SHN speech: one year anniversary of Imad Mogniyeh (16-2-2009)

[tae]

Originally Posted by taifoon

years? you mean like more then 2 and a half years?

I am curious 4U.. You can write an elaboration with secret fonts here, if you think there's something spying eyes should not read ;)

Anyway, I hope we have some effective anti aircraft weapons, for a change. I hope even more we never need to verify their existence.

We heard about these rockets in Sep 2006.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

I will indulge you with my personal views on what you proposed Tai, even though I believe we’ve had this discussion before.
As a nation, Israel is the only one built around its armed forces and not vise versa. Meaning the nation’s existence is solely dependant on the effectiveness, readiness, and ferocity of its armed forces. Such a nation when it seeks peace, the peace has to be first and foremost conditional, and the conditions have to be dictated by Israel for various reasons which I will not go into now.

Well put, exactly so.

Israel’s aspirations in the region are not done yet. Many argue that the peace agreements signed or unsigned with the Arab countries are proof enough that Israel is determined to live in peace with its neighbors, the argument would carry to the conclusion that if Syria and Lebanon would follow the model of the rest of the Arabic world than we can obtain a peace agreement to guarantee our safe existence in the region. Even though the argument may seem logical, it’s full of flaws and misconceptions. The peace agreement with Egypt gave Israel what it wanted from that country, the same with Jordan,

see the bold, here parts our routes of reasoning. That is totally wrong, friend.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan gave Israel nil, zero, nada nothing rien.. Save for worthless embassy exchange and occasional israeli tourist buses driving around the pyramids or Tyra, the economic interaction on wide scale which the israelis drooled for with these countries did never take place. This is a fact. For this, many Israeli extremists and pure blood zionists have been popping up on regular basis to remind the peace-for-land lobbyists of their vain efforts. Those who thought that a peace treaty on paper is capable to eradicate, in a puff, decades of fossilized arabic animosity against a foreign state like Israel, thought wrong. And since Israel's bets for peace was better economical outlooks via a hoped for interaction with those Egyptian and Jordanian markets, time has proved this didn't work.

and the same will be said if such a deal is struck with Syria. It’s a fallacy to even think that Israel would hand over the Golan Heights to secure its border with Syria. This will never happen, and the coming years will prove my words. The Golan Heights in its majority will be a permanent part of the State of Israel with guaranteed rights to the majority of its water resources. Only than will Israel accept to be a peaceful neighbor to Syria. In Lebanon the story is basically the same, few here understand the strategic importance of the Shebaa farms to Israel. There is no way in HELL (capital letters for emphasis) Israel will relinquish those rights in the farms to the Lebanese. None. Those who argue that if Syria declares the farms Lebanese than Israel will let go of them to seek peace are either naïve, or stupid enough to believe the political leaders who use these words in their campaigns against HA and Syria.

I think, based on my previous input, we seem to have come to the same conclusion. Israel, having learned the lesson from its egyptian and jordanian peace experience, is likely to act the way you describe.

I can go on for hours analyzing and explaining the intricate details governing a peace treaty with Israel and what it may entail, but no one will read them and no one will believe them anyways.

I would.

To summarize, HA views Israel as it really is. The State of Israel was researched by the best minds the resistance have, and every scenario was studied and restudied to find a solution, but none was attainable. The only way to deal with it is the way we’re doing it now. Deterrence, fear, surprises, and firmness. We match every move they make and counter them with dynamic moves of our own.
My words in the previous post were not out of “unreserved enthusiasm” but out of pure logic and understanding of the overall readiness of the party.
There will be no peace with Israel, and another war is imminent. Again I’m not trying to scare anyone, but merely stating facts. The timing of such war is dependant on many factors the majority of which are out of our immediate control, but within the enemy’s scope of operation. They will choose the time, and they will come after us with a vengeance unseen yet in any war old or modern. We know that, they know that. What they don’t know id what’s awaiting them, and that’s where their fate lays.

I respect and appreciate logical flows, you make good points. Nevertheless, the israelis did negotiate with Hizbollah, indirectly, on the prisoners issue. Did we try probing their willingness for direct negotiations on Shebaa? I am aware of the always delicate Syrian da7she at our side whenever the subject of direct peace talks with Israel is raised, but what the heck, isn't it about time we master our own moves, being them for war or for peace? I therefore repeat my question:

Is any one interested in probing the Israelis for direct peace talks with us? Do we know FOR SURE, and not out of own so called guessings/historic deductions etc, that they are not willing to return Sheb3a, or discuss some arrangement for our palestinians, under any circumstances and in exchange for peace on their borders? Would we know that if we never talk to them and give them a chance to ask us in a civilized way what we want from them and give us an opportunity to hear what the hell do they want exactly? Are you, as in Hozbollah, willing to investigate the possibility of such a peace talking opening?

