Two days ago, I was surprised to see that the main news story in the New York Times, which considers itself to be “the most important newspaper in the world”, was about Hezbollah. The story was entitled “Beirut Bank Seen as a Hub of Hezbollah's Financing”. Is it possible that a story about the Lebanese Canadian Bank is more important than the American – or global – financial crisis, the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the spats among the Republican contenders, or even this month's U.S. withdrawal from Iraq – or indeed a hundred other “ors”? The story fell in nine pages, and I have never seen a story of this size even in topics pertaining to Iraq or the financial crisis. Then in the same edition, there was another editorial which said that Hezbollah's resistance is “hypercritical”. I will not go into the details of the story, but I just want to say that it contained information about senior officials in Hezbollah and their ties to the cocaine trade in South America. The story also said that supporters of Hezbollah have ties to the narcotics trade, which is one of the Party's revenue streams, and that Hezbollah has purchased a 240 million dollar plot of land in the Chouf hills from the jeweller Robert Mouawad. The U.S. investigators must have proof of this, and I therefore do not find a reason to refute their information. I have one objection and several remarks on the issue, however. First, my objection concerns the classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, as though terror was part of its name. Hezbollah is a national liberation movement fighting Israeli terrorism, while Israel today is a terrorist entity that receives military and economic support from the United States in the billions of dollars, along with political protection. Once again, I want to say that Israel is the root of all terror in the Middle East. It was the Israeli terrorists who caused all subsequent terrorism to come to existence, and without the Israel's terrorism, we would not have fought any wars to begin with. Continuing with my remarks, the first of which being that the detailed and lengthy news story in a major paper like the NYT, was published only two days after Hezbollah, through Al-Manar TV, revealed the presence of ten CIA spies or agents in Lebanon and Iran. The U.S. intelligence services include 16 agencies, of which the CIA is one, and the information carried by the American paper was intelligence information in its majority which makes me believe that the two issues are most likely related. Especially so when a spokesperson for the CIA, Jennifer Youngblood, had declined to comment over Al-Manar's story, claiming that the Agency “does not address spurious claims from terrorist groups”. Once again, it is Israel that is a terrorist group. Going back to the remarks, the second one is that the issue of the ‘Hezbollah bank' emerged after the attack that took place against the UN Peacekeeping mission in South Lebanon. Israel and its supporters in the U.S. rushed to hold Hezbollah and Syria responsible for the attack without any proof, and continued to make this accusation even after both sides had denied it. A third remark is meant for Hezbollah, specifically Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. In his speech marking the anniversary of Ashura, Sayyed Nasrallah said that he supports the Syrian regime because it is a pro- objection regime that has stood by the resistance. He also said that he supports the reforms that the Syrian leadership has accepted and that the people have called for. However, he said before this that what is being sought in Syria is not reform, but rather a regime of Arab treason and surrender, and an Arab blank check for America and Israel. I wish that instead of supporting the regime, or the opposition, Sayyed Nasrallah (and Hezbollah) would take a neutral stance, and would accept in the end what the Syrian people accept. These people are the beating heart of Arabism, and it is impossible for them to establish a regime of treason and surrender. On the other hand, caution is a must, and there is a changing situation in every Arab country, so perhaps Sayyed Nasrallah would place reality ahead of his wishes, because we agree with him that Hezbollah is being targeted and that Israel and America want to disarm the Party. Yet, I would say that his will never happen, because this demand reflects the wishes of the other side, not any facts on the ground. Hezbollah is extremely important in its steadfastness as a resistance movement fighting Israeli terrorism. Here, the NYT news story that followed other similar ones in the past is nothing but a proof of this importance, and I had urged Hezbollah in the past, as I urge the Party today, to reduce its involvement in internal Lebanese politics and focus on the resistance, for this is in the end its raison d'être. [email protected]
