Lebanon: interviews with Chomsky & Nasrallah; Hezbollah's startling efficiency in everything they do; & Israel's continuing dumbfuckness

1. An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon
Apocalypse Near
By MERAV YUDILOVITCH

[Note from NC: "The Yediot Ahronot interview came out (on Ynet), Aug. 3, but only in Hebrew -- so far at least. What they published was a kind of amalgam of two versions, the second when the asked me to shorten the first by eliminating the part about Iranian nuclear weapons. What they published, for some reason, included the part they asked me to cut and eliminated parts I thought were more important. But worked out OK." The version posted here reproduces the original transcript in full.]

MY: You say the provocation and counter-provocation all serve as a distraction from the real issue. does the war in Lebanon is also a distraction the aims to draw the world's attention to the north of Israel while Gaza is been destroyed?

NC: I assume you are referring to John Berger's letter (which I signed, among others).

The "real issue" that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.). This program of "hitkansut," cynically disguised as "withdrawal," is of course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it spells the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for 30 years _ matters that are so well documented that I do not have to review them here.

The US and Israel do not tolerate any resistance to these plans, preferring to pretend _ falsely of course _ that "there is no partner," as they proceed with programs that go back a long way. We may recall that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that if resistance to Israel's destructive and illegal progams is considered to be legitimate within the West Bank, then it is legitimate in Gaza as well, in reaction to Israeli actions in the West Bank.

To turn to your specific question, even a casual look at the Western press reveals that the crucial developments in the occupied territories are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction in Gaza _ which was rarely seriously reported in the first place -- has largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover of the West Bank has virtually disappeared. The severe punishment of the population for "voting the wrong way" was never considered problematic, consistent with the long-standing principle that democracy is fine if and only if it accords with strategic and economic interests, documented to the heavens. However, I would not go as far as the implication in your question that this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect.

MY: Do you see the world media partialy responsible for not insisting of linking between what's going on in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon?

NC: Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be levelled against the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the Berger letter. Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured at an army post near Gaza, eliciting huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza. The escalation was supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be punished. One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language Israeli press (Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz English edition, June 25), basically IDF handouts. And there were indeed a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US; the only serious news report in English that day was in the Turkish press. Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, no call for military or terrorist attacks against Israel. A google search will quickly reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.

The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations. The same assessment carries over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the (null) reaction to the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long periods, and of course killing many Lebanese. No one ever argued that these crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous.

All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases.

Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are "Hamas militants" or were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was (uncontroversially) shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.

MY: You're talking first and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian nation but will it solve the "iranian threat" will it push the Hizbullah from the Israeli boarder? today Israelis see an imediate danger in the northern front are we being blinded?

NC: Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which received strong international support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement _ if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies.

On Iran and Hizbollah, there is, of course, much more to say, and I can only mention a few central points here.

Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course. The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community" _ 147 to 1. These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

It is commonly said that the "international community" has called on Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define the "international community" as Washington and whoever happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action, international polls reveal.

The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world. As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.

It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tryant installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States _ including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others -- strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians, just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help in developing the chemical weapons that helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests that it is perhaps feared that they may be serious.

I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law; and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel have done regularly.

On Hezbollah too, there are hard and serious questions. As well-known, Hezbollah was formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role in driving out the aggressors. Also, like other Islamic movements, including Hamas, it has gained popular support by providing social services to the poor. Along with Amal, now its close ally, Hizbollah represents the Shi'a community in the parliament in Lebanon's confessional system. It is an integral part of Lebanese society. And much as in the past, US-backed Israeli violence is sharply increasing popular support for Hezbollah, not only in the Arab and Muslim worlds generally, but also in Lebanon itself. Polls taken in late July reveal that "87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead" (Christian Science Monitor, July 28). As often in the past, Israel is doing itself no favors by failing to attend to the predictable consequences of its resort to extreme violence instead of such measures as prisoner exchange, as in the past.

It is also not wise to ignore the recent observations of Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24). As he wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world view, and on double standards." The reasons include the Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

The problem of Hezbollah's arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes Hezbollah's military wing as "resistance rather than as a militia, and thus exempt from" Resolution 1559. A National Dialogue in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its main purpose was to formulate a "national defense strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel), but it remained deadlocked over Hezbollah's call for "a defense strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep its weapons as a deterrent to possible Israeli aggression" (Beirut-based journalist Jim Quilty, Middle East Report, July 25), in the absence of any credible alternative. The US could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee against an invasion by its client state, but that would require a sharp change in long-standing policy.

In the background are crucial facts emphasized by several veteran Middle East correspondents. Rami Khouri, an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes that "the Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services." Syria specialist Patrick Seale agrees: "You have the rise of essentially non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas because of the vacuum created by the impotence of Arab states to contain or deter Israel. These actors are basically taking issue with Israel's 'deterrence,' which posits that Israel can strike but no one can strike at it." Until such basic questions are dealt with, it is likely that "the Middle East will sink further into violence and despair," as Khouri predicts.

MY: You are not refering in your letter to the Israeli casualties. is there diferentiation in your opinion between Isareli casualties of war (and I'm not talking about soldiers I'm talking about civilians) and Lebanese or Palestinians casualties?

NC: That is not accurate. John Berger's letter is very explicit about making no distinction between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states: "Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment."

MY: Why in your opinion the world is co-operating with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon and why isn't there any real pressure on the israeli government to stop the madness in Gaza and Jenin? What purpose does this silence serve?

NC: The great majority of the world protests, but chooses not to act. Europe is unwilling to take a stand against the US administration, which has made it clear that it supports Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon. The rest of the world strongly objects, but they are not even considered part of the "international community," unless they obey. The US-backed Arab tyrannies at first condemned Hezbollah, but were forced to back down out of fear of their own populations. Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's most loyal (and most important) ally, was compelled to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire."

With regard to Palestine, while Bush's stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real break in US rejectionism in 30 years. During the Oslo years, the US-Israel hinted at joining the international consensus, but made sure it would be very difficult to implement by steady increase in settlement, the rate peaking in 2000. The US also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression when atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.

Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the world below through a bombsight." Much the same is true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners, despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view of the world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual monopoly of the means of violence, with consequences that we need not review.

MY: What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?

NC: I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That may not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They are even facing the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi'a alliance (including Shi'ite-dominated Iraq, Iran, and the Shi'ite regions of Saudi Arabia), controlling the world's major energy supplies, and independent of Washington _ or even worse, establishing closer links with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council. The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, the leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hezbollah, and a harsh critic of the organization, describes the current conflict in "apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All hell would be let loose" if the outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which "the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer" (Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Washington Post, 23 July).

It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hezbollah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror. The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about it by Western (including US) intelligence agencies, and by the leading specialists on these topics. One can bury one's head in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus" that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never be guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even "apocalypse soon."


2. Nasrallah Interview (from Lenin’s Tomb -- http://leninology.blogspot.com)

This is an interview with the Turkish daily Evrensel, which was posted to the Marxmail mailing list. I wanted to post it all despite the idiotic comments about the American media being controlled by "Jewish capitalists". Yoshie Furuhashi, the estimable editor of MRZine, once wondered if Fidel Castro could take the Iranian president to one side and say "Yo, Mahmoud, only crackpots and dumbasses believe that shit. Here, read this [Marx's Capital] instead"? Perhaps Chavez will have the nerve to tell Nasrallah the same. Once one has criticised that aspect of Nasrallah and Hezbollah's ideology, once you've gone beyond that bollocks, this is a fascinating interview:

From the first day of our arrival to Lebanon, we have looked for ways of interviewing Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, the General Secretary of Hezbollah. We communicated continuously this demand to the representatives of Hezbollah. After a considerable length of time, Hezbollah militants suddenly came to meet us and took from us open identity information and our photos. And they left without saying anything. A few days after this event which has caused immense nervousness for us, two civilians arrived to visit us. They told us that Nasrallah is waiting to see us but that they absolutely did not want camcorders or cameras. After going around for a few hours with a civilian vehicle, at last Nasrallah was before us. We were still very nervous. But apparently, we have succeeded..!

Israel which has reoccupied firstly Palestine and then Lebanon with the pretext of the kidnapping its soldiers, has being facing a resistance it did not expect at all in Lebanon. Despite the backing of US and Europe, Israel continues to suffer heavy loses against Hezbollah which is an organisation rooted in Lebanon. Hezbollah which has been conducting an effective resistance against the Israel army propagated as being "unbeatable", while defending the Lebanese lands, it also continues to be a hope for the resisting peoples of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spoken to Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, who has become a kind of the "symbol" of the resistance against the imperialist assaults not only in Lebanon but in the entirety of the Arabic world following the resistance of Hezbollah, about the resistance in Lebanon, Zionist aggression with imperialist support, the attitude of governments of the region and of Turkey, the socialist movement and plenty of other topics.

Israel had claimed its aim was "to destroy Hezbollah" in the first days of the occupation of Lebanon. However, it came across a resistance it did not expect and now it has been falling short of this aim. Through violent clashes, the occupying army continues to suffer heavy loses. But this is not covered sufficiently by the media. Could you briefly talk about the current status of the resistance?

Hasan Nasrallah: The Zionists who are the contractors of imperialism are utilising the media very effectively. In the west, with primarily in the US the media is in the hands of Jewish capitalists. They are writing that they are bombing the Hezbollah positions and are deceiving the peoples. This certainly is a lie. As you have witnessed personally, this is a big lie! They are martyring the innocent civilians; they are callously martyring the women and children. But, we are routing the Zionists wherever we come across them. We are acting cautiously, and are not firing rockets on civilians. By claiming that we are firing rockets on urban settlements, they are seeking to deceive the peoples of the world. But we are firing rockets under control on to locations we identified before.

Concerning this issue, it is also necessary to make this point; they are deliberately driving the Israeli Arabs to the border. They are presenting them as a target to us, but we are not playing into provocation and mischief. Our target is not the civilians; it is the Zionist military forces. Our fighters are routing extensively the Zionist forces in the land operation. But they should also know that we have not still used our important weapons.

The Zionists, knowing that they cannot daunt us with death, are attempting destroy our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, our women and children. This is how they are trying to intimidate us. But, it's all futile, we will not surrender! Apart from the freedom of our motherland, we will not accept any other solution. We will resist and we will fight.

Imperialism and its Zionist contractors in the region should know that we are waiting for the Zionists on every hill, every valley, every street and every inch of our country. Our resistance necessitates victory. We have no other way. This war will end with the victory of the oppressed of the world and of the Muslims.

Is it possible for Lebanon to face once again the threat of a civil war?

Hasan Nasrallah: Not only in Lebanon, but also in the region as a whole, the Zionist regime is seeking polarisation with the tension in between ethnic groups, sects and beliefs. Their strategy of attacking our country also confirms this. But, the Hezbollah has spoiled this game. The oppressed peoples of our country and of Middle East have come to the defence of Hezbollah and have provided their support. The socialists and Christians are included in this.

On the other hand, imperialism has established front-collaborator bogus Islamic organisations in the period of USSR. These forces, as well as planting seeds of discord amongst sects for the interests of the US, fought also against the revolutionaries. However, the conditions have now changed. The US had also used Saddam who they overthrew in Iraq years ago to fight against Iran, the Kurds and us. Or they used different contractor organisations for conflicts in between sects or against the revolutionaries. No-one should think for a moment that we are not aware of these tricks. We are aware of these and never in our history played into these tricks.

Despite the attacks in Palestine and Lebanon, the Arab governments remain silent. What is the reason for this silence?

Hasan Nasrallah: Most of these are collaborating countries. For instance, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, there are fatwas issued for our name. These are humorous fatwas. Not even their own people believe in these fatwas. These fatwas are absolutely political and have been prepared for the interest of the US. These fatwas are given from time to time. We did not take these very seriously. But, let me reiterate that we will not permit clash between sects and religions, and that these fatwas serve this aim. They resorted to these tricks in Iraq. They were successful in this, but the Iraqi people are now aware of these tricks.

On the issue of Iraq mentioned, fight in between sects in this country under occupation is provoked. Recently a number of US generals have been issuing warnings concerning the "escalation of a civil war" in Iraq. Can we have your views on this subject?

Hasan Nasrallah: The imperialists are seeking to win the war which they could not with arms and weapons from inside by the creation of a war between sects through a diverse range of collaborating so-called resistance groups. The same trick was played through Saddam before against the Shias and the Kurds. And now, they continue with these tricks. Today there is no Saddam, but there is tens of possible Saddams. I call on my and our peoples to not pay heed to this trick. Let's be vigilant towards the murder of brothers and sisters.

How do you evaluate the reaction of the Turkish Government?

Hasan Nasrallah: Messages of reaction from the Turkish government were received by the Israeli government. But this reaction did not turn into action. The bombs used in the bombing of our country arrive from Turkey. Again, according to what we have learned from you, there are a number of MPs who are members of the Turkish-Israeli Friendship Group in the Turkish National Assembly. But, what we want is concrete reactions. The Turkish government still have the status of being the biggest ally of the contractor gang!

What is the current state of your relations with the Socialist movement?

Hasan Nasrallah: The socialist movement, which has been away from international struggle, now for a considerable time, at last began to become a moral support for us once again. The most concrete example of this has been Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. What most of the Muslim states could not do has been done by Chavez by the withdrawal of their ambassador to Israel. He furthermore communicated to us his support for our resistance. This has been an immense source of moral for us. We can observe a similar reaction within the Turkish Revolutionary Movement. We had socialist brothers from Turkey who went to Palestine in 1960s to fight against Israel. And one of them still remains in my memory and my heart; Deniz Gezmis..!

What is the importance of Denizs for you?

Hasan Nasrallah: We now want new Denizs. Our ranks are always open to new Denizs against the oppressors. Deniz will always live in the hearts of the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon. No-one should doubt this. Unfortunately, there is no longer a common fight and fraternity against the common enemy left over by the Denizs. What we would have liked is for our socialist brothers in Lebanon to fight against imperialism and Zionism shoulder to shoulder. This fight is not only our fight. It is the common fight of all those oppressed across the world. Don't forget that if the peoples of Palestine and Lebanon lose this war, this will mean the defeat of all the oppressed people of the world. In our fight against imperialism, the revolutionaries should also undertake a responsibility and should become in the hearts of our people of Palestine and Lebanon, Denizs once again.

It is possible to see the posters of Che, Chavez, Ahmedinecad ve Hezbollah side by side in the streets of Beirut. Are these the signs of a new polarisation?

Hasan Nasrallah: We salute the leaders and the peoples of Latin America. They have resisted heroically against the American bandits and have been a source of moral for us. They are guiding the way for the oppressed peoples. Go and wonder around our streets..! You will witness how our people have embraced Chavez and Ernesto Che Guevara. Nearly in every house, you will come across posters of Che or Chavez. What we are saying to our socialist friends who want fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say "Religion is an opiate". We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chavez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat!

Returning to threats in the region, western governments are intensifying their pressure on Damascus and Tehran for which they are proposing a "change of regime." Some sources are of the view that the attack on Lebanon will be directed on Syria. According to your point of view, is a regional war possible?

Hasan Nasrallah: The centres of imperialist power want to make collaborators of our region as a whole. They expect us to kneel before them. Syria, Iran and we are opposing this. The provocation concerning the former Lebanese Prime Minister Refik Hariri and the efforts to secure the withdrawal of Syrian army from Lebanon and going even further, their wish to attack callously on to Tehran and Damascus are all due to this reason. Syria, with Iran and Hezbollah will certainly resist this. We are going to resist for our motherland and freedom. We are going to resist in order not kneel before them. The imperialists of the west are seeking to make a second Kosovo out of Lebanon and our region. They are seeking to create a clash in between sects. But we have spoiled this trick. In our streets, the whole of Lebanon, with its Christian, Sunnis and Shias, are flying the flags of Hezbollah. Again, "the unipolar world" has already been left back in history. There is us, there is Iran, there is Syria, there is Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. There are the resisting peoples of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan! As long as there is imperialism and occupations, these people will continue resisting. They can forget about peace. If they want peace, they should now respect the freedom of peoples and should eliminate the collaborating gangs. God willing, the victory will be ours. They are not going to be able to turn our country and region into a Kosovo. Now our people are aware of everything and will not play into imperialist tricks.

We will absolutely not permit them to attack Iran or Syria. We are going to fight for our freedom to the last drop of our blood. Let no-one doubt this. They are claiming that Iran has nuclear weapons at its disposal. On the contrary, most of the nuclear weapons are in the hands of the collaborating gang of Israel and the US. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are nothing but excuses put forward in order to create collaborating regimes in the region.

There are claims that Hezbollah is being directed by Tehran. What are views on this issue?

Hasan Nasrallah: This is a great lie. We are an independent Lebanese organisation. We do not take orders from anyone. But this does not mean that we are not going to form alliances. Let me reiterate, we are on a side. We are on the side of Iran and Syria. They are our brothers. We are going to oppose any attack directed at Tehran and Damascus to the last drop of our blood just as we do in Lebanon. We uphold global resistance against global imperial terrorism.

Is there any other additional point you want to make?

Hasan Nasrallah: Peace cannot be unilateral. So long as there is imperialism in the world, a permanent peace is impossible. This war will not come to an end as long as there are occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.


3. Love it or hate it, Hizbullah has lessons for all Arabs (Editorial from Beirut’s Daily Star)

In the past month, and for some time before that, we have heard just about every possible suggestion about how to deal with Hizbullah: Attack it, degrade it, disarm it, wean it away from its friends in Syria and Iran, engage it politically, bring it into the Lebanese government in a bigger way, pressure it to show its real aims, drive it away from the border, or incorporate its military wing into the Lebanese national armed forces. One piece of advice that has not been heard sufficiently, and that strikes us as eminently sensible and relevant, is to learn from Hizbullah's history and to emulate those aspects of its ways that could help the people of this region live more productive, peaceful lives.

Hizbullah did not suddenly materialize magically on a Persian carpet or a divine edict. The organization methodically built itself up and sharpened its capabilities in all fields over a period of years. The core of its success is its capacity to identify the real needs of its constituents, meet those needs systematically through an efficient network of staff and managers, and not to waste time bragging about the fact in public.

Whether you approve or disapprove of Hizbullah, you cannot simply ignore it, or wish it away. Debate about its tactics, goals, values, allies, and place in Lebanon and the region will go on for a long time. Such discussion should not merely parrot the rhetoric and cliches of ideologues who love it or hate it, making it a one-dimensional phenomenon that belies its complex multiple roles. We would suggest, rather, that the enormous physical and political reconstruction demands of Lebanon in the months ahead would benefit from the sort of efficiency, focus, strategic planning, diligence and follow-up that have characterized Hizbullah's efforts in all the fields it has entered.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Others in Lebanon have achieved similar success, in fields such as medicine, engineering, the arts, banking and many others. This is not a story of particularly Shiite values or religious motivation. It is a narrative of professionalism and its consequences - of individuals who collectively identify a need, define a goal, plan a strategy and get the job done. Hizbullah happens to be the Lebanese organization that has taken this degree of professionalism to the highest degree of impact on the public - good or bad impact, depending on your perspective. Politically, Hizbullah will be challenged, engaged, opposed and long debated. Organizationally and logistically, it has historic lessons to teach all other Arabs in the country and the region. Those Arabs, including the Lebanese, should be alert enough to recognize the rare capacity for efficacy that Hizbullah has developed, and apply it in those crucial fields of public life and national development that have suffered so much mediocrity in the recent past.


4. David Hirst in the Guardian on Hezbollah efficiency

On the strictly military level, a small band of irregulars kept at bay one of the world's most powerful armies for over a month, and inflicted remarkable losses on it; the manner in which it did this -- a combination of professional skills, ingenuity, intrepidity, meticulous preparation, masterful use of anti-tank missiles, brilliant organisation, labyrinthine underground defences -- is only now fully coming to light. This was only possible because Hizbullah represented something else: the first non-state actor to single-handedly take on Israel in a full-scale war of this kind. Only such an actor could have secured the freedom of action to prepare for and conduct such a war. Yet it was Israel itself, through its earlier attempts to change its strategic environment by force, that did so much to create Hizbullah, just as, in Palestine, it did so much to create Hamas.

It is not just Hizbullah's performance in itself that has changed the balance of power at Israel's expense; it is the example it sets for the whole region. In his way Hassan Nasrallah is now an even more inspiring Arab hero than Nasser was; Hizbullah's achievement has had an electrifying impact on the Arab and Muslim masses that largely transcends the otherwise growing, region-wide Sunni-Shia divide; it will contribute to their further radicalisation and, if that is not appeased by the Arab regimes, to upheavals in the whole existing order. "Public opinion says to the regimes, 'If they are getting more on the battlefield than you are at the negotiating table, and you have so many more means at your disposal, then what the hell are you doing?'" says Mouin Rabbani of the International Crisis Group.

King Abdullah of Jordan, who -- like Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- made the mistake of publicly accusing Hizbullah of "uncalculated adventurism", and clearly hoped that Israel would punish it, admits that if things go on like this then new Hizbullahs will emerge, with his kingdom among the candidates for one.

Hizbullah has no intention of disarming, and it is improbable that anyone else can get it to do so. Never before, therefore, has Israel ended a war so persuaded that, sooner or later, it will only generate another. The only way to prevent that is to get Israel and the US to realise that those "root causes" out of which it grew lie on their side too. Israel may not have caused "global terror" and Islamic extremism, but with its own violence, especially that against civilians, it greatly inflames it. And Israel resorts to violence, at bottom, because it cannot achieve peace; and it cannot achieve that because the only peace it has ever offered falls so far short of what Arabs and Palestinians could ever accept. This is the conclusion a few Israelis, Europeans and even leading Americans are drawing. But there is no sign of the Israeli establishment or President Bush doing so. They should bear in mind, says Israeli commentator Nissim Kalderon, that "the difficult war imposed upon us obliges us to take greater risks for peace after the war. Because the risks of the coming missile war with the fundamentalists could be greater. Much greater."


5. Talking only to ourselves -- by Daniel Ben Simon (from Israel’s Haaretz Daily)

I am trying to recall when I last saw Israeli leaders talking with Arab leaders about peace, and finding it hard to remember. In recent years, our compulsive tendency to talk to ourselves about an agreement with the Arabs has been strengthening, as though the real conflict in the Middle East were between the right and the left. The fruitless discussions between these two tired bodies have had two goals: to neutralize any possibility of change and to freeze the reality on the ground, for fear that any step toward peace will ignite a domestic war among the Jews. And if we are already fated to go to war, say our architects to themselves, it is better to have a war against the Arabs. It is torturous to think that had similar diplomatic energy been invested vis-a-vis Palestinian leaders, Lebanese leaders and Syrian leaders, perhaps everything would look different. Perhaps we would even be living in peace with them.

Is it possible that the miserable war in Lebanon and the endless slaughter in Gaza are an outcome of the lack of willingness to talk with our neighbors? When was the last time we tried to talk to the Palestinians about their future and about our future? When was the last time we sent out probes to the Lebanese about signing a peace agreement with them? When was the last time we tried to renew the truncated negotiations with the Syrians about the possibility of arriving at a peace agreement?

For six years now Israeli politics has been at a standstill. Ever since prime minister Ehud Barak shoved Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat into the lodge at Camp David in July 2000, there has been no serious contact between an Israeli leader and an Arab leader with whom we are in conflict. The result is dreadful. Israel has slammed doors on its neighbors and has made up its mind to set arrangements on its own, in dialogue with itself, while ignoring its neighbors as though it were a lone juniper tree in the desert. It is possible that for this insult, we are now paying the price.

To a large extent both the slaughter in Gaza after the disengagement and the war in Lebanon prove the failure of the unilateral approach. How is it possible, asks every reasonable individual, that we pulled out of Lebanon and they are attacking us? How is it possible, asks every reasonable individual, that we pulled out of Gaza and they are still attacking us? Is it any wonder that the lack of gratitude on both these fronts has led many Israelis to the conclusion that hatred for Jews is imprinted in the Muslim genome and that the urge to go to war is imprinted in the Arab character?

And perhaps this outburst of aggression has its source in our egotistic nature, in our refusal to relate to our neighbors, in our unwillingness to see them from the distance of a meter. There is no such thing as unilateral peace, just as there is no such thing as unilateral war. It takes two to dance the dance of death, and to dance the dance of joy. We have decided to dance with ourselves, as though the Arabs were shapeless, transparent and not worth speaking to.

And it isn't as though in the past there haven't been bilateral contacts that aroused hope. However, they can be counted on one hand. Only two months ago a cheerful meeting was held between our new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan. How many smiles they scattered, and how many times they clapped one another on the shoulder. Olmert was at his best. He laughed, he joked, he chummed and he demonstrated impressive communications skills. He spoke with everyone - apart from the only person at that meeting who justified a serious discussion. And indeed, Olmert's aides worked for days so that their boss would not shake the hand of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

These are the achievements of Israeli diplomacy vis-a-vis the Palestinians during the past six years: Ehud Barak pushed Arafat at Camp David, the same Barak invited Arafat to dinner at his home, prime minister Ariel Sharon invited Abbas to a meeting at the Prime Minister's Residence, Olmert bestowed a hug on Abbas. Two gestures, one conversation and one dinner party during the course of six whole years. Not a bad output for a country mired in a bloody conflict with the Palestinian people.

And during this entire time, Israel has withdrawn into itself, refusing to look sideways. It exited Lebanon in anger and it exited in similar anger from the Gaza Strip, without having attempted to coordinate the moves with those concerned. It is also planning to exit the West Bank with a similar, unilateral slam of the door.

Instead of speaking with our enemies we speak with our friends, not to say our patrons, the Americans, as though we were lowly vassals. We have adopted English almost as a mother tongue and we relate to Arabic as almost an existential threat. Thus far, the subordination of our lives, our values and our future to the Americans has not proved itself. We have never been as insecure as we are today. As part of our despair we are surrounding ourselves with a wall and turning the symbol of national rebirth into a fortified Jewish ghetto closed on all sides.

If the despair with our neighbors and with peace spreads, the Israelis are liable to deposit the reins of the state in the hands of dangerous fanatics like Yisrael Beiteinu MK Avigdor Lieberman. "For insane situations, you need insane people in charge," said an inhabitant of Kiryat Shmona last week who thus reflected the new mood and mentioned Lieberman as a wonder drug.

If Olmert does not hold out any hope soon and does not start talking with the Lebanese and the Palestinians and the Syrians, the despair is liable to push the Israelis toward extreme solutions.