For decades, Nasrallah has been the ruler in Lebanon. He orders and he is obeyed. He decides war and peace. No regime deters him. No state stops him. If he wants to implicate his country, no one dares to oppose him. If Iran pushes him, he carries out its tactics. He did not take into account whether this would serve Lebanon or harm it. He adopts Iran’s terrorism and punishes the Lebanese economically, politically, and socially. He engages as a party in the Syrian crisis and the whole country suffers.
Thus, Nasrallah, the supreme leader, continued not only by relying on a more powerful weapon than that of the State, but by terrorizing all his opponents. No one could raise his voice, or declare his opposition. Aren’t his opponents, who were punished by assassinations committed by his party, present in everyone’s memory?
With regards to sovereign issues, the party behaves in isolation from the State as usual, and then the response is staggering and beyond Lebanon’s capacity. Of course, Hezbollah and its agents do not care about any disastrous consequences. What is important for them is to achieve their goal even if it turns into an all-out war.
This time, following the skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah, the party, and mainly Nasrallah, were surprised that the equation had changed for the first time, and that “terrorizing the adversaries” was slowly waning. The Lebanese awareness - as that of the Arabs - on the lie of the “Islamic Resistance”, differed significantly from what it was after the party’s adventure in 2006.
Lebanese voices were raised in the face of those who abducted their country. Here is Samir Geagea, calling from the first moment not to “lose the compass”, and asking the government to “discuss the issue of the presence of a strategic military and security decision outside the State.”
Fouad Siniora, for his part, noted that when Hezbollah says that it is up to the party to respond to any Israeli violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, “it looks as if it was responsible for Lebanon in the complete absence of the Lebanese State.”
Sami Gemayel warned that the party would become the State, “and our country, a state within the State, and not vice-versa.”
“What we are witnessing today is an insult to the Lebanese people,” he said.
It is true that these voices emerged while others preferred to remain silent, but remember that such comments were, until recently, described as treason. Populism prevailed, while rationality was absent. Raising the voice in the face of “Hezbollah’s weapons” means that the actions of the party are now being scrutinized and rejected by Lebanese components.
Even while recognizing that everyone is against Israeli strikes on any part of Lebanon, not just on Hezbollah’s areas of influence, the country’s interest has always proven that no component should ever act on behalf of the Lebanese State, or drag it into uncalculated “adventures”, as that in 2006.
It is no longer possible for the decision of war and peace to remain in the hands of Hezbollah, which exploits it as dictated by Tehran’s regional strategy, while the Lebanese government remains in the recipient position without assuming any of its responsibilities.
Do these skirmishes and absurd battles serve the interests of the Lebanese people or those of the party alone?
Lebanon’s public voice, which has been silent due to the party’s terrorizing strategy, is now resounding. Lebanon is no longer smaller than Hezbollah. Lebanon deserves to become again a sovereign state. A State that has the sole authority to protect its citizens and all their interests.
Lebanon does not deserve to be burdened by a revolution, from which the Lebanese have reaped nothing but destruction and devastation.
