Do not ask about the man, but ask about his friends, for every person is influenced by his friends. (Adiyy ibn Zayd al-Ibadi)
It’s a difficult time for the faithful people who still believe in the idea of “resistance” in Lebanon.
It does not matter which “resistance” we are talking about, because every Lebanese citizen, through the past few decades, has resisted one of many realities and believed in a cause that he/she considered worthy of taking up arms to defend. The desire to ensure victory of the cause of their resistance went by as civil society and its “institutions” were destroyed.
There was no problem in shedding blood, including innocent people’s blood, as cheap price to pay to realize big dreams and divine slogans.
The Lebanese people have long been silent over conspicuous brutalities that include killing others based on their religious identity. They were silent over car bombs and buildings blown up with people inside, not to forget forced displacement of people.
“Self-defense” has long been the reason to justify their silence. The Lebanese became accustomed to what has been termed as “consensual security” between its fragile state institutions trying to remain alive, and forces of the “fait accompli” which were benefiting from helpful regional and international conditions.
Since the outbreak of the Lebanese war in 1975, the Syrian regime was a key player in Lebanon’s internal affairs as well as the region’s. There are others who say that the manipulation of Damascus in Lebanon’s affairs began several years before the war. The central beliefs of Damascus rulers at that time considered “the Lebanese case” as an abnormality resulting from the “partition reality” that the “Sykes – Picot” agreement had created and left as a legacy. Damascus rulers, who were then very devoted to “Arabism” before becoming “persianized” (Persian) lately, believed that the said agreement tore the unity of the “one Arab nation with an eternal mission”.
In 1979, the Khomeini revolution in Iran was a crucial event in the history of the Middle East, and it instigated structural repercussions across the region. On the Arab level, the idea of “exporting the revolution” was the backbone of the Tehran’s Khomeinist project. The slogan of the project - or its legitimate cover – was the “Liberation of Palestine.”
Here we must draw the attention to two important facts:
The first fact is that Tehran’s ambition for regional domination did not begin with Khomeini’s revolution. Since Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for a long time strived to become the dominant force in the Gulf region which he considered as “Persian” - exactly as it is regarded by Khomeinists today. He went as far as to claim publicly the possession of Bahrain, which he considered as part of his empire, just as Iran occupied - during the Khomeini revolution - the islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. There is no need to go further in the history and discuss what happened to Arabistan.
The second fact is that the “Palestinian Liberation” issue and the armed resistance to liberate Palestine have remained part of the Arab political discourse from 1948 until today. Indeed, there was a Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation as there was a national Lebanese resistance against the Israeli occupation until 2000. But in both cases, the “two resistances” were exposed to plots calling for a new “resistance,” not to liberate Palestine, but to fit certain players’ own agenda and interests. In Lebanon, many Lebanese factions have contributed in resisting the occupation before accepting the disarmament as a prelude to building the state, but one faction has been adamant that it must keeps its arms. It turns out now, that the purpose of keeping arms after the liberation of southern Lebanon – an occasion officially celebrated by the Lebanese every year - is to prevent the emergence of the (Lebanese) state.
So to sum up, we have two facts: Iran’s regional ambitions, and the work to dwarf civil states in the region and prevent their emergence under the pretext that is to liberate Palestine. In such cases, Israel is supposed to writhe in fear so it starts to root out any regime that can be an existential threat to it, but what was the result so far?
First, in an explicit and via a strange arrangement Iraq’s dictatorial, despotic, nepotism-run Ba’thist regime was toppled. Iraq was invaded by the U.S. only to be delivered to Iran!
Second, the Golan, the supposed frontline between the Israeli occupation forces and the rejection, reluctance and resistance community has been silent since 1973. Moreover the rebels in Tehran have refrained from attacking “the Zionist entity” even though one of Tehran generals informed us, a few months ago, that Iran is now able to crush Israel in just 11 days.
Third, Lebanon’s Hezbollah has continued to dominate Lebanon, starting by imposing “governments” by the power of its arms, and by enforcing the implementation of election laws that suits its party interests. Hezbollah has worked to obstruct other fractions of the country, in the same time, it has attempted to enhance its ascendancy by purchasing lands and expand in various regions in Lebanon.
Fourth: After Tehran’s and its two followers, Hezbollah and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, applauded “Arab spring”, they all turned against it and chose to wage an open war when Syrians rebelled against the dictatorial, despotic and nepotism-ru, Ba’thist Syrian regime.
The Syrian Ba’thist regime is yet another copy of that of Saddam Hussein’s. But in Iraq’s case, Tehran in a tacit deal agreed with “Great Satan” America and the “Israeli Lobby” in Washington, was happy to see Iraq invaded and then handed to it on a silver plate.
Let us get back to Lebanon, the weakest entity, yet the most transparent in the region. Clear and dangerous plots are becoming clear in Lebanon today. After the alliance of Hezbollah with Michel Aoun, who volunteered a few years ago to go to Washington to work against the “resistance” and Syria, armed with American pro-Israel supporters - and who was once considered by Hezbollah as an “Israeli phenomenon” –, Hezbollah chose to ignore the Lebanese judiciary condemnation of one of the most prominent Aounist advisors who contacted Israeli intelligence. Hezbollah has even emboldened and strengthened Aoun’s postion. It has also sought enhance his standing within the Christian community in Lebanon.
Yesterday, without interfering with issues that the Lebanese courts are handling, one must say that many dangerous issues were revealed when deputy and former minister Michel Samaha, who is a close aide of President Bashar al-Assad and subsequently of Hezbollah and by extension of Aoun, was arrested and accused of security-related crimes.
His lawyer is the son of Major General Jamil al-Sayed who is among the most prominent figures in what was known as “the Syrian- Lebanese security system.”
According to Samaha’s initial “confessions” the person who assigned him with the bombing mission was General Ali al-Mamlouk, the head of the Bureau of National Security in Syria.
Samaha has previously warned about “al-Qaeda” plans to carry out bombings in Lebanon, but it was attributed to him saying during his interrogation that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was personally behind the task assigned to him.
Once again, the essential decision about the Samaha’s innocence or conviction remains in the hands of the judiciary, and the suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, an observer can -- from a pure political standpoint – must link the charges against the deputy and former minister with his political relations and interests with the forces that adopt oppression, murder, and displacement as its “language” to communicate with others.
Today, many consider Michel Samaha “guilty by association”, because he is close to people who deal with politics in terms of explosions and disorder.
They do not even hesitate in destroying the social unity of the entire region... Samaha is part of the fascist authoritarian plan that rejects dialogue, and rejects civil society.