The Race for Lebanon

American President Barack Obama has announced that he welcomes the coming indictments from the international tribunal, which he considers a sign that the reign of impunity in Lebanon has come to an end. We were going to applaud Obama or other leaders in the new international order who always speak on behalf of the international community, if he had not continued the policies of successive American administrations that violate the rights of others, steal their lands, insult them, and kill hundreds of thousands of them without accountability and punishment — as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time this country has, for more than four decades, offered complete protection to the Zionist occupiers and exempted them from punishment, which only encourages them to perpetrate frequent and persistent massacres and crimes including, most recently, piracy in the Mediterranean Sea.

Impunity is necessary, but who knows if the indictments are correct and not fabricated? And why is there such a warm American and Zionist welcome for the indictments and the international tribunal? Who among the Lebanese would adhere to or be proud of the indictments? Surely they are unconvinced by them, or they are motivated by their being connected with the occupiers. What is the benefit to the world from politicizing the tribunal in such a way?

All of us are searching for the truth about Rafiq Hariri’s assassination, but why are the charges always directed away from the primary beneficiary of the fighting and quarreling in Lebanon? Is the Zionist entity not the primary, and perhaps only, beneficiary end of the turmoil in Lebanon attempting to destroy the Lebanese national entity opposite the Zionist entity?

If the United States administration was eager not to exempt the criminals from punishment, then why do they protect the Zionist criminals from any sanctions? Who stands in the face of the international decisions? Who tried to obstruct the Gladstone report from being published and presented? How many times has the American administration used the "veto" to protect the Zionists? And how many times have we been threatened with the veto to save Zionist killers from being subject to accountability and punishment?

We are certain that the Democratic administration, built on the ruins of the Republican administration, can complete only what that administration started. It is clear that the mission of Hillary Clinton is not different from that of Condoleezza Rice, the first and final desire of which is the protection of the Zionist entity. It is not necessary to ignite the flames of chaos in the whole region.

From here, we see that there is a marathon race between the sincere Arab efforts and the criminal Zionist efforts concerning Lebanon. It has been said that the Syria-Saudi Arabia coalition for reconciliation in Lebanon was on the brink of reaching a solution, had it not been for the harsh and frantic intervention of the U.S. administration — from Clinton to Obama, himself. Therefore, we must ask ourselves: what is the benefit for the U.S. in destabilizing and threatening the unity of Lebanon? It is the hidden Zionist interest in obstructing justice and directing accusations towards those whom the Zionist forces could not overcome and at whose hands they tasted the bitterness of defeat and humiliation in 2006.

There is a race for Lebanon between those who want security, peace, and justice and those who see the turmoil in Lebanon as an opportunity. It is no secret to anyone that there is an unholy alliance: the American-Zionist strategic alliance whose goal is the burying the truth and striving to rid the Arabs of their right in Lebanon, as in Palestine.

Is the Arab intervention, which has expanded to include Turkey, capable of defusing the situation in Lebanon and in the region in general? We are waiting.