The accusations directed by Hezbollah Secretary General, Hassan Nassrallah at Israel regarding its responsibility for the series of assassinations in Lebanon reminds of the myth that emerged after the September 11 attacks.Among the same minds addressed by Nasrallah, myth was that the Mossad was behind Osama bin Laden and that the Americans themselves had conspired to kill their own people. Such fantasy is hard for the sane to believe although the Sheikh of Al-Qaeda had served Israeli interests more than Israel would have ever desired by turning all Muslims, and especially Arabs, into permanent suspects.
If Hezbollah had clues and analytical evidence proving that the Mossad was behind the parliamentarians and politicians in Lebanon, why doesn't it cooperate with the international investigation commission and present the information to it? Why would Hezbollah oppose the international tribunal and protest it? Doesn't Israeli crime warrant support from Hezbollah and its allies to the victims?
Why then did Michel Aoun "snap" the seat of late deputy Pierre Gemayel in Al-Maten instead of declaring his support to the Kataeb Party and the martyr's father against the enemy since he refuses to make any accusations at Syria? Or did Nasrallah not feed his ally, the retired general, with the information he had about the assailant?
In a statement issued at the end of last May, just one day after the Security Council passed Resolution 1757 which called for the formation of a tribunal for the assassinations, Hezbollah considered that the resolution threw Lebanon in the storms of international interests and widely opened the doors among international interferences to the extent that Lebanon under the international mandate seems to have lost its independent decision and sovereignty in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. Hezbollah also considered that the resolution bypassed the Lebanese state and assaulted its internal affairsÂ…an insolent breach that serves the American political projectÂ…and a violation of the law and of the UN's chapter, principles and objectives.
Is it not strange for Hezbollah to so severely lead the assault on a resolution that paves the road to condemn its enemy and the enemy of all Arabs? Don't the leaders of March 14 have the right to deduce after Nasrallah's statement that the assassinations will continue since the Mossad stands behind them and since Nasrallah has admitted that he is unable to control Israeli networks because they are operating in areas of Beirut outside his security sphere of influence? Does this statement set the ground for an expansion of Hezbollah's power and in relation to the campaign to arm and train Aoun's supporters? If the accusations are true, why then criticize Saad Al-Hariri's positions in Washington and New York in which he called for a tougher stand on the assassinations to bring the formation and activation of the tribunal up to speed?
Following Nasrallah's latest speech, Syrian newspaper Al-Baath launched an angry campaign on the majority in Lebanon and emphasized that its "hysterical responses" to vindicating Syria "leave no doubts about the intentions of this side to seek further escalation." By the token of the same logic used by Hezbollah's Secretary General, the majority is demanding that Israel murder more of its leaders and sacrifice them to embarrass Damascus, and Israel will certainly not hesitate to accept the invitation!