You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Hizbullah plays cagey won't take sides in rift
2005-02-24
Hizbullah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem said on Wednesday his party would not take sides between the opposition and the loyalists, denying that the Ain al-Tineh pro-Syrian gathering replaces the anti-government Bristol gathering.
Probably surprised at the depth of reaction, I'd guess they're waiting to see which way the wind is going to blow. Hezbollah's looking out for Hezbollah, not for Lebabon, but they wouldn't want to remind people too loudly of that fact, and Nasrallah's already opened his mouth too wide...
Speaking on the Arabic News Broadcast (ANB) to a group of students representing different political affiliations from the loyalists and the opposition, Qassem added that the issue of disarming the resistance group was not a subject of discussion between any groups because the arms are not confronting any other Lebanese armed force.
Not at the moment, anyway. But civilized nations don't allow armed "militias" to maintain themselves, precisely because they represent a danger to the state...
"Why does Hizbullah reject the opposition's call to join the 'forces of change and democracy?' The answer is that we do not believe in such definition to describe the rift between the different Lebanese parties; in this respect, we are not talking about volume and strength," Qassem said.
Hezbollah resists the opposition's called to join the 'forces of change and democracy' because Hezbollah's against change and democracy. They're theocrats.
"If we join one side it means we cancel out the other side; both represent factions of the Lebanese people from all sects and religions," he added.
"And we haven't figured which side's going to win yet. Once we do, we'll have been with them from the very beginning, you betcha."
Qassem said that Hizbullah did not extend President Emile Lahoud's mandate in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 1559. "The resolution was prepared earlier in June by France and stipulated only the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. When they needed the U.S. to pass the resolution, they added the issue of disarming the resistance," Qassem added.
"Therefore that part of it doesn't count."
Asked if Hizbullah would submit to the will of a new majority choosing to disarm all militias including his party, Qassem said that the question was wrong.
As I've mentioned before, when somebody says "the real issue is..." they're trying to draw attention away from what you were actually talking about...
"The question should never be whether to disarm Hizbullah or not but rather which political stance should the Lebanese people and their political parties take to safeguard the country against any Israeli threats or invasion," he added.
But the question as put was whether Hezbollah will submit to the will of the majority and give up its armaments. The answer appears to be "no."
"It is a political question whereby each party expresses its views. Some would advocate a diplomatic approach, others would suggest a military deterrence," Qassem said. "We believe the threat is imminent and we must keep our arms to defend ourselves."
"Regardless of what the rest of you want. Nobody tells us what to do, least of all you."
As to Monday's vote of confidence session in Parliament, Qassem would not reveal Hizbullah stance. "We should keep our cards covered; why expose one stance or the other before the vote of confidence is laid out on the table," he said.
"Like I say, we don't know who's going to come out on top at this point. Whichever one does, we'll probably be on the winning side."
In all cases, according to him, Hizbullah would not vote out the government on the grounds of holding it responsible for assassinating former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. "We consider the government responsible for a thorough and effective investigation into the murder. If they fail to do so, then we hold them responsible for this failure," he said.
What if they dunnit? That's one of the more loudly proclaimed theories at the moment...
"So far we believe the government is doing what is within its capacity and capabilities, hoping to use the expertise and cooperation from other countries and international agencies," he said.
Posted by:Fred

#3  Hizbollah needs to be attacked. It should a a dangerous thing to be associated with them.
Posted by: Lucky   2005-02-24 1:52:04 PM  

#2  Part of the subtext here is that Hizbollah gets its munitions from Syria and it gets its subsidy from Iran thru Syria. Without Syrian help Hizbollah would be seriously compromised.

Obviously if Syria pulls out Hizbollah could still bribe Lebanese officials to keep the flow of munitions going, etc. However, it would be much dicier for Hizbollah in this case and the heavier weapons would probably not get to them.
Posted by: mhw   2005-02-24 8:00:47 AM  

#1  Yeap,Fred.It's like when someone says"To tell you the truth..."indicates that person was lying before.
Posted by: raptor   2005-02-24 7:36:30 AM  

00:00