Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech full of slander, distrust and distortion was a speech that was more fitting for Ceasar not a Sayyed! He sought to avoid sectarianism but ended up being caught right in the center of it.
Nasrallah stated that Sunnis had made mistakes, conjuring up Camp David, i.e., Anwar Sadat, without reminding us of the Syrian President’s handshake with the Israelis or expressing his opinion about the calm that surrounds the issue of the occupied Golan Heights. Yet when he attempted to say that the Shia have also made mistakes, he failed to cite a single example! He evaded elaborating on the issue of Iraqi Shia, saying only that he was against the occupation while we are aware that the American population is also against the occupation. He avoided commenting on Abdulaziz al Hakim’s demand to the ‘occupying’ US troops to remain in Iraq, a demand made by most wise people whom Nasrallah regards as traitors. He did not express his opinion about the declared Syrian demand to return to the negotiation table with Israel. This is an example of sectarianism that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah tried to avoid.
Sayyed Hassan made every effort to portray Fouad Siniora as a traitor and because of the international support that he receives, accused him of preventing arms from reaching his fighters during his war with Israel; however he failed to cite any proof. The Lebanese army denied such a claim. It is Siniora who battled internationally for the sake of the seven points [of Resolution 1701] and caused the resolution to be issued under Chapter 6 rather than Chapter 7, which caused Hezbollah to say that it won a war that ruined Lebanon yet failed to destroy a one-million-dollar building in Israel.
How easy it is for us to make accusations! In the Arab culture of extremism, particularly regarding ideology, if you disagree with me, you are a traitor and if you become my ally, you must be an obedient subordinate! Therefore, Sayyed is jeopardizing Siniora’s life and wasting the blood of al Hariri, since the power in the hands of his allies means the loss of a tribunal for Hariri and other assassinated figures, with whom Sayyed is not concerned.
Nasrallah even states that some of the March 14 coalition demanded that Washington pressure Israel into striking Hezbollah and destroying its weapons. He failed to name names, using the worn-out method of implying accusations, that is, “Do not compel me to expose what is concealed!” The question is: since the “Sayyed” is aware and has been blessed with ‘divine victory’, why did he not avoid the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers and retract the pretext to attack him?
Didn’t Sayyed state clearly at the end of the war that he would not have kidnapped the soldiers if he had known the consequences?
Nasrallah, who mocked Arab monarchs and presidents and demanded that they should not demonstrate support for one party at the expense of another in Lebanon, failed to tell us about those who equip his party with weapons, namely, Iran and Syria? What about the funds he admittedly receives from Iran, or that which he calls Tehran’s ‘noble’ money?
Sayyed sought to conceal sectarianism by calling on the opposition to take part in the Friday prayer led by the pro-Syria Sunni Sheikh, Fathi Yakan. His request was made to the Shia, saying that it is a prayer of unity and a matter related to jurisprudence, that is to say, not open to discussion. Well, what about the supporters of Aoun and Frangieh? Will they also pray, inaugurating an era of that which buys the street through prayer? Sayyed sought to appear tolerant after doling out accusations and manipulating the public’s emotions. As the saying goes, “If it wasn’t for shyness, I would have said you are stupid.” The fact is that he said it!
After Nasrallah’s and Farouk al Shara’s statements following The Baker Report, it is evident that arrogance has taken over them, convincing them that victory is theirs to keep and the Arab world is their stage. It is at this point that we ask ourselves; with friends like Syria, Iran and Hezbollah, who needs enemies?