The Assault on Hezbollah

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Since its founding, Hezbollah has faced criticism of many kinds, which over time hardened into cursing and abuse. The Party was not well known among ordinary people in the 1980s, but people’s awareness of it grew as its resistance to the Zionist occupation of southern Lebanon developed. Yet the Party was never a favorite of Arab regimes or Arab security services; it was viewed as the organization that boxed the regimes into a corner, precisely because of its seriousness in confronting the Zionist entity. For this reason, Arab regimes — specifically Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, certain Palestinian factions, and Lebanon’s Future Movement — stood against it in the 2006 war, and were enthusiastic about Israel’s war aims to eliminate it. But the regimes’ hopes were shattered at the feet of the Party’s fighters, the Zionist entity failed, and the Arab regimes withdrew disappointed and dejected. These same Arab quarters did the same thing when the Zionists attacked the Gaza Strip in 2008/2009. One Palestinian leader cursed the Divine Self when he heard in the media that the Zionists would halt their war on Gaza.

The Chain of Sedition

As happened in 1979, Arab regimes worked with states such as America and the Zionist entity to ignite sectarian sedition, on the theory that such strife would push Muslims into internal fighting and thereby drain their energies, so that the Zionist entity would remain secure, the United States would remain dominant, and the regimes would continue in their disgraces against the Arab peoples. As long as Hezbollah stood firm against the Zionist entity, received weapons from Iran, and threatened to change the political face of the region, it was best to drag it into sectarian strife in which the innocent and the guilty would be mixed together, forcing it to turn its weapons against Muslim chests instead of Zionist throats. Some corrupt clerics, both Sunni and Shia, were drawn into manufacturing this strife, and ordinary people were affected by misleading media and by the bloody bombings carried out by fanatics from both sects, and began accumulating hatred and rancor against the other side. Instead of the Muslims’ battles being against the Zionists and Western colonial domination, for the sake of progress and prosperity, attention shifted to what is called “Safavid Iran” and the “misguided, misguiding Hezbollah” that supposedly fights the Zionists merely as a gateway to controlling the hearts of Sunnis. If only the Arab regimes had supported Sunni resistance in Iraq and Palestine in order to win the hearts of the Shia! Of course, these leaders have nothing to do with Islam; their only concern is corruption, corrupting others, and controlling the necks of a subjugated nation in the service of their own interests and the interests of those who installed them as leaders over it.

The idea of discriminating between Sunni and Shia did not exist in most Islamic countries, and was confined only to countries where both Sunnis and Shia lived together — and even there, only on a narrow scale. Now, however, it exists in countries whose people know next to nothing about the other side, such as Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. Who is it that feeds this culture of discrimination between one Muslim and another, and works day and night to stir up strife and internal fighting among Muslims? Most Sunnis and Shia know nothing about the other side. The Sunni masses know nothing of what Shia scholars argue, and the Shia masses know nothing of what Sunni scholars argue; and instead of informing each side of what the other actually holds, both sides are mobilized with religious distortions meant to provoke mutual denunciation, stir hatred, and feed internal fighting. Naturally, Hezbollah is not spared this distortion — indeed it is the prime target of distortion, in order to undermine its strength in the service of Israel and the rotten, despotic Arab regimes. Even though Hezbollah does not point its weapons at any Arab regime, the mere fact of its standing against Israel and developing its military capabilities to confront Israel constitutes a danger to Arab regimes that derive part of their survival in power from Israel. Any defeat of Israel is a defeat for the Arab regimes and a threat to their continuation in power. The slogan that governs the Arab regimes is clear: submission is the means of survival in power, whereas dignity means that the peoples will prevail. Hezbollah sets an example for the peoples, and if it achieves an accomplishment against Israel, it gives the peoples a powerful boost to confront their rulers. This is why Arab rulers insisted, across their various media outlets, that Israel defeated Hezbollah in 2006 — despite the confirmation by Israel’s own leaders and its own inquiry commissions that it lost the war and failed to achieve its objectives.

Hezbollah and the Syrian Regime

The issue of Syria has recently come to the fore, and Hezbollah has sided with the regime. Many have interpreted Hezbollah’s stance in sectarian terms, on the theory that Assad is an Alawite Shia. Of course, the Syrian regime is a secular, despotic regime like other regimes of Arab corruption, but it has no objection to using a sect, a religion, or a school of thought to reinforce its own position. Arab regimes do not distinguish between one sect and another, or between one people and another; they only distinguish between the loyal and the disloyal, and they are always ready to use money to buy consciences and enslave resolve. Hezbollah’s stance alongside the Syrian regime is not sectarian, but stems from military, political, and security considerations; we all know that Syria is the wide-open gateway through which rockets, weapons, and advanced electronic equipment reach Hezbollah. Hezbollah stands with the Sunni Palestinian resistance, supplying it with expertise, equipment, and advice. Hezbollah men were present in Sinai to help Hamas and Islamic Jihad smuggle weapons, and some of them entered Gaza to help build fortifications and bunkers, and to transfer Hezbollah’s field experience in confronting the Zionist army. Hezbollah also stood with Sudan against partition, with the Libyan people in their revolution, and with the Tunisian and Egyptian peoples. Had Hezbollah been sectarian, it would not have taken these positions in support of Sunnis.

Someone may say: he is Shia, therefore he is an infidel or a sinner. This writer holds his own view of every Islamic school — Sunni, Shia, Kharijite, Qadarite, Jabrite, Wahhabi, Ismaili, and so on — all of which have contributed to weakening the Muslims; but no one has the right to declare another an infidel, nor does one school have the right to declare another an infidel. If the fragmentation of Muslims is disbelief, then no one can claim superiority over another on that score. If the development of these schools was an error, then we are all in error; if it is disbelief, then we are all in the same scale. As for the claim that the Shia have rites that are not Islamic — no school is without particular rites of its own that have nothing to do with Islam as such; each has its own particularity. Each school practices its own particularity, and is entitled to do as it wishes so long as it remains within its own walls and does not try to project that onto everyone else. To clarify: Islam opens the door to independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and non-exclusionary schools of jurisprudence can develop through the interplay of opinions and interpretations, such as the Shafi’i and Hanbali schools; but if these interpretations turn into exclusive creeds, then Islam disowns them.

[…] regarding Hezbollah’s moral conduct. But the Party needs the Syrian regime for strategic reasons, and were the regime to fall, the Party would need the new regime in turn. It is only logical to expect that any new regime in Syria would need Hezbollah as well. But some opposition leaders left the Party no room for optimism, since they opened fire on it, accused it of sending soldiers to help the regime, and promised to develop relations with the Zionist entity. Not all of the Syrian opposition did this, but the statements issued by some figures in the National Council and some opposition symbols do not inspire confidence. This writer is certain that had the Syrian opposition remained within the embrace of the Arab masses, and sought to mobilize Arab popular energies against the regime, that would have served it far better than turning to the so-called “international community” and appealing to Western states. The Western states want to destroy Syria, but the masses who want change in Syria, and who want to preserve Syrian blood, would have been able to talk to Hezbollah comfortably, in order to help find a solution that meets the demands of the Syrian people.

Many people disagree with Hezbollah’s position on the Syrian regime, but disagreement should not take the form of cursing and abuse; rather, it should be expressed clearly, stating the specific points of difference and criticism. Everyone is entitled to disagree with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, but this leader carries a symbolism and a standing of his own, and the nation must not slide into demeaning those who have written for it a luminous chapter of history amid a sea of darkness.

Notable Features of Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a Shia party with religious practices consistent with those of the Shia community. Its own particular practices are not our concern — they are perhaps the concern of those who appoint themselves guardians of Heaven and Hell, distributing seats in each as they see fit. But the Party has notable distinguishing features, among them:

First: The Party is the only Arab party that has defeated Israel. It expelled Israel from southern Lebanon, and prevented it from achieving its goals in the July 2006 war. To be fair, it was the resistance in Gaza that forced Israel into an incomplete withdrawal from the Strip, and that thwarted it in the 2008/2009 winter war. The leaderships of Egypt and Syria told us that they were victorious in 1973, but this is not true. Both states fought, but neither was victorious, because neither achieved its war aims. The one bright victory achieved was at the hands of Hezbollah. It is now strong enough that Israel, for all its bluster, hesitates to attack it, knowing full well that a war against it would be no picnic, and that it might well lose.