[tae]

Originally Posted by J.Hanna

4u, what exactly did israel get from egypt and jordon? you said the peace agreement gave israel what it wanted from them....what did it get other than peace? Egypt and Jordon are soverign, indpendent nations. Israel has never once violated their soveriegnties scince they signed the peace agreement. Please explain.

Camp david itself is a violation of sovereignty.

[4U2IMI8]

Originally Posted by J.Hanna

4u, what exactly did israel get from egypt and jordon? you said the peace agreement gave israel what it wanted from them....what did it get other than peace? Egypt and Jordon are soverign, indpendent nations. Israel has never once violated their soveriegnties scince they signed the peace agreement. Please explain.

Without going into details.
In Egypt, a demilitarized zone was mandated on Egypt in the Sinai preventing Egypt from placing its armed forces on its own soil for distances ranging from 20 to 40 km basically securing Israel with an early warning system.
With Jordan the terms were ridiculous to mention here. Jordan was placed under Israel’s foot for eternity and became a satellite slave state for Israel.
In both cases, the peace agreement was meant to secure the ruling regimes as long as the agreement was in force. Both countries gave up their honor, integrity, and sovereignty in the process.
I will answer your last post Tai in a few.

[jaoun]

Originally Posted by taifoon

The peace with Egypt and Jordan gave Israel nil, zero, nada nothing rien.. Save for worthless embassy exchange and occasional israeli tourist buses driving around the pyramids or Tyra, the economic interaction on wide scale which the israelis drooled for with these countries did never take place. This is a fact. For this, many Israeli extremists and pure blood zionists have been popping up on regular basis to remind the peace-for-land lobbyists of their vain efforts. Those who thought that a peace treaty on paper is capable to eradicate, in a puff, decades of fossilized arabic animosity against a foreign state like Israel, thought wrong. And since Israel's bets for peace was better economical outlooks via a hoped for interaction with those Egyptian and Jordanian markets, time has proved this didn't work.

Je ne pense pas que c'est principalement une question d'économie.
A mon avis, Israel est entourée par des pays ennemis. Même si elle est plus forte que tous ces pays réunis, elle reste obligée de s'entendre avec quelques uns pour une question de sécurité d'un point de vue géographique.

Un exemple récent de l'intérêt de tels accords ? le blocus des Égyptiens durant la dernière guerre à Gaza.

[4U2IMI8]

Originally Posted by taifoon

see the bold, here parts our routes of reasoning. That is totally wrong, friend.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan gave Israel nil, zero, nada nothing rien.. Save for worthless embassy exchange and occasional israeli tourist buses driving around the pyramids or Tyra, the economic interaction on wide scale which the israelis drooled for with these countries did never take place. This is a fact. For this, many Israeli extremists and pure blood zionists have been popping up on regular basis to remind the peace-for-land lobbyists of their vain efforts. Those who thought that a peace treaty on paper is capable to eradicate, in a puff, decades of fossilized arabic animosity against a foreign state like Israel, thought wrong. And since Israel's bets for peace was better economical outlooks via a hoped for interaction with those Egyptian and Jordanian markets, time has proved this didn't work.

Again, you’re very mistaken Tai. You’re thinking in terms of materialistic gain and loss, you have to go to the strategic level to understand the meaning of the peace treaties. Egypt was forced to have a demilitarized zone in the Sinai basically assuring Israel a zero chance of Egypt ever attempting to wage war on Israel. In Jordan, like I stated in my previous most, the term were too ridiculous to mention from the land grab, to the water rights. In both cases the agreement was not in the best interest of neither Egypt nor Jordan as nations, but was meant to secure the ruling regimes in place as long as they respected it. A double edged sword giving Israel what it exactly wanted from both nations, and at the same time applying the infamous Zionist theory of separate and rule.
What Israel wanted from Egypt and Jordan, Israel got. At the same time other Arabic nations started falling into the peace trend which was advantageous to Israel in terms of economy and stability, yet disastrous to the Arab nations in terms of outrage amongst the citizens and the inception of resistance movements opposing the regimes.

I respect and appreciate logical flows, you make good points. Nevertheless, the israelis did negotiate with Hizbollah, indirectly, on the prisoners issue. Did we try probing their willingness for direct negotiations on Shebaa? I am aware of the always delicate Syrian da7she at our side whenever the subject of direct peace talks with Israel is raised, but what the heck, isn't it about time we master our own moves, being them for war or for peace? I therefore repeat my question:

Is any one interested in probing the Israelis for direct peace talks with us? Do we know FOR SURE, and not out of own so called guessings/historic deductions etc, that they are not willing to return Sheb3a, or discuss some arrangement for our palestinians, under any circumstances and in exchange for peace on their borders? Would we know that if we never talk to them and give them a chance to ask us in a civilized way what we want from them and give us an opportunity to hear what the hell do they want exactly? Are you, as in Hozbollah, willing to investigate the possibility of such a peace talking opening?

The negotiations between Israel and HA were indirect and for very specific purposes. The exchange of prisoners of wars. Nothing more nothing less.
When you say “probing their willingness for direct negotiation on Shebaa”, I can answer that question without thinking. There was no probing whatsoever on that matter. Once you start in the probing game, you show willingness of negotiating. We will not negotiate with one atom of land or one drop of water that belong to us. Period.
Negotiating is what Israel wants. Their motto is well known. Wage a war, grab a piece of land, occupy it, and than negotiate to return part of it and keep the lion share. This will not happen in Lebanon as long as we exist. They want peace with us? Very simple, get out of our land and stop invading our sovereignty, nothing less.
We know for a fact they will not return the Shebaa farms, and if they do they will maintain their grab on the water rights. This is a non negotiable thing with Israel. Israel needs every drop of water the farms provide, and in the future they will need a lot more (the litani river is a hint). Placing the farms under UN control does not mean placing the water resources under that control, many people don’t know that.
If you want to expand this discussion, I’m willing to answer back as I enjoyed this exchange, it reminded me of the way this forum used to be.

[tae]

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

Without going into details.
In Egypt, a demilitarized zone was mandated on Egypt in the Sinai preventing Egypt from placing its armed forces on its own soil for distances ranging from 20 to 40 km basically securing Israel with an early warning system.

Stationing of Forces

• No more than one division (mechanized or infantry) of Egyptian armed forces will be stationed within an area lying approximately 50 km. (30 miles) east of the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal.
• Only United Nations forces and civil police equipped with light weapons to perform normal police functions will be stationed within an area lying west of the international border and the Gulf of Aqaba, varying in width from 20 km. (12 miles) to 40 km. (24 miles).
• In the area within 3 km. (1.8 miles) east of the international border there will be Israeli limited military forces not to exceed four infantry battalions and United Nations observers.
• Border patrol units not to exceed three battalions will supplement the civil police in maintaining order in the area not included above.
• The exact demarcation of the above areas will be as decided during the peace negotiations.
• Early warning stations may exist to insure compliance with the terms of the agreement.
• United Nations forces will be stationed:
  1. in part of the area in the Sinai lying within about 20 km. of the Mediterranean Sea and adjacent to the international border, and
  2. in the Sharm el-Sheikh area to insure freedom of passage through the Strait of Tiran; and these forces will not be removed unless such removal is approved by the Security Council of the United Nations with a unanimous vote of the five permanent members.
• After a peace treaty is signed, and after the interim withdrawal is complete, normal relations will be established between Egypt and Israel, including full recognition, including diplomatic, economic and cultural relations; termination of economic boycotts and barriers to the free movement of goods and people; and mutual protection of citizens by the due process of law.

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

If you want to expand this discussion, I’m willing to answer back as I enjoyed this exchange, it reminded me of the way this forum used to be.

I second that. This is a rare kind of discussion, respectful and open, which reminds me too of a happier time when many discussions on this forum were like that. Nowadays, you only have to read the first post of a thread, or even just it's title, to be able to accurately predict 90% of the posts that will follow. Keep it up you two. I won't enter too much into it but will remain in my seat among the other spectators.

I just have three questions for 4U, none of which are meant to convey sarcasm, cynicism, criticism, or an implied judgment of what you are saying. First, how are decisions made in Israel? Is there a secret central command of some sort that keeps this strategy of theirs, which guarantees they will eternally be in conflict* with their neighbors, the central and dominant strategy regardless of democratic currents? Secondly, what in your mind would be the rational decision for Israel to make? It sounds to me like your analysis makes it sound like the only rational thing for Israel to do is to follow the same strategy they are following now, just to have a chance at surviving the water crisis in the future. If this is the case, how will we resolve this issue once Israel has been defeated? Finally, is there a plan within HA to convince the other Lebanese of those things which to HA are beyond any reasonable doubt?

*conflict, in strictly realist terms, refers not just to actual, but also the potential for conflict, existing at any given time

[4U2IMI8]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

I second that. This is a rare kind of discussion, respectful and open, which reminds me too of a happier time when many discussions on this forum were like that. Nowadays, you only have to read the first post of a thread, or even just it's title, to be able to accurately predict 90% of the posts that will follow. Keep it up you two. I won't enter too much into it but will remain in my seat among the other spectators.

