The victory of the Al-Mustaqbal movement and the March 14 Forces in the recent Lebanese elections was cheered by the representatives of moderate Arab countries, who regarded it first and foremost as the defeat of Iran and its ally Hizbullah. Articles in the Arab press contended that the Lebanese people had voted for "an Arab Lebanon" and against Iran's aspirations for hegemony and Syria's interference in Lebanon's affairs. Some viewed the election results as indicating opposition to the Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had hoped for Hizbullah's victory in order to start another war.
Furthermore, the Egyptian press attacked Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah for maintaining that the election results did not reflect the opinion of the Lebanese majority, and for championing the principle of the 'obstructing third,' which allows Hizbullah to veto any government decision it does not like. The editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Gomhouriyya warned that Nasrallah was seeking to foment a government crisis in order to promote Iran's interests, and that the Arab countries must prevent this from happening.
Following are excerpts from the Arab press:
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: Victory for the Concept of Coexistence and an Arab Lebanon
Tariq Al-Homayed, editor of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote: [1] "The victory of the March 14 Forces in Lebanon's parliamentary elections can only be described as a landslide victory for the concept of coexistence, and most importantly, as a victory for Arab Lebanon. The significance of this victory lies in the fact that it is practically a declaration that the Iranian project in Lebanon and the Arab world has failed…
"When the Lebanese sensed the danger in store for their country, they voted to reject the Iranian project. For this reason, the victory of the majority should not be described as a victory of one group over another or of one sect over another, because states are not built on this logic, but on coexistence and respect for laws and the constitution.
"Therefore, the victory of the majority - the overwhelming victory, that is - came to protect Lebanon from the Iranian project aimed at taking the country hostage and transforming it into a war zone and a military wing for Teheran. That would have meant Lebanon's isolation from the international community - and, most importantly - shifting it out of its Arab surroundings. Unfortunately, some Arabs are more Iranian than the Iranians themselves, and whoever observes the Iranian elections and listens to what is being said understands the danger of allying with the Iranian model or of placing our security or our issues in its hands…
"…If the Iranians themselves are complaining about their political and economic isolation, and if the Iranians themselves have realized that their country can no longer continue on the difficult path that it is pursuing on both the Arab and international levels - why then do the Lebanese want to hand themselves over to Teheran?..." [2]
Kuwaiti Daily: The Lebanese Said 'No' to the Mullahs' Representatives
Ahmad Jarallah, editor of the anti-Syrian Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, wrote: "The March 14 Forces' decisive and painful [for Hizbullah] election victory reflected the innermost wishes of the citizens, who do not want their country to become a mailbox from which the Teheran and Damascus regimes can release their messages. They want Lebanon to be a free country with sovereignty over its entire territory, rather than 'a vassal of the [Shi'ite] cleric'… and a fief of those who falsely profess [to have attained] 'divine victory.'
"[Supporters of] the Al-Mustaqbal movement and their allies in the March 14th Forces, who had launched an intifada [the Cedar Intifada] following the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, the martyred Rafiq Al-Hariri, have reiterated these statements at every rally and every other venue. They emphasized their opposition to the government's takeover by an internal element or its being rendered impotent [by an 'obstructing third']. They voiced opposition to Lebanon being used as a hostage to outside interests and to Hizbullah's aiming their weapons at the internal arena, as happened last year on May 7 [2008].
"The active participation of the Al-Mustaqbal [movement] and its allies in the parliamentary elections was a response to all the actions of that [self-proclaimed] 'Party of God' [Hizbullah] over the past four years. Supporters of the March 14th Forces came to the polling stations despite threats by Nasrallah on the one hand, and by Michel Aoun… on the other…
"The Lebanese election results once again upheld the principles of sovereignty, and emphasized the failure of Michel Aoun's and Nasrallah's claims that it is they who have the majority [of votes]. The results… clearly showed that the people disagree with the opposition's plan, which seeks to ally Lebanon with Iran and Syria. Those who chose the Cedar Revolution have voted for their country's independence, and for wresting it from the talons of the followers of the mullahs' rule.