And since we are creative when it comes to fantasies, there are those who say that Hezbollah’s victory was itself a conspiracy by Israel and America: that Israel fought a war that was not serious, in order to give the impression that the Party had won, thereby improving its image before the Arab masses — and with it, improving the image of “Safavid Iran,” allied with world Zionism. This, supposedly, would open a door for expanding Iranian influence in Arab countries, improving the climate for converting Arab Sunnis to Shiism. And so the Arab countries would fall into the hands of Israel and America, courtesy of the Persians.

As if the Arab countries were not already under the domination of Israel and America!

Second: Hezbollah is distinguished by lofty ethics, and considers the moral standard the primary criterion for achieving accomplishments at every level. For the Party, outward piety is not the yardstick — rather, it is the moral level of the party, the person, or the state. Whoever’s morals rise, rises; whoever’s morals collapse, collapses. This is why the Party has worked to show consideration to the Christian before the Muslim, and to the Sunni before the Shia. The Party does not permit its members to flaunt weapons, to abuse people, or to extort them, nor does it permit boasting or one-upmanship over others. Hezbollah’s cultivation of its members is of an extremely high order, one for which we can find no equal anywhere in the world.

Third: Hezbollah’s weapon is a weapon of liberation, and it is never used against the Lebanese or against any other party, even against people of the West. The Party adheres strictly to the ethics of arms, considering weapons a great trust and an immense responsibility for which it will be held to account before the people and before God, and it has no readiness to use them to settle internal disputes or to impose its will on anyone. The Party is criticized for having used its weapons on May 7, 2008, when the telecommunications crisis erupted. At that time, the Future Movement government was threatening the Party’s very existence by exposing it to Israel through the official Lebanese telecommunications network. The Party tried, together with the Future Movement, to persuade it to abandon its attempts to link the Party’s communications network to the official network, but to no avail, and the matter became one of life or death. That is to say, the Future Movement was aiming to eliminate Hezbollah and strip it of its weapons — to accomplish what Israel itself had failed to accomplish. Hezbollah settled the matter on the ground within two hours.

Fourth: I have found nothing in Hezbollah that pushes people toward becoming Shia. In every speech, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah insists on the unity of Arabs and Muslims, calls for the rejection of sectarianism, and warns against policies aimed at stirring up strife between Islamic schools, and between Christians and Muslims.

Conclusion

The Shah of Iran was Shia, yet Arab leaders sought his blessing. So what makes this Shia sacred, and that one satanic? His closeness to, or distance from, Israel and America. Had Hezbollah been Sunni, the Arabs would not have accepted it either. Did the Arabs ever accept the resistance in Iraq, or the resistance in Palestine?

It seems that those accustomed to humiliation see in glory a violation of tradition. It is not permissible for a victor to emerge from among the defeated, nor for one who is dignified to emerge from among the humiliated. The matter resembles our Arab institutions, which have become a haven for the lazy and the incompetent and for the squandering of public funds. The honest man in these institutions does not last, because his very existence exposes the incompetence, recklessness, and theft of others. The honest man’s small mistake becomes a mountain, and the wolves rush to bring him down and expel him; whereas the theft of billions, were it not for the will of God, would never have come to light at all.

Hezbollah is fine — so the logic goes — if it lays down its arms and confines itself to a bit of media bickering, and decides that the only road to Jerusalem is the road of negotiations and the United Nations. Then Hassan Nasrallah will become sensible and measured, a man of vision and foresight.

What Does This Mean for the Masses?

We are a nation that must break its chains, reject enslavement, and insist on progress and giving. We must rise up to become a great nation that contributes to world civilization, safeguards human dignity, and elevates humanity in every field. We stand with those who toil, labor, and achieve, and we support them and work with them to achieve still more. But we do not stand with those who plunder the nation’s wealth and squander it, and who turn it into a mount for our enemies among the Westerners and the Zionists. The Arab rulers do not fear God; they know nothing but their own interests and appetites, and they raise their peoples on nothing but cowardice, fear, flight, and defeat. They are rulers who cannot be believed, who are not fit to be truthful, and who do not know what truthfulness is or what it means to bear a trust.

The friends of Arab rulers are not our friends, and their enemies are not our enemies. Whoever plunders the nation’s wealth has no right to slander others; whoever recognizes Israel has no right to speak of patriotism; and whoever makes himself a broker over the Arab nation has no future but the garbage heap of history.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “التطاول على حزب الله” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.