I just have three questions for 4U, none of which are meant to convey sarcasm, cynicism, criticism, or an implied judgment of what you are saying. First, how are decisions made in Israel? Is there a secret central command of some sort that keeps this strategy of theirs, which guarantees they will eternally be in conflict* with their neighbors, the central and dominant strategy regardless of democratic currents? Secondly, what in your mind would be the rational decision for Israel to make? It sounds to me like your analysis makes it sound like the only rational thing for Israel to do is to follow the same strategy they are following now, just to have a chance at surviving the water crisis in the future. If this is the case, how will we resolve this issue once Israel has been defeated? Finally, is there a plan within HA to convince the other Lebanese of those things which to HA are beyond any reasonable doubt?

*conflict, in strictly realist terms, refers not just to actual, but also the potential for conflict, existing at any given time

There was a broad blueprint of the goals needed to be attained by the State of Israel, and the means to achieve those goals. Israel’s decision makers are mostly behind the scenes unknowns to the outside worlds. Mainly super wealthy and fanatic religious people. They have great influence on the decisions that will affect the future of the state and the preservation of the superiority of the Jewish race. Regardless of who’s elected the general outlines to be followed are preset.
Israel is an expansionist state, meaning that its borders are not definite, nor will they ever be. As the need arises for new land, the philosophy is to grab what’s needed at any cost. An example of that is the water grab, which I will attempt to answer at the end of my post.
Your second question is ambiguous because it assumes the State of Israel to be rational. It is not. All their decisions are based on their need as a nation to survive or so they claim.
Their rational course of action now would be to find a way to coexist with the Palestinians by giving them their lands back, treat them respectfully, and attempt to repay them for all the misery and agony they caused them in the course of 60 years of occupation. Give Lebanon back its land and water, and stop invading our airspace and respect our sovereignty, finally return the Golan Heights to Syria without any conditions. None of those will happen because of their arrogance and their belief that they’re god’s chosen people. They started their ******* nation relying on brute force and intimidation, and that course served them well until 2000. Since than they are attempting to adjust to the challenges they encounter by maintaining their old ways and are failing miserably at it. They will not learn until it’s too late for them, and it’s already too late. As I said in a previous post, Israel is the only nation on the planet built around its army and not the opposite. This by itself is indication enough of the direction they need to constantly seek. Wars and conflicts are what maintain the integrity of the state, without them the need for the army becomes obsolete which in terms means the dissolve of the state.

The water shortage that Israel faces now, and will face in the future will be enormous to say the least. In the future all wars will be fought for water, not only in the Middle East but across the globe. As a nation, Israel is in dire need of water resources that it does not have and cannot have unless it occupies neighboring land. This is not fictionist tale, but a reality. The Initial map of Israel expanded to include the Litani river because the founding fathers foresaw the future needs of the state. The Litani will always be their wet dream and the object of their futuristic plans. As I said in my previous post, their motto is well known, grab the land, take the water, than negotiate the return of the land and keep the water rights. It happened with Jordan, it’s meant to happen with Syria and Lebanon if they have their way.
I’ll give you a simple example relating to your last statement. In my last few posts I stated many facts and used logical thinking presenting my ideas. If there were any questions, I attempted to answer them honestly, directly, logically, and factually. By doing so I may have removed, or lessened the doubt that some people had when they thought about them. If I have reached one member on this forum and convinced him/her of what I was attempting to say, I consider that a major achievement. That member will take that knowledge and relay it to others who may have the same doubts.
HA is always trying to reach out and explain things as they are to all Lebanese, if you listen carefully to SHN’s speeches, you’d realize the huge amount of information they contain trying to explain to all who care to listen. Regretfully, they are used as means to attack us and twisted around to undermine their sincerity. HA is not an infallible party, we make many mistakes but always try to learn from them and rectify our actions to project our learning process.

[emotion]

Great discussion! This subject is the most important, vital and relevant when discussing HA weapons and the defense strategy Lebanon should have. Without knowing your enemy you can't and DON'T have the right to call for a disarmament of the resistance.

For those who doubt that Israel got exactly what it wanted from Jordan and especially Egypt with the so called peace treaties should do a follow up on Menachim Begin's "Capsule Theory" wich is a policy that Ben Gurion advocated and has been implemented since the Begin-Dayan government. The most important gain Israel got from the peace-treaty with Egypt was the neutralisation (that's actually an understatement) of a regional superpower, a key-country or as Ben Gurion himself put it "the main enemy" and "the gate to the entire arab world". Once Egypt was taken out of the war-cycle an all-arab war against Israel was thus ruled out. This isolation policy strongly weakened the arab states in general and the palestinians in perticular and the fight against Israel was from now on to be taken mainly by the arab peoples own hands, leading to the subsequent formation of several resistance groups one of them beeing HA.