August 06 Newsletter

[back to the Table of Contents]
 

Resist Arab Weakness First
Dr. Mustafa El Nabarawy; trans. Blake Hounshell and Mohamed Abdel Aziz

One of the most important prevailing values in the advanced societies, as well as in societies that wish to advance, is the practice of self-criticism. Allow me to participate in this culture in dealing with this Lebanese war between Israel and Hezbollah (the party of Hassan Nasrallah). I will use the second name instead of first so that I do not use the expression “people of God” when referring to Israel. What is the relationship of God to the current war between the party of Hassan Nasrallah and Israel? The conceit that God is with the combatants is the main engine of this war.

But how can God be behind all these acts that are incompatible with the principles of humanitarianism? The answer surely is that the warring parties maintain that they represent God and fight for the sake of his support. Indeed, both Israel and the group of Hassan Nasrallah say they are associated with God, in one way or another. Israel says that its people are God’s chosen people. On the other side, the group of Hassan Nasrallah, drawing from its name, strives for holiness and piety among the leaders and individuals and actions of the group. They both think they are God’s agents on Earth! It is incumbent upon us in exercising self criticism to move from the current topic so that the view becomes clearer and more transparent, so we begin by outlining the outstanding issues before July 12, 2006. On the Lebanese side there was an ongoing dialogue between the different political forces (the national dialogue) on many points, such as: how to deal with Resolution 1559, the Presidential issue, the future role of the resistance, the fate of the weapons and forces of the party of Hassan Nasrallah, the situation of the Shaba’a Farms, the demarcation of the border with Syria, Syria’s relationship with the state and people after the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, the international commission of inquiry into the killing of Hariri, prisoners of the party of Hassan Nasrallah and the Lebanese resistance to Israel. And on the Syrian side: strong pressure on the ruling regime, whether by states (America and France) or by international institutions (the Security Council and the European Union) to cooperate with the International Commission of Inquiry, stopping the allowing of armed Palestinian organizations to work on Syrian soil, and closing the channel of communication between Iran and the party of Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon.

On the Iranian side there was great pressure to stop its nuclear project, curtail its territorial aspirations, and curtail support for the party of Hassan Nasrallah. And on the Israeli side, there was the problem of the abduction of one of its soldiers by Hamas in Gaza and the use of excessive military force to return him.

In light of the above, was there justification for the party of Hassan Nasrallah to escalate via the prisoners first and foremost? In other words, was it in the interest of Lebanon, and I reiterate Lebanon, to escalate via the prisoners at this time, or was it done to serve other interests? Did both Iran and Syria use the party of Hassan Nasrallah as a card to relieve the pressure on them in the belief that if war broke out, the United States would have to turn to them to control and regulate the movement of the party of Hassan Nasrallah? As for the latter itself, the war was an opportunity to extend the shelf life of its military legitimacy.

What is the standard of victory? And does it differ from one country to another? In Israel’s reckoning victory means the elimination of the military capabilities of the party of Hassan Nasrallah and the restoration of its two soldiers. In the reckoning of the party of Hassan Nasrallah, victory was to remain able to launch its missiles and that the head of the party remained (Arab culture being hereditary).

But what does reality say? 1140 dead Lebanese, most of them civilians, and more than 3,000 injured, the demolition of 15 thousand residential buildings, the displacement of more than a million citizens, the demolition of bridges and roads and energy, electricity, and telephone infrastructure, and returning the forces of the party of Hassan Nasrallah to the north of the Litani River. On the Israeli side, 108 people dead, mostly military, and losses in the billions as a result of the war’s effects on the Israeli economy. Are there any positives to this war? Yes.

Among them: the confirmation for the second time (the first being the ’73 war) that the State of Israel can be defeated militarily, and the increase in the number of black marks on the Israeli military due to a rise in civilian casualties on the Lebanese side. Suddenly, the party of Hassan Nasrallah, with its deadly competence, has confirmed for everyone and that includes Israel and United States and the military hardware that they own—the inability of regular armies to defeat groups that use guerilla warfare.

According to Dr. Emile Shukrallah in the article entitled “The Understanding of Resistance in the Arab Mind,” which I see as one of the most important  essays written on this topic, resistance is by definition a reaction. He says, “It is known scientifically that the strength of resistance is first revealed as a reaction to a specific action. Then it disappears with the disappearance of the same action. One’s presence depends upon the existence of the other.”

