Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
The speech of Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah and the duplicity of standards -1-
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Among the insults that attacked the expressing speech of an opinion, attitude and analysis, and that is based on the equations that Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah has formed regarding the Saudi war in Yemen, it is difficult for the seeker for a proof and a logic to find them in a confronting of what Al Sayyed has said, even if the seeker finds something among the attempts which are based on a context, and wants to seek for an argument, he will himself obliged to clean up the text out of the insults, which is seemed that is the only thing according to the Royal Court a declaration of an attitude. Everyone who dares, yes dares to discuss, will be classified within the groups of the fearful or the hesitant, and his critical speech against Al Sayyed will be against him, so to insure the satisfaction, he is obliged to fill his article with insults, thus what is in his mind will lost in order to present an attitude.
The talking about an Iranian project and a danger on the Arab national security are prior recalling for the mentioned speech in the original Saudi statement, including the support of the legitimacy once, and protecting the Saudi security another time, Saudis know that all these proofs require alignment in politics in order to be standards. Saudi Arabia was not exist to protect the legitimacy, when the legitimate Tunisian President Zein Al- Abidin Bin Ali the special friend of the Kingdom has run to it, and has become a refugee in it, it did not bother itself of issuing a solidarity statement for him, so let them say what are the criteria which justified the intervention here in Yemen and prevented them there. There are two legitimate presidents, whom the Kingdom has headed the governments that sought for the foreign intervention in them unlike any criteria of the Arab national security, but only if the bringing of the American, British, and the French was an Arab national security!!. The intervention was in its various types against the two presidents, accompanied by the support and the encouragement of Saudi Arabia in order to dislodge them as legitimate rulers. Saudi Arabia and who accompanied it have won in the situation of Libya by overthrowing the legitimacy but they failed in the situation of Syria, because the concept of defending for the legitimacy has been lost in the Saudi considerations in order to be replaced by overthrowing the legitimacy, with the force of the foreign military intervention, even if this affects the Arab national security.
It does not matter, if the talking about the legitimacy which they are defending for is not associated with the election, regardless of what we know or what the Saudis know about this election, because everything shows that the situation of Hadi is similar to the ousted legitimate Ukrainian President which Russia the Superpower does not bother itself to behave according to legitimacy, in order to justify an intervention to ensure his rule. Simply because the real legitimacy shows that the weak president is not legitimate, and those whom Saudi Arabia has fought and covered their fighting in order to overthrow of their legitimacy as in Libya, therefore the events of their countries have shown through the magnitude of the legitimacy and the popularity of the Libyan ousted president, who can fight and die for its sake among the Libyans. While the Atlantic air and marine fleets frightened them with their sizes. By contrast, Saudi Arabia which controls with its fleet and the fleets of ten countries over Yemen and its airspace and sea, did not find whom it can agitate to fight under the banner of Hadi, only but Al Qaeda. According to the criteria of the realistic legitimacy and the rate of the support, it seemed that the ousted Tunisian President who became a refugee in Saudi Arabia, and through electing one of his men for the presidency is more representative than Masour Hadi, the same as the ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mobarak whom the President Abdul Fattah Al Sisi has arrived to the presidency from the confines of his gatherings. In all these cases, we have not heard a Saudi word about this legitimacy, but we heard a participation in mobilizing the revolutions, at least through the media that is funded by Saudi Arabia. We have known as the world knows later that everything was a preparation for the title of the revolution, which they prepared against Syria. So Saudi Arabia becomes the mother of the democracy and the incubator of the revolutions. The legitimacy and the democracy are the date’s gods of Saudi Arabia in the Time of Ignorance, they worshiped them, but whenever they felt hungry they ate them.
When talking about the election, a country such as France or America may hide behind, in order to do what it finds of its interest, while the simple logic says that Saudi Arabia has to avoid this debate, because it does not correspond with the criteria of its legitimacy, so it is better for the Saudis in such of debate to accept the criteria of the realistic legitimacy. Anyway, Simply it can be said that the magnitude of the electoral legitimacy of the Syrian President is much more than the imaginary legitimacy of Masour Hadi. Despite all of that and because the legitimacy is a national sovereign matter for each country, so we will not argue about the degree of the electoral legitimacy of the Syrian President, but it is sufficient to know that the realistic legitimacy says also that he is a constitutional president, and he is equal from this angle to the legitimacy of Hadi, moreover he has a population among his people and his army, that Hadi surely has not, therefore the issue of the legitimacy here becomes dull, because of its choices as the potter who puts the handle of the jar where he wants, only if we find a minimizing reason for Saudi Arabia that makes it connect with the neighborhood, in other words, when Saudi Arabia has interfered where the neighborhood was and has defended for the legitimacy.
In such a case the Saudis have to restrict their attitudes just with the Saudi interest without dealing with the issue of legitimacy, only if they have the bravery of the Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad when his troops entered to Lebanon, Syria has entered in order to prevent an Israeli intervention, and prevented the division of Lebanon as an interest for it and for the Arabs. Moreover, its intervention was covered by the legitimate president, so the matter is not to defend for the legitimacy like the Saudi way, but the presence of coverage from a legitimate president. The coverage that is owned by the Russians as well in Ukraine is similar to the request of intervention by the escaped President Mansour Hadi. But because Russia is a mature country so it did not use this coverage in a similar adventure as the Saudi one. Anyway, the question becomes according to the concept of the legitimate president in the neighborhood, why there was not an intervention to defend for the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh who was exposed to outrage and was treated in Saudi Arabia, and instead of supporting him to stay as in the case of Hadi, they have conspired against him in order to dethrone him from the rule and to bring Hadi. Today the Saudi media says that the source of power which Al Houthis are interested in is the President Ali Abdullah Saleh, he is an ousted president by the Saudi intervention, although he was a former friend of Saudi Arabia in a neighboring country, and was legitimate but today he is outside the ruling. Saudi Arabia says that he was stronger popularly and militarily than the president whom Saudi Arabia wants to protect, which means that he is more legitimate than him?
According to the Arab national security, Bab Al Mandab, Iran and it control, it is supposed that Saudi Arabia, and whom wants to defend for, have to abandon the using of the term Arab National Security, simply because they have not waded a war defending on the titles which express a high degree of consensus of its relation with the concept of the security, such as the continuous Israeli attacks against Lebanon, Palestine, and before them the Israeli wars against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, the American invasion of Iraq, and the American French centralization in Bab Al Mandab, in the Gulf, and in the Saudi lands. For all of these it is better for Saudi Arabia to talk about one thing and directly, it has to issue an official statement that “What is going on in Yemen, despite its possession a popular legitimacy, will threaten with the arrival of the disloyal rule of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, even through a settlement and a dialogue, but Saudi Arabia which fought the leader Jamal Abdul Nasser and the revolution of Yemen in the sixties will not accept to prevent such a hypothesis, so it cooperated with the regime of the Persian Shiite Shah and it defended for the regime of the Shiite Imamate against the revolution of Abdullah Al Sallal the Sunni, who is supported by Jamal Abdul Nasser the Sunni leader of the Arab National and the founder of the concept of the Arab national security. Saudi Arabia is not interested in legitimate or illegitimate, Arab or Persian, Sunni or Shiite or even the national security. What it is interested in is that Yemen belongs to it, so it will impose through its direct force the occupation of Yemen if it is needed. Saudi Arabia is ready for direct occupation of Yemen to impose a loyal rule of it.”
After all of that, what remained is some of the insults which some have uttered to have an idea, this idea is worth the discussion, it says that Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah justifies his intervention and the intervention of Iran in Syria, moreover he found for them legitimacy according to the criteria, which if it applied on the Saudi intervention in Yemen fairly, then it will be legitimate and justified. Is that right?
Tomorrow we will continue the answer.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-04-09 | عدد القراءات 2039
