Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Hassan Nasrallah: The only solution is one state where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace in one democratic state

I have not even finished watching this video when I'm posting this, but Hassan Nasrallah appeared on Jullian Assange's Russian talk show "The World Tomorrow" and the first question was "what is your goal". The answer is that Nasrallah does not want to kill anyone, does not want to treat anyone unjustly, but wants one democratic state.
Time 1:25 - 3:20

What is your vision for the future of Israel and Palestine? What would Hezbollah consider victory? If you had that victory, would you disarm?

The state of Israel is an illegal state. It is a state that was established on the basis of occupying the lands of others, of usurping the lands of others, of controlling by force the lands of others, of committing massacres against the Palestinians who were expelled and this includes Muslims and Christians too.

So, for this reason, justice remains on the side, where even if ten years pass, the progress of time does not negate justice. If it is your house and I go occupy it by force it doesn't become mine in 50 or 100 years just because I'm stronger than you and I've been able to occupy your house. That doesn't legalize my ownership of your house. At least this is our ideological view and legal view and we believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people.

But if we wanted to combine ideology and law and political realities and relations on the ground we should say that the only solution is we don't want to kill anyone, we don't want to treat anyone unjustly. We want justice to be restored to them and the only solution is the establishment of one state, one state on the land of Palestine in which the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians live in peace in a democratic state.

Any other solution would simply not be viable and wouldn't be sustained.
One of the bases on which US imperialism in the Middle East depends is that Muslims are not able to speak for themselves. Assange allowing Nasrallah to answer this question and others himself translated into English may well be a more important and damaging blow to the US Middle East imperial project than all of the previous wikileaks releases.


Arnold Evans said...

We can only wish Barack Obama was as committed to democracy in the Middle East as Hassan Nasrallah.

The United State's professed values have been turned on their head by the US' commitment to Zionism and by the subjugation of hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East who are not Jewish that is required for Zionism to remain viable.

Hassan Nasrallah offers another illustration of this phenomenon.

George Carty said...

How would you address the claim by Israel's supporters that non-Israeli Middle Easterners mostly desire the extermination of the Israeli Jews, but aren't stupid enough to admit to this when they are speaking in English (but openly advocate genocide when they are speaking in Arabic)?

Lidia said...

Regarding the commitment to democracy in the ME. 
Cole just posted a Western author about Bahrain. Both the author and Cole pretends that they are more committed to above mentioned democracy than Obama. Both are typical in their whitewashing of Western imperialism . Note, please, how the article words the role of NATO in Libya and Bahrain

"Throughout the rest of the Arab Spring, Western governments were vocal in their condemnation of state brutality towards protesters. In Libya Nato intervened militarily helping rebels overthrow Muammar Gaddafi."

Several lies. Western imperialists DEFENEDED Tunis and Egypt murders of protesters, and still defend them.  Western imperialists
 HELPED with arms and other means to repress the protesters.To say that NATO "helped" to overthrow Qaddafi is not unlike to say that Hitler helped Russians to overthrow Stalin. "But on Bahrain they remained mute. Cries of hypocrisy and complicity rang out but the likes of Britain and America, which has its Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, stayed silent."

They NOT  "remained mute" or  "stayed silent". They supported both Bahrain and Saudi rulers with diplomacy, arms and PR. Western imperialists are cozy with Gulf royals against their people, and now both   Western imperialists and Gulf royals are "supporting democracy" in Syria, by founding, training and arming their sectarian lackeys and threatening one more armed "liberation". It is possible that some NATO black-ops are already in Syria.

Of course, the very consistent behavior of Western imperialists in the ME, no matter regarding Egypt, Bahrain or Syria is aimed against anti-Zionist forces. To say beforehand what will be reaction of  Western rulers and their academic lackeys (Cole) to any event, one just needs to ask - is it bad to Zionists? If it is, they will be against it. Sure, people like Cole sometimes have to declare  that they are against SOME of the most glaring results of such politics - but only in order to  save Zionism from itself. 

ygalg said...

on what model of democracy Nasrallah focusing on? which country Nasrallah considers democratic deserves to be emulated on that plan of his? Nasrallah is a Shiite muslim serves as a proxy to islamic republic of iran. a reminder; Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi "democracy and Human Rights have no meaning within Islam. Everything must be under the surveillance of the government, even the way people dress. And if some people say otherwise, they don’t know Islam." Nasrallah has some explaining to do over his democratic Shangri-la  

Lidia said...

1) Nasrallah is a leader of his people. All else is a Zionist prop. Yes, he got support from Iran, while some Lebanese got it from Zionists.
2) Hizballah stated publicly that they are not going to have "Islamic state" in Lebanon unless the people want it.
3) Human Rights have no meaning under Western Imperialism and Zionism, see their long and sordid history
4) If one has to stoop to call the worst possible government interference being in "the way people dress", it seems one is OK with USA gov ("democratic") publicly making lawful to hunt and murder, kidnap and torture, jail without trial and end "its own people". Not mentioning other nice things. By the way of wear. It is known that a teen was murdered in cold blood in USA by some vigilant, supported by law (!), because he looked suspicious. The important part of such look was his "hoodie". Talk about gov telling people what to wear (or not to wear)
5) I admit that I do not know too much about Islam. But I do know a lot about Zionist propaganda, and ygalg has some explaining to do over his "democratic" bla-bla-bla

Arnold Evans said...

Thank you for responding Lidia.

If I could add that Egypt's pro US dictatorship both voided elections and unilaterally rewrote the constitution to, as it promised, deny democratic control over foreign policy within the last two months.

The US supported these action and US commentators such as Juan Cole rationalized and defended them.

Hassan Nasrallah is far from as active an opponent of democracy in the Middle East as Barack Obama.

On Israel's behalf the United States is, with its supporters and sympathizers, the single force most hostile to democracy in the Middle East.

ygalg said...

1. Nasrallah is the leader of islamic shia terror organization Hezbollah sponsored by islamic republic of iran.  2. cock and bull. they're already hijacked Lebanon, thrown a legitimate prime minister and placed their own.     
3. which part of "democracy and Human Rights have no meaning within Islam" you failed to understand? 

4. the topic is "Hassan Nasrallah: The only solution is one state where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace in one democratic state" 

resorting to tu quoque fallacy ain't clarifying Nasrallah's democracy in ME

5. obviously you have no clue on both account.  

ygalg said...

Hassan Nasrallah representative of an islamic ideology, shia branch, islam the greatest opponent of democracy, not only in ME, also in the world. 

Arnold Evans said...

1) Tomato, tomahto. Hezbollah's supporters won a higher proportion of votes than Obama
2) Prime ministers can be changed in democracies, by the group that got more votes. Unlike the US which pays 1.5 billion to the dictatorship that voided the legistlative election they lost and prevent democratic control of foreign policy.
3) Nasrallah can speak for himself. As in the OP. You'll have to deal with that
4) You're not dictating the topic. You either talk about whatever Lidia wants to talk about, or I'll just start deleting your posts.
5) Obviously not.

ygalg said...

the topic is made by you "Hassan Nasrallah: The only solution is one state where Muslims, Jews and Christians live in peace in one democratic state" 
I replied accordingly to the topic. I don't have to address off topic. I'm not her bell boy. I'm not dictating, but pointing out. you threatening me with deletion of my posts, you feel insecure suddenly? the majority of people in arab states are for islam. islam and democracy incompatible. that's a fact. deal with it. are you pro islam or pro democracy?      

Arnold Evans said...

I'm for democracy. Whoever the people of any country vote for, they should have as their policy making authorities. Nasrallah agrees with me
You, Barack Obama and Juan Cole believe regardless of votes, Muslims should not make policy in Muslim majority countries
You seem to disagree with Hassan Nasrallah about whether and democracy are compatible. Nasrallah is right, you're an idiot. You certainly cannot speak as authoritatively on Islam in politics as Hassan Nasrallah.

ygalg said...

what ??? you're for democracy and yet advocating islam? resorting to ad hom at me ... go figure. 

I'm no fan of Barack Obama nor of Juan Cole. odd, they actually align to your world views. appeasing the muslim world and anti israeli. that's your flavor.  

Lidia said...

Arnold, be my guest :) 

By the way, have you read how Cole claimed Yemen "elections" were OK? Asked what about single candidate he answered - well, opposition agreed with the results. He was talking not about Bush elections in 2000, but about heavy fighting Yemen.

If I wanted to make it up I would not dare to use such stupidity. But Cole fears nothing on his faithful service as a mouthpiece of USA imperialism. Now he braves even such "Assad apologist" media as BBC and NYT - they still have some vestiges of decency, it seems, by reporting some problems with standard narrative about one more "Syria massacre". Or BBC and NYT just get another sort of instructions than Cole. 
ygalg is just an Islamophobe with anti-Iran tint. A typical Zionist, I suppose. Nothing new.

Lidia said...

ygalg the Islamophobe cannot get that Arnold is NOT "advocating Islam". Arnold is just against Islamophoby as a tool of USA imperialism and Zionism. So do I.

Ygalg the Islamophobe pretends that he (?) is for democracy, while being unable to admit that Hizballah won more votes in Lebanon elections than a Western puppet. Only the sectarian Lebanese system (the French colonial "gift") disguises this simple fact.

Really, yglag is quite boring, as Zionists usually tend to be. Of course, someone who accuses Obama and Cole of being too Muslim-friendly and anti-Israel should be not just a Zionist (Obama and Cole are) but a super "smart" one :)

ygalg said...

