Elie Aoun: The Traitors Michel and Hasan/إيلي عون: الخونة ميشال وحسن 

157

The Traitors Michel and Hasan
Elie Aoun/August 23/2020
إيلي عون: الخونة ميشال وحسن 

*There is no genuine Hizballah-Israeli conflict, but a collusion for destruction.

*Michel Aoun’s 1990 sattement that he will die in Baabda rather than sign or surrender was a signal of treason, not courage.

*Nassrallah’s declaration that they will surrender their souls before their weapons is also a sign of treason, not courage or conviction. It is the souls of his fighters and his country that he wants to surrender.

*****
The 2006 war between Hizballah and Israel led to an additional deployment of 15,000 foreign UNIFIL troops on Lebanese soil.

The 2020 attack on the Port of Beirut led to the deployment of multinational forces and the further internationalization of the country’s affairs.

The 2006 and 2020 attacks on Lebanon did not happen by accident. They were pre-planned by elements from both sides. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers in 2006 was intended to lead to war.

In August 2020, the killing of a Hizballah member in Syria and the crossing of the Lebanese-Israeli border by certain individuals was intended to be a prelude to the terrorist act against Beirut – even if the co-conspirators do not assume responsibility in public.

The Lebanese who saw two missiles being fired at the port cannot all be wrong.

The ammonium nitrate was prepared, in advance, to explode by planting explosives with it and other flammable materials.

Those who acted in this manner did so in coordination with those who would later fire the missiles.

Hizballah could also have stored weaponry below ‘Anbar 12, with a tunnel leading to an area under its control.

There is no genuine Hizballah-Israeli conflict, but a collusion for destruction.

From all the governments who now express their “compassion” with Beirut, none of their intelligence services has provided any report about what they officially consider had happened at the Port.

The treason against Lebanon is both internal and external. Although we have no control over what the non-Lebanese do, we have a control over what we do.

Of course, there are true patriots within governmental and non-governmental organizations.

At the same time, there are traitors: within Hizballah ranks, Lebanese intelligence networks, and the commanders of the Lebanese army – and of course some politicians.

Regardless of the efforts made by many patriotic individuals throughout all organizations, these patriots must recognize that there are traitors at the helm.

Michel Aoun’s 1990 sattement that he will die in Baabda rather than sign or surrender was a signal of treason, not courage.

The end result was that he signed, surrendered, and was the first one to run away (and not the last one to leave, as he declared).

It was his well-intentioned soldiers and the area he controlled that paid the price of death and destruction, not him.

Similarly, Nassrallah’s declaration that they will surrender their souls before their weapons is also a sign of treason, not courage or conviction. It is the souls of his fighters and his country that he wants to surrender.

Instead of protecting his people, Nassrallah is killing them. More than 2,000 Lebanese fighters were sent to Syria under the pretext of protecting Lebanon from radical invaders.

If that was the case, Lebanon could have been protected from the Lebanese-Syrian border without incursion into Syria.

To claim that Hizballah changed the balance of power in Syria’s war is a false assertion. That change was due to Russia’s involvement, not Hizballah’s.

Instead of being a “protector” of Lebanon from foreign invaders, the so-called “resistance” is facilitating the occupation of Lebanon by foreign invaders. Lebanon has become under an international rule and Syria is under Russian rule – and then they call themselves moumana’a!

Furthermore, Nassrallah’s failure to accept any Lebanese solution to Hizballah’s illogical practices and existence is an indication that he wants an international confrontation and interference in Lebanon.

A true nationalist protects his country, not expose it to reckless dangers. There is nothing wrong with a Lebanese intending to protect his country. However, that “formula for protection” does not necessarily have to be Hizballah and Nasrallah. There was national resistance before them, and there will be after them. They are not the inventors and copyrighters of “resistance.”

In the same manner that the nationalist Christian military strength was sacrificed as a result of the treason by Samir Geagea and Michel Aoun in 1989-1990, so the nationalist Shiite strength is being sacrificed by its Hasan Nasrallah.

To create a nation that is submissive to a regional and international agenda, true nationalists (fighters and politicians, by conflicts and assassinations) are sacrificed by their treacherous leaders.

All the leaders of the major political parties are traitors to their country. One proof is that they do not appoint anyone who will truly make a positive difference for the country.

All their appointments at the Beirut Port, for example, were intended to be “brokers” to funnel money into the politicians’ pockets and facilitate their illegal activities – and not responsible individuals who will adequately perform their duties.

To those who might think that saying “Michel” and “Hasan” is disrespectful, let it be. Before they ask of others to respect them, let the politicians first respect themselves, the positions which they hold, and the sacrifices of well-intentioned Lebanese who struggle to establish a viable country only to be betrayed by traitors such as Michel and Hasan.

We forgave in the past, and we forgive now. But we no longer give second chances. If there is one good thing that the traitors can do is to appoint true patriots (even those who oppose them), and eventually go home. There is no more usefulness to them except that one act.