MP Nawwaf Moussawi deserves nothing but respect for telling Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, "If things comes down to a choice between the Resistance and any kind of unity, then the Resistance would take precedence." Moussawi said: "When it comes to its sustainability, survival, strength and progress, the Resistance's history proves that it holds these elements above all other considerations."
The Hezbollah MP deserves respect for being honest and describing things as they really are, as seen and applied by Hezbollah. Indeed, he did not say that the Lebanese unanimously agree on the Resistance, nor did he say that the Resistance is ready to dismantle its structure in order to preserve national unity. In so doing, he is departing from the deceit and lies that have become customary in this country.
Truly, the Resistance exists and shall endure, regardless of what the Lebanese think of the matter and regardless of how they may perceive their interests and the interests of their country. This is precisely the reaction of conquerors, which has but one logical completion: It is only by having recourse to force that you will do away with the Resistance. As for democracy, spare us this distasteful farce which is used only to serve the Resistance's purposes, and if it contradicts them, then let us bid democracy farewell.
Moussawi's statement is likened to two partners telling one another: I shall take my interest alone into consideration. As for our common interest, it concerns me only insofar as it serves my own.
This statement calls for an equally frank response, whereby no one is strong enough to do away with the Resistance. And I doubt that anyone would seek to acquire such strength since things would lead – at best – to destruction and pain for everyone involved, and bring down the roof on everyone's heads.
Yet one still has to say, in response to the theory of "giving the Resistance precedence over national unity," that a large portion of the Lebanese people believes in giving freedom precedence over national unity. If a partnership is synonymous with submission in total disregard of the second partner, then it becomes necessary to sit down to discuss that partnership and think of better alternatives.
If Moussawi is free to express his disregard for national unity with remarkable frankness and boldness, then others – too – should be entitled to express the same disregard in unity when defined in such terms. Neither Moussawi nor his foes are fond of nations as such. Indeed, he openly stated that nations were created not for their intrinsic value, but rather for the sake of resistance. As such, let the others say with equal frankness and boldness: Nations were created not for their intrinsic value, but rather for the sake of freedom. Only then can those who so choose resist or stay alive.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment