by MEMRI
Introduction
The admission by Hizbullah
Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in his May 25, 2013 speech[1] that his organization is
fighting in Syria alongside the Assad regime sparked a wave of criticism in the
Arab world. The enraged responses came mainly from the Gulf states – primarily
Saudi Arabia, Qatar,[2]
and Bahrain – which are hostile to Hizbullah because it is part of the resistance
axis, because it is a proxy of Iran and a backer of the Syrian regime, and
because it is complicit in attempts to harm the Gulf state regimes, in particular
Bahrain.
Following the
address, the Gulf press argued that Hizbullah was a murderous and hostile
organization even more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. There were calls for Hizbullah
to be added to the list of terrorist organizations, as Bahrain has recently
done,[3] and for measures to be
taken against Hizbullah's vital economic interests in the Gulf states, and even
against Lebanon for facilitating Hizbullah's activity in Syria. A step in this
direction was the decision by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which convened
in Jeddah on June 2, 2013, "to examine taking measures against Hizbullah's
interests" in the GCC member states.[4]
Other articles
argued that the organization had forfeited its legitimacy and that it was
dragging both Lebanon and the region into sectarian war, as part of an Iranian-Russian
plan to gain control of the region.
Criticism of
Nasrallah's policy in the Syrian crisis was also heard from circles affiliated
with Hamas, which, until the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, had itself been
part of the resistance axis headed by Syria, Iran and Hizbullah. Following
Nasrallah's address, Hamas-affiliated papers and websites posted a number of
articles opposing Hizbullah and Iran's support for the Syrian regime. For
example, it was argued that Hizbullah and Nasrallah "have fallen into the
sectarian trap and become embroiled in sectarian complications and religious
wars that will not avail them," and that the decision to support the
Syrian regime would have fateful and negative repercussions for Hizbullah's
future.[5]
In Jordan and Egypt,
the responses were fewer and more moderate. Jordan is apparently apprehensive
over a possible response by Hizbullah and the Syrian regime, while the Egyptian
regime seeks to position itself as a broker in the Syrian crisis.
This report
will review responses in the Arab world to Nasrallah's speech:
A few hours after Nasrallah's speech,
Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid Al-Khalifa tweeted: "The terrorist
Nasrallah is declaring war on his [own Muslim] nation. Halting him and rescuing
Lebanon from his clutches is a national and religious obligation that rests
upon us all."[6]
In a similar vein, articles in
the Gulf press contended that Hizbullah was a terrorist organization and called
for its inclusion in the list of such organizations. For example, Baina Al-Mulhim,
a columnist for the official Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, wrote: "The moderate
states in the Arab world, in the Gulf and in America are examining the issue of
including Hizbullah on the list of terror [organizations]. This measure is
mandatory in order to resolve the matter of this bloody organization that kills
Syrians, functions as Iran's tool in both the East and the West, has attempted
to intervene in Bahrain, and supports terrorist organizations in Yemen and elsewhere.
This organization cannot continue to act unimpeded... There is no alternative
but to declare Hizbullah a terrorist organization, since it is more dangerous
than Al Qaeda. This is the most hostile and murderous
organization in the Gulf and the Arab world... If Nasrallah has decided to
fight those calling for takfir [i.e. the Salafi-jihadis], why is he
fighting unarmed women and children? This is a sectarian war that Nasrallah has
initiated. Hizbullah has made it clear that it is a militia and not a
resistance [movement], as some would believe. The fig leaf has been removed
from this criminal and violent party."[7]
Hussein Shobokshi,
columnist for the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, also argued
that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization and called for imposing economic
sanctions upon it, as well as upon Lebanon as a state, which, in his opinion,
should pay a price for Hizbullah's continued flagrant and blatant intervention in
the Syrian issue: "...It is important and even mandatory to treat this
group [Hizbullah] as what it is: a criminal terror organization similar to Al
Qaeda and Jabhat Al-Nusra. This, by its very nature, compels us to treat Hassan
Nasrallah himself as a wanted criminal just like [Al-Qaeda leader] Ayman
Al-Zawahiri.
"Hizbullah
has become a cancer that is eating away at the body of an already fragile
region by means of a sectarian civil war... and by means of its support for the
criminal [Syrian] regime. The time for niceties has passed, and the governments
of the Gulf Cooperation Council states must pay heed to public opinion, which
is demanding that they clearly and decisively adopt serious, important, and
more vigorous measures against Hizbullah. It has become mandatory to initiate activities
that will sever Hizbullah's economic arteries in the Gulf by [damaging] its
sundry interests. Many companies in vital fields, such as contracting, retail
trade, the restaurant business, heavy equipment, prayer rugs, food products and
so on, are owned by people or elements directly linked to Hizbullah or its agent,
or by someone who is covering up for it. Lebanon must pay the price for handing
over its state to a government led by a terrorist militia...
"Hizbullah,
as the majority party, has transformed Lebanon into [a force that works]
against the Syrian revolution and supports a criminal regime and has thus taken
a side in the conflict...
"[Lebanon]
is [already] paying the price for this decision, in the form of a total halt to
tourism from the Arab states [to Lebanon], a significant decline in trade with
them, and a total absence of new [Gulf] investments [in it]. There is no
alternative but to escalate these measures [against Lebanon]... Lebanon in its
entirety must pay a price for letting a terrorist organization rule it... There's
no alternative but to expel [from the Gulf states] influential Lebanese figures
[who are affiliated with] Hizbullah... because they constitute a danger to the
national security of the region..." [8]
Another argument against
Hizbullah's activity in Syria was that it constitutes occupation. An editorial
in the Qatari daily Al-Sharq noted: "... We are confronting a
campaign by Hizbullah's armed forces to occupy Syrian territory, which is
accompanied by aggression against the [Syrian] people... The Hizbullah forces'
entry into Syrian territory is occupation... Because the Syrians oppose it..."[9]
Jaber
Al-Harami, editor of the government Qatari daily Al-Sharq, warned that "the
Syrian people and the Arab peoples will never forgive Hizbullah for its actions
in Syria, which will remain a mark of shame on its forehead despite all its
attempts to renounce them or justify them with baseless arguments. Today's
peoples have a sense of awareness and will not be deceived by pretty words."
[10]
The weapons of the resistance drowning in the Syrian people's blood (Al-Rai, Jordan, May 28, 2013)
Nasrallah
Is Exploiting The Palestinian Problem
In an article of unusual asperity
in a Hamas-affiliated daily, Dr. 'Issam Shawer attacked Nasrallah for
delivering an address while "his soldiers were surrounding and killing
women and children in the city of Al-Qusayr in Syria." Rebutting Nasrallah's
justifications for his forces' entry into Syria, Shawer noted, for example, that
Hizbullah and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) had been
involved militarily in Syria even before the extremist Islamist movements appeared
on the scene. In response to Nasrallah's argument that he was protecting the
resistance, Shawer wrote that the resistance could not be limited to Hizbullah
alone, and that it was unthinkable that Hizbullah's interests would supersede
the interests of peoples and the Arab ummah. Shawer emphasized that "the
period of 'ersatz bravery' [that does not involve] firing a single bullet at
the enemy or liberating a centimeter of occupied territory has ended."
Shawer also attacked
Nasrallah for urging the supporters and opponents of the Syrian regime within
Lebanon to go fight in Syrian territory rather than in Lebanon, calling this
the epitome of egoism and a direct call for foreign intervention in Syria. He
also dismissed Nasrallah's statement that he was defending the Palestinian issue,
and called upon him to stop exploiting the Palestinian cause and murdering
Syrians in its name. He added: "Those whose hands are defiled with the
blood of Muslims will not liberate Palestine. The majority of our people
support the Syrian people and its revolution against the Assad regime and all
its supporters."[11]
Hizbullah
Is Dragging Lebanon And The Region Into A Sunni-Shi'ite Conflict
Some also accused Hizbullah of
dragging Lebanon and the entire region into sectarian war, signs of which could
already be discerned in Lebanon in the form of clashes between 'Alawites and
Sunnis in the northern city of Tripoli and the launching of two Grad missiles at
Hizbullah's Beirut stronghold, the Dahiya. Arab League Secretary-General Nabil
Al-'Arabi expressed such apprehension when he called upon Hizbullah to
re-examine its positions and abstain from intervention in the Syrian fighting,
and also urged the Lebanese leaders to maintain their policy of keeping their
distance from the Syrian crisis, as they have done until now.[12] UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Dr. Anwar bin Muhammad Qarqash stated that Nasrallah's
comments had exposed the true character of his organization, and said: "We
have seen time and again that Hizbullah's weapons are sectarian weapons,
targeted inwards into Syria or into Lebanon. These interventions by Hizbullah
were known but had never been confirmed so explicitly. The last speech by
Nasrallah has clarified the truth of this reality...[13]
The Saudi
government daily Al-Watan held Hizbullah responsible for the security
conditions in Lebanon, noting that Hizbullah "is continuing alone on its
suicidal path, despite the objection of the parties, sects and the people in
Lebanon. Had it not been for this organization, a sectarian conflict would not
have erupted in Tripoli, scores of people would not have been killed, and
missiles would not have fallen yesterday on one of Beirut's suburbs. One should
remember that this organization is the regional arm of forces that are larger
than it..."[14]
Many argued
that Hizbullah's intervention in the Syrian fighting would have negative
repercussions for the entire region. Thus, Reda Fahmi, chairman of the Arab
Affairs, Defense and National Security Committee in the Egyptian Shura Council,
said that Hizbullah's intervention in Syria constitutes a genuine threat to
regional peace and security, and warned Hizbullah that it would pay a steep
price for this.[15]
Image: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 26, 2013
Saudi liberal Turki Al-Dakhil
wrote: "Currently, Hizbullah is not fighting the Israelis, but rather 'Alawite
and Sunni Arabs. It kills all its opponents, and thus drags Lebanon into the
unknown... Hizbullah is a big lie that we believed from 2006 until 2013. Is
