Neighbor Lehoud Bully
The Lebanese President has quite the big mouth:
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said Hizbullah will not disarm as long as there is a state of war between Lebanon and Israel, because the “national resistance’s weapons are Lebanon’s primary source of power.”Lahoud was interviewed Saturday on a Cuban television show covering the seventh anniversary of Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. “We adhere to Lebanon’s right to stay powerful until a comprehensive and just peace is achieved. When that happens, there will be no need for the resistance and its weapons” said Lahoud.
The Lebanese president referred to last summer’s war between Israel and Hizbullah in the context of the 2000 withdrawal, saying “Lebanon’s victory against Israel in 2000, as well as in the summer of 2006, will be written in the history books because it’s a victory of a small nation that succeeded in overcoming Israel and its backers, in particular the weapons sent to Israel by the US.”
Lahoud implied that the findings of the Winograd commission show that “Israel itself admits that they lost the war and is holding their leaders accountable for this loss.”
The victory was achieved as the result of “the unity of Lebanon’s sons who fight for their rights,” he said.
When asked about the odds of another Israeli attack on Lebanon or Syria, he responded that “anything is possible with Israel, especially an attack on Lebanon or Syria. Israel doesn’t want peace. It has indicated this to us in recent years.”
A number of observations:
Filed Under: General
About the Author: An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.
“When asked about the odds of another Israeli attack on Lebanon or Syria [...]”
I find it funny how for some people attacking Jews always counts as a Jewish attack.
When Arab nationalists attack Israel from Gaza, we hear of the “Israeli aggression in Gaza” and when a Lebanese militia attacks Israel, the Lebanese president wonders whether he can expect “another” Israeli attack on Lebanon or Syria.
It never ever occurs to these people that if they just stop attacking Israel, all those “Israeli attacks” and all the “Israeli aggression” wouldn’t happen.
Or perhaps they perceive the time line the other way around?
Perhaps we saw Hizbullah attacking Israel and Israel reacting, whereas they, coming from the future and living towards the past, saw the Israeli reaction first and then perceived Hizbullah’s actions as a Lebanese reaction to Israel’s attack?
In that case Israel’s war of independence would have been (will be) an Arab reaction to Israel’s behaviour towards Arabs after (before) that war, when Israel clearly treated most Arabs as enemies.
Nasser will also nationalise the Suez canal as a reaction to Israel’s, France’s, and the UK’s aggression against Egypt.
Both Intifadas were reactions to Israel’s military actions against innocent civilians (who, after all, didn’t become terrorists until after the military actions).
And whenever the Americans kill a bunch of terrorists in Iraq, what these people perceive is that fighting in Iraq creates more terrorists.
It is weird, but many liberal positions suddenly make sense when you look at the world backwards.
Off-topic but really weird: a Democratic legislator from Virginia wants the Queen of England to apologise for slavery. A legislator from _Virginia_, a _Democrat_, wants the Queen of the country that fought wars to force other countries to abolish slavery, to apologise for slavery.
A member of the party responsible for the crime committed, legally, in the state where he was elected, wants the Queen of a state that tried to stop the crime to apologise for the crime. It’s weird. It’s really weird.
At least that is what I read somewhere.