'No peace in Mideast if Israel exists'

[Phx_Dem]

Hizbullah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah voiced his opinion on Thursday about the various peace processes currently underway in the Middle East, saying that as long as Israel exists, there will never be peace in the region.

"As long as Israel exists and its eyes are honing in on the territories of other states, the world will not know peace in the Middle East," Nasrallah said during an interview with Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

"The region will not see the light of peace and stability," he continued, adding that this was due to the "aggressiveness and the natural militancy of Israel."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221115866469&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[LeftishBrit]

1. Sounds like there's a wee bit of projection there

'"The region will not see the light of peace and stability," he continued, adding that this was due to the "aggressiveness and the natural militancy of Israel."'

Even speaking as someone who strongly condemns most of Israel's actions in Lebanon - what about Hizbullah's actions in Lebanon?! I would say there was QUITE a lot of 'aggressiveness and natural militancy' about those over the years; and they didn't do much for 'peace and stability'.

[mikelgb]

2. Headline Misleading

conveniently leaves out second and qualifying part of sentence:

"As long as Israel exists and its eyes are honing in on the territories of other states, the world will not know peace in the Middle East," Nasrallah said during an interview with Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).

I am not a Hizbullah fan but this is not fair play on the paper's part, OP you should clarify headline imo.

[Phx_Dem]

3. The qualification is BS

Israel is not interested in other countries territory.

Regardless, in this sub-forum the OP headline must match exactly, part of the special rules here.

[mikelgb]

4. Ok, so should I hate this guy now or what?

Why not try and make the argument that his qualifier is BS instead of misquoting him and inciting others?

What good does it do to argue that he should be misquoted in order to distort his view, no matter how BS you think it is?

this whole issue baffles me sometimes.... like who thought writing that headline would help anything?

[Vegasaurus]

5. He isn't "misquoted"

Nasrallah has been very clear about his goals and ambitions regarding Israel.

He would like to see Israel and all Jews gone, and does blame all of the problems in the region on that "zionist entity".

It isn't that writing the headline "helps" anything.

It shows that there are government and political leaders, who are virulently and violently anti-semitic.

[mikelgb]

7. If he is so "virulently and violently anti-semitic"...

then why does he bother with the qualifier?

and what does that make the person who omits the qualifier? do they prefer that he said it that way?

and btw did the guy actually say these words in English or are the a translation?

I don't know much about this guy, but this article does not reinforce your claim that he is "virulently and violently anti-semitic" but it does diminish any claim this source makes because they resort to headline manipulation to try and make their point.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. What "qualifier?"

He made no qualifier, and therefore, no qualifier was left out of the title. You seem to have more of a problem with the title than the actual words of a warmonger calling for the destruction of a nation.

"I don't know much about this guy..." Then perhaps you should do some research before adding your two cents to a discussion of this level. Secondly, "I don't know much about this guy, for someone so concerned about accuracy, you aren't showing any. The other poster didn't say the article reinforces her claim, and as someone who admittedly doesn't "know much about the guy," perhaps it would be better to ask the poster why she feels that way or do your own research, as suggested, on him. Finally, there was no "headline manipulation."

[Vegasaurus]

15. Are you denying anything that Nasrallah has said?

And pulling the old "it's a bad translation" card?

Look you might as well face the fact that the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas and the president of Iran are all on record as having made violent statements about Israel and their desire to rid the mideast of Jews and Israel.

It isn't like something like this has been said one time, and there was a possibility of mistranslation.

They say the same virulently anti-semitic things over and over again, in multiple places (print media, speeches, etc).

[Phx_Dem]

6. This is nothing new from him

"The sheikh referred to Israel as a “temporary country.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283155,00.html

"Nasrallah predicted that Israel will cease to exist , because the “ The Arab opposition , including Syria will eliminate Israel “. He said"
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/02/nasrallah_israe_1.php

However, there is no legal and legitimate state called Israel.

I am against any reconciliation with Israel.

I believe that Palestine is an occupied land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and this is the right of the entire Palestinian people, this land.

If you want my opinion, I say that this is a state based on occupation, that has usurped the rights of others.

Israel remains a foreign body in this large area, and it always proved that it is unable to coexist with this environment, because the, the scope of the massacres that it has committed does not permit it to coexist.

