The kidnapping of IDF Soldiers was but a Prelude, Hassan Nasrallah’s planned « March on Beirut », Fascist Style

I've said this before. Keep an eye on Middle East Transparent. They have some of the more interesting Arab (and foriegn) liberal perspectives.

Copied from http://www.metransparent.com and http://www.metransparent.com/english.html

By Pierre Akel

The summer war between Hizbullah and Israel started on July 12, 2006. In an editorial dated July 17, on the Arabic page of metransparent, I wrote the following :

« For the last few days Hassan Nasrallah and his deputy, Naim Qassem, had been declaring that « it would be better for the Israelis that to put an immediate end to the current clashes and to accept the principle of a prisoners exchange »! Israel’s reaction has been to wage an unlimited war against Hizbullah and against Lebanese civilian infrastructures alike. Which means that the Israeli reaction has obliged Hizbullah to enter into a decisive battle prematurely. That, unless Hizbullah has predicted such an Israeli reaction.

« Whether Hizbullah expected such an Israeli reaction or not, the basic significance of Hizbullah’s attack against Israel remains the same : Hizbullah’s attack should not be read in the context of the Arab-Israeli struggle. Rather, it should be viewed in the context of lebanese internal politics (in relation with the nature of Lebanon’s political and social regime) and in the context of Lebanon’s relations with Syria and with Iran.

To add :
« What were the aims of Hizbullah’s attack behind the « blue line », which represents the international boder between Lebanon and Israel ? Was it Hizbullah’s intention to merely capture two Israeli soldiers or was the real intention to start a «militia coup d’état » (as opposed to the traditional « military coup d’état ») process which would allow it, in the end, to seize power in Lebanon itself ?

« Does the Hizbullah plan (which shall certainly make use of the « nationalistic » and « Islamic » prestige of a successful attack against Israeli forces) include a « march on Beirut » with the aim of toppling the elected Siniora government through a mixture of militia and political pressure (aided by President Emile Lahoud who would sign a « decree » putting an end to the mandate of the present government and replacing it by a new pro-Lahoud government which would reestablish Lebanon’s vassal relationship with Syria- noting that Syria itself has entered in the Iranian orbit lately ?

And finally :
« Was the « Fascist Scenario »- a repetion of Moussoulini’s March on Rome- the scenario adopted by Nasrallah and his Syrian and Iranian partners ?
…
« If the Hizbullah « coup d’état » is realized, then it would, in reality, be a « coup d’état » against the 1943 Convention (which was the basis of Lebanon’s independence), against the « Taef Accord » (which put an end to the Civil War). Which amounts to saying that it would be a « coup d’état » against the liberal democratic regime and the starting point of a «Mullacracy » in Lebanon. Such a «mullacracy» would, certainly, be the spark to a new civil war and to the division of Lebanon into confessional mini states.

« It is beyond any doubt that the « enlightened » majortiy in Lebanon would in no case resign itself to a regime described by Iran’s ex president, Mohamed Khatami, as a « Taliban regime »…
*

That article, written 5 days from the start of heavy Israli raids all over Lebanon proved to be controversial. Many pseudo-liberals and pseudo-progressists rejected its « pessimistic » analysis and expressed their dismay, in particular, at the use of the term « fascist » to describe Hassan Nasrallah. Inevitably, there had to be some pseudo-marxists to point out that Fascism was a «European phonomenon of the 1930s » which could not recur in a totally different Lebanese context !

Five months later, It is unfortunate that the pessimistic scenario is proving to be true to the letter. Hizbullah and Amal ministers have left the Lebanese government when the ruling majority did not accept their « ultimatum » : a « third of government portfolios», which means a minority enjoying a veto power over all government decisions, to Hizbullah and its allies, or else.. When the lebanese government went ahead to approve the UN International Court proposal for Lebanon (in relation with the Hariri assasination case), the Syrian-appointed presidnet Lahoud declared that the Siniora government has become illegitimate as the Shias are no more represented in it.

Now, Nasrallah is giving his supporters « assurances » that a « clean government » would soon be established in the country. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, yesterday, predicted that US Imperialism will be defeated in Lebanon !

The background to the Hizbullah-Syria-Iran offensive is easy to guess : the defeat of the Republicans in the recent US elections and the possible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. If such were the case, the anti-Hizbullah forces in Lebanon could, probably, be in a less advantageous position. But, certainly, not in a desperate position. Remember, on March 8, 2005, Nasrallah rallied 300 000 supporters in the center of Beirut to declare his loyalty to the Syrian dictator. At the time, 30 000 Syrian soldiers were still occupying the country. Yet, 6 days later (and a time when the Bush administration seemed baffled by Hizbullah’s demonstration of its force) more than a million lebanese marched on Beirut to crush Hizbullah’s attempt to keep the country under occupation.

Hassan Nasrallah’s party seems ready to play all its cards in its hardly disguised « coup d’etat ». Hizbullah claims to have more than 20 000 missiles and thousands of Iranian-trained fighters. It has been strengthened by its alliance with General Michel Aoun, who seems ready to sacrifice the republic for the presidency. Still, the inherent weakness of Nasrallah’s position is still there. As I remarked in the July 17th editiorial, « it is beyond any doubt that the « enlightened » majortiy in Lebanon would in no case resign itself to a regime described by Iran’s ex president, Mohamed Khatami, as a « Taliban regime »…

Even if US forces leave Iraq, the lebanese majority has only one option : resist Hizbullah’s fascist « coup d’état » and ..win. For a people which is still suffering from the consequences of 30 years of civil war and foreign occupations, the novelty is that a large majority of the lebanese has come to believe in civil, unarmed, struggle. The lebanese majority does not want to go back to the black days of bloodshed and destruction. That is the real challenge for the people of Lebanon and for the region.