The moral logic of Angry Arab
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Lizzie Phelan’s Blog, Jul 26 2012

And just when you thought Angry Arab’s analysis on Syria couldn’t get any sillier, he surprises you with more simplistic and infantile analysis here. He argues:

Hezbollah has decided that his enemies (USrael & Sauds) have basically took over the cause of ridding Syrians of the Assad regime from the Syrian armed and unarmed opposition.

Really? Hizbullah “has decided”? Because the USraeli/NATO/GCC role in steering the proxy militias otherwise known as the “armed Syrian opposition” is a figment of their imagination. Right. I urge him to read, not alternative media, but mainstream media for a reality check.

The alliance with the regime and the extraction of political and military benefits exceeded other humanitarian considerations.

Other “humanitarian” considerations? What is more humanitarian than protecting Syria and the region as a whole from the colonizers’ grip? What is more humanitarian than rejecting the sectarian bloodshed that the agents of destruction have sown? What is more humanitarian than defending Lebanon and Palestine from the cancer in our midst, Israel? What is more humanitarian than pursuing the liberation of Palestine?

If Hezbollah feels it can only choose the side that is opposed to Israel, it should know that it has alienated a large section of the Syrian people.

So according to his cost-benefit calculus, Hizbullah should sacrifice Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity not to mention Lebanon’s security and the future of Palestine because this alienates the not insignificant minority of misled Syrians who have been fed a steady diet of Qatari-Saudi-USAian misinformation, happen to believe they are better served by the their colonial masters than by the resistance axis?

While Hezbollah is right, from its standpoint, to be most focused on its supply line from Syria and on the military support it has received from the regime. It has to know that support from the people of Syria lasts far longer than support from a regime that sooner or later will go down.

So the other Syrian people, who otherwise constitute the majority if we must talk numbers, don’t figure into Angry’s pseudo-moral arithmetic. And maintaining the support of a segment of one country’s population is more strategically beneficial to a resistance movement than supporting a government whose fall who would spell the end of Palestine and Hizbullah as a resistance movement. But have no fear Hizbullah, the Syrian oppositionists allied with Israel will secure the weapons’ flow for your resistance and ensure Gaza is well armed for the next Israeli invasion. How do we know this? Because Angry Arab says so. From California no less.

But Hezbollah has yet again displayed disregard for the suffering of the Syrian people. How could Nasrallah express sympathy for the dead henchmen of the regime, even if they rendered services to Hezbollah in its fight against Israel, and not express sympathy for the any of the civilian victims of the regime? Hezbollah, like all allies of the Syrian regime in Lebanon from the Phalanges in 1976 to Jumblatt and Hariri and many others, never really expressed concerns for the welfare of the Syrian people.

So basically, Hizbullah’s fear of sectarian warfare, its fear of NATO and Israeli military intervention, and all the other plans being hatched by Empire are not an expression of sympathy for the Syrian people. Because people don’t die of imperialism, only of “authoritarianism”. And as for comparing this paragon of justice and self-sacrifice, a man who sacrificed his own son, Hadi, for the cause of Palestine, with the despicable collaborators and slaves of USrael like Jumblatt and Hariri, what can one respond within the bounds of “civilized” discourse beyond shame? Shame, shame, shame on your petty, colonized, self-serving little mind. Spare us your public mea culpa “I was wrong” (see his recent post here) when you clearly never learn from your mistakes. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.