the state of Lebanon will never be hostage to the hzib and always remember if its matter and the civil war breaks up it will be the end of the hzib and nasrallah knows that that's why he stopped
so what has the government been able to do without a blessing from HA? Nothing. If they dont like something they raise hell until they get what they want, and they do in the end get what they want, like the reversal of the recent gov decision and the 1/3 veto for example. Do not underestimate the power of weapons and the threat to destabilize an entire country, especially by a group clearly willing to do so, and that has demonstrated external allegiance.
So, GMA forever, what's stopping Lebanon from initiating such peace talks with Israel? You know, the sooner the better since Hezbollah's weapons are already being a huge internal problem.
On the other hand, didn't Nasrallah pledge the annihilation of Israel?
chafic the stronger side always decides for peace and not the weaker side. And since Israel is the strongest side here, well we have to wait until the Israelis are ready for peace without shooting ourselves in the foot.
As for Nasrallah pledging the annihilation of Israel, well that is his right as long as we have no peace with the israelis and the israelis are a big threat to us Lebanese. The day a peace treaty is signed is the day when you have the right to prosecute anyone pledging the annihilation of a peaceful neighbouring country.
chafic the stronger side always decides for peace and not the weaker side. And since Israel is the strongest side here, well we have to wait until the Israelis are ready for peace without shooting ourselves in the foot.
To be honest here, I think what you said above is totally ambiguous. Israel has repeatedly stated that it seeks peace with Lebanon, and the Lebanese reply is split between two opinions: Annihilating Israel and being the last country to sign peace with it.
Talking about "ready for peace" is another ambiguous term; what do you qualify as "being ready for peace". It's a process, talks and negotiations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMA forever
As for Nasrallah pledging the annihilation of Israel, well that is his right as long as we have no peace with the israelis and the israelis are a big threat to us Lebanese. The day a peace treaty is signed is the day when you have the right to prosecute anyone pledging the annihilation of a peaceful neighbouring country.
So it's an infinite loop here because once you enter in a conflict with someone, you never get out, unless one annihilates the other. Seriously GMA forever, what about negotiating, talking, trying to solve out problems?
And doesn't applying this rationale to Israel, implies applying it to anyone there might be a political or ideological disagreement (enmity) with?
chafic the stronger side always decides for peace and not the weaker side. And since Israel is the strongest side here, well we have to wait until the Israelis are ready for peace without shooting ourselves in the foot.
As for Nasrallah pledging the annihilation of Israel, well that is his right as long as we have no peace with the israelis and the israelis are a big threat to us Lebanese. The day a peace treaty is signed is the day when you have the right to prosecute anyone pledging the annihilation of a peaceful neighbouring country.
Chafic found this quote below, I am sure if you look you will find many more.
Quote:
Israeli FM, UN Chief hope ceasefire deal will evolve into full peace
Israel's foreign minister and visiting UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday they hope a Mideast ceasefire deal will evolve into a full peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Annan spoke after a series of meetings with Israeli leaders, on his second stop of a regional tour aimed at making the ceasefire deal, which ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hizbullah, stick.
"I promise we will stick with it and do whatever we can to make it happen," Annan said after a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. (AP)
The man boasts about his will to destroy Israel; The Israeli government didn't pledge to annihilate Lebanon though.
Bottom line: Does Lebanon wants peace or not? Does Hezbollah want peace or not? The rest is irrelevant quibbling.
it is true that the israeli government never pledged to annihilate Lebanon, but several times they came very close to destroying it; all while claiming they are doing us a favor.
i hope they are sincere in their quest for peace, but i personally doubt it. i have learned at a very young age that it is not what people say that matters, but rather what they do, for actions betray lies.
here is one small notion of the israeli peace you're talking about, just concerning the single matter of the palestinian refugees issue; i will leave it to you to extrapolate how the other points will be handled by the peace loving israelis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
REUTERS:
Israel firm on refugees after Bush dismays Arabs
Fri May 16, 2008 2:43pm BST (By Alastair Macdonald and Adam Entous)
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel ruled out all debate on letting Palestinian refugees return in any peace deal, as U.S. President George W. Bush ended a visit on Friday that left Arabs dismayed by his outspoken support for Israel's "chosen people".
As Bush flew out after three days of celebrations of Israel's 60th anniversary, an Israeli government spokesman said Palestinian insistence on the right of return for 4.5 million refugees and their descendants was "the ultimate deal breaker".
Six months into negotiations sponsored by Bush in the hope of a deal before he leaves the White House, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman used some of the toughest Israeli language yet to insist that President Mahmoud Abbas abandon 60-year-old refugee claims if he wants to establish a Palestinian state. "This demand, which does not exist under international law, for right of return, is the ultimate deal breaker. You cannot have peace and this demand at the same time," Mark Regev said.
Some 700,000 people, half the Arab population of Palestine in May 1948, fled or were driven from their homes when Israel was created. Letting them and their families live in Israel now would undermine its nature as a Jewish state, Israel argues.
It also disputes the legal basis of the right of the return first set out in a United Nations resolution of December 1948.
PALESTINIAN DISMAY
Bush, who steps down in January, made little reference to the peace negotiations or to the Palestinians at all while in Israel. Many Palestinians were dismayed by a speech to Israel's parliament in which he spoke of a shared divine providence uniting American Christians like himself with Israel's Jews.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters: "He should have told the Israelis that, 1 mile from where he was speaking, there is a nation that has lived in disaster for 60 years. He should have told the Israelis no one can be free at the expense of others. He missed this opportunity and we are disappointed." Bush called Israel a homeland for God's "chosen people" and pledged Washington would remain its "best friend in the world".
As Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and in camps abroad held protests on the 60th anniversary of their exile from cities and farmlands that are now in Israel, Bush spoke of European Jews in 1948 "arriving here in the desert".
In the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam, columnist Samih Shabib wrote: "Bush is blind to the right of return.
"The U.S. administration's attitude towards Israel inherently promotes hostility and deepens hatred towards the United States and its policy. Is this hostility, and its consequences, in America's interest? I don't think so."
Olmert's spokesman Regev acknowledged the suffering of Palestinian refugees but insisted Abbas must abandon their claims if he wanted a Palestinian state, 60 years after Arabs rejected a U.N. plan to partition Palestine into two states.
"We are not insensitive to suffering that the Palestinians or the Arabs have gone through," he told reporters.
But he added: "The so-called right of return is antithetical to a two-state solution ... I would question someone's commitment to peace and reconciliation if they believe that the so-called right of return must be implemented."
LITTLE PROGRESS
There was no immediate reaction from Palestinian officials.
Though there have been few obvious signs of progress toward a peace deal, both Olmert and Abbas have pressing domestic reasons for presenting some sort of accord, even if many analysts believe both are too weak at home to implement it.
Some see Abbas's reference to proposals for an "agreed and just" settlement of the refugee issue as a sign he might accept, despite strong resistance among his people, a deal that gives a few people a chance to recover homes and compensates the others.
In return, though again in the face of solid domestic opposition, Olmert may be ready to let the Palestinians have part of Jerusalem for a capital and give up other occupied land.
On Thursday, Bush and his wife Laura visited a Jerusalem museum, where they viewed artefacts from the time of biblical writings and met a group of young Israelis.
"What's on my mind is peace," Bush told them, adding he hoped people could live in harmony. "I believe it's possible."
To be honest here, I think what you said above is totally ambiguous. Israel has repeatedly stated that it seeks peace with Lebanon, and the Lebanese reply is split between two opinions: Annihilating Israel and being the last country to sign peace with it.
Talking about "ready for peace" is another ambiguous term; what do you qualify as "being ready for peace". It's a process, talks and negotiations.
Chafic it is true that Israel states everyday that it wants peace with Lebanon, just like they state they want peace with Syria and the Palestinians. Did you ever hear them asking to destroy the Palestinians? no of course not, but they are destroying them.
Peace has a price my friend, it is not just a wish. And whatever the price is for the Palestinians or the syrians I don't care about it, what I care about is the price of peace with Lebanon.
Lebanon has many problems because of Israel, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees (whatever the real number is), destruction because of many wars Israel launched against us, Shebaa farms, Lebanese prisoners in Israel, map for landmines in the south....... "being ready for peace" means is Israel ready to deal with all those issues with Lebanon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chafic
So it's an infinite loop here because once you enter in a conflict with someone, you never get out, unless one annihilates the other. Seriously GMA forever, what about negotiating, talking, trying to solve out problems?
And doesn't applying this rationale to Israel, implies applying it to anyone there might be a political or ideological disagreement (enmity) with?
Negotiations, talking and trying to solve the problems is the ONLY way my friend for all sides at the end. It is just that some, try with military means, to have a better position and a stronger one on the negotiation table. So until new lines of negotiations are drawn, it will be the same tit for tat situation.
Chafic it is true that Israel states everyday that it wants peace with Lebanon, just like they state they want peace with Syria and the Palestinians. Did you ever hear them asking to destroy the Palestinians? no of course not, but they are destroying them.
