Something ain't right!

Saying that we did not know that Israel's reaction will be this violent, and if we did we would have not kidnapped the two soldiers, is just too hard to believe. So excuse Mr. Nassrallah but something ain't right!

Let me elaborate, first the same crisis occured in Gaza just a few weeks before ours started, and we all witnessed the large amount of destruction, inflicted on that small strip of land, by Israel after one of its soldiers was abducted. So it was easy to infer what Israel's reaction would be in the case of another kidnapping.

Second, Olmert and Peretz having no military background or experience, their reaction to the kidnapping of another two soldiers was entirely predictable. They needed to act tough to compensate for the lack of experience and reassure Israel's population concerning their security.

Finally, yours truly a common citizen, like thousands others, predicted that the Israel reaction after kidnapping of the two soldiers, would not be limited to the south and would be disastrous to Lebanon. A prediction shared by many Lebanese I met during that beautiful summer day, before the war started.

So after this "divine blunder" it looks like Hezbollah's leadership suffers from a severe short-sightness as it did not anticipate a very obvious Israeli reaction, or maybe something ain't right…


At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:57:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

as if I understood that it's one of the fewest times israel responded heavily?

did israel only respond heavily because the soldiers were captured beyond the blue line??

what about the stucking issues between Lebanon and israel? what abot our "moral" and "ethical" commitment towards our prisonars in the israeli prisons? (not to mention the landmine's maps.

israel has always acted -not "responded" or "reacted"- heavily. And please be aware when u choose the word "responded" especially if we neglected the Lebanese issue and sticked to whAT HAPPENED IN GAZA.

a "reaction" is the answer to another action. do u see what's going in palestine like that??

what about 1993, 1996 in lebanon and practical violations every day to the lebanese sky? Are u saying that our "reaction" to a certain violation in the lebanese sky in a certain beautiful summer day will be justified by UN? you and I know it won't be. It's not about the "reaction" it's about which side of the conflict the UN sees.

please elaborate.

Now are you implying that what happened in gaza and in palestine everyday were "reactions" to what palestinians are "doing"?? Bob, u r neglecting that there had been already a sever confilct and "occupation" going on in Palestinian terretories.

for Gaza, Claiming that the issue is about soldiers is weird especially with the "ethical" and "moral" support we must have towards them (the least we can do).

finally I would like to know ur opinion about the israeli landings IN BAALBECK and the "short sight" of hizballah who did not "react".
and possible "reactions" we cn take to stop the seige since Olmert just neglected what anan declare.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:16:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

hilal, just to add to your argument, the soldier kidnapping actually followed the kidnapping by the IDF of a palestinian doctor and his brother. as far as i'm concerned anything the palestinians do in response to the conditions they live in, the continuous injustice and the illegal occupation is a reaction.

as for Bob's question, we've seen so much evidence to be convinced by now beyond doubt that israel was planning on this attack to get rid of HA anyway (check the seymour hersh article in New Yorker)
knowing that, nasrallah knew that any small operation they do is what will give israel the excuse to start its war on lebanon that was to happen anyway. they probably didn't expect the magnitude of the attack still.

maybe nasrallah chose the time as a relief to the attacks on Gaza, but he also said once that they didn't particularly choose the time because they did many failed operations before.

If you want to think of HA as the only reason that Israel attacked Lebanon, you may think that. but then israel is the only reason HA existed in the first place and still does so back to blaming Israel.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:25:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...


can you explain how anyone can have a "moral" or "ethical" commitment to release Samir Quntar?

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:46:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

if u read right, my comment was directed towards bob. u can browse this site as much as u can day an night.
and following enriqueta's style:

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:08:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...


In other words:

"No, Akiva, I can't provide any such explanation."

Feel free to ignore my comments, if you wish - just don't expect me to stop making them because you wish.

PS - Am I the only one who find it odd that the same people who complain about people like me "only getting their information from Fox News" are the same ones who complain about people like me reading and discussing things on blogs like this?

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:18:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

you have asked this question before to apo and he answered you akiva, that's why hilal doesn't want to keep repeating the same things. just check the previous post kindly.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:39:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

akiva, dear.. about ur PS:
- You have the right to read and comment and i have the right to not answer ur same-repeatedly-on-and-on / same-content comments.
As simple as it is.
- You wanna continue with ur childish comments, be my guest. And as I said previously: keep browsing this site day and night. I really salute u being loyal reader for "lebanese blogger forum".

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:26:00 PM, Blogger Emil , Jerusalem said...

Good evening to everybody ,

There is one point still not mentioned a the comments to this post :

The "divine blunder" wasn't a blunder at all. It was the order from Teheran. Sayeed Hasan Nasralla , although a citizen of Lebanon , is a general of the revolutionary guards of Iran.

And why the speech with sorrow ? He is very clever , and takes into account the quick fall of Ahmadinejad & co. So what becomes with Shii community ? Nasralla isn't the sole leader and without Iranian help he worth nothing. So he "keeps the window opened" to any case.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:38:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...



Please appreciate that Israeli politics are as complex as Lebanese politics and as complex as politics anywhere ... Is Netanyahu a puppet of the US administration? Does the IDF take its orders from the DOD? Does Bush tell Olmert what to do? What are we to say of Israeli military officers who have trained in the US?

Unless you are currently running for office, some sophistication and nuance is in order here ... We are lost if we are not smarter than our bombs ...

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:42:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

mirvat, I've never gotten an answer to it. I've gotten an answer to why Israel should bite the bullet and free him if it would mean peace (which I doubt it would, so so much for that). What I've never gotten an answer to is how anyone can think that freeing a child murderer is an "ethical" or "moral" obligation.

Honestly, if it was Baruch Goldstein rotting in an arab jail (rather than dead) I wouldn't want him back; murderous psychopaths belong in jail, whatever their supposed cause.

If you don't think Quntar belongs in jail for the rest of his life then you are not a moral human being. It's that simple. If the request was to turn him over to a Lebanese jail I could begin to understand it. But to set him free? As a practical matter, from Israel's side, again, maybe it makes sense. But as an ethical matter, from the side of the people making the request? No, none at all.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:58:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:01:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

akiva m, allow me to go into circular logic again. if Palestinian 'authorities' captured that soldier who shot dead a Palestinian girl with 6 or so bullets and got free, I’m sure the Israeli military or government would consider that an invasion of its sovereignty. What’s our business is our business. Legally speaking extradition is the way to go and the Israeli authorities would have to turn kuntar over to Lebanese authorities. That’s only as far as the kuntar business goes. The way I see him and if I’m a moral person or not is beyond what you should be involved with

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:16:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

Hilal (channelling Enriqueta) is right ...

Blessings ...

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger BOB said...

hilal and mirvat,

u did not respond to what i wrote. I am challenging the fact that nassrallah is saying that he did not anticipate the attack. My accusation of short-sightness is about that.

Now if you wanna jump around and discuss the whole Palestinian issue and who started this tradegdy i am sure that we will never finish the discussion, you will go back to 1948, and the tradgedys that followed... History is very interesting but in politics reality is even more.

one more thing when i say that Israel responded to the kidnapping of its soldiers in Palestine, i meant what i said response. There was bombing and attacks before but after the kidnapping the magnitude changed.

Now you speak about the fact that Israel was preparing a major attack, good but that is irrelevant, HA gave it the perfect excuse and no release of prisoners is worth the war that happened, and even nassrallah himself said so.

and speaking about our moral and ethical commitment shouldn't you care a bit more about our prisoners in the Syrian dungeon who number far more than in Israel. Maybe we should wage a war to liberate them what do you think? Although i am sure kidnapping Syrian soldiers would not solve that, knowing how much Assad cares about his soldiers or citizens...


where did you read that?
i would love to know! and bytheway if you want to know the real influence of Iran on HA try reading "in the path of Hezbollah" and next time nassrallah visit Iran (although i really doubt that he will ever come out in public in the next year or even more) and try to watch TV and see how he kisses ali khameni's hands, in an act that portrays total submission... then tell me he doesn't follow his orders. and if you tell me that he only follow him as a religious leader know that to the shiiit sect and state are inseparable


At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:41:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:46:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

blessings ...

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:46:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

- It's nice of u to use we2am's wahhab style. I didn't know that u r a fan of him..
- talking about lebanese prisoners in israel makes us against freeing lebanese prisoners in syria.. wow!
- Comparing a ruined regime to a terrorist state, is very right and creative political view!! :) (by the way we are just demanding the lands after war in 67)
- And yeh did corruption began after the assasinaton of hariri or before, or with the arival of bashar? come on.. give me a break.

- u didn't answer any question..

- yeh bob, it's always pleasure to discuss with u.. if u call ur responce a discussion.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:50:00 PM, Blogger shalom28 said...

mirvat say: What’s our business is our business.

if someone cross the int border,came to my soil,kill a littel girl by smashing her head with a rock in a front of her father face and than shote him to dead-i think its start to be my business.its your business if u make him your hero...

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:57:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

At least the Lebanese have not elected him (in absentia) to the country's highest possible office ...

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:58:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...


Quntar killed Israelis on Israeli soil. Extradition and sovereignty have nothing to do with it. He committed his crime in Israel, he is jailed in Israel. That's the way the world works; you don't get to be jailed in the country of your birth if you commit a crime somewhere else, and arguing otherwise is nonsensical. Calling the prosecution and punishment of a man who admitted to committing murder in Israel "your business" is myopic and has no basis in reality.

As for the Israeli soldier - I have nowhere near enough information on the issue to come to a conclusion one way or the other; if he indeed committed the crime he belongs in jail. And if the palestinians arrested him, gave him a fair trial and convicted him on the evidence, I'd be the first to say he should stay in a palestinian prison. But we both know that's not how the palestinian "justice system" works, don't we.

It's really very simple. All of the "but an Israeli did xyz" in the world can't change the fact that Quntar is an admitted murderer. That his victims included a four year old girl whose skull he deliberately crushed only makes it worse. Whoever else may or may not deserve to be tried for their crimes, Quntar richly deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.

And "how you see him" and whether or not you are a moral person should indeed concern me, because it impacts how I evaluate your arguments. If you are the type of person who believes Quntar should be freed (as it seems you are) then I need pay no attention to arguments you frame in terms of morality, as your definition of the term would be so worthless as to make the argument nonsensical. You would have identified yourself as a person whose views need not be taken seriously, and I would treat you as such.

It goes back to what I said several posts ago about why arab arguments get short shrift from many americans; when we hear people defending child murderers or seeking their freedom or justifying attacks targeting civillians, we immediately cease paying attention to the rest of their arguments. Unfortunately for the arab world, far too many of its interlocutors do exactly that, and thus their voice is not heard.

At Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:59:00 PM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

Damn it, I forgot: blessings ...

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:05:00 AM, Blogger anny said...

shalom and akiva M

you said : " can you explain how anyone can have a "moral" or "ethical" commitment to release Samir Quntar?" ...

hey the same argument applies to sharon, olmert, peretz and etc .... they are equally murdererers. So how about we catch them, put them in prison in Lebanon, but hey we will give them a fair trial .... Would you like that??? Oh no sorry, i forgot that you and your propaganda would go around the world for 1000 years to come claiming we are terrorirst and we have kidnapped some decent human beings or men of peace.

My dear, he's Lebanese so let Lebanon deal with him ,,,as simple as that !!! he's our business not yours!!

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:09:00 AM, Blogger shalom28 said...

no-thay just allow to a lot of armed nuts act against israel civilian from the lebanon soil.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:09:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

apokraphyte, its a simple yes or no question:

Should Quntar be freed?

Forget all of the Israelis who you think should be in jail; whether that's true or false has nothing to do with whether Quntar belongs in jail. The rhetorical tactic is understandable for someone who doesn't want to answer the question, but it isn't actually an answer in and of itself. As an argument, it ranks right up there with "yes, my client killed him, but how can you convict my client when OJ Simpson is free?"

So, please just give me a yes or no answer - does Quntar deserve freedom? And if so, why?

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:23:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...


I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. The fact that Quntar is Lebanese has nothing to do with where he should be jailed. I'm American. If I go to France and murder somebody, I will be tried, convicted, and jailed in France.

As for Sharonm, Olmert & Peretz being murderers, first of all, you need to study some international law. At worst, they would be war criminals, not having murdered or ordered the murder of anyone themselves. But what does that have to do with anything? If they were/are war criminals, they would be tried before the tribunal with jurisdiction (the war crimes tribunal at the Hague) and sentenced accordingly. And, btw, if that happened, and it was a fair trial at the Hague, and they were convicted (based on evidence that I'm currently unaware of) then yes, I'd be happy with them sitting in jail and serving out their sentences.

Because, you see, that's what criminals deserve. Israeli criminals, lebanese criminals, American criminals, Palestinian criminals, Martian criminals, whatever, it makes no difference.

Quntar committed his crime in Israel; he was tried by the court with jurisdiction; he admitted his crime and was sentenced accordingly. Period.

Oh, and btw,

"Oh no sorry, i forgot that you and your propaganda would go around the world for 1000 years to come claiming we are terrorirst and we have kidnapped some decent human beings or men of peace."

I see - you think Israeli soldiers are bad people therefore it was OK for Hezbollah to make an armed attack across an international border and take hostages in violation of international law.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You can think what you want of Israelis, that doesn't give you license to kill or kidnap them. And arguing that it should be OK to do so won't win you any points with anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:24:00 AM, Blogger shalom28 said...

any-the only crime sharon did in lebanon is to ignore the massacre made by lebanon Christians militia to Palestinian civil.olmert and perez action was after an act of war made by the lebanon side.

(of course u forgot to mantion a crime made by the Palestinian aginst leabanes in damur and junya in 82' or assad humanistic action in lebanon-someone may think that israel responsible to all the suffering in lebanon ever happen)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:34:00 AM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:36:00 AM, Blogger Lazarus said...


as to your question: the april 1996 understandings.

- l.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:38:00 AM, Blogger Lazarus said...

the only crime sharon did in lebanon is to ignore the massacre made by lebanon Christians militia to Palestinian civil



At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:47:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

"Now you speak about the fact that Israel was preparing a major attack, good but that is irrelevant", irrelevant to which argument exactly Bob? the fact is that you have a nation to your south that is planning to attack your country. as we speak there's a lot of evidence that olmert is preparing for a second round. so nasrallah was short sighted? is that your question? no, i hope he was. if anything he's far sighted and that's why this war is bigger than us.

"There was bombing and attacks before but after the kidnapping the magnitude changed." you ignored what i said about the fact that the israeli soldier was captured after the 2 palestinians the night before which you couldn't find anywhere in corporate media.

and about the palestinian issue (taking you back to 48) like hilal said, this issue was dropped even since arafat. we did our side of compromising and we're asking for the 67 borders. clearly the lebanese issue cannot be seperated from the palestinian issue.

there's a headline in an israli paper saying: Assad, we're gonna liberate the Golan Heights for once. if you want to go into a discussion about syria, gladly but then we have to reopen all files as lebanese put it and nobody wants that.

E., saying you have to have a full assessment of a person's moral standards before you go into an argument with the person is ridiculous. an argument is not to be evaluated based on the the person's set of morals but based on the person's logical flow. consider it science and not religion. if each lawyer/politician/talk show host/political analyst's argument is to be taken into account only if the his or her's personal moral values are up some undefined standards then we'll all be silent.
for you to isolate kuntar from the historical and the political circumstances is a fruitless approach.
as for HA going and kidnapping the soldiers against international law... hehe.. international law?
first read about the kidnapping of the palestinian doctor and his brother against international law.. then does that same law condemn the israeli occupation of gaza the west bank shabaa farms and the golan heights? condemn israel for war crimes in lebanon... we can go forever. point is when that law applies to one side and not another.. i'll tell you what i think of it.. a peace of paper.. which happens to be what your leaders think of international laws as they maintain the blockade on Lebanon right now and as one of your past leaders (I forget who) tore down a UN resolution at the UN meeting which stated that Zionism is racist and that Israel should reconsider the eruption of a jewish only state.

so yes Akiva, once the world is all in order, we'll all follow the rules. how's that for morality?

and yes... blessings and peace :)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:48:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

and shalom where did you read this? friedman's book?

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:09:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...


It's not a question of "assessing their moral standards" before getting into an argument. It's a question of whether to take that person seriously when they argue based on morality.

You want to have a debate based on facts? I'm all for it. But when you say things like "it is immoral for Israel to do xyz" the question becomes "what does this person mean when she says 'moral' and 'immoral'?" And when you say "palestinians/arabs/lebanese/whatever have the right to do xyz" the question becomes "what do you think 'rights' mean?" And when the answer to what you think "moral" means includes releasing Quntar - well, then your arguments from morality are meaningless to me, because whatever you refer to when you say "moral" or "immoral" it certainly isn't any standard I recognize. It would be like having a conversation about a cat - except when I say "cat" I mean "feline" and when you say "cat" you mean "equine".

Aside from that, it also indicates the extent to which I can take your factual representations at face value; someone who can critique her own side has more credibility than someone who cannot.

That someone would contend that there is some historical perspective that would justify bashing the skull of a four year old girl against a rock, or exculpate the actor, is a profoundly sad statement of the worth of their thought process.

As for the arrest of the Palestinian doctor and his brother, if you could provide information, please do. As to how it would violate international law - as whatever it was it was clearly not "hostage taking" - please explain.

International law actually does not condemn Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights (which, under international law, includes the Shabaa Farms), as Syria is not willing to seriously negotiate peace. (Land for peace, not "Israel out immediately", remember?)

Condemn Israel for war crimes in Lebanon? I have condemned them for the use of cluster bombs, and for general recklessness, which I think is warranted. You, on the other hand, can't bring yourself to condemn anything any "resistance fighter" does to an Israeli - from firing rockets loaded with shrapnel at civillian towns to murdering a four year old girl to shooting a baby with a sniper rife to killing a pregnant woman and her family at short range. It's a pretty stark contrast, I think

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:38:00 AM, Blogger francois said...

just to replace some thoughs about differents things about the initial subject:

from long time now, many analysits were forecasting an israeli intervention in lebanon
last year already such intervention was schedule and postponed by ariel sharon because of the cedar liberation (not revolution as i consider it as a liberation from the syrian occupation) many articles were circulating among which this report by saymour hersh:



3 links of the articles talking about hersch report

lately i was reading an interesting article about the new conception in place, in the US it seems that the executive is not considering democratic or undemocratic countries as a way to see countries. we saw that the democratic elections that lead the hamas reaching the power in palestine wasnt recognised by the US and israel and lead to a chronic conflict in palestine.
there is a new scale btw what are calling in french
les états voyoux, les états forts , les états faibles, etc...
and we know that condoleezza Rice was having these words while talking: "it s time for a new middle east" and i hope some of you saw the map that was circulating about this new middle east (thx to miss levantine again for one of these map she posted on her blog)

the "états voyoux" have to disappear and this process is going on in iraq by being "de fait" dismantled in 3 countries kurd, sunnit and shia
it will as well the turn of iran and of saudia according to some info.
syria wont be dismantled but weakened

considering theses fact, we see that lebanese is a weak country as we already know but also due to the presence of hezbollah inside the governement and inside the institutions, lebanon is considered by israel and the US administration as a état voyoux.

in their opinion should be lebanon destroyed ? should the state being strenghed?
i think we cannot today belong again to any axe present inside the middle east,
not to the iranian axis
and not to the saudi axis
as a matter of risk we ll be facing , the risk to be considered soon or later as allied to the countries that "the new middle east vision" is trying to dismantle
we cannot belong to the US axis for historical reasons as it will be a reason for huge tensions inside our country and would lead us to a sort of civil war as an impact of the fight btw the 3 axis

the choice is today our choice, let s get smart ...

i ll try to develop this subject on libnanews but i guess it would be interesting to open a debate over this vision of the mechanism that might occur and will of course impact lebanon as this country had always been the proxi of the fights of axis in the middle east

now beside that comment, i m wondering why the UN forces need to deploy tornadoes airplanes fighters along with anti airplane systems such as the french SATP, hezbollah doesnt have any fighter of bombers, so theses systems are useless. what are expecting france, germany , UK when they aim to deploy theses fighters, systems in lebanon. against who will be theses systems used ... israel has the largest fighters fleet in the middle east, syria has some but it is negligeable... iran ... we are far from it, so i m asking you why and i would like to hear you wondering as well why


frencheagle - libnanews

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:55:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

that's one link, it's not the only source of course, i can get you the names of the kidnapped brothers and the events if you're interested: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10511

i'm pretty sure if you get the full story on most of the facts you present which is where you get your convictions from, we wouldn't be having these arguments but for that the media is of course to be blamed.
the incidence was even mentioned in haaretz as far as i remember..
the article does respond to your question as well.

back to quntar, you insist that i say that the man should be free when i haven't said that so please refrain from throwing allegations of the sort.

the example is similar to hubaika for example who, as a lebanese, i wanted him to be put to trial for all the murders he committed. i did not agree though to israel assassinating him the night before he was to witness to sharon's crimes in lebanon. again he's our business and we deal with him.

you tend to be very selective in responding to what i put forth in the argument. the international law does condemn the israeli occupation of the 1967 ceased lands does it not? well until this international law is able to bring justice to all parties then again it means nothing to me.

meanwhile you condemning israel's use of cluster bombs and DU is your moral obligation as it is my moral obligation to be opposed to killing in all its forms. yes good.. when i condemn israel for starting a war on lebanon and killing civilians, some israeli commentators came back with.. it's war and shit happens. you give the legitimacy to israel to start wars because it doesn't under the form of a state.. a terror state and a state of aggression and occupation but these things don't seem to matter to the "international community". when these are the rules of the game yes i give a moral equivalence to israel and HA when it comes to the means of the fight (eventhough we both agree now that the means used by Israel are to be condemned), i give HA a superior moral position as freedom fighters though.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:58:00 AM, Blogger ropsucks said...

I do not believe Nasrallah cares very much about the deaths of ordinary Lebanese citizens. Maintaining his stature and solidifying his political and military power are of greater importance.
I also think he did not expect the targeted ferocity of the response from Israel. Nasrallah gets his marching orders from Iran. Why else have they been supplying Hezbollah millions of dollars for arms and military pay. Where are all the compensation dollars coming from? All this money comes with a price. He may have suffered a setback militarily but his stock as the leader fighting the US and Israel has grown tremendously.
The tragedy is that Israel will have to once again go after Nasrallah's military. They will not disarm and will attack Israel when the masters in Iran say so. There will be a lot more civilian casualties on both sides before this terrorist organization is defeated.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:04:00 AM, Blogger Sherif Nashaat said...

For Bob,

May be you will find your answer here:

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:08:00 AM, Blogger Sherif Nashaat said...

For all the pro-israeli commentators, can you please read and think carefully about what Amira Hass is saying here:


At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:50:00 AM, Blogger JoseyWales said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:59:00 AM, Blogger JoseyWales said...

The arguments against Bob's point are Byzantine. The war was predictable and therefore preventable (read the blogs who warned about that, LPJ, Leb Bloggers., Beltway etc).

Whether you like them or not, the facts are as follows:

-Israel has the military power to crush Lebanon and Hezbollah (and Syria and the Palestinians).

-Israel had been warning the last couple of years of "severe pain" for ALL of Lebanon (and Syria).

-HA knew it was playing with fire with each operation, certainly operations INSIDE Israeli territory.

