This editorial was published in Arab News on 11/12/2010
How will Hezbollah react to findings of the UN panel is the question.
Is it better to suppress the truth if it causes political embarrassment and or worse, or should it be allowed out no matter how uncomfortable it proves? This is not about WikiLeaks but Lebanon. The UN tribunal tasked with investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is due to publish its findings, possibly as early as this week. It is widely believed that it will indict Lebanon's Hezbollah movement in the killing. Hezbollah has warned of violence if that is the case.
Hezbollah says the UN tribunal is an American and Israeli puppet. It had earlier said it would provide evidence proving that Israel was responsible for the murder. It has failed to do so. But that has not stopped those who admire it repeating the claim that the UN is an agent of the US and Israel.
There is hypocrisy at play. It is amazing how some people praise the UN when it criticizes those they oppose but when it turns the heat on causes they support, they condemn it as a tool of their enemies. So much for consistency.
It is instructive too that those who support Hezbollah are more than happy at the WikiLeaks revelations but not want any revelations about its activities. So much for integrity.
Until the report comes out, we do not know if Hezbollah will be indicted. Hezbollah's threats of violence ahead of that event is nothing less than thuggery. The correct response, if indicted, should be to challenge those findings through normal legal means.
Reconciliation in Lebanon will not be built by suppressing the report. It will only convince the majority that they have been cheated. That itself could cause further violence.
Hezbollah behaves like an armed state within a state. No country can accept such a situation and Lebanon will never be a truly sovereign nation while that continues. Those who have armed it bear the blame in part — but so does Israel. While Hezbollah's prime aim is control of Lebanon, it uses the Israeli threat to justify its massive arsenal. If Israel returned the Shebaa farms and agreed that it would never again interfere in Lebanon, Hezbollah would not longer be justified in remaining an armed camp. From Israel's perspective, handing the farms back would be a small price to pay for its neighbor's stability. Its refusal to do means that it does not want a stable Lebanon. This is a moment of truth in every sense of the term — for Lebanon, for its neighbors. Most of all, for Hezbollah if indicted. Its credibility is on the line. Ironically, it may have hoist itself on its own petard. It has threatened violence. If there is violence, Hezbollah will be condemned. If it decides not to go down that route then its reputation for toughness will be blown away. That is why many in Lebanon believe that as the alternative it will try to trigger fresh conflict with Israel. That cannot be dismissed — especially since it would play into the dangerously deteriorating situation at present.
How will Hezbollah react to findings of the UN panel is the question.
Is it better to suppress the truth if it causes political embarrassment and or worse, or should it be allowed out no matter how uncomfortable it proves? This is not about WikiLeaks but Lebanon. The UN tribunal tasked with investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is due to publish its findings, possibly as early as this week. It is widely believed that it will indict Lebanon's Hezbollah movement in the killing. Hezbollah has warned of violence if that is the case.
Hezbollah says the UN tribunal is an American and Israeli puppet. It had earlier said it would provide evidence proving that Israel was responsible for the murder. It has failed to do so. But that has not stopped those who admire it repeating the claim that the UN is an agent of the US and Israel.
There is hypocrisy at play. It is amazing how some people praise the UN when it criticizes those they oppose but when it turns the heat on causes they support, they condemn it as a tool of their enemies. So much for consistency.
It is instructive too that those who support Hezbollah are more than happy at the WikiLeaks revelations but not want any revelations about its activities. So much for integrity.
Until the report comes out, we do not know if Hezbollah will be indicted. Hezbollah's threats of violence ahead of that event is nothing less than thuggery. The correct response, if indicted, should be to challenge those findings through normal legal means.
Reconciliation in Lebanon will not be built by suppressing the report. It will only convince the majority that they have been cheated. That itself could cause further violence.
Hezbollah behaves like an armed state within a state. No country can accept such a situation and Lebanon will never be a truly sovereign nation while that continues. Those who have armed it bear the blame in part — but so does Israel. While Hezbollah's prime aim is control of Lebanon, it uses the Israeli threat to justify its massive arsenal. If Israel returned the Shebaa farms and agreed that it would never again interfere in Lebanon, Hezbollah would not longer be justified in remaining an armed camp. From Israel's perspective, handing the farms back would be a small price to pay for its neighbor's stability. Its refusal to do means that it does not want a stable Lebanon. This is a moment of truth in every sense of the term — for Lebanon, for its neighbors. Most of all, for Hezbollah if indicted. Its credibility is on the line. Ironically, it may have hoist itself on its own petard. It has threatened violence. If there is violence, Hezbollah will be condemned. If it decides not to go down that route then its reputation for toughness will be blown away. That is why many in Lebanon believe that as the alternative it will try to trigger fresh conflict with Israel. That cannot be dismissed — especially since it would play into the dangerously deteriorating situation at present.
No comments:
Post a Comment