HA's weapons may prevent palastenian naturalization while palasenians' weapons may force naturlaization !
I dont think the loyalists has any more armor to fire other than HA's weapons .. They have emptied thier storage of non-sense arguments and attacks ...
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 with the israelis 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.
I think you didn't answer my questions, thus another reformulation:
1- Why doesn't Lebanon initiate peace talks with Israel during which Hezbollah's weapons could be invested as a bargaining chip?
2- Why does Hezbollah pledge the annihilation of Israel instead of negotiations? How does that serve Lebanon's cause internationally?
3- When did Hezbollah present its weapons as a bargaining chip to counter naturalization?
4- How could these weapons practically serve Lebanon in that regard?
5- How do perpetuating war (destruction, weak economy, internal turmoil) serve Lebanon in the meanwhile?
6- Why not negotiating a long term truce (based on security arrangements) before a comprehensive peace agreement? What negative consequences could that have on any Lebanese?
7- Assuming the weapons are a bargaining chip, why not putting it in the custody of the Lebanese people (i.e. army), instead of making it a subject of internal injustice and chaos?
8- How could naturalization be forced on Lebanon? In other words, is there a realistic process to do so as long as a majority of the Lebanese object such a project?
The Following User Says Thank You to chafic For This Useful Post:
I think you didn't answer my questions, thus another reformulation:
1- Why doesn't Lebanon initiate peace talks with Israel during which Hezbollah's weapons could be invested as a bargaining chip? maybe one day when we'll have a capable and responsible government we may initiate the process.
2- Why does Hezbollah pledge the annihilation of Israel instead of negotiations? How does that serve Lebanon's cause internationally? HA has always been negotiating away from the media with the israelis, the release of priosoners in the past are a valid proof to that extent.
3- When did Hezbollah present its weapons as a bargaining chip to counter naturalization? it doesn't have to be done in a news conference on Future TV, it goes without saying.
4- How could these weapons practically serve Lebanon in that regard? are you really asking this question? i know for sure you can figure this one out on your own.
5- How do perpetuating war (destruction, weak economy, internal turmoil) serve Lebanon in the meanwhile? who ever claimed that war is beneficial to the Lebanese economy?
6- Why not negotiating a long term truce (based on security arrangements) before a comprehensive peace agreement? What negative consequences could that have on any Lebanese? no negative consequence.
7- Assuming the weapons are a bargaining chip, why not putting it in the custody of the Lebanese people (i.e. army), instead of making it a subject of internal injustice and chaos? because so far the Lebanese government is not a trusted one yet, once that's taken care of then this option could become a possibility. but for now we wont be rushing to put ourselves under the mercy of WJ, SG and their likes.
8- How could naturalization be forced on Lebanon? In other words, is there a realistic process to do so as long as a majority of the Lebanese object such a project? just like the 2005 elections was forced on the Lebanese, just like the taef accord was forced on the Lebanese, just like the syrian occupation was forced on the Lebanese, just like arming the palestinians in 1969 was forced on the Lebanese.
Shafic, you ask plenty of questions (repetitive even) the answers to which are very trivial.
you still have to address the questions i posed concerning the loyalists leaderships.
Shafic, you ask plenty of questions (repetitive even) the answers to which are very trivial.
Dark Angel,
I think your answers to the questions are trivial, while these are the questions that, if answered properly, are necessary to assess the value of Hezbollah's weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
maybe one day when we'll have a capable and responsible government we may initiate the process.
Decisions of war and peace require a minimum amount of consensus, so you will never be able to exclude any Lebanese group from being part of negotiations. Eventually, things do not revolve about the ambiguous term of "capable and responsible government". There are major Lebanese groups: it depends on their opinion about the possible solutions to our problems with Israel; Right now, we have two clear positions, none of which is in favor of peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
HA has always been negotiating away from the media with the israelis, the release of priosoners in the past are a valid proof to that extent.
What does that have to do with peace negotiations? Why should Hezbollah be allowed to negotiate on behalf of the Lebanese state? And again, how do annihilation promises serve Lebanon's cause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
it doesn't have to be done in a news conference on Future TV, it goes without saying.
Or it doesn't go without saying; Who knows, probably that's what it takes to gain sympathy of some naturalization-phobics. (rightfully or excessively)
So, that is not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
are you really asking this question? i know for sure you can figure this one out on your own.
Well yes, any realistic scenario?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
who ever claimed that war is beneficial to the Lebanese economy?
Whoever is perpetuating this war. Hezbollah is in for sure, from Lebanon's side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
no negative consequence.
Agreed. Now which Lebanese groups are ready to engage in talks for a long term truce? And what how would that reflect on Hezbollah's weapons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
because so far the Lebanese government is not a trusted one yet, once that's taken care of then this option could become a possibility. but for now we wont be rushing to put ourselves under the mercy of WJ, SG and their likes.
Junblat and Geagea (or their respective parties) will always have supporters, and have a political representation. The government represents the will of the Lebanese people, and its policies are eventually transparent .The aberration is the other way. It's much more understandable not to trust Hezbollah's leadership over which no Lebanese has control.
So it has nothing to do about trusting the government, it's simply about exclusivity of weapons in Hezbollah's hand for projects beyond the Lebanese interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
just like the 2005 elections was forced on the Lebanese, just like the taef accord was forced on the Lebanese, just like the syrian occupation was forced on the Lebanese, just like arming the palestinians in 1969 was forced on the Lebanese.
Those are all different scenarios, in scales and context. Take the Syrian occupation for instance, it survived because a majority of the Lebanese accepted it.
So gain, do you have any realistic scenario to impose it when a majority opposes?
