22
August 2006
Questions for Mr. Hassan Nasrallah
For
the last few years, specifically since the events of September 2001, Israel has
been saying over and over again that the Jewish state is facing the same threat
of terrorism that took New York and Washington by surprise. The Western world
did not give much credit to those claims, and only a small minority in the US
took seriously the idea that Israel was under attack from the same enemy that
has targeted America. That being said, the recent actions of Hamas and Hezbollah
have actually given credit to the Israeli claims. Around the world, many have
started to embrace the Israeli perspective, particularly after the moderate
Arab front’s condemnation of the foolish and reckless operations that have
caused the current tragedy in Lebanon and the heavy damages to its basic
structure.
At
this point, the Israeli war on fundamentalist and extremist Islam has
effectively blended with the global war on terrorism, since the axis of radical
Islam that spans from Iran to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, in
addition to other vicious factions, have all made it clear that they do not
acknowledge the existence of the Israeli state, and consider its complete
eradication to be a hoped-for and ultimate victory. The bravado and pompous
assertions of Ahmadinejad in the past few months, as well as Hamas’ charter and
Hassan Nasrallah’s speeches reveal, without the shadow of a doubt, the vision
and brash plans that this axis harbors vis-à-vis Israel and the eradication of
the Israeli state.
Iran
has specifically jumped at the chance provided by the aggressive discourse and
the vociferous threats to Israel’s existence to infiltrate and divide the Arab
street, and rally it behind the Iranian nuclear project, paving the way for a
Persian supremacy over the region. Iranian supremacy can only take place at the
Arabs’ expense, or in other words, at the cost of dividing the Arab world on a
sectarian basis. The Iranian supremacy project is not, in fact, aimed at
Israel, but rather at the Arab world, and at its Gulf axis in particular.
Mr.
Joschka Fischer, the former German minister of foreign affairs, does not
believe that what is currently taking place in Lebanon is a war launched by the
Arabs against Israel, but rather: “a proxy war engineered by Hezbollah’s
backers in Damascus and Tehran.” According to Fischer, Israel has been attacked
“by a radical front which refuses any reconciliation with Israel and that
consists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the Palestinian side, and Hezbollah in
Lebanon, Syria and Iran.”
Shimon
Peres’ comment about the current war being a life or death battle for Israel is
understandable in this context. The radical Islamic front has made its
intentions clear; they deny Israel the right to exist, and whether they actually
have the power to carry out their plans to eradicate Israel, or whether those
plans are merely empty threats and a show of false bravado, is of no
consequence; the fact remains that they have taken a public and loud stance
against Israel’s existence.
Hence,
the present war was launched by Islamic terrorism against Israel, and any
support given by Arab or Lebanese powers to Hezbollah will be indisputably
considered as an endorsement of global terrorism. The fact that Hizbollah
belongs to the Shi’ite sect – as opposed to the Sunni sect – is not at all
relevant in this case. I was greatly disturbed by the anti-Shi’ite sentiments
and the discrediting Islamic edict (fatwa) against Shi’ite brothers. The axis
of terrorism includes both Shi’ite and Sunnis, and by the same token, the
moderate and silent masses include both Shi’ite and Sunnis.
Sectarian
attitudes and prejudice go against the secular and liberal philosophy that I
personally adopt, and in no way have they influenced my view of Hezbollah. My
judgment is based on the fact that Hezbollah is an armed militia, which has
committed grievous errors against Lebanon, and if it remains on this path it
poses a real threat to the Lebanese state. However, I completely reject the
offensive fatwa that attack Hezbollah merely because it is a shi’ite
organization; I have previously spoken in defense of the persecuted Shi’ite
minorities in some countries that are predominantly Sunni, and I will continue
to speak in their defense.
Israel
has the power to keep Hezbollah at bay, so, in its current condition Hezbollah
does not pose a threat to Israel but rather an inside threat to Lebanon. The capture of the two Israeli soldiers was a
message from Hezbollah to Lebanon, and in the meantime a message that Teheran
was sending to the international community.
The
world has taken a unified stance against Hezbollah because it represents the
evil face of the global Islamic project, or the “terrorism component” of this project.
The international community has echoed the Israeli demands, and for the first
time, the Israeli demands with regards to Hezbollah coincide with the demands
of the Lebanese majority and a number of Arab states.
The
international council for the Cedars revolution issued a heated statement on
July 30th, 2006, censuring Hezbollah’s actions and holding it accountable for
the Qana carnage, since its rocket bases are situated in the vicinity of
orphanages and civilian dwellings, in blatant disregard for human lives. The
council called for the intervention of an international committee to
investigate the current situation and to ?? Mr. Hassan Nasrallah. The statement
described Hezbollah as a terrorist organization that has brought about the
destruction of Lebanon.
The
statement can be found on their website: http://cedarsrevolution.org
The
end of the Syrian occupation in 2005 spelled the beginning of a different era
in Lebanon. The Israeli occupation
already ended in 2000, and for the first time in years, the country that has
been used as a pawn for decades regained total sovereignty over its own
territories. The joy was short lived, however, as Hezbollah jeopardized the
independence that the Lebanese people have been yearning for by pledging
Lebanese lands to non-Lebanese powers.