-No respectable army or state can idly tolerate repeated aggressions.

Figure it out. I say it was easily predictable, if not July 12, then the next time.

You guys can go back and argue about Gaza, 1948, Kuntar, and other stuff until you turn blue in the face.

I am sick of these types of arguments which promote (unintentionally??) war and mayhem from the very same people who claim they feel for the dead and injured when wars actually occur.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong since 1948 or the plight of the frigging brothers (yeah, I know, I am insentitive). It's about protecting the asses of our OWN Lebanese citizens, all of them.

To make it even simpler: Israel has/had the big guns and sooner or later was going to use them following a provocation. If you can't figure that out, maybe you should be discussing other issues.

PS So if Nasrallah figured they would only bomb Bint Jbeil or the South for 3 days ("proportionate"??) and killed "only" 50 Lebanese, that would have been OK with Nasrallah's defenders here??

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:06:00 AM, Blogger hillz said...

lol josey,
it's good to be accused of promoting war from someone who has a blogger-picture like u.
and after all u r the very high IQ guy that can classify others blogs and mention there are alot of low quality blogs.(as u mentioned previouslyin ur blog)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:09:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

oh josey you're lebanese!!! i couldn't have figured it out for the life of me!!!
i thought you were american all this time..

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:12:00 AM, Blogger hillz said...

yeh mirvat, I'm not blue at the moment, r u??

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:16:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

no hilal i'm not..
and i'm ready to keep trying to get through till i turn red and blue and it'll be a long time before i would ever allow myself shay bi marje3youn.. here i said it :)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:17:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...


At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:25:00 AM, Blogger hillz said...

3a aseis "shay bi marji3yoon" hiyyeh elistratejiyyeh eddefei3iyyeh ejdeedeh ;)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:30:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

wlak fashar. mahinni law byifhamo.. the typical israeli 'peace process' is well represented in that incident when those lebanese militants showed clear neutrality and were still bombed while the convoy left with all those civilians.

shay murr we msimm

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:41:00 AM, Blogger Ghassan said...

Ms high morals 'akiva',
isn't moral equivalence an outdated judgment to be thrown at people by anyone defending Israel? (anti semitism is back in fashion in case you missed the memo)... if this is want you mean by all the ranting about Quantar..
anyway you have to remember that there are other prisoners as well, and that some are children, and that some were just children when abducted...
and in answer to your need to understand someone's moral standards before accepting what they say... frankly, no one understands the moral value behind the Israeli gov..
back to your post BOB.. the war was premeditated on both sides..
Nassralah is not by any mean mahatma gandhi. but that does not justify by any way shape or form the offense against Lebanon.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:31:00 AM, Blogger jooj said...

bob, what is it exactly you are trying to say here?

so what did Nasrallah gain by doing what he did while knowing ahead the magnitude of Israel's reaction? And don't tell me that he didn't think about it; that he simply followed a decision blindly from Iran.

Do you think he also anticipated HA's popularity would grow after war?

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:40:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

"I asked the Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman’s Office to verify the story for me. It seems the two brothers were hardly model citizens. They were both members of Hamas who planned terror attacks for a living and were caught in the midst of doing just that when special Israeli forces arrested them and took them in for questioning by General Security Service investigators. (The IDF could not confirm or deny that one of them was a doctor.)"


I have no information to say one way or the other, but no news story that I've seen in my quick google search has anything close to a denial that the two were hamas members. If you are a member of Hamas (an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that has the murder of Jews as an item in its charter, and sends suicide bombers into markets and buses and restaurants) Israel has every right to arrest you.

>>back to quntar, you insist that i say that the man should be free when i haven't said that so please refrain from throwing allegations of the sort.

the example is similar to hubaika for example who, as a lebanese, i wanted him to be put to trial for all the murders he committed. i did not agree though to israel assassinating him the night before he was to witness to sharon's crimes in lebanon. again he's our business and we deal with him.<<

The example is nowhere near similar, even granting that Israel killed Hubaika. Quntar is not "Lebanese business"; he killed Israelis, in Israel. That makes him Israel's business.

And I insist on saying nothing of the sort - I was very careful to give caveats such as "apparently" because you have yet to say, straight out, that Quntar deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life. It's not that hard to say, if you believe it, and that you have not done so makes me suspect that you do not believe it.

>>you tend to be very selective in responding to what i put forth in the argument. the international law does condemn the israeli occupation of the 1967 ceased lands does it not? well until this international law is able to bring justice to all parties then again it means nothing to me.<<

If international law means nothing to you then there is nothing to discuss; it is set the way it is because it represents a combination of moral and practical judgments about how best to manage conflict, disincentivize dangerous action, and keep the peace. Israel has no obligation to return the Golan short of peace for the very simple reason that exacting a price against belligerent states - in the form of a loss of land in wars that they began for as long as they remain belligerent - deters further wars by those states. A rule that says that an agressor can be put in no worse position than the one it occupied at the start of a war it began is an invitation to further war.

>>when i condemn israel for starting a war on lebanon and killing civilians, some israeli commentators came back with.. it's war and shit happens.<<

When you condemn Israel for starting a war with Lebanon you miss the point; Israel didn't begin this war, it joined it after being fired upon and attacked by Hezbollah, in its own territory. All the "well they would have done it anyways" in the world, aside from being spurious, can't change that basic fact.

And yes, in war "shit happens". And in fact, international law allows it to happen, within very well defined rules. Because, unfortunately, sometimes not going to war is a worse decision in the long run than going to war (see Chamberlin, Neville).

"you give the legitimacy to israel to start wars because it doesn't under the form of a state.. a terror state and a state of aggression and occupation but these things don't seem to matter to the "international community"."

and if I - or the international community - agreed that Israel was "a terror state" or "a state of aggression", you'd have a point. But the fact is, that is not agreed to, because it is inaccurate.

Let the Palestinians take Ghandi's path of nonviolence, and they'd have a state within a year or two. Continue attempting to get one by murdering as many civillians as possible, and they will never have one. It's really that simple.

"yes i give a moral equivalence to israel and HA when it comes to the means of the fight (eventhough we both agree now that the means used by Israel are to be condemned), i give HA a superior moral position as freedom fighters though."

Fighting for the freedom of Samir Quntar. Yup, that's the moral highground. Certainly much better than the Israelis who are fighting for the freedom to not be attacked by Hezbollah.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:50:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...


As far as I am aware, prior to this war Israel was holding two prisoners - Quntar and Nessim Nesser, who is actually an Israeli Arab jailed for spying for Hezbollah. Hezbollah also claims Israel has one of its fighters named Yehiya Saqaf; Israel says that they do not have him and he died in a firefight. I tend to believe Israel on Saqaf if only because they have nothing to gain by denying it; he isn't, from what I've been able to find out about him, anything more than a regular Hezbollah foot soldier of the type they admitted to having and released in 2004 as part of the Tannenbaum trade.

The "ranting about Quntar" as you call it comes from genuine curiosity and outrage over the idea that anyone could want this guy freed. I still haven't seen a real explanation for it (other than the laughable claim that because he's Lebanese he should be a "lebanese issue" regardless of who or where he killed).

(ps, "akiva" is actually a male name, not female, despite the vowel at the end, which is useful for identifying junk mail and telemarketers)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:59:00 AM, Blogger arch.memory said...

Akiva, I have to say, I am very disappointed by your arguments this time! What's this "Quntar, Quntar, Quntar"? Is that the best you can do? If so, maybe it's time to just fold your cards, Akiva. Of all the murders going on back and forth in our rich history, this pathological obsession with Quntar, repeating again and again your stylized graphic description... It's really worrying. And by the way, do you happen to know another online character called "Tired" who comments on Blogging the Middle East? He has the same pathological obsession with Quntar that you're beginning to display. And I am starting to wonder, Is that the latest strategy of the Zionist cyber defense forces propaganda machine (or whatever "think tank" it goes by these days)? Whenever you feel cornered, yell "Quntar, Quntar, Quntar!" Quntar can rot in hell--I'm sorry, I meant Israel; what do we care? What does this or any other post have to do with him? It's really unbecoming of you, Akiva.

And by the way, yes, of course, International law actually does condemn Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. What sort of a stupid statement is that? Ever heard of Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) which "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"? It seems like you need to brush up a bit on your UN Resolutions Against Israel, so here's a primer:

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:02:00 AM, Blogger apokraphyte said...

blessings ...

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:04:00 AM, Blogger arch.memory said...

Ah, yes, of course, forgetful me... Blessings! ;)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:15:00 AM, Blogger Mirvat said...

and peace and mouahhh ;)

D. very wise decision you made and i'll join you..

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 6:42:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...


No idea who "Tired" is, and no, I'm not a member of any think tanks or propaganda units. Never even signed up for GIYUS, though a friend sent me the link. I am exactly what I've always said I am - an american, a jew, a lawyer and general supporter of Israel, interested in hearing and understanding (if not necessarily agreeing with) the viewpoints of others on issues that interest me. As the war began, I went looking for Lebanese points of view and found this site, and others. And now, sad to say, you're stuck with me; one of the reasons I went into law is that I'm a sucker for a good debate.

As for why the "obsession" with Quntar, well, I've said it before and I'll say it again - he is the declared reason why Hezbollah engaged in their cross-border adventure, his freedom is their goal, and I just can't understand it. It makes no sense to me; I try to turn it around, think to myself "what if it was a jew in an arab prison, how would you feel about it" - and the only answer I come up with is "if I believed he committed the crime, I would be happy to have him stay in that arab prison."

That may be why others keep repeating the details of his crime, which he admitted - because the ghastliness and sheer brutality of the act make it impossible to understand how anyone can condone demands that he be released.

You'll notice that this began in this thread in response to Hilal's statement that there was a "moral obligation" to secure the release of lebanese prisoners. I wanted to know if that included Quntar, because honestly when lebanese talk about "lebanese prisoners" I don't want to assume that they include Quntar; I'd like to believe that they segregate him out, that they recognize that he is exactly where he belongs.

In response to my question of how anyone could have a moral obligation to work for Quntar's release, I got Mirvat's nonsensical "he's our problem" and apokraphyte's "well there are other criminals who are free", neither of which are logical responses and both of which indicate a desire to avoid answering the original question.

Other than you, NOBODY on this thread has said that Quntar deserves to stay in jail; that type of silence strikes the same chord in me that I imagine a similar response from me to your question about cluster bombs would have struck in you.

If it seems like an obsession of mine, it may be because I've allowed it to become a sort of litmus test; the more arabs who acknowledge that Quntar belongs in jail the better I feel about the prospects of eventual peace (even the other side realizes that this simply should not be done - hey, there's some common ground to work from) and the fewer, the worse (if they cannot even agree that the cold-blooded murderer of a 4 year old girl belongs in jail, since the girl was Israeli, how can we ever find any common ground?).

I'll stop now - you either understand where I'm coming from or you don't, more words won't help. Hope this explained it at least a little bit - I'd prefer that you keep your opinion of me high, as my opinion of you is. If not . . . well, c'est la vie; much as I'd prefer your opinion of me stay high I'll not pretend to be something I'm not to keep it that way (I do myself the honor of assuming that it was, at one point at least, high; I'm sure you'll correct me if I presume too much)

As for the Golan, yes, the international community does not recognize it's annexation. But Mirvat wasn't asking about (and I wasn't responding about) annexation; just occupation. And that, the international community has no particular problem with; you'll notice that no resolution other than "land for peace" speaks to it.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:04:00 AM, Blogger apokraphyte said...


kuntar should be freed ...

blessings ...

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:09:00 PM, Blogger BOB said...


i do not know but why every response you have must go personnel. anyways it does not matter it only shows your worth if you can't have a decent discussion...

now you guys are real funny, lot of maturity there, especially that blessing guy, keep it on...

anyways i said before and say it again i am speaking about a very specific point: that i do not believe what nassrallah said about the fact that he did not know the reaction.

All the rest are irrelevant to my point, so discuss all you want i consider that you haven't commented to my post. Quantar, International law, palestain, corruption are all outside the scope of my post, and if you want to discuss them great just state your argument in a new post and let's go.

and thank you for the few people who discuss my post like ghassan, jooj, and josey.

Still always and ever PEACE

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:10:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:13:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

where did i made it personal "always"?
when u assume that we (me and mirvat)are against freeing lebanese prisoners in syrian dungeons, then u have to wait for such a responce. (although i find nothing in it, just used ur style)
I have always sticked to political opinions.
I was asking u polititcal questions.

should i remind u by the "shame on u" comment?
should i remind u by the "immaturity" accusation u made it right now ?
U just ignored this flood of pro-israeli comments and noticed only the "blessing" word.
I really can't understand u.. tell me when was it personal and i'll be glad to delete my comment.
When I discuss with u, I'm discussing with someone I sat with him to a table. Now clearly,we don'tshare the same posts, but that still do not make it personal.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:54:00 PM, Blogger JoseyWales said...

Yes Hilal et al,

Answer my arguments by talking about my pic. Very smart.

That's exactly what I mean by blog quality going down.

For further evidence go check openleb, guys posting two lines of jibberish and a pic or a link to some wacko video somewhere, 5 times a day.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:20:00 PM, Blogger BOB said...


Personal was when u said that my style is similar to we2am's wahhab style and that you didn't know that I am a fan of him. For me this guy represent the worse in our society and comparing me to him is an insult, moreover u went personal on josey.
U see what I meant by going personal is that you attack the person not the idea, who cares if josey is american or not, and who cares about my style. stick to the point u find my argument bad, wrong or distasteful then say so, leave me out of it, discuss the argument not the person, and bytheway I think you mistakenly think that I follow joumblat or I am Druze ( that is what I felt maybe I am wrong)
Let me tell you I am an atheist!

And by the way immature is about the behavior, some people want to make jokes i find that immature while we are having a serious discussion, especially when they keep on repeating them to no avail and not even bothering to contribute anything to the discussion…

If I went personnal then I apologize, but your way of answering with a lot of sarcasm and some ad homonym is annoying.

I used the comparison to our prisoners in Syria not because I accuse u of not wanting to liberate them (read my post carefully I never said that) but because I found the analogy interesting I wanted to see what would your reaction be, however you spoke about what I said but did not give your opinion, you think we should attack Syria to liberate our prisoners? Or kidnap one of their soldiers? There is no accusation in this only a question...
I choose to ignore all the comments that do not relate to the post, as you have noticed u still did not comment on what I posted. You went on to different subjects, and that is why I did not answer.

Again if you want to discuss samir quantar and his right to go out or stay in prison or any other subject i would be happy to but not in this post!!
it is about nassrallah's claim and only that!


At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:29:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Bob, sorry for the derailing that led to this train wreck :(

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:43:00 PM, Blogger Eve said...


if blog quality mish 3ajbetak, mish daroureh tsharrefna bi 7oudourak. albeh 3leik ya3neh. ma3 el salemeh.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:50:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...

first, i don't think u r durzee and neither i am a durzee and i don't care (not that i'm insulting u but i don't seek such information about people).
now mentioning jombla6 in the last post and we2am wahhab here is a coincidence. Just that's jmbla6 is leading the way now (considering that he's giving the most extremist declarations, maybe others are saying them but not in public. That's why I took him as an example.

Second, we2am wahab is dealing with politics whatever ur opinion about him and since he is not in jail a the moment, I can freely use him as an example. simply because when i talked about the lebanese prisoners in israel, u raised the issue of lebanese prisoners in syria. That's what he always do in addition to marwan fares . now ja3ja3 and his allies do it but in reverse. I don't see anything personal here. Should I be informed of your opinion about we2am wahhabs previously?

About josey, I repeat it again. It doesn't seem right to talk about "war mentality while holding a picture of one with weapons . when u put a link or a picture in anything related to ur blog, then u r promoting it. I care less if he is lebanese or american and who was questioning that is mirvat so u can direct this remark to her.

About my sarcasm and jokes, It’s ur right to feel annoyed by them and I have the right to maintain my “style”.
u gotta tell that to all lebanese who make jokes of haifa nad aboo3abed. Un mature people won't have "liberated" the country. Even in the most political tensed demonstrations, jokes and sarcasm towards la7ood and bashar and in reverse were in the front live on tvs.

by the way, my first comment were totally relevant to ur post and I consider it in the scope of it, when I ask questions they give u my point of view of ur post content indirectly. I even didn't limit my self to ur questions and discussed u in ur "expressions". I even asked u about "hizballah short sightness" in the case of repeated israeli violations to the Un resolution after the cease fire. U mentioned Gaza and I discussed u with that. You chose one sentence and considered me returning to history.

As for quntar, u have stated before clearly that he is a criminal, so I guess a discussion won't be of any effect in this point.

For liberating our prisoners with Syria, hizballah was making connections with the Syrian regime to solve this issue in responce to aoun’s demand. Asking to go for a war against Syria is not the solution, cause we will be causing our “unconditional Arabism” a severe injury and that would be a violation to the things we are commited to in the legue for arab nations. Now was Syria violating these conditions agreed on in the lague, surely yes, with the help of many people who are demanding right now “independence and liberty and sovereignty”. U are comparing our problem to Israel to that of Syria. It doesn’t work. And politically it’s “foolish”. (don’t consider this an insult, honestly). Not to mention the sociological relations between Lebanon and Syria.

I guess this clarified the issue.

and by the way, leik ma a7leih akiva m , ya3neh mase3ro kteer fayyada :D

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:54:00 PM, Blogger hillz said...


At Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:46:00 PM, Blogger BOB said...


it seems i misunderstood u, for that you have my apology...

However my core question remain unanswered so let me state again :)
do you consider Nassrallah failure to anticipate the attack short slightness in view of the three points i raised?

I agree that in other areas and subject nassrallah and Hezbollah have proved to be very very astute and predicted Israel reaction very well, but i am speaking about this point.

Now about Quantar I said he was a criminal but the issue is not that simple, so it can handle some discussions. I would be very interested in discussing other issues but I prefer to focus on one point rather than going on tangents and muddling it, for example when u say that " as if I understood that it's one of the fewest times israel responded heavily?did israel only respond heavily because the soldiers were captured beyond the blue line??what about the stucking issues between Lebanon and israel? what about our "moral" and "ethical" commitment towards our prisoners in the israeli prisons? (not to mention the landmine's maps.)"
What does this have to do with the main question? As I said predicting the violent Israel reaction/action call it what you want, was very plain! So when Nassrallah said that he did not except not even for 1% this kind of reaction I find that hard to believe!
That's my whole point! I did not discuss the morality or whether it is right or wrong for Israel to do what it did….


At Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:13:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:12:00 PM, Blogger Eve said...

akiva, too bad your low choice of words made your comment disappear. next time, try to be more civilized, or don't bother commenting anymore. the choice is yours 3ayneh.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:41:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Eve, from someone who I asked for a translation, Hilal said something along the lines of "And Akiva M fornicates with donkeys" - but it was my choice of words that was low? It was me who was being uncivilized?

You have some interesting definitions of the word, then.

Or is it that, like the Israelis with the war, Hilal knew that I would have insulted his mother anyway, so that makes his line ok? "It all started when he hit me back," right?

I'd have no problem with you taking my comment down, if his had come down as well; as it is, its absurd. Of course, it's your blog, your rules, so I can't do much other than say this (which, based on the fact that his comment is still up, I fully expect will be deleted by you as well). But honestly, that's just BS. And you know it, too.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:50:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Or how about I just put it this way, since you apparently have no problem with that:

leik ma a7leih hillal, ya3neh mashe3ro kteer fayyada

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:19:00 PM, Blogger Eve said...


as far as this comment section is concerned, you are the only one who used donkeys and mothers in a sentence..
so go hire another translator, the one you're using is very bad apparently. and hope you'll be wise enough to avoid deleted comments next time.

btw, nice job with copying pasting the arabic sentence. how does it feel to write something you are completely unaware of its meaning :)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:39:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Thanks for the compliment; I take my copy-and-paste studies very seriously. and it was very freeing, if you'd like to know :)

So, if my translator was bad, what does it mean? (odd that it would be a bad translation, since it was given by an arabic speaker, in a public forum with other arabic speakers, with none who corrected him - but please, do let me know what the correct translation is)

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:30:00 PM, Blogger Eve said...


it's true that i'm a translator myself, but sadly enough i dont work for free. 7azzak 3atel ma3na el layleh.

At Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:32:00 PM, Blogger Mirvat said...

akiva m your arabic translator was playing with you apparently :)
i think it's better you drop this because it's getting ridiculous and you're showing a side of your personality that even through all your comments hasn't shined yet!

hilal's comment has nothing to do with your interpretation and i'm honestly shocked at what you came back with.

i'll leave it to hilal to defend himself but i just wanted you to know that your preemptive attack is completely out of place.

At Friday, September 01, 2006 12:48:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Well, if the translation was wrong then what I said was way out of line, and I apologise to Hilal (despite the fact that I get the feeling, from the fact that nobody seems to want to translate it, that it wasn't exactly complimentary in the first place) and to the rest of you.

At Friday, September 01, 2006 1:31:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Well, someone on that other forum finally gave me a different translation, and I feel like a first class a*hole.

Hilal, again, I apologize.

At Friday, September 01, 2006 5:29:00 AM, Blogger hashem said...

Akiva- it's nice to admit to your mistakes.
btw, copying and pasting something you don't understand has a really bad implication on any adult doing it. In other words, it's not something to be proud of ya3ni.
Ask your arabic "open forum" to tell u who used to carry books without knowing what they contain...
in the holy qura'an, it's described as "...ya7melo asfara"
believe me, you don't wanna be one of them.
yalla, ask your good translator this time for the interpretation...and hey....u may need to spend some money buddy....7ott min neftak ya3ni....it seems translators, like everybody else, require money.

At Friday, September 01, 2006 8:12:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

Hashem (odd calling someone that, since in hebrew that would be "Ha-Shaym" or "the name", a euphamism for God) - admitting my mistakes comes easily to me; I'm married. :D

At Friday, September 01, 2006 8:26:00 AM, Blogger Akiva M said...

BTW, Hashem, some quick google research has led me to understand the term as referring to "a donkey carrying books" (i.e. one who can never grasp the meaning of what he has), used specifically in sura 62 to refer to the jews, who are described as having perverted the torah.

As an orthodox jew, I obviously don't agree with the description in Sura 62, but I find the fact that the term is being connected to me (a jew) as a result of the cut and paste job very funny (my sense of humor extends both to odd coincidences and - very much - to laughing at myself, so this is a true hit)

Although, to be fair, I did think I knew what the phrase meant when I cut and pasted it; I'll leave the determination of whether that makes a difference to the placing of the label to people more well versed in the Quran than me (and if you never need an interpretation of a talmudic passage, just shoot me an email - I'm slightly more qualified to do that, and unlike some translators, I don't charge ;)

At Friday, September 01, 2006 4:26:00 PM, Blogger hashem said...

akiva- the qura'an verse didn't just refer to the jews here (though the setting was about some bani Isarel who used to memorize the holy book, but fail to act by it), but rather refers to anybody that says, and for this sake copy and paste, a sentence he/she doesn't understand.
that's exactly what u did, and I was pointing it out.
It seems you need be careful about alot of what you do/say.

At Friday, September 01, 2006 5:27:00 PM, Blogger Akiva M said...


I'd say that's good advice for everybody.


Post a Comment

<< Home