Love of the Land: What are nations really for, then?

What are nations really for, then?

Hazem Saghiyeh
NOW Lebanon
12 April '10

MP Nawwaf Moussawi deserves nothing but respect for telling Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, “If things comes down to a choice between the Resistance and any kind of unity, then the Resistance would take precedence.” Moussawi said: “When it comes to its sustainability, survival, strength and progress, the Resistance’s history proves that it holds these elements above all other considerations.”

The Hezbollah MP deserves respect for being honest and describing things as they really are, as seen and applied by Hezbollah. Indeed, he did not say that the Lebanese unanimously agree on the Resistance, nor did he say that the Resistance is ready to dismantle its structure in order to preserve national unity. In so doing, he is departing from the deceit and lies that have become customary in this country.

Truly, the Resistance exists and shall endure, regardless of what the Lebanese think of the matter and regardless of how they may perceive their interests and the interests of their country. This is precisely the reaction of conquerors, which has but one logical completion: It is only by having recourse to force that you will do away with the Resistance. As for democracy, spare us this distasteful farce which is used only to serve the Resistance’s purposes, and if it contradicts them, then let us bid democracy farewell.

Moussawi’s statement is likened to two partners telling one another: I shall take my interest alone into consideration. As for our common interest, it concerns me only insofar as it serves my own.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: What are nations really for, then?