Al Sayyed Nasrollah and the two equations of victory and negotiation

Written by Nasser Kandil,

During the past week, it was clear the turning of the image in Lebanon at the level of the political and media positions of the parties which supported the military operation of the resistance in Juroud Arsal against Al Nusra front and their return to the hostile rhetoric against the resistance whatever the expressions changed in this turning, including the return to arouse suspicions around the credibility of the process of Juroud Arsal and showing it as a theatrical deal, ignoring the magnitude of pain which they cause and the insult which they address to their partners in the homeland. In this battle there are many Lebanese martyrs, they have rushed to protect their homeland and condoned the Lebanese positions which facilitated the positioning of terrorism and justified its presence, dealt with it, and disabled any national decision to confront it throughout the years under different pleas. Among the changing of positions after the awakening of the conscience they hid behind the slogan of supporting the army to get rid of the resistance and to question the patriotism of its premises towards ignoring half of the battle which is being waged in parallel with the battle of the Lebanese army in Juroud and which completes its goals and integrates with it, where its field is the Syrian side from the borders.

Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah did not hide any of the information gathered by the leadership of the resistance about the presence of direct US intervention behind this turning and the presence of separate operations order to ignore the battles of Qalamoun and to get involved in campaigns of questioning the resistance and besieging its rhetoric and the attempt to dismantle the state of sympathy around it popularly, politically, and in media during the battle of Juroud, so the best cover is to hide behind the plea of supporting the Lebanese army to say that the ability of the army has been proven, so there is no need for the resistance, or to say that the army has proven that it is capable alone to resolve, so why to coordinate with the Syrian army, or to say that the equation of army, people, and resistance has ended after the battle of Juroud, towards saying that the justification of the weapons of the resistance has fallen and the fight of Hezbollah in Syria was a Lebanese deadlock, or that Lebanon is a part of the international coalition against ISIS and every move from outside this coalition is rejected, or it is a coalition that has not granted for Lebanon any air cover or armament or logistical support that commensurate with the size of the battle. Some have threatened those who did not listen, by the prosecution of the US financial sanctions whether parties, figures and media.

Al Sayyed did not waste his time in useless debates, he talked in a language of irresistible facts, he asked first whether they were those themselves who opposed the fact that the Lebanese army is confronting the terrorism, and those themselves who were so delayed to recognize that the terrorism exists and they remained calling the terrorists revolutionaries. He said we will neglect the matter and will say that you accept that there is terrorism and that the army should be authorized to wage the battle, so is it possible to talk about security and stability if the Lebanese side has been liberated from the borders, and if we consider what was achieved by the resistance as the liberation of the Lebanese territories was by the army, so how would be the situation if he Syrian part which was occupied by the terrorism on the borders with Lebanon has not been liberated, will it be lines of contention or a war of attrition or Lebanon is concerned with liberating the Syrian part to ensure its stability and security, If it was concerned as said by any simple logic as long as the stability cannot be achieved but only by liberating the opposite sites of borders, so does that mean that Lebanon is concerned from this position to consider positively what is achieved by the Syrian army and the resistance even from the position of interest in obtaining  security and stability. The reassurance by some people stems from their saying: as long as the Syrian army and the resistance are achieving what is needed so let us go to opportunism and hypocrisy by turning the back and behaving indifferently.

The question becomes if the battles continue for a military resolving which seems likely according to the words of Al Sayyed, so who will liberate Malihet Qara which is the point of borders and how?  Can it be liberated without coordination between those who fight on the both sides of borders? if the negotiation was the solution and its title is deporting the militants and the solving of the issue of the kidnapped soldiers so is there a third choice in front of Lebanon other than accepting that the resistance will bear the responsibility of negotiation in order to ensure for Lebanon and the Lebanese the fate of the kidnapped soldiers and return them, because from its national position it bears this responsibility and by virtue of its fighting in Syria with the Syrian army it can coordinate to ensure implementation of any agreement that includes the withdrawal of the militants, or it can send an official request to coordinate with Syria to ensure the implementation of the withdrawal of the militants, in order to ensure the ability to negotiate to ensure the future of the fate of its kidnapped soldiers.

According to the speech of Al Sayyed, all the ways lead to the recognition that the relationship between the Lebanese army, the resistance, and the Syrian army and that the achievement which its resolving approaches militarily or by negotiation according to the facts that say were it not for what is achieved by the Lebanese army, the Lebanese people, the Syrian army, and the Syrian people along with the resistance the victory would not been achieved. If the achievement was out of this participation and its completion depended on coordination, then there is no place for virtual discussion about whether dispensing with the resistance or the relationship with Syria will achieve protection and stability to Lebanon but only in battles such as waged by the owners of this logic.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,