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Angel
you still have to address the questions i posed concerning the loyalists leaderships.
You'll have to address these questions to loyalists or their supporters. I'm not interesting in analyzing their stances, or making speculations.
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.
Well joseph believe it or not, it is you who make HA lebanese! If you wanna push them to the corner and put a gun against their heads, don't blame them if they go looking for support elsewhere.
I know you think that the MoU is too bitter for your taste, but this was actually the biggest guarantee from Hizballa to all the Lebanese people, and instead of everyone capitalising on it, they chose the path of provocation and confrontation.
Well you are obviously a supporter of provocation and confrontation, and my friend my experience tells me that these 2 only bring more death and destruction. Only dialogue and mutual trust can lead you to your goal.
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??
I agree with you that the main problem are the refugees and this is where Lebanon must have a strong card at hand or else who do you think will care to solve that problem for you if you couldn't impose it?
I agree with you too that Lebanon is very much behind in its preparations for peace negotiations with Israel, mainly because the dear ministers and presidents that were there were more busy filling their pockets and fighting over personal gains and who can please the major powers more rather than concentrate on crucial matters like these, especially that they got used to have their stances taken for them by those outside powers whoever they were. Hizballa's mistake here in my opinion, is that they turned a blind eye on these matters, thinking that let those politicians fight over the government and leave us in peace with out resistance. Little did they know that those same politicians will come afterwards to fight with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chafic
Try futile military means when you know the consequence is self-destruction?
Well whether you consider it self destruction or not, and whether you like Hizballa or not, you & me cannot deny the fact here that Hizballa succeeded to create a balance of power with Israel, that each one don't dare to mess with the other. This is not only the opinion of Hizballa's supporters and sympathisers, but rather the opinion of the Israelis themselves.
Israel never really states, "we want to destroy ______." Because it will completely lose its backing in the western world. While HA saying "we want to destroy Israel" has given it huge cachet in the Arab world. Each side is preaching to its own audience.
Though whatever Israel has said/signed, they are still expanding settlements.
Quote:
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 *****.
Having weapons is indeed a huge change in negotiating. (Or money. Or oil. Or something.) But the Lebanese army should have them. They report to the actual entity that is negotiating: the government. HA's weapons aren't a bargaining chip unless HA is doing the negotiations.
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.
This was Israels aim with the war:
"It was made clear to us on several occasions that the issue is not freeing the soldiers, but changing the political arena. Olmert made it clear he had no intention of negotiating over any issue related to the war, and the same goes for the rest of the Israeli representatives we met. They were confident of their victory."
How serious do you think they were with Annan? It's just a show of "good will". Sure, the Israelis wants peace with all the arabs but on what conditions? Will the Israelis respect all UN resolutions in a peaceagreement? That is the least any arab country should demand if it is to be called a Just Peace. The Israeli message has rather always been: Taht Sermaiti please...thank you!
So the real bottom line is and has always been, what does Israel want?!
I think you didn't answer my questions, thus another reformulation:
1- Why doesn't Lebanon initiate peace talks with Israel during which Hezbollah's weapons could be invested as a bargaining chip? I really think they should try it so you can realise that it's worthless if the lebanese would push for a just peace. What do you think the lebanese demands should be? Do you think Israel will accept them?
2- Why does Hezbollah pledge the annihilation of Israel instead of negotiations? How does that serve Lebanon's cause internationally? Because never in the history of Israel have any negotiations produced any justice. And what do you mean with internationally? US?
3- When did Hezbollah present its weapons as a bargaining chip to counter naturalization? Never, that I know of...
4- How could these weapons practically serve Lebanon in that regard? By demanding that Israel follows the UN resolutions.
5- How do perpetuating war (destruction, weak economy, internal turmoil) serve Lebanon in the meanwhile? War is decided by Israel, not by HA. A lot of lebanese doesn't want to be the slaves of Israel and therefore the war is forced upon them.
6- Why not negotiating a long term truce (based on security arrangements) before a comprehensive peace agreement? What negative consequences could that have on any Lebanese? Nothing if the peace is just.
7- Assuming the weapons are a bargaining chip, why not putting it in the custody of the Lebanese people (i.e. army), instead of making it a subject of internal injustice and chaos? Because it would no longer be a baranning chip. If so they could get rid of it in other ways, like they've been trying to do fort the past X years.
8- How could naturalization be forced on Lebanon? In other words, is there a realistic process to do so as long as a majority of the Lebanese object such a project? By making them the minority.
Considering Israels bloody history and them beeing very similiar to an apartheid state, what kind of assurances would make you believe that Israel will not annex Libanon or parts of it in the future?
The funny thing about almost every single thread where HA's weapons are "discussed" is the rhetoric that is used. Syrian, Iranian, extremists, terrorists, etc. What March 14 leaders and supporters don't seem to understand is that their Hezbollah phobia and obsession with HA's arms is what is keeping everyone from being able to settle this issue. Ironically, it is thier attitudes that will cement HA's arms in thier hands instead of finding a solution for them.
As long as you keep up this rhetoric, and talk soley about the arms as if the arms are the problem, you will not get anywhere, and HA will keep thier arms and only grow stronger. Once you realize that the arms are a consequence, and it is not the consequences that need a solution but the causes, then you will be on the same page with HA and serious dialogue over a defense stratedgy can be assumed.
FPM figured this out from day one -- thus the MoU. The question is, how much longer will it take March 14 before they come to terms with reality?
I'm guessing never.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Learned For This Useful Post:
1st June 2008
What does that have to do with peace negotiations? Why should Hezbollah be allowed to negotiate on behalf of the Lebanese state? And again, how do annihilation promises serve Lebanon's cause?
