceful solution. Not any of these terrorist groups.

They just want Israel, and all Jews gone.

They certainly say it often enough.

[Boojatta]

8. "no one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone from the holy land"

Isn't Mecca supposed to also be holy land? Yet, I believe that land in Mecca has been bought and sold. What difference does it make that the religion of the seller and the religion of the buyer may be allegedly the same? To sell is to concede. Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan? If the USSR had instead invaded Mecca, then the offensive buying and selling of holy land could have been halted, at least in Mecca.

[Igel]

15. Waqf.

Muslim-only ownership, weak version.

Held in trust as mosque property, administered by mosque with Muslim-only tenants for farming, grazing, building, etc.--strong version.

There's a half-strong version based on history, where Jewish/Xian non-Muslims are ok as long as it's clear that the mosque's the owner and the first Muslim to come along has superior rights to the land/buildings.

[Darwins Doberman]

10. Considering the lunatic Nasrallah's fundamentalist belief in an interventionist god

I would think Israel's continuing existence should be providing him with a real crisis of faith. I mean either "god" wants the Jewish state to exist, otherwise he would have intervened to prevent its happening if it offended him. Or, the Jews are superior to god and are strong enough to defeat any intervention on god's part, which means Nasrallah and the cult he leads are worshipping an inferior being. Or my view: god doesn't exist, so that would explain why this affront to "him" (according to Nasrallah, not me, I support Israel) continues to exist while necropheliac cultists like Nasrallah continue to fail in their efforts to continue their bigotted efforts against all non-Muslims.

[azurnoir]

12. Unlike

historically and regionally ignorant atheists.There are plenty of reasons not to support Nasrallah, however parts of your post such as
"I support Israel) continues to exist while necropheliac cultists like Nasrallah continue to fail in their efforts to continue their bigotted efforts against all non-Muslims."
could have come straight from the mouth of O'Reilly

[Sezu]

13. Could have but didn't.

Nas's actions deserve such scorn and labelling; beatinf around the bush serves no purpose when dealing with someone like him especially when his own words show that he feels "Arabs and Muslims," "own," this or that. It's as barbaric as those Israelis who would say all the Holy Land belongs to Jews.

[Darwins Doberman]

14. I was shooting more for Hitchens, but I digress.

Hezbollah is a cult of necropheliacs, they have a manifestly obvious and utterly sick love of death and dying. If they loved life, they wouldn't go around killing innocent Israeli and Lebanese people for believing differently than they do.

[bemildred]

26. Well, they have as good a claim as anybody.

But I gotta say the ego-suck around Nasrallah has to be something.

"Its stones, olives and figs are sacred, and no one has the right to give it up."

Aside for the bad grammar, its stones, olives and figs are just that, and none of them are even close to as important as people. We get all upset with the red heifer people, and then he comes out with drivel like this.