Written by Nasser Kandil,
The similarity of words and their meanings alone are not what put the resistance in front of the challenges of wining in the battle of fighting corruption. The similarity is in form and content between the battle of the resistance in liberating Shebaa Farms which has not ended yet and deterring the occupation from aggression, and the battle of liberating the farms of corruption inside the country and re-regulating the expenditure of the public money and the rehabilitation of the country in which its citizens will not feel that they are under the mercy of a country that protects devil traders protected by corruption.
The obstacles in the battle of liberating Shebaa Farms are the absence of a real national will that considers liberation as a priority, the absence of the national consensus to offer a political cover to the liberation process which requires an indispensable role by the resistance, and a structural change in arming the Lebanese army, and thus in the international relations of Lebanon. In the liberation of the farms of corruption, we found the same obstacles; the absence of the real national will, the absence of the national consensus to offer a political cover to the liberation process which requires a structural change in the form of the political regime which is based on favoritism, and the sectarian distribution of spoils and gains which are called obligations.
In the two battles the issue is the same, it is a naivety to believe that it is an outcome of different interpretations or the absence of the awareness of facts or that the issue is depending on the objective and national considerations or expresses urgent national need or higher national interest. Those who oppose the decision of liberation Shebaa Farms are partners in an international regional alliance against the resistance, and the leaders of this alliance are partners with Israel in its confrontation of the axis of resistance, they depend on confronting the resistance in other issues, and delay in putting a national strategy to liberate Shebaa Farms putting futile means to liberate them diplomatically, exactly as those who oppose the decision of liberating the farms of corruption, they are partners in an external and internal political economic alliance that is the source of the growth of corruption, depending on the philosophy of dept, borrowing and benefits and the philosophy of privatization and the sectarian organization of the country and delay in putting an national strategy to fight the corruption.
In the issue of liberating Shebaa Farms, the resistance was forced to adopt a methodology to achieve a consensus on their Lebanese origin and their being under occupation after denial. Then it made many attempts to remind of them then it entered the stage of the qualitative operations. Now it suggests a dialogue on a strategy of the national defense to liberate them. While in the liberation of the farms of corruption, the resistance succeeded in achieving the consensus on the existence of corruption and the degree of its danger after a state of denial. Therefore, will it resort to the attempts of reminding of them and the qualitative operations as in the issues of telecommunications and the mobile companies and their budgets, in preparation to ask for a national strategy to liberate them or will it find itself obliged to resort to an open major confrontation as shown by the Lebanese regime, which one part of it will fight defending the sectarian organization and its quotas, and one part will fight defending the debt and the banking sector and benefits, and one will defend the privatization and the state of turning the country into a failed trader and where everything is overlapped with each other.
The issue of the political and economic regime is present. The resistance is concerned while it leads the two battles to be aware that its issue needs a radical change in a run-down regime that it no longer produces but more disasters while it pretends the reform.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,