• There are two political logics that converge in the dealing with the war on ISIS, a logic that wants to win in this war, does not concern about the humanitarian, financial, and moral sacrifices which it bears.
• This first logic is represented by the resistance forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran to the extent of self-denial and the acceptance of bearing the fabrications, being more flexible in order to attract others to cover any battle against ISIS that makes the victory closer.
• After its victory on Al Nusra front Hezbollah in Lebanon paved the way for a battle along with the Lebanese army on ISIS, it does not want any compliment or appreciation, it handed over the liberated territories to the army in order to wage the war on ISIS, it presented along with the Syrian army everything possible to facilitate the battle of the Lebanese army, including bearing the official speech about the risks of cooperation as a defective or an inferior.
• The leaderships of Popular Crowd in Iraq are making the same thing against the campaigns of questioning and unjust false accusation to win the war in Tal Afar for its importance and danger and most importantly to defeat ISIS.
• On the other bank, a team that is led by the Americans and Israel, it includes the Gulf countries and who is with them in Lebanon and Iraq. Their cause entitled the incitement against Hezbollah and the Popular Crowd, even if the cost was the exposure of the Lebanese and Iraqi armies to greater risks or to engage in a war of attrition, to say publically that if the defeat of ISIS means a growing force of Hezbollah, the Popular Crowd, and Iran, then it is better the remaining of ISIS.
• Here the true nationalism of the positions and parties is tested.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

2017-08-26 | عدد القراءات 1999