Hazem al-Amin

Every public appearance by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on television hones the writing and debate efforts of many people. Yet a debate with a public speaker via a press article is a battle lost in advance, since the conditions for speaking in public are completely different from that of writing. When speaking in public, one does not address minds: this is the everlasting condition of public speaking. It does not aim at persuasion, because persuasion is already there. No public speaker was ever able to overcome a rival by changing the latter’s convictions and feelings. A public speaker addresses emotions that are already there and changes absolutely nothing in them, nor does he say anything that does not fit into the framework of these emotions. For instance, have you ever heard Nasrallah in any of his numerous speeches question a single axiom of his public or make allusions that are not in conformity with what his audience wants to hear?

In truth, however, this does absolutely not demean those who wish to put their debate in writing. When speaking in public, the speaker always has recourse to writing skills that are automatically defined as being part of irrational speech. We are hereby lured into what we criticize in others, i.e. to initiating a debate with a public speaker via a written article.

Throughout his address, Nasrallah mentioned “minor” incidents, which – he said – are being exploited by the March 14 coalition for instigation against him, such as the Antelias explosive device, the problems in the Jbeil village of Lasa and the issue of the 888 Hill in Aley.

Nasrallah’s rhetorical bitterness was manifested in the fact that March 14 forces had recourse to sectarian instigation and exploitation of “minor” incidents in their attempts to attack Hezbollah. He thus brought up minute details pertaining to these to highlight the fact that “gloomy figures” are rushing to attack the Resistance, “its people and its resistance.” This deserves that we presumably agree with Hezbollah’s secretary general since rivalry might prompt those who wish harm to the Resistance to take action. In contrast, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has to accept a big “but,” one that is written rather than spoken in public, i.e. one that is less effective, strong and equivocal.
What made it easy for any former, current or future MP to point to Hezbollah with every minor explosion? Is the marginal rival MP, who turned the explosion of a gas canister in a Dahiyeh house into a mysterious explosion that killed a party official, responsible for preventing security forces from reaching that house, initiating investigations and uncovering the truth?

Some of the issues brought up yesterday by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would have been credible had the party been unrelated to them. The problem in the town of Lasa between the Church and Shia inhabitants is actually an old one, and some within the March 14 forces really made a bad job out of their exploitation of that problem. However, two related incidents weaken Sayyed Nasrallah’s claims. The first is the fact that a TV crew was beaten, whereas the second was about kicking out land surveyors sent by the Church. These two events would not have occurred had village youths not felt overpowered by Hezbollah’s presence in their village.

With regard to the Antelias explosion, suspicions over the official account are backed by the weakness of this very account and its lack of a logical structure. Indeed, there is a difference between an explosive device and a bomb and between the statements delivered respectively by the judge and the investigator, not to mention the fact that a bomb is not the traditional way of killing a debtor. Adding to these confusing elements the identity of the victims and the fact that they are natives of a region where an armed party enjoys extensive influence makes it more than possible to “exploit” accusations against the party.

This is as far as “minor” incidents go. Yet there are major incidents that paved the way for questioning the party and its intentions on every possible occasion, including the May 7 events, the Aisha Bakkar incident, the Burj Abi Haidar incident, Jamil as-Sayyed’s airport reception, the Black Shirts, etc. Does Sayyed Nasrallah not think that he is facilitating the task of those who wish to demonize “the Resistance’s people and community”?

Nevertheless, those debating Sayyed Nasrallah should beware of the danger of falling prey to shallow ideas that lead, in turn, to shallow conclusions.
It is necessary to put an immediate end to debates with public speakers via written articles. Prepare for speaking in public or step aside and let others do so.