Khaled Abou Zahr: West’s blue check for Hezbollah despite its violence/مقالة روعة لخالد أبو زهر يحكي من خلالها خطورة حزب الله وإرهابه ويسرد تاريخه الإجرامي ويلقي الأضواء باستغراب على اعجاب مفكرين وباحثين غربيين يرون في هذا الحزب الذي هو ذراع عسكرية إيرانية 100% مقاومة مما يتناقض مع كل ما هو منطق وحقائق وفكر وممارسات
West’s blue check for Hezbollah despite its violence Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/June 24/2021 مقالة روعة لخالد أبو زهر يحكي من خلالها خطورة حزب الله وإرهابه ويسرد تاريخه الإجرامي ويلقي الأضواء باستغراب على اعجاب مفكرين وباحثين غربيين يرون في هذا الحزب الذي هو ذراع عسكرية إيرانية 100% مقاومة مما يتناقض مع كل ما هو منطق وحقائق وفكر وممارسات
Non-state actors sponsored by Iran are unlike any others in the Middle East or even the world. There is, among analysts in Western capitals, respect for their role and their actions, which is quite strange. Hezbollah is a prime example of that, if not the perfect case study. If there were an equivalent of Harvard Business School’s case studies for terrorism being qualified as resistance, then Hezbollah would be the first, if not the only one, to be studied.
More than one could reasonably expect, many Western analysts and thinkers have presented Hezbollah and its master Iran — or more precisely the mullahs’ regime — as leading forces of resistance against oppression. It seems this regime and its proxies have been able to play on the sentiment of guilt that Western powers have been expressing for their actions in the rest of the world. These analysts see these proxies as resistance forces against “bad” US imperialism. It is the best way the constant critics of US foreign policy have found to push for a full review. It is an alliance of various political and lobbying forces that would not have the right to express their views if they lived in Lebanon, Iraq or Iran. Yet, in Washington or Paris, they can give a view of the Middle East that suits their political beliefs, but not the reality.
It is important to give a small recap of Hezbollah’s actions, especially for those who describe this non-state actor as a force of resistance. One can start with the 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut and the same year’s attack on the barracks of peacekeeping forces in the Lebanese capital. It was also behind terrorist attacks against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as various plane hijackings and more than 100 kidnappings in Lebanon. Its AMIA bombing in Argentina is the deadliest attack to date in that country. There have also been many plots uncovered for which Hezbollah was responsible.
More recently, its intervention in Syria has been one of the most ruthless against civilians. It has also given a helping hand to Iraqi militias in silencing critics and opposition voices, as well as destabilizing the Baghdad government. However, despite all these actions and maybe due to pragmatism or wishful thinking, some experts have not categorized it as terrorist but as resistance. And so, by simple logic, Iran is not seen as a terrorist state but as a leader of resistance.
There is a Lebanese saying: “The situation of the one who counts the hits is not like the situation of the one getting hit.” And so the wishful thinkers who defend this representation of Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies do not care that the Middle East bleeds and lives under constant threat and instability. Every country where these non-state actors are present, horror follows. The expression “drums of war” keeps being used regarding the Iranian regime’s war, which has been taking place against the entire region for several decades. It is always interesting to note how every aggressive action by the Iranian-backed militias is excused or justified by these experts. They enjoy the greatest freedom in the world but do not care that criticism of Hezbollah in Lebanon leads to exile or death. It is, for them, part of the color of the region.
Hezbollah has used high levels of terror to establish itself and consolidate its status. Daesh has tried to follow this example. It used extreme and horrible acts to establish its position. However, what the West permitted for Hezbollah it did not permit for Daesh. The difference is that the world knows that, by targeting Hezbollah, there could be a reaction from Iran, which would prove much more costly. There is also a true symbiosis between these two groups, which makes them appear in the same geographies. But if they clash in ideology, they do not often clash militarily, as the Syrian revolution showed us.
In Washington or Paris, analysts can give a view of the Middle East that suits their political beliefs, but not the reality.
I have always been surprised by the Lebanese voices that echo those in Western capitals that defend Hezbollah. I call them “Bourg-left” or the “Hezbo-left.” Despite the actions of this organization, they describe it as the only resistance against Israel and US interference in the region. When it comes to the current situation in Lebanon, they shift the blame from Hezbollah and put it on the corrupt political mafia. This political class and its corruption are just a consequence of the occupation of the country, which started with the Syrian regime. One thing is for sure, Lebanese politicians are good traders, so they know how to maximize their profits regardless of the occupying force.
It is, nevertheless, unfortunate to see such people look the other way when it comes to the oppression and killings carried out by Hezbollah. Indeed, they fail to mention the oppression suffered by the Syrians or the Iraqis under the rule of Iran’s militias. They also choose to forget that Iran has meddled in the peace process, giving the Israelis the perfect excuse to stop it whenever it needs to.
Hezbollah has been elevated to a special status, where it is recognized and accepted as a non-state actor. In today’s world, one could compare this status to a blue check on a Twitter account. The West has given Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies a blue check. This precedent is creating a dangerous situation in the Middle East, as it encourages other groups to try and emulate Hezbollah. This is exactly why the US administration wants to reinstate the nuclear deal with Iran: It needs to put an end to the existence of armed non-state actors throughout the region. Indeed, militarized non-state actors should not be allowed to act, whatever their political or religious affiliation. They are one of the biggest dangers our region faces.
*Khaled Abou Zahr is CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
