« Arab Foreign Ministers conference | Main | Foreign Affairs Iraq Roundtable, Round Two »

July 17, 2006



Did al-Arabiya's website just turn off reader comments to all Israel-related stories?


it is the ultimate irony. I feel for these people the same scorn i feel for the chicken hawk and armchair warriors of the blogosphere on US action in IRaq. Only people who have never lived through war can chant support for Nasrallah so stupidly to be honest. Moubarak is a pig, but what is he expected to do, declare war? As for us lebanese, we have to deal with the destruction of our country again, sparked by an ideologue loyal to outside interests. Everyone despises Israel and their actions, but it somehow hurts more, when Nasrallah a totalitarian ideologue drags a country into conflict it will lose with total disregard of democratic and constitutional processes, and is lauded by so called democrats. Nasrallah is as much an agent of syria and iran as Mubarak is of the US, and just as democratic

Abu Sinan

Tariq al Homayed, someone my family knows personally. Of course he is going to follow Saudi line, he was appointed to that position by a Saudi prince. Ah, Wasta, and the benefits of coming from a known family!

Maybe next time he comes to the USA again he can bring the wife and kids, let them stay at the Ritz, again, and do another big shopping trip here in DC. All compliments of Asharq al Awsat.

You have got to love that wasta.


Hmmm...I'm intrigued by the "Lebanese Resistance" bit. If you follow the evolution of its branding, Hizballah's militia has gone from being the "Islamic Resistance" to simply "the Resistance" and, more recently, the "National Resistance" (particularly last year, even if many people didn't buy this). It seems to relate to two basic motives: (a) the desire of others to share in the "glory" when the Resistance is doing well, and (b) the desire of Hizballah to maintain the relevance and alleged necessity of their armed wing, as defenders not of particularistic sectarian interests but of The National Interest.

What I find interesting is that Al Jazeera has called it the Lebanese Resistance. This suggests a certain reluctance or ambiguity to me. In the past, the station has used "The Resistance" in some of its reports (I can't lay claim to being a comprehensive enough viewer to estimate how broadly), particularly in coverage around the anniversary of the 25 May 2000 Israeli withdrawal from the South. By specifically delineating now that the Resistance is Lebanese (as opposed to either some kind of pan-Arab/Muslim Resistance or a narrower sectarian force), is AJ reflecting an ambiguity about their current actions, reflecting some of the regional divergences of opinion? Or could it be an assertion of the local character of the Resistance to counter the Syrian/Iranian trope in Western reporting? What's your view, Marc, as a more regular viewer?

I guess it could also be that they want to be clear when they're reporting on a two-front conflict. But that's a less interesting possibility.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad