Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the terrorist group Hezbollah, attacked a Lebanese “television broadcaster,” blaming it for the incident that transpired in the Al-Kahaleh after a Hezbollah arms truck overturned there, leading to an armed skirmish between Kahaleh residents and those guarding the truck.
“If it weren’t for this famously malicious broadcasters’ actions, what happened wouldn’t have occurred,” he said. He then said that it “bears primary responsibility for the bloodshed, threats, and the potential future repercussions that the entire country could face.” Continuing his tirade against MTV, he adds that “It is not merely a question of conveying news and expressing a viewpoint. In any case, the judiciary must address this matter. This is incitement to assault, incitement to murder; however, we will nonetheless wait for the judiciary’s verdict.”
Well then, look at how farcical the situation has become in Lebanon and other parts of the region. We now have Nasrallah lecturing the media and the judiciary, a man whose party - under his leadership - was the first pioneer of what I call “news laundering.”
Nasrallah gives these lectures as his party distorts the concept of “resistance,” opening the floodgates of drug smuggling in the region, with the party’s operations stretching as far as South America. Most recently, we saw Saudi Arabia announce that it had thwarted an attempt to smuggle over two million Captagon pills hidden in “baklava” boxes.
Of course, everyone knows where the “baklava” comes from and who its allies are; these matters do not need to be explained further. Indeed, Hezbollah has gone as far as exploiting food exports; it is not just trying to manipulate the public.
The irony reaches new heights, as Nasrallah’s speech doesn’t end here. In his disingenuous attack on the Lebanese broadcaster MTV, he calls on the judiciary to “address this issue.” The question here is: what judiciary is Nasrallah talking about?
Is he referring to the judiciary that his party assaults day and night or the judiciary they are fighting as it investigates the Beirut port blast? Or is he discussing the judiciary that Nasrallah refused to cooperate with on any of the many assassinations against Lebanese politicians, journalists, and intellectuals, most notably refusing to hand in the assassins of the late Rafic Hariri?
It is a ridiculously ironic state of affairs that leaves us confused as to whether we should laugh or cry. This is a man who negates the very concept of statehoods, tore the country’s social fabric apart, compromised both its domestic and external security, got knee-deep into the Syrian conflict, exploited Lebanon to Iran’s benefit, and now he wants to lecture us on the media and the judiciary!
And so, dear reader, this is not a piece written in a rage. It is written in lamentation of what has befallen Lebanon (and what befalls any nation) when the concept of statehood is obliterated by the hegemony of militias. This is the outcome of armed sectarianism triumphing over patriotism and civic governance... This is the tragedy of Lebanon and the countries in the region that have met the same devastating fate. No sane person would accept wasting time, money, and effort to assist nations that are destroying themselves in this manner, especially in a region brimming with hollow slogans one is well-acquainted with. Repeating tried and tested approaches that have failed is not logical, especially in dealing with the likes of Nasrallah.
