Harb: All What Nasrallah Presented in 2006 was his Viewpoint Not Defense Strategy
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
March 14 MP Butros Harb snapped back at Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, saying the party’s chief never proposed a defense strategy to the national dialogue conferees in 2006.
“All what Nasrallah proposed at the time was his point of view in anticipation of the proposal of the defense strategy along with Speaker Nabih Berri,” Harb told An Nahar daily published Wednesday.
Nasrallah said in a speech on Tuesday that Hizbullah was the first party to present its defense strategy at the national dialogue in 2006. He said the March 14-led opposition seems to have forgotten that a few days later the Shiite group implemented the strategy presented at the dialogue table during the July war “and we won.”
He was referring to the army, the people and the resistance equation in the policy statement of several governments to defend Lebanon against Israeli attacks.
Asked by An Nahar about his talks with President Michel Suleiman on Tuesday, Harb said: “Discussions focused on the appointments, vexatious acts in some institutions, the (international) tribunal and the elections law.”
The MP said that the way the new director-general of the General Security Department was appointed consolidates the stage of Syrian hegemony.
20 July 2011, 11:43
11
All THAT Nasrallah presented. All THAT Nasrallah presented. Please, if you are going to write in English, at least try no to make basic grammatical errors.
20 July 2011, 13:09
32
Nasrallah does not have to propose anything, especially not to these Friends-of-Israel losers. The people of the South have presented their lives and souls protecting their land and the country, unlike March 14 and Mafia Hariri First who continue to sell their souls to their masters, killers of babies and launchers of illegal wars. LOSERS.
20 July 2011, 13:47
03
Gordon,
The people of the south should be commanded for making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. However, they are not the only people that have sacrified for their country. Lebanon should not be taken hostage and hijackked because of a small piece of farm land (Shebaa) that the UN and Syria say it theirs. Also, some these "people of the south" are accused of murdering a number of patriotic Lebanese including Prime Minster Harriri. I think Hizballah has transformed itself from a true resitance party into a party with its own political agenda. They could not keep using this resitance crap, by having their own military, and security. Either they are part of LEbanon or not! No more this state of confusing people about its own agenda
20 July 2011, 14:58
14
Gordon. You are right. Nasralah should not have to propose anything. In fact, nobody wants to hear this terrorist's proposals.
Which Israeli war was illegal? The one that they launched in 1982 to protect the North of their country from Palestinian militias using our country as a war arena? Or the one that they launched in 2006 because Hizbullah had crossed the blue line (i.e. the borders of their country), killed 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 of them?
Both Israeli wars were legal. Both were triggered by terrorists operating out of Lebanon. The consequence of these wars were devastating to our country because Israelis are savages. But let us not forget who got them to attack us.
20 July 2011, 16:52
00
The filthy nin islamic militia are cooperating with Mossad for the destruction of Lebanon
20 July 2011, 17:30
00
@slash.. I answered u on: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/10722-appeals-chamber-rules-sayyeds-appeal-admissible-refers-file-back-to-fransen
I tried to do my best to answer and comment all your questions, can u please take some time to read and answer back to my questions... I'd appreciate it.
Thanks
20 July 2011, 22:56
00
To mabboud:
I am not slash but I followed the link that you provided and read your answers to the different posts.
First of all, let me say that I appreciate that some people like you manage to try to make a decent point and to bring a debate forward rather than just writing insulting remarks and launching post-to-post personal attacks.
Nevertheless, I believe that trying to figure out which of the US or Iran is a worse evil is an exercise in futility. It is just as pointless to debate which of Israel or Syria is a worse enemy, or whether the Future Movement is clean while Hizbullah is rotten or vice-versa. Both are affiliated to violent theocratic dictatorships.
I believe that what the country needs is for the rule of law to prevail. Therefore, having a militia or several militias within the state spells doom for the country. One cannot have a democracy unless the state is the only entity authorized to use force. Of course, the reverse statement is not always true.
21 July 2011, 01:38
00
@lancelot... I agree with u about the US, Iran debate that won't bring a thing to Lebanon, I stated that I am a Nationalist and for nations to be independent and against any interference.. let the people of each country do their job of making their country a better place to live.
The point I was making is that people tend to think that US is better than Iran which is not necessary true and is based on references and reasoning that is not universal at all... my point is not to answer such debate but show that it's more complex than it seems.
HA is a reality we have to deal with but Jumblat, Gemayel, Hariri, Berri, etc. as well we have many mini-states in the state, HA is the most visible and probably not the hardest to deal with (it is linked to an ideology and easier to frame and younger historically) ... feudalism and family dominance.. Za3im is much worse to deal with to get democracy. Without feudalism, HA won't last I guess because people will start getting power.
21 July 2011, 02:07
00
@lancelot... That said, I agree with your statement, everyone should unless they don't understand what a nation means and the role of the state.
The biggest issue is how do we deal with what we have on hand and what do we do to move forward... I think that this can be done through dialog and on a step by step basis...
I support Mikati approach (the man is a different thing, only future will tell us how much he is capable (or willing) to do baby steps.
HA arms is a problem of course but so are palestinian camps and arms and so is the problem to protect Lebanon sovereignty against Israel (Syria is much easier, we don't need an army for that, it's political and the world will help us rather then stand and confront us.. problem is purely political and on the internal Lebanese scene).
We need dialogue and a step-by-step plan to phase out problems, a roadmap and no confrontation; we should try to revive nationalism and solidarity.... I am probably dreaming, it's late
