Lebanon 8
The Washington Post today featured a chat with Amal Saad-Ghorayeb,
Assistant Professor at the Lebanese American University and author of Hizbu’llah: Politics and Religion. I found it very interesting.
This is not to say that I agree with any, some, most, or all of what she says (she is, after all, Lebanese and her viewpoint is that of a Lebanese), but that what she says contributes to an understanding of why the Middle East pot just keeps boiling:
Among other things–many other things–she says, in response to a question,
The chat and her article can help understanding of what’s happening over there.
July 24, 2006 at 6:38 pm
“…refuse an immediate ceasefire.”
Did I miss something? Who offered an immediate ceasefire?
July 24, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Which portion of the interview are you referring to (I’m too beat to go back and read it all)?
July 24, 2006 at 9:09 pm
“I think the US has played a very destructive role in this current conflict. It is the only Western nation to completely side with Israel and to refuse an immediate cease-fire.”
I didn’t know there had been an opportunity to refuse a ceasefire. Who had offered one?
July 24, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Quite by accident, I think I may have answered my own question. Watch the video at http://tinyurl.com/kh7ts.
Oh, and may I add that I admire Helen Thomas’ fairness, objectivity, and utter refusal to insert her own attitudes into the news? The dean of White House correspondents is an example for all.
July 26, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Link.
It may have been an overstatement to say the “only nation.” Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s really a signifcant point–at least that’s not why I linked to this.
Rather, I linked to it to air a Lebanese, as contrasted and compared with an American, point-of-view.
The reports of world events that we see are so often filtered through American eyes that I thought it was valuable to see another viewpoint, one from on the ground where the bombs are landing.
July 26, 2006 at 11:21 pm
“The reports of world events that we see are so often filtered through American eyes that I thought it was valuable to see another viewpoint…”
Oh, definitely. And I read the whole thing. I just got confused when she started talking about refusing a ceasefire, because as far as I know, none has been offered by either side. The link you left shows a bunch of Google results of third parties saying they wish there would be a ceasefire, but that ain’t the same thing.
July 27, 2006 at 6:30 am
Apparently she was referring primarily to the G8 and Europe. Buried in a story in this morning’s Post:
July 27, 2006 at 10:05 pm
OK, the distinction I would draw there is that that whole discussion is simply third parties deciding what pressure if any they are going to bring to bear on the warring parties to stop. Maybe it’s just a semantic difference, but I think of “refusing” a ceasefire as one warring party declining the other’s offer of one.