Hezbollah lost in elections 2009.  Nasrallah the leader of his people? who are these people? his no President nor PM. 

yet he have great power on all Lebanon despite. with the support of iran and syria of course.     why is Hezbollah (the party of god) has armed forces of it own? Lebanon has its official army. should Lebanon be responsible for Hezbollah actions? why is Hezbollah dictates who should be the PM of Lebanon and not the people? people chose hariri the junior, for their leader.  why have Hezbollah not took responsibly of Hariri the father assassination? which led them to overthrown hariri junior from his sit undemocratically. then placed PM fit their taste.     remind you your own words "I admit that I do not know too much about Islam" how can youdetermine islam-phobia if you have no clue about islam? educate yourself first about islam then make your're pro Hezbollah/Nasrallah/islamic republic of islam the shia branch yet you claim you don't advocating islam. lol. that's exactly what you do. advocating islam. calling me islamphobe, its self defeating. 

ygalg said...

Arnold Evans 
Arnold Evans
if you still mediated about erasing my posts, just to let you know, I've copy and paste our conversation in this link   
interesting that you established a blog to set your detest over israel from israeli domain. ""   

Arnold Evans said...

I think we're done.  I'll be deleting further comments that I think are from you.

Anyone interested can look up the vote totals from all recent Lebanese elections on wikipedia.

George Carty said...

Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi is clearly a totalitarian, but to claim that this
means Islam itself is intrinsically totalitarian is like claiming that
all Germans are Nazis.

I wonder what you think of the Minaret of Freedom Institute.

George Carty said...

I think what ygalg is trying to say is that Islam is not compatible with LIBERALISM (in the classical sense) not that it is not compatible with democracy.

In Western societies liberalism and democracy usually go together, but that would not necessarily be the case in other cultures.

George Carty said...

I think Blogspot now automatically redirects to the reader's country (for example it comes up as for me).  Obviously ygalg is reading this blog in Israel.

Oh, and by copying this conversation to a forum which is part of the site, I guess he's also exposed himself as an extreme Islamophobe...

Lidia said...

Of course ygalg is Islamophobe, and Zionist. I have met enough of them to tell. I suppose his name is Yigal - quite popular in Israel.

Arnold Evans said...

It is a common, almost cliched western practice to say "democracy" when one means Western-style liberalism.

On the one hand there is a degree of deception.  Juan Cole, for example will talk about how he wants to protect the Copts, and that's why somebody, who thinks like him, should prevent Muslims from coming to power.  Yet Mubarak was not particularly protective of the Copts, and neither is Tantawi.  But Cole claims to advocate the value of protection of minority rights as a pretext for effectively retaining Western control over all aspects of Egyptian policy the his country cares about, policy regarding Israel especially and far more than the Copts.

There is also an element of sloppy confusion of two different concepts, but it is a motivated confusion.

This topic deserves more writing.  When I get a chance.

Lidia said...

So-called "liberal democracy" could function, if at all, only in "central" i.e. imperialist states. All examples of such "lb" in other places show they are simple non-viable. They could be sham colonial democracy like in Pakistan, Nigeria or Columbia, or they could try to turn into something more answerable to people's will, like in Venezuela - and in such case they are accused of being "dictators" and are the aim of imperialist attack. One could list Guatemala, Iran (twice), Chili, Haiti (twice) and so on. Lebanon now seems to pass from the first group to second, more or less. 

And, of course, imperialists have no problem with the most gross dictatorships, supporting and even installing them, providing the dictatorships in question are "their" SOBs. When SOBs' shelf life is over, imperialists usually try to prevent emergence of real democracy by fostering colonial "democracy". Egypt is a nice example if one still needs one.

George Carty said...

 Democratic capitalism does not require colonialism in my view (although it is distressing how many states historically claimed to stand for freedom while also engaging in imperialism -- one could cite Classical Athens, Republican Rome, the early Caliphate, the British Empire and the United States).

I would say that it is only possible in industrialized societies (which naturally makes it very hard to achieve in societies formerly under colonial rule).

Capitalism in agricultural societies decays into rule by landlords (ie feudalism), while in mining-dominated societies it decays into kleptocracy.

One big problem with US foreign policy is that CIA traditionally recruits a lot from what other countries would call "the landed aristocracy" and therefore tends to side with landed interest in other countries.  This makes it an inherently anti-democratic force.

Lidia said...

I am not going to explain that there could be non-feudal land-lordism, i.e. a capitalist one. 

But I found your explanation of CIA nature very funny. No, George, CIA are reactionary murderers and torturers and anti-democracy plotters because they are tools of USA imperialism, and could not be anything else no matter what. Of course, your "own" "MI6" guys are not better, just have less power to harm.

George Carty said...

 My use of the word "feudalism" was inaccurate --but it does allude to the fact that agrarian capitalism (due to the dominance of landlords) tends to be a lot more static than industrial capitalism.

Lidia said...

As almost from the very beginning capitalism was not an isolated, but global system. The industrial revolution in the West Europe meant also the  "return" of serfdom in the Eastern Europe, including Russia, not mentioning colonization of other places. Agrarian capitalism  in Latin America is but a subsidiary of USA and Canada capitalism