The words of Nasrollah and the immoral reactions

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Since the resistance has started its struggle amid the Lebanese political surrender to the fate of occupation, and in best conditions the recognition of the inability to confront this fate away from sticking to the international relationships which do not benefit, the political team which distanced itself from its choice is questioning of its Lebanese, till some of them dared to talk about the need for a project to make Hezbollah a Lebanese movement which was at the forefront of the resistance movement since the nineties in the last century. This skeptical speech has showed the resistance for many years since Madrid Conference for Peace and the Syrian-Israeli negotiations which lasted until the liberation of the south in 2000 as a pressure paper to improve the Syrian conditions of negotiation with Israel. But no one has bothered himself after the liberation to say a word of truth that the Lebanese south has been liberated due to this resistance which was supported by Syria, while the Syrian Golan is still occupied. The last round of negotiations was held in Geneva between the late Predesign Hafez Al-Assad and the former US President Bill Clinton in April 2000, which means a month before the Israeli withdrawal from the Southern of Lebanon. When Clinton presented a proposal to the President Al-Assad to link Golan and the southern of Lebanon with coordinated Israeli withdrawal  from the south and the start of the withdrawal negotiations from Golan till the international borders, and linking the conflict before Lahai International Criminal Court about what is remaining of the borders of the year 67 as what has happened in Taba with Egypt with the American pledge to deploy Russian-American international control troops in the disputed area, but Syria in the person of its late President has refused the proposal and insisted on imposing the victory of the resistance away from any negotiation, as the President Bashar Al-Assad did in the war of July in 2006 when he presented everything to the resistance and decided to enter the war, but he put the timing at the disposal of the leader of the resistance Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah, thus the resistance can only reap the fruits of victory of new period as long as it is able to withstand and to fight.

In the relation with Syria the resistance was any ally, but the south has been liberated while Golan has remained, and in the relation with Iran, the resistance has been charged with its Lebanese aspect as an Iranian tool and linking its struggle and its sacrifices as mere a plea to improve the negotiating conditions of Iran in its nuclear file. The wars of the resistance have led to clear victories twice, although the Iranian nuclear file was not resolved yet. As well as the position of the resistance towards the presidency of the Republic and supporting the nomination of the General Michael Aoun has been also exposed to such distortion, and although those who attacked it in the past now adopt its option, but none of them said that the Iranian nuclear program has ended but the position of the resistance towards the nomination of the General Aoun was stable and has not been presented as a negotiating paper on table.

When the Lebanese people made the highest sacrifice for the sake of their country and provide the most precious, and then the people of their country ask them about their identity and call into question of their Lebanese belonging, then it is not mere injustice but an insult and claim that those who failed to fight the occupation have no right to confront those who fought it whatever their pleas and reasons were. If according to the collective public principle of the people of one country was based on avoiding discussing the patriotism  of the other as an affiliation and concern of the interest of their country at the table of the political engagement, then the fall of this principle has enabled those who fought and liberated their country from the occupation to put  the patriotism  of those who did not fight in the balance not the opposite, especially because those who did not fight have allowed the non-Lebanese presence in Lebanon,  some of them have lived the era of the coordination with the Palestinian presence which half of the Lebanese has found it strange and fought it at that basis, and half of them were comfortable with the Israeli presence, but both of them do not have the right to talk about the Syrian presence and the claim of the sovereign championships because they were either affiliated to parties which summoned them in the climax of the rounds of the civil war before they turned against them by the force of the Israeli intervention, or they belonged to movements and worked under the banner of leaderships in which they made use of their political and economic revenues in the years before Taef Agreement.

The occasion of this speech is what is said by leaders, politicians, and personalities against the words of Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah about the danger of Israeli war threatening the Israelis of opening the borders and the airspaces to thousands and hundreds of thousands of fighters. It is known to everyone who listened to the words of Al Sayyed that the issue is presented in two contexts; first, the assumption of deterring the enemy of the war. Second, the state of war. It was surprising that all the objecting comments were free from any reference to these two contexts. But the one who concerns about the sovereignty does not ignore the danger of Israeli war even if he excludes it, so it is enough that the speech of Al Sayyed is related to its occurrence even it is one of the possibilities, so he must take into consideration what the Israeli will feel, will he feel happy and be relieved or will he fear the unity of the Lebanese and the cohesion of their front. What is required is not the acceptance of the words of Al Sayyed but reactions that take into account this moral and patriotic consideration, despite that some of them talk in the name of the country and the people which rarely he represents contrary to Al Sayyed. Why did not we hear anyone who said that in case of war we do not need for non-Lebanese volunteers? to tell the Israelis publically that you will face coherent Lebanese unity that supports the army and the resistance and you will see the people wearing the military suits and fighting among the ranks of is army and resistance, so in the presence of hundreds of thousands of those we are not in need for volunteers.

It is regrettable that in Lebanon we feel that every disagreement in the political opinion or considerations of the foreign alliances got uncontrolled reactions, the moral and the patriotic considerations are violated while assaulting noble personalities, through accusing of their patriotism.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,