That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

All quotes from Nasrallah

[mikelgb]

8. all these quotes speak of the state of Israel....

none about it's citizens or about Jewish people? where is the virulent antisemitism? the closest I can find to try and see your side is this quote, but it was in a series of other quote where he was speaking of the Israeli military...

'“We ask states that issued travel advisories to behave normally. The Israelis are our enemies not them”, Nasrallah said.'

Peace can be found with this man and others as well.

[Phx_Dem]

9. Whether his is anti-semitic is beside the point

Nasrallah has made it very clear that he does not support the existence of Israel under any circumstances.

[pelsar]

10. i think israelis see it differently....

when he speaks about destroying israel...how do you think he is going to try to do that?....by vote?....

[mikelgb]

11. do you really think they mean to destroy all the land, buildings and people in the area?

just because they hate Jewish people?

[Phx_Dem]

12. What were the Arab armies trying to do in '48 '67 and '73?

Wipe out the State of Israel. Because they don't like it.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. The 1973 war was not an attempt to wipe out Israel because they don't like it.

The Yom Kippur war was an attempt by Egypt and Syria to regain territory (the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights) that Israel had captured. To get more specific, on Egypt's part it was an attempt to draw Israel into negotiations to return the Sinai to Egypt. How do you manage to turn that into trying to wipe out the state of Israel because they don't like it????

[aranthus]

19. True, but more complicated than you have stated.

Egypt had several goals for the war, and you're correct that destroying Israel was not among them. However, it's simplistic to say that the Egyptians were trying to draw Israel into negotiations. Israel was already interested in negotiations with Egypt, just not on terms that Sadat thought he could live with (figuratively and literally). Among Sadat's goals for the war were: 1) Reopen the Suez Canal by force; 2) Create a situation where the US would be forced to pressure Israel to meet Egyptian demands; 3) Destroy Israel's sense of complacency about having the Sinai as a defensive barrier, so that the Israelis would meet Egyptian demands; 4) Restore Egyptian pride and prestige; 5) Show that he was willing to fight in order to gain room for maneuver. In short, Sadat was trying to change the framework of potential negotiations. He could have had discussions with Israel anytime he wanted to meet Israeli demands for entering into them (recognition of Israel and no other preconditions). He wanted negotiations with a guaranty of the return of Sinai, but without having to recognize Israel.

The interesting question is what Sadat saw as the end result of negotiations? Did he want a peace treaty with Israel to begin with or only a truce? I think the latter. He was hoping that if the Egyptian army could seize the East Bank of the Canal that a dynamic would be created much like 1956, where the Israelis would have to withdraw from Sinai in exchange for only a truce. It wasn't until after the war that he was forced to enter into a peace treaty in order to get all of Sinai back.

[Vegasaurus]

14. I think if the terrorists had their way, yes

they wold destroy all the people (that are Jews) in the area.

They certainly have gone out of their way to kill any Jew within their means, and have always been clear about their intent.

[pelsar]

16. i wouldnt know if he just hates...

jewish people, the state of israel, western democracy, or short people.......he has made it clear his goal of removing the state of israel and has attacked its people over the years many many times......

its pretty clear his goal and for those who get in the way, be it lebanese or israelis he has made it very clear what he will do given the opportunity...The fact that israel is thriving western democratic country filled with people who have no intention of living in a society of Nassrallas version (i assume you're aware of how hizballa runs S and parts of W. lebanon and Beruit-the land they are now occupying from lebanon....right?)....makes it clear his plan includes violence....

[number6]

17. I agree ,.... 'No peace in Mideast if Israel exists'

at least the Israel that exists now
of course other people would say ,No peace in Mideast if hezbola and hamas exist
or Bush and Cheney and the neo-CONs exist



'Israel is not interested in other countries territory'
you must be kidding ,.. heard of Gaza , the west bank, golan heights



'I think if the terrorists had their way, yes
they would destroy all the people (that are Jews) in the area'
only jews are people ?

there is no terrorists, there's people that use terrorism as a tactic
like Bush and Cheney, the Israeli army, hezbola and hamas ...

there maybe people in hamas and hezbola that want all Jews out of Palestine/Israel
(dead or alive)