It is not very common for Hassan Nasrallah to retract something he said. He's a bit like the pope in that matter, infallible and generally unapologetic. So I was pleasantly surprised yesterday when, during a speech marking the 9th anniversary of the liberation of the once Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon, Nasrallah reiterated what he sees as the positive outcomes of May 7, but added, "that is why I called it a glorious day, while I accept that it was a painful day and a sad day."
So it's not a complete retraction, nor is it an apology, but it is far more conciliatory than what he had said a few days ago, and it's as much of a retraction as we can expect from Nasrallah at a time like this.
This leads me to two questions. The first is: What was he thinking when he said it the first time and why did he not foresee the obvious negative reactions (even from those who normally support him) to his speech ten days ago?
The second question is: Is Nasrallah reading my blog?
UPDATE: Just to clarify things, after a brief discussion with Ameen: when I said "negative reactions" I was not qualifying the reactions as being negative or unjustified in and of themselves, but rather that they were (understandably) negative towards Nasrallah's original statements, which themselves, as I said in my previous post, were pretty unjustified in my opinion. Hope that clears things up, and thanks to Ameen for pointing out my subtle yet significant linguistic error.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As much as I would like to answer your second question with a "yes"... You know.
As for the first one, I think a possible explanation is this: Al-Mustakbal decided to announce their list for the Beirut 2nd District parliamentary elections on May 7. Yes, they chose the date to carefully to remind people of that day (call it cheap, call it genius, call it whatever you wish. This is Lebanese campaigning 101). We all know how there is no love lost between the two. He reacted in the most predictable way a Lebanese opposing politician would normally do. No shock there.
The shock is, however, how non-sectarian fans of Nasrallah would go the length to find any excuse for him so as to never portray him as just another Lebanese politician while evidence to the contrary is piling up.
Oh... And one more thing. you shouldn't call it a retraction. Not even a semi one. A retraction is the state where you take back something, disavow it.
Sabra and Shatila is a glorious day. So is the Chouf massacres. Not to forget also our crazy General's "liberation war", another glorious day. Very sad and painful days, but look at the positive outcome. They showed people the positives of peace and paved the door for years of stability. Come on Nasrallah, give me a bloody break! SHEESH.
You know, you can't just pick and choose my opinions and comment on them as though they are isolated from the rest (well of course you CAN but it's not cool). Where were you 10 days ago when I was up in arms about what Nasrallah said, when I unequivocally disagreed with him to the point of suggesting he almost vindicated the same M14 statements that made me side with him in the first place.
Instead you take my reluctant acceptance of his "change of heart" (to avoid the term "retraction", semi- or not) as a basis for forming your judgement, completely disregarding the context in which it was made.
It seems to me that Nasrallah isn't the only person who behaves more like a true Lebanese politician than he thinks...
Also, the Sabra and Chatilla analogy? Really???
Post a Comment