The moment in which there is no longer any meaning to the calls made to the “master of the resistance” and its party in Lebanon to reconsider their positions vis-à-vis this or that event or phenomenon is coming fast. This is in parallel to a growing belief that Hezbollah has chosen to stand in the trench of those hostile toward the interests and aspirations of the Arab people. For around two decades, many Lebanese tried to urge Hezbollah either to support the unionist movement and the demands, or to make an effort to fight corruption. Not too long ago, the party was also asked to adopt a clear position toward racist opinions voiced against the Palestinian people and their rights, as well as toward blunt statements instigating sectarianism and denominationalism and delivered by its ally Michel Aoun during the Nahr al-Bared battle and the controversy surrounding the international tribunal and the government premiership. The party ignored all those calls under different pretexts, including its preoccupation with the resistance against the Israeli occupation, and its wish not to “soil” itself in the mud of the Lebanese domestic arena. However, the party did not heed the fact that this domestic arena is important and valuable to it, except following the withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005. Since then, its only preoccupation became the domestic game, in which it used pressures, intimidation and violence especially following the July 2006 war. Some are still pleading with Hezbollah to support this or that effort, over which no two sane people should disagree. Often times, the party abstains from responding, while its secretary general only surfaces at the dangerous turns, in order - for example - to refute the Wikileaks documents which shook the foundations of the alliance controlling the Shiite community. As for the Syrian regime's attacks against its people and the circulated news regarding the killing of no less than one thousand people in less than two months, they are secondary issues that do not deserve to be tackled by the secretary general. For their part, the party's media outlets do not hesitate to offer services to the Syrian apparatuses through the promotion of their theories and badly-fabricated news reports. What the party's officials used to relate in their private sessions regarding Syria's harassments, and especially the kind that was revealed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in the Nabatiyeh speech on the eve of the 1996 elections regarding the arrest and torturing of resistance fighters to pressure the party, no longer exists. It has even become legitimate to wonder about the meaning of a resistance that is wanted by the party to be the sole concern in the lives of the Lebanese, at a time when it is not hesitating to weave alliances with the regimes of oppression and tyranny in the region and only mobilizing its media and political machines when oppression affects the members of a specific faction whose fate is of interest to the party, just as it has done in Bahrain. Sayyed Nasrallah and his party might have missed a simple observation which is that the outcome of which they are promising the Lebanese, is standing before their eyes in Iran and Syria, and that a state in which the party controls the areas of culture, society and economy, will not be any different than the Syrian and Iranian states. In other words, those who are asking us to defend the Syrian regime today, want us to sit back and watch our sons kiss the boots of the security officers, just like that teenager who was arrested by the security forces in Daraa after he wrote slogans on his town's walls. They want our mothers' dentures to be stepped on like those of the mothers of Baniyas after they fall from their mouths under the beating of the defenders of the “den of Arabism,” or to endure that armed man's loving “squashing” of the population of the village of Bayda. We do not want such a future and the resistance must choose.