Hezbollah
is using an active network of journalists and media outlets to display the
image of a champion who has successfully taken on a deadly challenge, and they
sell this image to the Lebanese and Arab streets, for reasons related to the
internal power play in Lebanon. The threatening and violent tone used by the
party members and allies has already caused many hearts to shake in fear in
Lebanon, and this is how fascists operate; to submit to this blackmail will
spell the end of Lebanon because fascist ambitions know no bounds, as history
tells us.
Hezbollah
tried to circumvent the conditions set by Lebanese prime minister Fouad
Siniora, at first voting in favor of the settlement, and then reneging on that
approval – on many fronts - by rejecting the proposed international force which
is the central component of the settlement proposal, and a chief requirement of
the international community. Furthermore, sheikhs of Hezbollah have issued
fatwas urging people to fight against the international force if it sets foot
in Lebanon.
Deceit
and political maneuvers are the last thing needed right now, and there are many
questions that require honest and straightforward answers from the party and
its leaders:
1. Do you admit the mistake you made when you
crossed the blue line and captured the Israeli soldiers, and do you take
responsibility for the disastrous repercussions of those actions on Lebanon?
2. Does Hezbollah accept to completely surrender
its weapons, submit to the political judgment of the Lebanese state, apply
democratic terms and bow down to the decision of the political majority?
3. What kind of reaction would Hezbollah have if
the following scenario comes to pass: the issue of the Shab’a farms, the area
disputed between Israel and Lebanon, is duly resolved, an exchange of prisoners
takes place, and Israel maintains a proper respect for the sovereignty of
Lebanon. Would Hezbollah close that bloody page with Israel, and put an end to
the ongoing conflict? Or does Hezbollah have other objectives in mind?
4. Does Hezbollah agree to Al-Taif agreement, and
accept the implementation of the remaining clauses, or does it seek a new
agreement that reflects the demographic changes and the actual play of power?
5. Is Hezbollah willing to let the Lebanese
regime exercise full authority over the South not just in terms of army
deployment, but as regards issues such as crime control, security, employment,
etc.?
6. Does it agree that Lebanon should take a
self-directed course of action, and set its own path separately from other Arab
paths, just as Egypt and Jordan have previously done?
7. What are the terms for the ceasefire that
Hezbollah has been calling for? Which terms are acceptable and which are not?
8. Mr. Hassan Nasrallah has publicly announced,
more than once, that they are set to liberate Jerusalem once the Shab’aa farms
is free, so will it be possible for Hezbollah to let go of the “liberating
Jerusalem” theme, and restrict its speeches and its focus strictly on Lebanon?
9. The majority of Lebanese hold Syria
responsible for ruining Lebanon and for the assassination of patriotic leaders;
they also want an international court to investigate Rafiq Al-Hariri’s
assassination; would Hezbollah consent to that?
10. Why hasn’t Hezbollah put pressure
over Syria to release the hundreds of Lebanese captives which have been held
for long years in Syrian prisons and who are in much worse condition then the
Lebanese held in Israeli prisons?
11. Can Hezbollah compel Syria to
delineate its frontiers with Lebanon under UN supervision, and what does
Hezbollah exactly think about the frontiers issue?
12. Does Hezbollah consent to the
deployment of an international force at the borders between Syria and Lebanon
in order to maintain the security and independence of Lebanon and to provide
protection for its national leaders?
13. Does Hezbollah agree to the
disarmament of Lebanon’s Palestinians?
14. Why did Hezbollah object to the
deployment of the Lebanese Army in the South after the complete withdrawal of
the Israeli troops from Lebanon in 2000?
15. A ceasefire or a truce would require
a written agreement signed by both parties, so would Hezbollah acknowledge the
existence of the state of Israel in this agreement or would it maintain the
reference (to all of Israel, including those lands deemed unoccupied by the
U.N. and international community) to the “Occupied Palestinian Territories?”
16. Other then brandishing hackneyed
slogans of resistance, defiance and challenges, what exactly did Hezbollah
achieve by kidnapping the two Israeli soldiers?
17. Words such as “honor” and “dignity”
make repeat appearances in Mr. Nasrallah’s speeches, does the exchange of two Israeli
soldiers for 10,000 Arab prisoners demonstrate any of those qualities? Do you
think that one Israeli soldier is worth 5,000 Arabs?
18. Fighters of Hezbollah have been
accused of hiding among civilians, using them as hostages, setting quarters in
civilian dwellings and using them as a launching base for their rockets. Would Hezbollah submit to the examination of
a neutral committee which would equally investigate the transgressions of the
Israeli army and those of Hezbollah vis-à-vis the civilian population?
19. Nasrallah mentioned that you will
rebuild Lebanon using “untainted and honorable” funds and without acquiescing
to any kind of political conditions. What exactly constitutes “pure and
honorable” money, and where would that money come from? If there is such a
thing as a grant given with no strings attached, would that be enough to
accomplish that enormous task? What
about the Saudi grants, which are certainly tied to political conditions that
would allow Saudi Arabia to maintain its hold on Lebanon, would you reject
them? What about international aid, which mostly comes from Western sources -
“tainted” money from your perspective - would you dispense with that aid? And
how would you be able to determine which funds are tainted and which are not;
is there an X-ray machine that can detect the level of purity, particularly
given the fact that the Arab region’s capitals are often the product of
corruption, unjust distribution of wealth and income, and even illegal trade?
What do you think of the funds raised by Lebanese female performers, tainted or
untainted? And would your sponsors in Tehran care to offer those pure,
honorable funds in lieu of the “katyusha” rockets that fill every corner in the
South?
20. Would you agree to break the special
bond that has linked Hezbollah to Hamas since 2004?
21. You pledged allegiance to Khamenei
in the midst of Beirut, and openly proclaimed your belief in the concept of
welayat al faqih (Rule of the Religious Authority/Mullah)*. Don’t you think
that this attitude is at odds with your loyalty to Lebanon?
22. Would you publicly state that you
would take no more weapons and money from Iran and Syria, and turn those in
your possession over to the Lebanese state?
23. Will you agree with what the
majority of Lebanese think about deposing Emil Lahoud, Syria’s favorite man,
who is serving an unconstitutional extended term of presidency?
24. Will you accept the presence of an
international military force at the Southern borders separating Lebanon and
Israel?
25. Do you agree to a separate Lebanese
/ Israeli peace treaty?
26. In an interview to Al-Jazeera
channel, you mentioned that some members of Hezbollah are worried that this
would prove to be the last battle, and thus, they will miss their chance to die
as “martyrs” for the cause, or lose the honor of martyrdom. Does this mean that
Hezbollah’s militants long for, and actively seek, war, conflict and death?
Doesn’t that bear a strong resemblance to what Ben Laden said as he addressed
the Western world: “We love death, and you love life”? Why do Islamist movements loathe life, and if
you, and your soldiers, are keen to die, what about the innocents that you’re
dragging behind in a path they have not chosen for themselves?
27. Can you give us a clear and precise
definition of what constitutes victory for Hezbollah?
28. A German news agency stated on July
27th, 2006 that Hezbollah executed 18 Lebanese charged of spying for Israel. Is
that true? How did the party know for sure that they were in fact agents
working for Israel? How is it possible to execute people without a trial? Do
you have a judiciary system that runs parallel to the Lebanese judiciary, and
if so, can you still deny that this party is acting as a state within a state?
29. The Israeli newspaper “Haaretz”
mentioned on July 24th, 2006 that the terrorist Imad Mugniah, one of the top
people on the terrorist list and a most wanted man – is the military chief of
Hezbollah, how true is that?
30. You have told the Israelis that they
are fighting against the children of Mohamed, Ali (the Prophet Mohamed’s
son-in-law, and the Shi’ites’ spiritual leader), Al-Hassan, Al-Hussein and the
household and friends of the Prophet, do you think that the on-going war is a
religious –rather than political- war, a conflict between Islam and Judaism?
What about patriotism, and national considerations; do they have a place in
this war?
31. You mentioned in one of your
speeches that you do not believe in the international community, never bet on
it or relied on its help. Does this mean that you will reject international
verdicts, or challenge them in what may escalate to become an armed
confrontation with the international community?
32. In 1982, while being kicked out of
Beirut, the late Yasser Arafat and his partisans were displaying victory signs;
does your own definition of victory mirrors his?
A
final question: what do you think of Hezbollah now that it has brought ruin on
Lebanon, and failed to protect the country?
What is the significance of the slogans of defiance and resistance?
I
am not the only one looking for answers; in fact, those questions rather belong
to the public opinion around the world, and to a considerable sector of the
Arab public as well. I just have tried to ma
ke
the job easier for Hezbollah by compiling the questions in a single list. They
are serious questions that beg for real answers, for the fate of Lebanon and
the whole region may very well depend on them.
magdikkamel@aol.com
"Mouna"
<moacja@ul.edu.lb>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:09:45 -0800
what were the answers?
Phil
Peck" <sales@cuvinc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:19:39 -0500
My Dear Magdi,
I believe ALL of your questions point to an unconcerned Nasrallah and that he is on a suicide mission for the
purpose of self seeking glory. Any question he would answer would reveal not only his motives and dark intent,
but also the real Nasrallah, as said before, self seeking, inconsiderate of international power, human loss of life or
property, and his own religion’s doctrines. Thank you for being a voice of wisdom. I will share your site with others.
FYI: I am a white Christian in USA
Phil
Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:23:52 -0400
(Eastern Daylight Time)
From: "Naim S.
Mahlab" <nsm@videotron.ca>
This article has to be one of the
best written, clear and logical, that I have read on the subject.
I want to congratulate the author. I
wish we had more people who can present a clear analysis
of such a thorny issue as he has.
Naim S. Mahlab
Montreal