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"Nasrallah must realize that his failed tactics and his spurious leadership, related to the Rule of the Jurisprudent, cannot be implemented in Lebanon, neither through threats of using weapons, nor through specious claims regarding democracy [achieved] through the ballot box - the ballot box that has proven that he is ostracized by the Lebanese majority…" [3]
Al-Hayat Columnist: The Lebanese Have Voted Against Iran, Syria, and Israel
Raghida Dergham, reporter and columnist for the Saudi London-based daily Al-Hayat, who resides in New York, wrote: "…The Lebanese voted neither for the Americans nor for the Saudis - although U.S. and Saudi help was appreciated. They have voted against Lebanon being turned into an Iranian base…
"They have voted against Lebanon being used as an arena for Damascus-based Palestinian factions, and against the return of any kind of Syrian rule over Lebanon. They have voted against the Israel of Binyamin Netanyahu, who drools when he dreams of Hizbullah's weapons and its coming to power, and imagines how this can serve as a pretext for starting a war that would allow him to escape the pressure to [pursue the] peace [process] exerted by the U.S. and the international community.
"It is the Lebanese identity that won the elections. Moreover, the elections indicate that the Islamic Republic of Iran has suffered defeat in the Lebanese arena, and in the Arab arena as a whole.
"The message the U.S. is trying to convey is significant: When choosing between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and U.S. President Barack Obama, Lebanon has preferred Obama and America…" [4]
Al-Gomhouriyya Editor: Nasrallah's Statements Are Nonsensical
Muhammad 'Ali Ibrahim, MP and editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Gomhouriyya, criticized Nasrallah's reaction to Hizbullah's defeat in the Lebanese elections. He wrote: "An Arab poet said, 'If a fool speaks, do not answer him. Your best response is silence. His words have exposed his shame, and if you ignore him, he will die of anguish.'
"Frankly, I wanted to ignore Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's statements about the victory of the majority [camp], i.e. the March 14th Forces… But when I realized that Sheikh Hassan is talking nonsense, purporting that the election results do not reflect the opinion of the majority, I decided to refute his arguments…
"Hassan Nasrallah is mocking the Lebanese. This great, important people has opted for an 'Arab' Lebanese state, and has refused to submit to Iran's henchmen. The results of the Lebanese elections have proven that a people does not forget those who have hurt it. The Lebanese will never forget [Hizbullah's] attempt to turn their democratic country, which is proud of its extensive parliamentary experience, into a fief of the Persians on the Mediterranean coast.
"The Lebanese will never forget the image of 'Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, in July 2006, toting a Kalashnikov and intoning, 'We Iranians will defeat America in Lebanon.' As if this beautiful country had become an arena for settling scores between Teheran and Washington…
"Why should a Lebanese [citizen] pay for a remote-control war waged by Iran via Hizbullah - and as a result lose his income, life, home, children, and wife?...
"Nasrallah's evil intentions were revealed to all when he announced that regardless of the election results, there was no option but to sustain the [principle] of the 'obstructing third' adopted at Doha. It was as if Nasrallah had declared aloud that the election results were irrelevant to him, and that he still adhered to the strange innovation [included] in the Doha agreement whereby the [Lebanese parliamentary] majority cannot take a decision without the support of the obstructing third that can veto any [government] decision…
"The election results mean only one thing - namely, that a unity government must be formed together with the opposition… Nasrallah's attempted [moves] and declarations are aimed at crafting a government crisis in Lebanon, creating a reason to take to the streets, to impose another siege on the Lebanese people, and to enforce the rule of the obstructing third.
"If the Arabs acquiesce to all the above, this would be tantamount to consenting to cut off a chunk of the Arab nation and present it to Iran on a silver platter." [5]
Cartoon: Lebanese Elections Shatter Iran's Aspirations for Hegemony
Cartoonist: Jihad 'Awartani; source: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), June 10, 2009.
Endnotes:
[1] The original article is in English; it has been lightly edited for clarity.
[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 9, 2009.
[3] Al-Siyassah (Kuwait), June 9, 2009.
[4] Al-Hayat (London), June 12, 2009.
[5] Al-Gomhouriyya (Egypt), June 10, 2009.
