“Let Hizbullah Wipe Out Israel; Say ‘No’ to the Ceasefire” And The Heroic Destiny of Hizbollah
August 10, 2006
Israel has lost the war in Lebanon. The south of that country has been reduced to cement dust, half of that country’s infrastructure is a memory and parts of the area south of Beirut look like a moonscape, but hey, if Hizbollah says Israel has lost the war, it must be so. Hizbollah has always had Lebanon’s best interests in mind, right? Look for the Israeli government to insist on losing as may wars as they can, in the future.
Hey, it isn’t as if Hizbollah would lie, is it? It isn’t as if Hizbollah would attempt to manipulate the media, right? Hizbollah and their apologists and supporters are insisting Hizbollah is winning the war.
It’s hard to argue with logic. Egyptian Liberal intellectual, Mamoun Fandy, call upon the Arab world to support Hizbollah as it fulfills it’s destiny as victorious and heroic Arab warriors. Arabs he states, must resist and refuse a ceasefire.
“Since Hizbullah is ‘rubbing Israel’s nose in the dirt,’ defeating the Israeli army, and putting an end to its legend – something we have not seen in all of the previous Arab-Israeli wars – I am surprised at our demand, as Arabs, for a ceasefire! Please, let Hizbullah teach those scoundrels a lesson. Let Hizbullah continue its struggle to annihilate this ‘foundling nation.’
“The history of ceasefires as far as we, the Arabs, are concerned is one big deception. Did not the international community demand that we [agree to] a truce [hudna] in 1948? And what was the result of this truce? The result was that the ‘Zionist gangs’ deceived us and built the State of Israel, from whose crimes we have been suffering for 50 years, during which Israel occupied our land, massacred our children, and destroyed our houses. If only we hadn’t accepted the ceasefire at that time, everything that happened would not have happened!”
“Our Television Screens Tell Us That Victory is at Hand… I Do Not Think That They Would Lie to Us Again”
“In addition, why should we agree to a ceasefire when the secretary-general of Hizbullah has said to us that he will strike Tel Aviv? Do we not know that the Israelis are cowards who will flee when their army is defeated? Israel, as Secretary-General [Nasrallah] said, is not ‘a state with an army, but rather an army with a state.’ When this army is defeated, the country will fall apart, and the Jews will flee Palestine. Why, then, should we grant Israel this opportunity [to save itself through a ceasefire]? If the Israeli Army is being defeated day by day in Maroun Al-Ras, Taibeh, and Aitaroun, why should we let it catch its breath? Let Hizbullah wipe it out, and say together with me ‘no’ to the ceasefire, for we are advancing, and there is no need for us to be burned once again by the fire of the truce and the deception.
“What is the meaning of a ceasefire according to the Israeli conditions? The ceasefire in Israel’s view, dear sirs, means the presence of international forces made up of 15,000-25,000 foreign soldiers in southern Lebanon. It means that Israel would only withdraw after southern Lebanon is handed over to another foreign occupation – and most of these forces would be French!
“How can those of us who are intelligent agree to replacing Israeli occupation with a different foreign occupation, which would have 25,000 heavily armed soldiers, would take over southern Lebanon, and would have the force and the equipment to strike at the Lebanese coming from north of the Litani river to its south. How can we agree to this when we are winning? Our television screens tell us that victory is at hand, and are mobilizing us and equipping us for victory. The speakers on the television screens are our people, and I do not think that they would lie to us again.”
“Is It Logical That People are Saying That Hizbullah’s Jihad… Did Not Liberate Lebanon, But Rather Set us Back 50 Years…?”
“In light of all of the above, we have no choice but to be certain of victory and to be aware of the enemy’s deception.
“The great deception today is that the forces that will occupy southern Lebanon will be French forces. How can we agree to French occupation of southern Lebanon? Is this a return to the French Mandate once again? Did Lebanon not sacrifice sons, money, and everything else, whether expensive or cheap, in order to rid itself of the French Mandate in Lebanon? How can it be that we expel colonialism from Lebanon’s front door, just so that the French will enter Lebanon once more, as an occupying force, through the back door? What thinking person would agree to this?
“Is it logical that people are saying that Hizbullah’s jihad and the defeat it is handing to Israel did not liberate Lebanon, but rather set us back 50 years, and handed over at least part of southern Lebanon to French forces?”
“How Can We Agree to the Return of the [French] Mandate…?”
“A French force in southern Lebanon comprising at least 10,000 heavily armed soldiers would mean the return of French influence to Lebanon, backed with the threat of arms – meaning that the Mandate is back. How can we agree to the return of the Mandate at a time when we are winning, at a time when we have wiped out the legend of the undefeatable Israeli Army? We must not accept this – and so I say no to the ceasefire!
“No to the ceasefire – not only because Hizbullah is winning on the ground, but also because it is winning on the television screens, and because all the Arab public stands behind Hizbullah and the secretary-general of Hizbullah. This public has never united behind any Arab leader in the past – not [even] behind Gamal ‘Abd Al-Nasser himself. Why, at a time of such unity, at a time when people are giving that which is [most] precious, at a time when thousands and even hundreds of thousands are volunteering to give up their lives – why, at a time when we have all this strength at our disposal, should we demand a ceasefire?
“The Arab media is telling us day by day that the Israeli army will be defeated within an hour. It is only a question of time. The Israelis are not capable of a land fight; they can only attack from the air. Bit by bit they will run out of planes and bit by bit they will feel the defeat. They will have no choice but to enter Lebanon, and then Hizbullah will pulverize them, since the equation on the ground, in an unbalanced war between a regular army and a group that is experienced in guerilla warfare, is in Hizbullah’s favor – as [Al-Jazeera correspondent in Israel] Walid Al-’Umri and [Al-Jazeera correspondent in the Palestinian Authority] Guevara Al-Badiri say. If this is so, then we will win the war, and there is no need whatsoever for a ceasefire.”
“There is A NuclearState That Stands Behind Our Jihad… Israel… Will Not Be Able to Beat the Arab-Persian Coalition”
“A ceasefire would save the Zionist state. We must not grant them that opportunity at a time when we have the upper hand. Israel is now at the edge of the abyss, and its army has lost its morale. Let Hizbullah… drive them into their foxholes or disperse them back whence they came. These gangs that came from Europe are groups that are interested in luxury, and are not able to fight those who are armed with faith. The battle today is turning in our favor as it never has in the past. In addition to all of this, there is a nuclear state that stands behind our jihad, and it is capable of pulverizing Israel with missiles. This country is, of course, Iran. Israel has beaten the Arabs in the past, but this time it will not be able to beat the Arab-Persian coalition.
“We say no to the ceasefire, since Israel’s and the multinational forces’ plan would place southern Lebanon once again under the French Mandate. Is it logical that the outcome of Hizbullah’s struggle and of all these casualties would be the return of the French Mandate of Lebanon – that is, that this jihad would set Lebanon back 50 years? This is completely unacceptable. If we are to hand Lebanon over from one foreign occupier to another foreign occupier every 10 or 20 years, then our struggle is meaningless and our victory is meaningless.”
I Hope People “Will Not Interpret This Article as Being Ironic”
“In light of all this, and in the general mood according to which we are winning, we must say ‘no’ a thousand times to the ceasefire, and continue the struggle until Israel’s end arrives. There is no need to pay attention to the games of Washington and Paris, since they are [just] the replacement of one occupation with another.
“I hope that those who consider what I have said will not interpret this article as being ironic. The truth is that I am very serious. I just want the ideas I have raised to arrive at their logical conclusion.”