How can one convince a group, which displayed its strong unity before the eyes of its charismatic leader, that it is proceeding in the wrong direction of history? How can one convince the believer in unshakable ideas of the relative nature of reality? How can one remind those standing in the Southern Suburb of Beirut that they are not introducing anything new or unique to the history of the closed-up group? How can one remind them that the strength and confidence they felt in the presence of the inspiring leader will not prevent them from being subjected to difficult tests whose source they might not expect? This means that the test might not come from Israel, America or even the groups and sects which they consider to be hostile. How can one address a message of warning against grave mistakes being committed by the group's leadership, by insisting on its alliance with Bashar al-Assad's regime in Damascus, at a time when the Suburb, the South and the Beqaa populations believe they can make history and destroy the American warships off the Beirut shores, as they have done (or others have done, but that does not matter) over a quarter of a century ago? The detachment from political and moral rightfulness in the speech of the Sayyed of the Resistance, through his full support of the criminal oppression exercised by the security apparatuses against the Syrian demonstrators and citizens, does not only go against the Ashura occasion and its human and moral value. It also reveals that the groups ecstatic about their own illusions and histories can turn realities upside down and exploit history to serve their temporary programs, just like all those holding on to earthly and religious powers. Today, the Syrian people, with their peaceful demonstrators, those opposing the current regime by all possible means, tolerating the suppression and the power craze and awaiting the return of their detained children from the security basements or the morgues of public hospitals (that are committing crimes tackled by the international organizations whose game is being played by Mr. President) are more entitled to attribute themselves to the Husseini legacy than any others. The Syrians have the right to say what Bourhan Ghalioun said about Hezbollah and Iran, or what Riad al-Turk hinted to in regard to the necessity for these two sides to stop supporting a regime that will definitely fall. Moreover, the Syrians are entitled to mock Lebanese and non-Lebanese commentators and writers who are defending the regime by using the rejectionism and resistance jargon and praising and glorifying their "Sayyed", while concealing sectarian fear and hatred. This is true, knowing that the latter cannot be healed through fictitious crowds or the weaving of alliances between the minorities, as it is being done by the leader of the Lebanese Christians. Sayyed Nasrallah and his supporters are free to interpret every action against the oppression exercised by his allies in Syria as being a cosmic Gulf-American-Israeli-Turkish-etc. conspiracy, while being aware that states rush to secure their interests whenever opportunity arises. At this level, the targeting of the Syrian regime from the outside is not a great revelation, seeing how this regime always played with the external cards to sustain its own rule on the domestic arena. However, this issue and the justification of the sectarian massacres being provoked by the known apparatuses to lead the country toward civil sectarian and regional war is a completely different matter. Instead of giving a boost to the arrogance of the armed groups, Nasrallah should have addressed his ally in Damascus and asked him to end his denial and recognize the reality of the major transformations witnessed in Syria since March and until this day. More importantly, Nasrallah should have realized that the expression “We will never be shamed again” is not an exclusive sectarian motto as he believes it to be.
