Nasrallah's Latest Speech. From the standpoint of Hizbullah’s political interest, this is by far the best speech by Nasrallah since this war started. The first radio speech was strong, and it contained that powerful reference to the hitting of the ship in the sea, but this one was more comprehensive, and his demeanor was stronger. The second one with the bad video quality was the worst and the setting permitted Saudi propagandist in Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat to compare Nasrallah to Dhawahiri. But when Nasrallah started to speak today, it led to a confusion in Israeli military and intelligence circles. When they saw him, they were most perplexed. Here they had Hasan Dib Nasrallah, the grocer from Ba`albak who was kidnapped in a “daring Israeli commando raid” according to CNN, and then Hasan Nasrallah was on TV. They broke into Hasan Dib Nasrallah’s cell: and asked him how he could be in two places. They asked the Israeli Orientalist, and they consulted the Arab Mind. They could not understand. But that was that. So anyway. Why is this speech strong? And we are measuring from the political perspective of Nasrallah. People often say that Nasrallah is a great speaker and orator. I think that he is a most effective speaker but as an orator: he is not at the same level of Nasser or George Habash, I think. `Arafat was a lousy speaker but a good screamer when he wanted to. Nasrallah also has his style: he surprisingly (even for secular speakers let alone dogmatic clerics) does not speak in jargon, and he smiles and use colloquial Arabic when necessary. I once asked him why clerics in the Middle East avoid smiling or laughing altogether. Nasrallah’s speaking style is that of somebody who understands the power of the media, and he speaks with a clear eye on the sociology of the audience. He in fact tailors different parts of the speech to different segments of his audience. Today, he again did not read form a prepared text, as in the last address. But he had an outline, and some sentences were read. He prepares for the speeches, and that is also not common in Arab political oratory. If you read Nasser’s speeches, they were not very well-prepared, and they had plenty of jargon. And people have become quite sick of jargon. I mean, if you read speeches of Arab leaders, they are not readable. But the late torturing King of Morocco (Hasan II), was in my opinion a fine orator, with excellent command of the Arabic language. (One of the worst speakers is Ayman Adh-Dhawhiri—who leads five or six people if that; in fact, in some medical journals, his speeches are prescribed as sleeping tools). Hasan II would mix references from the Qur’an with references to Lenin (while Islamists and Leninists were being tortured during his speech of course). Nasrallah’s style is different. He is most careful and controlled, even when his speeches contained fiery elements. He clearly is very clever in PR or propaganda; after his speech, AlJazeera interviewed a reporter from Yediot Ahronot and he was screaming that Nasrallah is engaging in psychological operatons—as if it is illegal or unacceptable in war, and as if the Israeli war state is “above that”. Nasrallah came across as firm and strong but not fierce as he can come across in some his rally speeches; in the last speech he came across as somber or sad; some people even wondered about the status of his only son, Jawad, who is fighting Israeli occupiers. What was the strength of the speech: its strength was in his ability to use sarcasm, irony, and ridicule to mock and undermine the silly propaganda of the Israeli military. I mean, do you blame him if he used the example of the fiasco of Ba`albak and the kidnapping of a Lebanese grocer by the name of Hasan Dib Nasrallah? And he was right in considering him a hostage—a hostage just like any other innocent hostage. He also reminded Arabs how people at Arab airports are often harassed because of similarity of names. And this was a smart attempt to say that Israel can be as incompetent as stupid as the despised Arab regimes. Nasrallah was also correct, and wise, in saying that Hizbullah did not have people in the hospital in Ba`albak because Hizbullah operates on the assumption that Israel would violate, and it has since the inception of the state, all rules of war, and even the rules of peace I add. Nasrallah in this address talked with the full knowledge that he has Arab/Muslim opinion on his side, and that showed when he spoke with contempt toward Arab rulers, who want to please the US and Israel. He even told them that they must feel insecure about their rule. (Some Arab leader are even secret admirers of Nasrallah—they would not dare