Elie Aoun: Hizballah: Resistance to Logic/ايلي عون:حزب الله المقاوم للمنطق


Hizballah: Resistance to Logic/ايلي عون:حزب الله المقاوم للمنطق
Elie Aoun/November 29/17

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said that “military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

Most fighters, whether they are American, Lebanese, Israeli, or of whatever nationality, had been sacrificed as “pawns” — while they were deceived in the name of “duty” or a “cause.” One example is Hizballah.

We are told that Hizballah played a role in fighting “terrorism” and that its existence is necessary or is “linked” to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In reality, both of these issues are the result of a political decision, more than a military one. When there is a political decision to allow terrorism to spread or to engage in a war for a certain purpose, then terrorism and war do take place.

We all heard how Hizballah and the Lebanese Army fought Da’esh forces and removed them from Lebanon. What we did not hear is an explanation as to how Da’esh entered Lebanon in the first place and occupied a portion of its territory without a single bullet being fired against them entering — at a time when we were told that the Lebanese Army and Hizballah were patrolling the Lebanese-Syrian border?

Civilian and military personnel who died to remove Da’esh did not die in fighting terrorism. Rather, they died as a result of a political decision that allowed Da’esh fighters to enter Lebanon. No intelligence or military officer, and no politician would answer the question: who had authority to cause both Hizballah and the Lebanese Army to stand down when Da’esh entered the country?

If Hizballah’s presence in Syria was “necessary” to fight terrorism or radicalism, why did not their leadership go to Syria to do what was “necessary“? If their presence was to fight “radicalism” and prevent it from entering Lebanon, why then did Da’esh enter Lebanon? If their presence there was a pre-emptive measure, can any foreign force enter Lebanon to fight Hizballah using that same logic?

To those Hizballah members who fight for Syria and/or Iran, if they apply for Syrian or Iranian citizenship, will it be granted to them? If yes, why do not they do so and legitimately fight for their new country from its territory? If not, why are they willing to die for a foreign regime that lacks respect to them and refuses to even grant them citizenship and whatever “benefits” that come with it?

It is clear that Da’esh spread so quickly in Arab countries in the same manner as it entered Lebanon: it was simply allowed to do so without a legitimate fight because of a political decision. When that regional decision changed, Da’esh was “eliminated” in a very short period of time.

Although it was Da’esh fighters that executed a number of Lebanese army personnel, the primary murderers are those who made the political decision that led to this outcome. In the end, neither the primary nor the secondary murderers were punished.

We are then told that Hizballah’s existence is “linked” to the “Arab-Israeli conflict.” However, of more than 20 Arab nations, can anyone explain how many of them are today in a genuine “conflict” with Israel? Some Arab nations have peace treaties while the vast majority are in a state of non-aggression with Israel. Does this look like a “conflict”?

If we want to look at the Lebanese-Israeli “conflict,” here are few questions that need to be answered:

About a year ago, when an Israeli surveillance drone hovered over Lebanon at a low altitude for about seven hours, why did not the Lebanese Army or Hizballah make a single attempt to fire at it — when both tell us that Israel is an “enemy“?

If Israel is an enemy, can the Hizballah leadership explain to us who truly rules Israel so we can better understand our “enemy”?

Almost every Israeli leader involved in an invasion of Lebanon was a Freemason: Yithak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Benjamin Netanyahu are all Freemasons. Is that information important? If yes, why does not Hizballah mention it? If not important, why not?

During the June 2006 war between Hizballah and Israel, we all heard about the Hizballah missile that hit an Israeli military ship and the Qana massacre. What we were not told is that since a military ship has a radar system, why would anyone on the Israeli ship turn off the radar system allowing the Hizballah missile to hit its target without any alarm or attempt to fire a counter-missile?

With regard to the Qana massacre, did Hizballah fighters fire missiles from nearby the location where civilians were hiding causing the Israeli military to respond to that same location, bringing about the massacre?

With regard to those who were arrested by Hizballah as Israeli spies, or by Israel as Hizballah spies, were they actually spies or “coordinators” used until their roles came to an end?

In summary, there is no genuine conflict, only a “managed conflict” fought by “dumb, stupid pawns” causing “collateral damage” and leading to a pre-arranged outcome or a commonly agreed-upon agenda.

Few years ago, I wrote that the agenda for the Middle East is to create some form of a union similar to the European Union. Recently, “terrorism” was used as a justification for the formation of NATO-style Islamic and Arabic military coalition announced from Saudi Arabia. In reality, “terrorism” was not the reason. Regional union/federation is the reason, and terrorist groups were created to assist towards that end.

In the same manner, Hizballah exists and is preserved in its present form to justify certain ends — none of which relates to the wellbeing of misguided Hizballah members or to Lebanese sovereignty.