Thus, in order to maximize the reaction we have to enumerate the forms of resistance. Resistance takes many forms and includes many methods, including the armed variety to be sure. But it is not the best way, and sixty years confirms that armed resistance cannot be relied upon alone. But why its widespread use in the Arab region? In my estimation, it is common for two reasons. First, the concept of “the nation” in the Arab mentality, traditionally and contemporarily is that of a “shell” in which we exist and which we protect and defend against all invaders.

Thus, when the nation is exposed to adversity, this concept prevails over other concepts. There is another understanding of the nation which I have been calling for over nearly two years: that the nation is “part” of the citizen and not a shell for him. Therefore, to grow the citizen is to grow the nation and humanity, so building us up as human beings is the first step in resistance. My concept of a nation is one in which citizens live freely and conduct their affairs democratically. It is a nation that upholds and practices oversight and accountability, where basic services are provided according to international standards, where initiative belongs to its citizens, who may choose patriotic leaders according to their qualifications.

 Governments must the people and not the other way around. A nation must have a vision of a promising future, which nobody can take away by force. In my opinion, a change in the concept of the nation in the Arab street entails a change in the concept of resistance and its methods. Resistance is transformed into the building up of a human being and not the destruction of his destiny. Likewise, resistance is transported from the military arena to the arena of capacity and competencies and the rate and quality of their building.

It is our belief that the historical truth is fixed, and neither changes nor can be negotiated away. But while the “historical right is a reality which we cannot escape,” we have to realize that one of the most important elements of a political settlement is that it takes place in accordance with real capabilities and not on the basis of historical truth.

The whole world has changed. Can we change? The failure to change is proof that resisting Arab weakness must come first. Therefore, we need a new Arab initiative in the form of a declaration, especially from the frontline states (Egypt / Jordan / Syria / Lebanon / Palestine) to unilaterally halt all forms of armed resistance against Israel. This announcement would be issued either in the General Assembly of the United Nations, or in the American Congress. Then the United States of America (the state that runs the world now) should be called upon to organize a conference to achieve security and a lasting peace with the full involvement of all international players and parties to the problem. Everyone will observe the implementation and achievement of what comes out of this conference, as well as the resolutions that define harsh international penalties on those who reject, procrastinate, or contravene these resolutions.

Lebanon is the most democratic of the Arab countries, but unfortunately, the sectarian nature of this democracy deprives it of many of its features and characteristics. Will the Lebanese initiate real steps to shift from the current sectarian system to a real democracy that instills the values of universal citizenship rather than sectarianism? The Lebanese people must realize that they cannot build a democratic political order based on the universal right to citizenship without the complete elimination of sectarianism, whether in the form individuals or institutions.

Are national symbols being put forward that the entire Lebanese street can get behind? To Hezbollah, I say: Yes, record the date that you played a key role in the armed resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, and that the main reason for the departure of the Israeli army from the south was due to the high cost incurred by the government of Israel and the people of this occupation, which in turn generated strong internal pressures calling for the need to get out of the South. On the other hand, history will record that on July 12, 2006, you usurped the decision of the Lebanese people and the government, and you were to blame for the tragic disaster in Lebanon, which will suffer from it for decades.

Therefore, I think that the Hezbollah leadership, the organization, and the masses must realize that it is time to shift from a military-political organization into a political organization only. Primarily, for the interest of Lebanon and its future, and secondarily, because it is now an international desire from which there is no escape in light of the Rome conference.

The international community, and especially the U.S., must provide or encourage the appropriate conditions for this change. It is not in the interest of Lebanon, Israel, the region, or the world that Hezbollah becomes structurally fragmented and transforms into gangs or goes underground. Gangs will work to settle their accounts within Lebanon and beyond.

Will Hezbollah respond by taking the beginning steps of its transformation? And will the international community respond by seizing the opportunity and fostering the right climate for this transformation? As for Syria, the strategy of steadfast and permanent opposition has outlived its usefulness. Why did Syria not exploit the resistance in Lebanon and support of the Arab street to remind the world of the Golan? Why did we not hear one word from Syria during the past month? Syria must realize that a political settlement is the only solution available now.

It also needs to recognize the sovereignty of the Lebanese people over their land and refrain from interfering in their affairs. It should shut down the offices of the armed Palestinian resistance on Syrian territory.

Finally, it should lift its curbs on freedom and progress as a step on the road to democracy. Have we learned from the experiences of the last sixty years? The forms of Arab weakness are many. Will we resist them? Before thinking of resisting the ambitious of outsiders, we must realize that resisting Arab weakness comes first. Shall we begin?