Peace has a price my friend, it is not just a wish. And whatever the price is for the Palestinians or the syrians I don't care about it, what I care about is the price of peace with Lebanon.
Lebanon has many problems because of Israel, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees (whatever the real number is), destruction because of many wars Israel launched against us, Shebaa farms, Lebanese prisoners in Israel, map for landmines in the south....... "being ready for peace" means is Israel ready to deal with all those issues with Lebanon?
Negotiations, talking and trying to solve the problems is the ONLY way my friend for all sides at the end. It is just that some, try with military means, to have a better position and a stronger one on the negotiation table. So until new lines of negotiations are drawn, it will be the same tit for tat situation.
Syria is negotiating peace with Israel right now. Does Syria have a better position on the negotiating table than HA?
Besides, HA is not Lebanon it is only a portion of Lebanon and not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. Decisions of war and peace should be returned to the state, and negotiations on disarmament and peace with Israel should be returned to the state. But alas, HA doesn't care about the state or what anyone else in Lebanon wants.
it is true that the israeli government never pledged to annihilate Lebanon, but several times they came very close to destroying it; all while claiming they are doing us a favor.
i hope they are sincere in their quest for peace, but i personally doubt it. i have learned at a very young age that it is not what people say that matters, but rather what they do, for actions betray lies.
here is one small notion of the israeli peace you're talking about, just concerning the single matter of the palestinian refugees issue; i will leave it to you to extrapolate how the other points will be handled by the peace loving israelis.
True, the issue of Palestinian refugees is the major issue that could blow any Lebanese Israeli peace talks. Israel will never take back hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who are staunchly opponents of Israel, back inside the current Israeli borders. Any realistic approach would imply a solution where Palestinians would resettle in different Arab countries (or other host countries), including (and probably mainly) a new Palestinian state.
Now could you please specify the role of Hezbollah's weapons in such a process and the outcome of perpetuating destructive wars? What's hindering Lebanon from engaging in peace talks with Israel, which shall include the refugees problem?
Peace has a price my friend, it is not just a wish. And whatever the price is for the Palestinians or the syrians I don't care about it, what I care about is the price of peace with Lebanon.
Lebanon has many problems because of Israel, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees (whatever the real number is), destruction because of many wars Israel launched against us, Shebaa farms, Lebanese prisoners in Israel, map for landmines in the south....... "being ready for peace" means is Israel ready to deal with all those issues with Lebanon?
I think the main problem here is the refugees; other issues do not constitute a real impasse. But as I said earlier, the refugees problem could only be solved through negotiations, which shall include Lebanon, Israel, Arabs, Americans and probably others...War will never bring about anything in that regard, except more decadence and destruction for Lebanon and a weaker position in any negotiations. So the question is: Is Lebanon (all political groups included) ready to engage in peace talks with Israel regarding all these subjects? Does Lebanon have an agreed realistic proposal vision on how to solve the Palestinian refugees issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMA forever
Negotiations, talking and trying to solve the problems is the ONLY way my friend for all sides at the end. It is just that some, try with military means, to have a better position and a stronger one on the negotiation table. So until new lines of negotiations are drawn, it will be the same tit for tat situation.
Try futile military means when you know the consequence is self-destruction?
True, the issue of Palestinian refugees is the major issue that could blow any Lebanese Israeli peace talks. Israel will never take back hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who are staunchly opponents of Israel, back inside the current Israeli borders. Any realistic approach would imply a solution where Palestinians would resettle in different Arab countries (or other host countries), including (and probably mainly) a new Palestinian state.
Now could you please specify the role of Hezbollah's weapons in such a process and the outcome of perpetuating destructive wars? What's hindering Lebanon from engaging in peace talks with Israel, which shall include the refugees problem?
they dont have to go back to the israeli state, they will be going back to a palestinian state. but the israelis wont even accept that. i personally dont mind resettling the palestinians fairly throughout the vast the arab world, but until then the weapons of HA should not even be a subject for discussion especially in internal politics.
now imagine the difference between having the Lebanese go to peace talks holding HA's weapons as a bargaining chip on the negotiation table, and between the Lebanese going to the negotiation table holding nothing but their *****.
the fact that the Leaderships of Feb14 are insisting on stripping those weapons internally leaves alot to be questioned. are they too stupid to realize the magnitude of the leverage these weapons can provide over peace talks? are they in on an international plot to strip us Lebanese the only bargaining tool we have against the permanent settlement of the Palestinians? or do they simply not care about the outcome?
either way shafic, and no matter how we look at it, the answers to those questions are not in favor of the loyalists.
1st June 2008
Seriously GMA forever, what about negotiating, talking, trying to solve out problems?
