Perhaps I am asking the impossible when I urge Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah not to err, as no human is infallible. However, I allow myself to urge him to at least try, because the last thing he and we want, is for Lebanon to be dragged into disaster on account of wrong decisions based on incorrect information. The speech given by the leader of the resistance – and I shall suffice myself with what I wrote about that yesterday – coincided with an online maelstrom that revolved around an old video in which Nasrallah is heard calling for an Islamic (Shiite?) state in Lebanon on the basis of vileyet-e-faqih [clerical rule], and another video in which Nasrallah stressed that Iran's current culture is Arab and Muslim, not Persian. The first video has upset the Lebanese and all Sunni Arabs, who are an absolute majority amongst us, while the second video has upset the Iranians. Persian tendencies are strong and deep among these, and it seems that Nasrallah is not aware that the Iranian Foreign Ministry in Tehran is surrounded by statues of the kings of Persia and Persian symbols, and not those of Islamic conquests. I will not suggest to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah what to do. He knows more than we all do. But I will suggest to him what not to do. If he reduced the number of speeches and statements, he would no doubt reduce the likelihood of making mistakes, which would in turn deny the enemies of Hezbollah the opportunity to creep through to attack Syria and Iran. Here, I have an anecdote that may lighten up the subject a little. The American president Calvin Coolidge was famous for not saying much, so much so that he would attend banquets that would last for hours and still say almost nothing. He once responded to those who criticized his silence by saying: I have never apologized for something I did not say. And when he died, the American satirical writer Dorothy Parker made her now famous comment, “How do they know?” Going back to the subject at hand, while I was writing about Nasrallah's speech yesterday, I read an editorial in the New York Times entitled “Stand by Lebanon”. The editorial began by saying that tensions have risen dangerously in Lebanon, while Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are putting pressure on Prime Minister Saad Hariri to reject the international the investigation into the assassination of his father, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. Mentioning Syria and Iran with Hezbollah is no innocent matter, nor is the talk that followed next in the editorial about how this conduct violates the resolutions of the UN Security Council that uphold Lebanon's sovereignty and call on Syria to restrict arms flows (which the editorial claims has increased as though it has been monitoring it). I do not recall that the New York Times, in recent years, has ever written on the UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Israel and its crimes against the Palestinians, Lebanese and other peoples, although the resolutions against Israel are more numerous than the rest of international condemnation resolutions combined, and despite the American veto which prevented many other resolutions from being passed. The editorial also mentions that the Obama administration has offered strong rhetorical support to the Lebanese government, but that there is a chance now to provide more tangible support, after Representatives Howard Berman and Nita Lowey lifted the reservations they placed last August on 100 million dollars in military aid to Lebanon. Again, the newspaper fails to mention that the two Representatives are Likudniks who support Israel and represent it in the Congress. Nor does the newspaper mention that the 100 million dollars is “change” or “nickels and dimes” if compared to what the U.S. gives to Israel each year, encouraging the latter to continue murder and destruction, and its occupation and theft of Palestinian homes. The editorial says that the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have provided 670 million dollars in military aid to Lebanon. But compare this figure to the thirty billion dollars given to Israel in the past ten years (eight under Bush and two under Obama), and another thirty billion dollars in economic aid and tax-exempt donations. Then aid to Israel will no doubt increase with the Republicans now controlling the House of Representatives. I read for instance that Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is of Florida, will chair the Foreign Affairs Committee (She represents Israel in the Congress and is hostile to all Arab and Islamic interests.) The editorial concludes with a paragraph that reads like this: A stable Lebanon, with a government that can stand up to outside intimidation and a national army in control of all its territory, is clearly not what Hezbollah wants. It (i.e. a stable Lebanon) is in the clear interest of the United States. But the editorial is in fact talking about the interest of Israel. I am on Hezbollah's side against Israel whether it is mistaken or not, and all I will say in conclusion is that Hezbollah can become more effective in fighting Israel when it reassures the Lebanese enough to gain their support. Hezbollah will not triumph against Israel if half of the Lebanese oppose it. I feel that I have delved into platitudes, so I shall stop here. [email protected]
