These words were originally meant for introspection, a personal reflection that I now address to the public, hoping they resonate with readers. They are directed at supporters of the group known as the Axis of Resistance, as well as those who stand apart from it. I write from the perspective of a concerned Lebanese citizen who yearns, like all Lebanese do, for a nation that is free, sovereign, and independent. A country shielded from any foreign power attempting to manipulate its security and destiny, be it Israel or any other nation.
Previously, I’ve penned three letters to late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, published in this very newspaper. In the third, I pledged it would be my last. These letters served as an appeal, urging Hezbollah to advocate for a secular state in Lebanon. They were not insults, criticisms, or reproaches, unlike the discourse from the party’s usual adversaries.
I confess openly that I’ve never aligned with Hezbollah’s ideology, nor with the ideology of any Lebanese party or political movement. This is largely because all Lebanese parties are inherently sectarian. Their supporters hail from similar socioeconomic strata, and I’ve never belonged to any religious or political faction. I believe Lebanon’s core suffering stems from this fragmentation among its citizens, a division that estranges them from genuine patriotism and prompts mutual accusations of treason and collusion with outsiders.
I am not naive enough to claim that those aligned with Hezbollah betray Lebanon. They are committed to defending their land and its dignity. However, as a Lebanese expatriate, it anguishes me to hear accusations against those outside the Hezbollah camp of cultural and political betrayal. Such behavior is an affront beyond justice; all Lebanese passionately love their country. Just as every sheik has his own methodology, as the Azharites would say, each Lebanese finds unique ways to express love and loyalty to the nation, even taking up arms when necessary.
Religious fanaticism sows division, yet some Lebanese do not support Hezbollah in the current southern conflict. These individuals are not traitors, mercenaries, or agents; they are patriots following their own compass, standing against Israel and Zionism as fervently as Hezbollah.
I recognize the numerous motives for opposing Hezbollah, often rooted in religious inclinations in our multifaceted sectarian society. These inclinations are not novel; they are deeply ingrained in our history and culture and were prevalent before colonial forces invaded. Nevertheless, Lebanon can neutralize Israel without resorting to bullets, and I earnestly implore Hezbollah’s supporters to hear me out with patience.
SUPPORTERS OF Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah carry pictures of him as they gather in Sidon, following his killing in an Israeli airstrike, last month, labeled by ‘The New York Times’ as an ‘escalation.’ (credit: Ali Hankir/Reuters)
During the last century, a notable Lebanese politician, Pierre Gemayel, made the insightful observation that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness. Though not a scholar or ideologist, Gemayel’s statement resonates as a guiding principle. Lebanon’s paradoxical strength and resilience emerge from its perceived fragility. Some might mockingly equate this to Hezbollah’s claim that Israel is weaker than a spider’s web. I argue instead through analogy: when two men brawl on the street, bystanders remain indifferent; however, when a grown man assaults a child, all witnesses stand with the child, ensuring the attacker faces justice.
Politically speaking, consider if a powerful nation like France decided to invade a small European duchy like Luxembourg. While possible, such an action would be universally condemned, uniting France’s citizens against their government. Luxembourg’s strength stems not just from its petite size but from its peaceful, advanced governance that mirrors the systems of other developed democracies.
This suggests Lebanon should carry arms only to hold an aggressor temporarily at bay until international support arrives. Ultimately, its true strength lies in its “weakness” and its peaceful, advanced reputation.
Reflecting on whether Israel would have dared to attack a Lebanon that modeled its political system after Luxembourg, Finland, or Norway is telling. Lebanon’s issues stem from a corrupt system built on deceit, exploitation, and religious manipulation. It tragically lays itself bare for exploitation, inviting disaster without concern from the global community.
Historical examples reinforce this: the 1967 Six Day War left a neutral Lebanon untouched due to its armistice with Israel, a peace that endured until the 1969 Cairo Agreement tragically embroiled Lebanon in proxy wars. Consider the “weak” children of the West Bank during the 1980s intifada, how global empathy stood with them, igniting solidarity movements worldwide. This uprising only waned when leaders like Yasser Arafat appropriated and monopolized it, exacerbating the tragedies that befell Lebanon, Palestine, and its people.
In my previous correspondences to Nasrallah, I advocated for a secular civil system as Lebanon’s salvation – a system fostering unity, aligned with divine laws, protecting Lebanon from the manipulation of opportunistic figures, elevating its global standing, and earning respect. Lebanon will reclaim its dignity and rights only when self-respect prevails. Through reason over instinct and intolerance, a peaceful Lebanon can oppose aggressors like Israel by unveiling their true nature, supporting Palestine, and aligning with Arab causes not through force, but with truth, reason, and steadfast resolve.
In Kalila wa-Dimna, the famous collection of fables translated by Ibn al-Muqaffa, the author observed that a strong wind may uproot the solid tree but not the resilient grass. Imam Ali emphasized the importance of self-awareness, and Socrates charged us to “know thyself.” Their wisdom reminds us that Lebanon must find strength within its vulnerabilities to emerge as a sovereign, impregnable state immune to external threats. Such understanding is crucial for Lebanon’s resurgence and prosperity, ensuring it stands poised against the turmoil of the outside world. – Raouf Kobeissi
Hezbollah’s support for Iran at expense of Lebanese people Al-Arab, London, October 20
The first anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 operation, known as Al-Aqsa Flood, has passed, marking a significant and tragic milestone. This operation unleashed devastating destruction on the Gaza Strip, as Israel launched an intense military campaign that ravaged the region. The offensive led to massive displacement, with residents forced to seek refuge under the guise of dismantling Hamas’s strongholds and pursuing its members elusive among civilians. Despite the heavy toll on human life, the conflict persevered.
The situation became even more volatile with the involvement of Lebanese Hezbollah, which aligned itself with Hamas, sparking concerns that Lebanon might share Gaza’s grim fate, especially as Hezbollah intensified its support of the conflict and intertwined Lebanon’s future with Gaza’s trajectory.
Hezbollah’s decision to join the war under the banner of support for Gaza disregarded Lebanon’s precarious situation and the strain the conflict would inflict on its fragile social fabric, not to mention its economic and political turmoil.
A reassessment of this strategy is imperative to redirect the nation toward a road map of reform, beginning with political and economic stability and culminating in a society where citizens enjoy safety, security, and the fundamentals of a dignified life, akin to individuals in other parts of the globe.
Yet, Nasrallah chose to plunge into a conflict that offered no tangible benefit to Lebanon, bypassing both governmental channels and Lebanese public opinion. The primary beneficiary of this engagement was Hezbollah, bolstering its alliance with Hamas and elevating its profile at the expense of civilians exposed to the occupying forces’ violence in Hezbollah-held territories.
This led to a dramatic exacerbation of Lebanon’s already dire security and economic conditions, thrusting the country into unending crises and deepening national wounds in the vacuum of robust political governance and effective legislative bodies.
The unchecked presence of Hezbollah effectively commandeers the state’s future, stripping Lebanese citizens of their rights and dragging them into direct confrontation with Israel, despite the mounting losses and relentless economic downturn.
The fallout from Hezbollah’s showdown with Israel has severely battered Lebanon’s economy, already reeling from prolonged crisis and political inertia, stifling tourism, impairing infrastructure, and curtailing agricultural exports. Even foreign reserves and GDP have endured significant setbacks.
The collateral damage from Israeli airstrikes, notably those targeting densely inhabited areas, coupled with the bombardments on September 17-18 that claimed at least 32 lives, have placed additional burdens on Lebanon’s fragile healthcare system, swamping hospitals with casualties.
The nation’s scant resources are further strained by the swelling ranks of internally displaced Lebanese (estimated at one million) alongside the substantial Syrian refugee population that Lebanon has accommodated since the onset of the Syrian civil war.
In retaliation for Hezbollah joining Hamas’s war, Israel retaliated against Hezbollah beginning on October 8, 2023, targeting its political and military leadership, including the elimination of Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s supreme leader. The assault led to the annihilation of Hezbollah’s headquarters, compromising its infrastructure to an unprecedented extent, and resulting in significant evacuations from southern Lebanon and the southern districts of Beirut, traditionally strongholds of Hezbollah support. The group’s adherents are now gripped by panic and uncertainty about their future.
Although Israeli forces maintained that their strikes aimed solely at Hezbollah positions, the involvement of densely populated areas in Lebanon resulted in civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, and the systematic destruction of border villages.
Lebanon finds itself in a precarious period, with the ongoing conflict threatening to expand and potentially evolve into an all-encompassing war, potentially devastating the nation’s resources, impoverishing the people, and obliterating its economy.
The prospect of restoring national balance appears bleak unless the Lebanese populace takes a decisive stand against Hezbollah, compelling it to relinquish its grip on Lebanon or undergo radical transformation.
However, there is no precedent in Hezbollah’s history or ideology supporting such a change. Hezbollah’s current trajectory seems to be steering it toward inevitable self-destruction due to its refusal to face fundamental truths.
While the notion that Hezbollah transforming into a purely political entity, integrating its forces into the Lebanese army, would instantaneously dispel Israeli threats may be far-fetched, Lebanon would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to defend its sovereignty if unified. The most robust safety mechanism for the party and its followers lies in the collective solidarity of the Lebanese people. Yet, to earn this solidarity, Hezbollah must relinquish its arsenal and become an equal partner in Lebanon’s reconstruction efforts, aligning itself with other Lebanese factions. – Abdel Bari Fayyad
War on humanity and civilization Al-Ittihad, UAE, October 19
War is erupting across various regions, casting people into a spectrum of despair, leaving them in states of submission and hopelessness. This turmoil is tragically evident in places like Gaza and Lebanon, where combatants are heedless to the calls for peace, allowing the horrors of war to devastate the core of humanity and civilization.
In a recent summit, Gulf countries engaged with European Union counterparts, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and peace, and advocating for international resolutions. They recognize that it’s in everyone’s best interest to avoid shedding blood or falling prey to destructive whims.