say that in public of course. Nasrallah once told me about one Arab leader who flew to Damascus once and sent him a message that he will wait indefinitely until he meets with him. Nasrallah refused.) In the last speech Nasrallah put a defense of the Syrian and Iranian regimes, and this time he thankfully did not. How could anybody, ANYBODY, put a defense of the lousy and cowardly Syrian regime ruled by a family that is willing to sell Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, AND Syria to stay in power? And Iran? Iran has not even announced any aid plan for Lebanon. And Nasrallah needs to show a measure of independence from Iran at this point. And I am of the opinion, as was the Economist last week, that Iranian influence or control over Hizbullah is exaggerated. I argue that Hizbullah is today more able to dictate its Lebanese agenda than ever because 1) Syrian influence wanted after its withdrawal from Lebanon; 2) Iranian and Syrian influence over Hizbullah decreases during times of clashes or war with Israel. This is not to say that Iran does not still weild influence over Hizbullah. I thought that Nasrallah also wanted to illustrate the weakness of Israeli propaganda, and that was not difficult for anybody like him who follows the Israeli press. He mentioned how Hizbullah’s adherence to the brief truce—violated by Israel—led commentators and officials in Israel to assume that Hizbullah lost its ability to fire missiles into Israel, only to be surprised the very next day. He also made it clear that he is still in charge, still mastering the details of the battle plan, and certainly of the media campaign. This is a strength and weakness of Hizbullah: they rely too much on the role and leadership of Nasrallah (not Dib Nasrallah). And Nasrallah was effective in mocking those in Lebanon who have bored the Lebanese people since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri with talk about American support for Lebanon, and for its independence and sovereignty. Spare us, please. On CNN and other US media they talked about Nasrallah’s threats to bomb Tel Aviv, while in reality he was referring to a threat by an Israeli military commander who threatened to bomb Beirut, and he made a counter-threat in the speech. But then again: why would it surprise me if US media change and distort to service Israeli propaganda? And do you notice how many Arabic translators on US media speak English with a Hebrew accent? I once a few years ago was on MSNBC (during my naïve days when I spoke to such media) and before my segment, I noticed that their Arabic translator was doing a lousy job. So I mentioned that on the air, and the anchor was quite unhappy, and said that he was fine. I said that he should then enjoy the translator. (It got so bad afterwards, and after I mocked the anchor person who now works for Fox News, I was abruptly cut off the air). And there is something to be said about a leader of an Islamic fundamentalist organization. i.e. Nasrallah, addressing the Israeli public—no matter what he had to say. Only a few years back, even secularist leaders in the Arab would not address the Israeli public for fear of being accused of accepting the legitimacy of the “Zionist entity”). I did not like his reference to Shimon Peres as “senile” (kharif), but I also did not like at all his reference to Bin Jubayl, Marun Ar-Ras, and `Aytarun as muthallath ar-Rujulah (triangle of manhood), but then again I am a PC radical feminist. Do you have a problem with that? At the end of the speech, he referred to the Lebanese people as “the great people”—and that is a clear salute to his ally Michel `Awn who used to refer to the “great people of Lebanon” in his speeches from bygone era. As many of you know, I have an aversion to any reference, direct or indirect, to Lebanese nationalism. But this speech will also succeed the most in putting the rivals and enemies of Nasrallah (the Hariri crowd) on the defensive. He was clear at the end in the expression of opposition to the Israelization or Americanization of Lebanon, politically speaking. It clear that the people of Lebanon, especially those who are sympathetic to or supporter of Nasrallah, need morale boosts, and the personality cult of Nasrallah has been so boosted by this war that only he can do the job. He wisely did not talk about “victory.” I don’t like references to victory no matter what happens next. We can’t speak about victory with the deaths, injuries, and devastation from this savage Israeli war. And I am also nervous about victory because I witnessed the Arab defeat, yes defeat, in 1973 be turned by Arab official propaganda into a victory. May we be spared official Arab victories.