there any Arab who remains bewitched by this outrageous lie?!"[16]
Tariq Alhomayed,
former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, argued
that Nasrallah's address represented "a total coup against the Lebanese
state and the regional political balance." He added: "In this address,
he informed all the Lebanese that he is the state and the state is he, and
declared Lebanon to be a Shi'ite protectorate. He divided the region into two
camps, just as bin Laden had done, when he said that there is an axis of the Rule
of the Jurisprudent [as practiced in Iran] – [the axis that] he purports to
lead – and there is the axis of those who whom he dubbed takfiri [those
who accuse others of heresy], who are the allies of Israel and the U.S., which obviously
refers to the Sunnis in Syria, Lebanon and the other Sunni states in the
region, especially Saudi Arabia... All this could naturally provoke a sectarian
war in the region, irrespective of whether Assad remains or goes..."[17]
Mamoun Fandy wrote
in a similar vein: "...Nasrallah's address outlined the nature of the next
regional struggle: [it will be] a Sunni-Shi'ite struggle, although he denied
this in his address. This struggle found its first expression on the ground in
the battle of Al-Qusayr, where Nasrallah promised victory to his men – a
triumph over the Sunnis, undoubtedly... The clash will be transformed from a
clash between the regimes and the opposition into a Sunni-Shi'ite clash with
the objective of defining the strategic contours of the Arab region in the coming
years..." Fandy argued that one of the main objectives behind Hizbullah's and
Iran's intervention in Syria is to remedy deficiencies that have surfaced in
the Syrian army's performance during the uprising and to establish "a Shi'ite
army with common principles and sustains a regional ideological struggle..."[18]
Hizbullah
Is Carrying Out Directives Of Iran And Russia
Many articles accuse Nasrallah of
serving Iran and Russia at the expense of Lebanon and the entire region. The government
Saudi daily Al-Madina argued that Hizbullah's collaboration with the Syrian
regime in the killing and expulsion of the Syrian people "reflects fealty
to Iran first and foremost. And this, as part of the 'Shi'ite Crescent plan'
that is intended, at this stage, to prevent the fall of the Assad regime,
threaten the neighboring states, pour oil on the fire, and transform Lebanon
once again into an arena for settling accounts by plunging it into anarchy and
disorder and thus provide Hizbullah with a suitable environment for supporting
and implementing the Iranian plan..."[19]
Yazid bin
Mohammad, columnist for the official Saudi daily Al-Watan, wrote that
Nasrallah had undoubtedly received a green light from Russia before declaring
that his forces were fighting alongside the regime in Syria. This, because "he
knows that entering [the fray] on Assad's behalf without Russian cover is
political suicide. Hizbullah does not have a will of its own, because its heart
is in the grip of by Tehran, from where it receives its support and strength. [Following
the lead of Syria and Tehran, Nasrallah] has returned to the bosom of Moscow,
which has sought for five years to restore its historic role..."
Bin Mohammad
argued further that the timing of Nasrallah's speech, precisely during the
preparations for the Geneva international conference to find a political
solution for the Syrian crisis, is not fortuitous: "This is another card
[played by] the Moscow-Baghdad-Tehran-Damascus-Dahiya axis, which is intended
to blow up the situation before [they can be forced] into a nonviolent
solution. In this manner, the focus of the negotiations between the superpowers
and the regional countries will shift from [the issue of] Assad's removal to
the withdrawal of the foreign armed movements from Syria. This will reduce the
benefit from [Assad's] ouster, should he be ousted, and will maximize the
benefit to those who assisted him in the field..."[20]
Iran aims the Hizbullah weapon at Syria (Al-Dustour, Jordan, May 27, 2013)
Endnotes:
[1]
See MEMRI TV clip No. 3848, Hizbullah
Secretary-General Nasrallah Vows to Defend Syria: We Can Send Tens of Thousands
of Mujahideen, May 25, 2013.
[2]
Qatar, which until the outbreak of the Arab Spring was part of the resistance
axis, has shifted its stance towards this axis and currently it bitterly
assails the Assad regime and Hizbullah.
[3]
On this topic, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 965, Arab World
Precedent: Bahrain Adds Hizbullah To List Of Terrorist Organizations, May
7, 2013.
[4]
Al-Watan, (Saudi Arabia), June 3, 2013.
[5]
Al-Risalah (Gaza), May 27, 2013.
[6]
Twitter.com/khalidalkhalifa, May 25, 2013.
[7]
Al-Riyadh, (Saudi Arabia), June 2, 2013.
[8]
Al-Sharq-Awsat (London), May 27, 2013.
[9] Al-Sharq (Qatar), May 27, 2013.
[10]
Al-Sharq (Qatar), May 26, 2013.
[11]
Filastin )Gaza),
May 27. 2013.
[12]
Al-Ahram (Egypt), May 26, 2013.
[13]
BNA news agency (Bahrain) 28, 2013.
[14]
Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2013.
[15]
Al-Shurouq (Egypt), May 26, 2013.
[16]
Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 28, 2013.
[17]
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, (London), May 27, 2013.
[18]
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 27, 2013.
[19]
Al-Madina (Saudi Arabia), May 27, 2013.
[20]
Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), May 28, 2013.
MEMRI
Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7225.htm
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment