Nasrollah and the distance between the recognition of victory, its causes, and its consequences

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah presented in the speech of victory in the memory of the war of July a series of methodological issues in the evaluation of the experience of Hezbollah as a title of the choice of resistance in Lebanon and the region, and a number of the current political issues and titles. Regarding the methodological issues he conducted an intellectual debate, avoiding nominating the parties which it intended in the international, regional, and the growing Lebanese movement, a movement that recognizes the victory of Hezbollah, and a movement that tries to avoid the recognition of victory’s causes and meanings, or it tries to distort and to change its contents, and maybe it tries to employ the recognition of victory in order to wage a war of concepts against Hezbollah and its victory and what they represent at the level of the resistance forces as an ideology, concept, and choice. At the forefront of this war the attempt to make virtual goals with which the victory is related and around which the animosities, considerations, and the contrived sensitivities are created.

The first statement of account in the consideration of Al Sayyed Nasrollah is the logical sequence of the recognition of the meaning of Hezbollah’s growing force. This phrase is used by everyone to indicate to the various aspect of its victory from the Israelis and some of the international, Arab, and Lebanese analysts to take them to an equation that requires their recognition that their speech means that the war of July has failed, so say it frankly as long as you said the contrary at that time, say it clearly that the war of July has failed, because it aimed to what is more important than the weakening. Hezbollah’s force has increased by your recognition. It is not something marginal to say that clearly and without ambiguity, because on your words the fall of the threat of new war launched by Israel on Hezbollah and Lebanon which was possible depends. As long as the war of July failed in the light of less power, so how will Israel take the risk in the light of the greatest power? From these two facts we conclude that the recognition of the system of incitement against Hezbollah since the year 2000 and the liberation of the south have lost their meaning. The recognition of the failure of the war of July and the inability of Israel to repeat it led to the fall of the theory that based on considering the presence of Hezbollah’s weapons a burden on Lebanon that will lead to wars which are unbearable by Lebanon and the Lebanese. So the fall of this system coincided with the fall of the system of the animosity to Hezbollah, its weapons, and the resistance before the liberation, Thus this leads to a question; which is better to achieve the liberation by depending on the bet of the resistance or the bets of others, as the strategy of silence and the waiting for the strategy of negotiation? Lebanon has experienced both of them with the obsessive failure and the waste of sovereignty while it has experienced the resistance and the outcome was the liberation.

The one who does not have the courage to admit of the sequence of regularity of the growing force of Hezbollah away from his explanation of reasons is hypocrite in his recognition of the growing force and the victory, his speech is political, he tries to undermine the content of truth which he claims that he recognizes, So let the one who has a problem with this sequence make it as a pretext to evade and to escape from the full recognition, while the one who completes the recognition according to what is related to him has to admit that we are in front of a methodology that wins and proves its validity during four decades versus a methodology that falls and fails in approaching the same events and challenges. In the two decades before the liberation, the debate was true about the feasibility, effectiveness, and the credibility of the choice of resistance in making the liberation, along with non-liberation goals, once to enhance the negotiating status of Syria, and once to enhance the regional position of Iran, or to doubt of its ability to achieve, but after it was proven the lack of questioning of the credibility of the goal and the validity of the ability the debate has become real too about the usefulness of the weapons of the resistance and their role in confronting the threat of aggression or the danger of terrorism. In both cases it was said clearly that these weapons bring calamities and cause disasters. But now the results are clear by those who recognize Hezbollah’s growing force that its weapon protects, deters, and strengthens.

The recognition of this second series of concepts means the recognition that the matter is not a comparison between two lines or between two sources of arming and funding; however between two projects that stem from two different readings of the challenges, goals, and means. Those who were hostile towards Hezbollah during the four decades are the same; the advocates of negotiation, the advocates of disarmament, the advocates of the recognition of the fall of Syria, and the advocates of the recognition of the democracy through the Saudi and Qatari Arab Spring, the absolute divinity of America, their permanent issue is the complaint from the effeteness that they attributed once to the American and once to the Israeli and once to the Saudi  through the lack of stubbornness and stability as Iran and Russia do, evading from the recognition of the truth that they belong to defeated project, they escape from obligations which they are aware that they are inescapable facts, they con on the essence of the conflict with Israel, mock at  the idea of liberating Palestine and they belittle what they called as a wood language which believes that there are still major issues that worth the sacrifice and waging the war defending them, if they just check what the countries of Gulf spent to overthrow Syria alone or to appease America in their Gulf war, as well as the degree of stubbornness to the extent of brutality in the war in Yemen then they will confess that the matter is not related to the degree of support or the degree of stubbornness but the appositeness of the winning project and the credibility of its owners and the disappointment of the defeated project and the opportunism and the hypocrisy of its owners.

The one who has the courage to admit the two sequences worth the appreciation for the self-criticism and the search for the truth by linking the victory and the growing force with the winning of project that is transient of the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries and linking this victory with the honesty of its owners and the credibility of their positions. Therefore the question about the real goals of the resistance becomes far from factionalism and sectarianism. The resistance did not and will not invest its victory neither in the liberation, nor in the deterrence, nor in the war on terrorism nor in purging of Lebanon, nor in the support of Syria’s rise, nor in its recovery, nor in ending any dispute with its local opponents, nor in getting authoritarian gains in favor of a party or a sect. it concerns only about how to invest these victories in fortifying the national structure about its choice as a choice for the widest national alignment in the face of whom the Lebanese, the Levant, and the Arabs meet on considering them enemies  even at least in media. The value of the field victories infect the enemies while their political value is not through having gains that most of them will be achieved in a negotiation with the enemies’ camp in on authoritarian projects as the size of region in exchange of putting the resistance option on table, where the opponents of the resistance will not have neither a role nor a place nor a status which they suggest that they are constants. The issue of the resistance is not in this point, however it is in attracting them to its choice and the participation in the revenues of its victories, moreover, making the enemy understand that the resistance whose its military force is growing, its political and popular force is growing too and the bet on fragmenting its internal front has become from the past. So the one who refuses this call has to say one thing that while he is in full consciousness he decided to be the center of bet on the enemy to weaken the resistance after the enemy has lost the means to get rid of it. Every debate with the resistance is nothing more than presenting credentials to the enemy, and every talk about the growing force of the resistance is out of warning the enemy not the recognition to the friend

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,