Hizbullah's support
for Syria's Assad has led to scathing Arab criticism of its leader, who,
once Assad falls, will have to flee Lebanon to save his own life.
An organization that calls itself "Arab Intellectuals United", headed by a Palestinian Arab named Amar el Azam, has published a news release
that calls for Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah to remove his forces
from Syria immediately – and in particular, to get rid of the 1500
Hizbullah fighters that Azam claims are guarding President Bashar Assad.
The following is a translation of the release (brackets by the writer):
"We,
who believed in you and supported you in the July 2006 war [against
Israel, M.K.], are totally disgusted and repelled by you, now that you
are entangled in the partnership to spill Syrian blood. Your shameful
ethnic Shiite loyalty has overcome your counterfeit Arab character. In
the past, we fantasized that the Lebanese Shiites are historically,
culturally, nationally and religiously the closest to their Sunni Arab
brothers, but the turban on your head was manufactured in Kom [the
ayatollah's city in Iran, M.K.] and explains why you are a pawn of the
Iranians in spilling Syrian blood.
"Your part in
eliminating many Lebanese politicians and intellectuals [such as Rafiq
Hariri, M.K.] and the part that you are playing in putting down the
Syrian rebellion, are harbingers of the end of your leadership, and you
should be brought to judgment as a person who committed war crimes
against the Arab people and humanity. We promise to open Shiite
religious centers where thousands will mourn you after you have been
eliminated along with your gang of mercenaries.
We call upon you to save the vestiges of profaned Arab honor, before your traitorous artillery [Hizbullah arms that were meant only for fighting Zionists, M.K.] will be thrown soundlessly into the nearest dump."
Criticism
of the Hizbullah is not limited to this intellectual organization, and
includes most of the organizations and spokesman in the Arab world,
including Shiites- and not just Shiites – in Lebanon. The Lebanese
Shiites have always criticized the accord between the Arab Hizbullah and
the Iranians, an agreement that was directed against Sunni Arabs and
Christians, but their criticism was pushed aside in the aftermath of the
so-called "victory" of 2006.
The Second Lebanon War in
2006 caused the death of 1300 Lebanese, most of them Hizbullah fighters,
and the destruction of infrastructure and dwellings; a half million
refugees fled Southern Lebanon. Despite all that, the Hizbullah
propaganda machine succeeded in convincing the Lebanese that the defeat
was a victory. After all, Nasrallah survived, refused to return the
two Israeli soldiers he had kidnapped, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser
Hy"d, and refused stubbornly to agree to give up Hizbullah weapons,
claiming that they were for fighting the Zionist enemy and freeing
captured lands.
HIzbullah became the most admired
organization in the Arab world, because it succeeded where all the Arab
armies failed, and Nasrallah became a hero of the Arab peoples because
he stuck unwaveringly to his goal. The Arab world ignored the fact that
Hizbullah is a Shiite organization, while the overwhelming majority of
Arabs are Sunni, and that the Hizbullah is actually an extension of
Iran, a Moslem but non-Arab nation. Arab admiration for Nasrallah in 2006 was sky high.
Even
though UNIFIL forces were strengthened, as was their field of
operations, by UN Resolution 1701, the Syria-Lebanon border continued to
be wide open to the passage of rockets, arms and weapons that flowed
unhindered from Iran through Syria and on to Lebanon. HIzbullah was
rehabilitated and strengthened in a coordinated Syrian-Iran operation
and owes its existence to both of those countries. If not for Hafez and
Bashar Assad and the Iranian Imams Khamenei and Khomeini, the Shiite's
in Lebanon, along with their aging militia Amal, would have remained
neglected and insignificant.
Hizbullah spokesmen
expressed total support for the Syrian regime from the start of the
anti-Bashar demonstrations in 2011, for their hearts are with the
Damascus regime and not with the mostly Sunni crowds trying to overturn
it. The first reports that Hizbullah fighters, mostly sharpshooters, had
reached Syria to help suppress the still non-violent protests were in
June 2011.
All through 2012, there were constant reports of particularly cruel "Lebanese" fighters alongside Assad's army, of secret
burials of Lebanese dead near the Syrian border, and of the clampdown
that Hizbullah maintained over their families to prevent any external
signs of mourning – and of Lebanese prisoners in the hands of the Syrian
rebels. HIzbullah generally ignored the rumors and when it did refer to
them, it was to deny them.
The Arab media, however, did
not remain silent and maintained continuous coverage of Hizbullah
involvement in Syria, especially after it became known several weeks ago
that the Free Syria army is negotiating the release of tens of
Hizbullah fighters it had taken prisoner.
The Arab world
discovered that the hero of 2006, Hizbullah, had become a murderer of
Arabs, an eliminator of Muslims, an enemy of Sunnis. Hizbullah
detractors, mainly in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, ridiculed the
organization spokesmen's claim that its weapons are for fighting Israel
and that its only mission is against the Zionists. "How many Zionists
are in Damascus? And in Homs?" they asked.
Nasrallah has
no choice but to support Assad today because of the many years he
received support from Assad and because his Iranian patron
wholeheartedly supports the Assad regime.
In a discussion this week on BBC radio,
the Hizbullah spokesman said that if there are Hizbullah fighters in
Syria, they are only there to defend Lebanon's borders from "terrorists"
that threaten Lebanese citizens.
In response, the Free
Syria Army representative threatened that after their forces eliminate
Assad and his henchmen, 23 million Syrians will settle accounts with the
Hizbullah gang and eliminate Hassan Nasrallah – even if he continues to
hide like a mouse in his bunker in the southern suburb of Beirut,
Dahyeh, a Shiite stronghold.
This threat and Assad's
precarious situation have made Nasrallah appear to be someone who bet on
the wrong horse, because when Assad falls, Nasrallah will be persona
non grata and have to flee Lebanon to avoid assassination.
Without
doubt, when the bloody regime of Assad falls, the status of Hizbullah
will be severely shaken – and in one fell swoop the Syrian and Lebanese
tentacle of the Iranian octopus will be cut off.
This
may result in feuding within the Iranian regime over whose fault the
decision to bet on Assad was, and why he was allowed to be defeated.
This dispute might even affect the unity of the Ayatollah's control and
hasten its end.
An important question is how the Iranian
will react to the approaching double defeat of Assad and Hizbullah.
Will they accept it as heavenly ordained and inevitable or will they act
decisively against Assad's opponents? Iran could conceivably send large
military forces - armored divisions, for example - to Syria via Iraq.
Iran, may we inform those in the White House, is now in almost complete control of what happens in Iraq.
The
passage of Iranian forces will be at the official and legal invitation
of the Iraqi and Syrian governments and therefore pose no problem for
Iran.
Will Turkey intervene by attacking the Iranian
forces flowing into Syria via Iraq? Will the US or NATO act? What will
Israel do to prevent the presence of Iranian forces opposite the Golan
Heights? And how will the world react to Iranian forces entering Syria
if Iran announces that it has a nuclear bomb?
Another
dilemma that the world, and Israel in particular, must address is the
situation in Jordan. Iraq, which borders Jordan on the east, has become,
ever since NATO forces left the country a year ago, an 'honorary
member' of the Iranian coalition. An Iranian army in Iraq with that
government's permission, could easily go on to Jordan, not only to
Syria, and threaten Saudi Arabia as well as Israel.
The
possibility – even the remote one – that this could occur, must make
Israel resist any thought of giving up the Jordan Valley, as that is the
only area where Israel could stop a foreign force, Iranian or Iraqi,
that might attempt to attack Israel from the east. A significant
fighting force that succeeds in crossing the Jordan Valley from east to
west may bring the next war to the streets of Tel Aviv.
Translated from the Hebrew newspaper Makor Rishon, posted with the author's permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment