The big news hitting the airwaves over the weekend was Hassan Nasrallah’s interview with a Lebanese news station in which he said he wouldn’t have approved the operation that murdered and kidnapped Israeli soldiers had he known the Israeli response would have been so huge.
In an interview granted to Lebanese news network New TV, Nasrallah said in an almost apologetic tone that “we did not believe, even by one percent, that the captive operation would result in such a wide-scale war, as such a war did not take place in the history of wars. Had we known that the captive operation would result in such a war we would not have carried it out at all.”
Interestingly, the AP quote differs from Ynet’s—substantially.
“We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not,” he said in an interview with Lebanon’s New TV station.
The AP article also continues the world’s habit of ignoring any cease-fire violations by anyone who is not Israel, while also managing to let Nasrallah justify cease-fire violations against Israel. Funny how Kofi Annan can’t manage to raise his voice when Hezbullah sends rockets and gunmen at Israeli forces after the cease-fire was in effect.
“The current Israeli situation, and the available information tells us that we are not heading to another round,” he said.
However, he called any possible attacks on Israeli troops “legitimate” as long as even one Israeli soldier remained in Lebanon.
Lebanese officials have said continuing Israeli overflights violate the 2-week-old cease-fire, and Annan proclaimed an Israeli commando raid one week into the truce a violation. Hezbollah has not retaliated, but Nasrallah said the group would “choose the time and place” to strike back.
“If we have been patient until now, it does not mean we will be patient forever, but we are not obliged to reveal the limits of our patience,” he said.
And, of course, there’s the refusal to disarm Hezbullah:
“There won’t be public displays of weapons in the south , except of in cases of preparations or funerals of martyrs,” stressed Nasrallah.
“This is our policy – to refrain from displaying weapons. If the Lebanese army notices any gunman – it is it’s natural right to expropriate the weapons,” said Nasrallah.
Now, how do we interpret these remarks?
The Israeli government, of course, says this proves that Hezbullah was seriously harmed during the war. Note how Nasrallah isn’t boasting about the “great victory” over the IDF, and has dialed down the threat rhetoric immensely. Of course, my questions are: Is he doing this because of the Lebanese reaction, or is he doing this because his masters in Iran have told him to act less threatening for the moment? Some reports have Iran furious that Hezbullah wasted so much money and materiel in a war now, when apparently they were supposed to wait for approval from Iran. Other reports say that Hezbullah doesn’t so much as sneeze without the Mad Mullahs’ permission.
But here’s a very interesting article in today’s JPost that seems to bolster the argument that Hezbullah screwed up, big-time, by launching thousands of katushas at Israel:
Hizbullah has dismantled 14 outposts on the Israel-Lebanon border near the Shaba Farms, Lebanese security sources said Monday.
Reportedly, the group evacuated the posts using trucks to carry artillery, other weapons and military equipment, while bulldozers blocked access to tunnels and bunkers.
Witnesses said that the vehicles laden with weapons and other military equipment were headed northward.
A French news agency reported that the Lebanese army had deployed troops along the border with Syria and that its soldiers had blocked routes used by weapons smugglers.
This is huge. HUGE. Shaba (or Shebaa) Farms is the territory captured from Syria that Hezbullah is using as its excuse for “occupation”—in other words, to legitimize (in their eyes) attacks on Israel.
Of course, in my eyes, that’s a target-rich environment, but then, the world won’t stand for Israel actually bombing terrorists and their supply lines. But that’s a post for another time.
I can and do find fault with the Fourth Estate and I try to obtain “news” from various sources and filter it to (hopefully) ascertain the truth. The media are not impartial when it comes to Israel-my opinion you understand. :)
Actually I am surprised that this story hasn’t gotten more coverage.
Old news – several sources had Nasrallah telling Lebanon’s government the “if he had known…” story. What has always been underreported is that Nasrallah implicated Lebanon’s PM and President as approving of the operation in advance.
chsw
It always makes me shudder a little bit when I read some ‘journalist’ quoting terrorists like Hamas or Hezbollah saying they shouldn’t have done something. They never say it was wrong to do it, but that the result from it was wrong. The ‘journalists’ never seem to question that. Like the Foxnews people. The Hamas gov’t types always said, “Doing this doesn’t help us.” They never once said, “Doing this is wrong” without adding on the, “because it isn’t helpful.”
They understand that the media is part of their battlespace and they use it fairly well. Of course, that requires a tacit approval and complicity from the media. I can never understand why ‘journalists’ give them that complicity. It seems pretty despicable to me.