The Gulf nations, having already extended significant humanitarian aid to Gaza, are now also mobilizing support for Lebanon, urging an end to the bombings and calling for the preservation of life and stability.
The future remains uncertain for those engulfed in the Gaza conflict. For the displaced inhabitants of Gaza, who have endured multiple upheavals, concerns over victory, the problems experienced elsewhere in our beleaguered region are now secondary.
In Lebanon, however, the solution is apparent: adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, elect a new president, and ensure peace by deploying a robust army alongside international forces at the southern border.
Thus, two divergent paths emerge: one of peace and resolution, championed by Arabs since the 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut; and the other of obstruction and delay, which benefits no one, yet is often pursued by warring factions at the expense of humanity and progress.
For both Gaza and Lebanon, survival and the prospect of a free and dignified existence hinge on embracing peace, maintaining the essence of humanity, and cultivating a future filled with dreams and hopes for children and their families.
This marks the fourth or fifth conflict in Gaza since 2007, each commencing with rocket fire and concluding in devastation and extensive loss of life. The latest war has displaced more than two million people on multiple occasions, while the ongoing sixth or seventh war has resulted in thousands of fatalities and 1.2 million displaced persons. The Lebanese people declare their inability to endure further hardship, with many seeking asylum in Syria.
Global attention is focused on the plight in Gaza and Lebanon, yet the catastrophe in Syria – where half a million have perished and millions more have been displaced internally and into neighboring countries – cannot be overlooked. Syrians are now hosting displaced Lebanese, straining a country already fraught with its challenges and besieged by a bleak future.
Since the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, conflicts have persistently plagued Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Now, fresh and lingering calamities in Gaza and Palestine add to this troubled narrative.
Each faction threatens to usher in a “new Middle East.” What is new about a region stripped of peace and life’s basic necessities? The elderly, reminiscing about happier times, recall the region’s old name: the Fertile Crescent, where the olive tree once stood as a symbol of abundance and tranquility. Alas, this year, Palestine and southern Lebanon have lost their olive harvest, prompting concerns about what remains in northern Lebanon, now crowded with waves of displaced individuals fleeing from the southern Bekaa and suburbs. Yesterday, the city of Nabatiya witnessed devastation unprecedented in its history. What fate awaits Nabatiya, Baalbek, and the many historic and cultural landscapes?
The absence of Arab leadership has been felt in a region where Americans and Iranians wield influence, allowing wars to dominate. It is imperative that Arabs reclaim their presence on the global stage now more than ever before.
– Radwan al-Sayed Iranian-Turkish competition in the Arab Levant Al Qabas, Kuwait, October 19
The Ottoman-Safavid rivalry began as a minor tribal feud and evolved into a significant sectarian struggle, defined by the Ottomans’ adoption of Sunni Islam and the Safavids’ embrace of Shi’ism under Ismail Safavid.
Despite his Sunni-Sufi ancestry, Ismail Safavid imposed Shi’ism on Iran in 1501, inviting clerics from Iraq and Lebanon to educate the populace due to the lack of local Shi’ite scholars. His policies eliminated Sunni Islam and suppressed other Shi’ite sects such as Ismaili and Zaydi Shi’ism.
Empires often build their power around a dominant ideology. For instance, the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity extended its influence, demonstrating how religious partnerships legitimized rulers and inspired art and architecture. Even secular sociologists acknowledge this fusion’s role in creating iconic cathedrals and mosques.
The connection between Iran and Lebanon’s Shi’ites began with Ismail Safavid and Jabal Amil clerics. Even Iran’s secular shah in the 1950s promoted this relationship. During a tense 1957 visit to Lebanon, the shah offered aid to Shi’ites, which was declined by speaker Sabri Hamadeh, symbolizing a rejection of Iranian meddling.
By then, Lebanese Shi’ites had limited political power until Musa al-Sadr arrived in 1959, catalyzing a societal shift. Sadr, fostering interfaith cooperation with figures like Bishop Grégoire Haddad, highlighted Shi’ite deprivation and founded the Supreme Shi’ite Islamic Council in 1969. In 1974, Sadr formed Amal but vanished mysteriously in 1978. After the Iranian revolution, Iran aimed to control Amal but instead founded Hezbollah.
Iran’s ambitions to influence Arab Shi’ites often encounter resistance due to their distinct cultural identities. Notably, language often defines nationality more than genetic heritage in the Middle East, creating a complex interplay of Arab, Persian, and Turkish ancestries.
Arab-Iranian relations, marred by conflicts like the Iran-Iraq War, contrast sharply with flourishing Arab-Turkish ties, marked by economic and cultural exchanges. Arabs prefer Turkey’s governance and education, reflecting a need for cultural rapprochement with Iran.
Iraqis might mediate this reconciliation, exemplified in Abbas Latif’s novel The Ascent to Shiraz, which portrays an Iraqi soldier finding common ground with an Iranian counterpart through literature, symbolizing shared humanity amid conflict. – Hamed Al-Hamoud
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.
