Middle-east Arab News Opinion | Asharq Al-awsat

What is this oversimplification, Sayyed? | ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English Archive 2005 -2017
Select Page

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah claimed that if it were not for the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza, Palestinians would have fought one another. He also said that Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers was motivated by divine intervention, given that Israel was planning to attack Lebanon, thereby thwarting its plan!

What is this oversimplification, Sayyed?

Reality tells us that the Palestinians did not reach a consensus, that Fatah is not Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas is not Ismail Haniyeh, and that Palestine has not taken a single step forward. Reality tells us that after Khaled Meshaal was issuing statements from Damascus instead of Haniyeh, Nasrallah has become the spokesperson for the Palestinian cause!

What are the pretexts for Israel to attack Lebanon, as Nasrallah claims, after he revealed divine inspiration prompted him to kidnap the two soldiers and sabotage Israel’s plans? It is clear to us that this divine inspiration appears an extension of the halo of light and political dreams!

Unfortunately, because political awareness is absent from our region, since we always see the irrational speak of logic, the actions of Nasrallah and those who support him make those who use the languages of rationality and logic seem as if they are defending Israel’s aggression and its crimes. Let us do without logic and abandon the government and our fate in the hands of groups and militias!

Nasrallah’s latest speech should not obscure the fact that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza and the two soldiers in a Hezbollah operation took place whilst we awaited the results of the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and were following Iran’s nuclear file, on its route to being referred to the Security Council.

We were also keeping an eye on the beginnings of the new Iraqi government, under the premiership of Nouri al Maliki, as it follows the initiative for national reconciliation, especially as al Maliki inaugurated his foreign travels with a visit to Riyadh and not Tehran.

What we need to be aware of is that Nasrallah’s latest speech came after the Lebanese rejected Condoleezza Rice’s demands, including Israel requiring more time before a ceasefire is announced. Nasrallah complied and issued threats that make a ceasefire even less unlikely than before. This means prolonging the suffering of Lebanon and its people. His last statement also marked a coup on Lebanon, all its sects and its government, as he confiscated Lebanon’s decision-making and indicated that he sees himself as a leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has pledged considerable financial aid and a huge deposit, the aim of which is to safeguard Lebanon’s economy and guarantee it does not collapse, as well as to launch the mechanism of re-construction, even before the war has ended.

This is what Nasrallah did not mention and what we should remember, as we examine his propaganda aimed at Arab public opinion. I do not know when the overdue question will finally be posed: Lebanon is liberated; whose war is this then?