Arab American News Writer Shameless Cheerleader for the Hizbullah Bloody Coup in Lebanon
In Beirut, Hizbullah supporters engaged in a bloody coup against the legitimate government of Lebanon.
The Opposition looted and burned the offices of the Future Movement. The Hizbullah and its allies burnt the Future TV station and the Future Movement newspaper.
The Hizbullah militants and supporters walked the streets of Beirut flashing victory signs and shooting their rifles in the air.
All that in the capital of Lebanon- Beirut.
Such a development has been widely condemned.
The US government condemned it. All other governments, except Syria and Iran, condemned this development.
The media coverage of the events in Lebanon showed chaos, shootings, frightened civilians, bullet holes on house walls, burnt cars, stone throwing, and groups of Sunni youth and Shia youth exchanging epithets.
Not a pretty picture.
Across the board condemnation of this ugly development?
And in Dearborn?
In Dearborn, in The Arab American News, these tragic developments were defended by a local writer , Ali Mansour, in the Arabic section of the Arab American News.
The Arab American News is published by veteran Arab American activist Osama Siblani. Its Arabic section is completely independent from its English section. It is fair to say that the Arab American section is the English section only. Oddly, Ms Kay Siblani, who is not Arab herself, has succeeded in keeping her section above the fray of petty Arab conflicts.
Not the Arabic section.
In fairness, the Arabic section has very good writers. For example, Mr. Adnan Beydoun’s columns, while they have a certain point of view, they provide superb analysis that is devoid from blatant sectarianism, the modern disease of the Arab world.
I have written before about a writer in the Arabic section that had a vicious sectarian attack on MP Walid Jumblatt [the fact that the dean of Arab prisoners in Israel, Sameer al Qintar, belongs to the same sect as MP Jumblat escaped that writer's notice]. She does not seem to write in the paper any longer.
Below are translated excerpts from Mr. Mansour’s column in the May 10-16 paper:
“Hizbulah Breaks the Wall of the Threat of a Fitna/Sectarian Conflict:”
“Hizbullah has for long feared a Fitna that the [Saniora] government of Lebanon has threatened him with and promised him in case it resorted to the street option [violence?] to bring down the government of Lebanon and change the status quo.”
“The government put two options before the Hizbullah. The first option is remaining silent before the government decisions and limiting itself to political protest and popular protest that neither effective nor efficient. Taking this option means the Resistance has submitted to threats and opened the door for its disarming. Hizbullah’s accepting the removal of its private communication system would whet the appetite of the government to disarm Hizbullah in return for avoiding the threat of Sunni-Shia conflict.”
“The second option Hizbullah had is the violent confrontation in the streets to make the government understand that the Resistance’s weapons are untouchable. Nothing is taboo when the weapons are threatened. If one group of Sunnis in Lebanon [he means the multi confessional Future Movement block led by the Sunni Shaykh Saad Al Hariri] is against the Resistance and tacitly allied with Israel, that party is responsible for what might happen in Beirut and other areas of Lebanon. And if the [Sunni]Mufti Qabbani allows himself to feed the conflict then he and his followers [the Sunnis of Lebanon?] are responsible for the consequences[ as seen on TV].”
“Hizbullah,with the participation of Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, took the second option to protect the Resistance’s weapons and to confront the threat of a Sunni-Shia conflict."
“Hizbullah did not use its heavy stick [against the defenseless Beirutis] but offered the government and the Future Movement a sample of what would happen if the Resistance’s weapons are touched.”
….
“Hizbullah broke the sectarian Fitna and proved that it can control most of the Sunni area of Beirut without a Sunni-Shia Fitna [the Sunnis have no militia to counter the Hizbullah]. This way it removed the threat of blackmail and threat of Fitna that the government used to make.
The Hizbullah has new rules for the [political] game and the outlines of these rules will be clear in the following days [As Chris Mathews would react, HA, and how does he know, one might wonder?].
The most important rule is that the time of marginalization and carelessness[ in dealing with Hizbullah] from the government are gone and that the government parties have to deal with a new status quo.”
The Opposition looted and burned the offices of the Future Movement. The Hizbullah and its allies burnt the Future TV station and the Future Movement newspaper.
The Hizbullah militants and supporters walked the streets of Beirut flashing victory signs and shooting their rifles in the air.
All that in the capital of Lebanon- Beirut.
Such a development has been widely condemned.
The US government condemned it. All other governments, except Syria and Iran, condemned this development.
The media coverage of the events in Lebanon showed chaos, shootings, frightened civilians, bullet holes on house walls, burnt cars, stone throwing, and groups of Sunni youth and Shia youth exchanging epithets.
Not a pretty picture.
Across the board condemnation of this ugly development?
And in Dearborn?
In Dearborn, in The Arab American News, these tragic developments were defended by a local writer , Ali Mansour, in the Arabic section of the Arab American News.
The Arab American News is published by veteran Arab American activist Osama Siblani. Its Arabic section is completely independent from its English section. It is fair to say that the Arab American section is the English section only. Oddly, Ms Kay Siblani, who is not Arab herself, has succeeded in keeping her section above the fray of petty Arab conflicts.
Not the Arabic section.
In fairness, the Arabic section has very good writers. For example, Mr. Adnan Beydoun’s columns, while they have a certain point of view, they provide superb analysis that is devoid from blatant sectarianism, the modern disease of the Arab world.
I have written before about a writer in the Arabic section that had a vicious sectarian attack on MP Walid Jumblatt [the fact that the dean of Arab prisoners in Israel, Sameer al Qintar, belongs to the same sect as MP Jumblat escaped that writer's notice]. She does not seem to write in the paper any longer.
Below are translated excerpts from Mr. Mansour’s column in the May 10-16 paper:
“Hizbulah Breaks the Wall of the Threat of a Fitna/Sectarian Conflict:”
“Hizbullah has for long feared a Fitna that the [Saniora] government of Lebanon has threatened him with and promised him in case it resorted to the street option [violence?] to bring down the government of Lebanon and change the status quo.”
“The government put two options before the Hizbullah. The first option is remaining silent before the government decisions and limiting itself to political protest and popular protest that neither effective nor efficient. Taking this option means the Resistance has submitted to threats and opened the door for its disarming. Hizbullah’s accepting the removal of its private communication system would whet the appetite of the government to disarm Hizbullah in return for avoiding the threat of Sunni-Shia conflict.”
“The second option Hizbullah had is the violent confrontation in the streets to make the government understand that the Resistance’s weapons are untouchable. Nothing is taboo when the weapons are threatened. If one group of Sunnis in Lebanon [he means the multi confessional Future Movement block led by the Sunni Shaykh Saad Al Hariri] is against the Resistance and tacitly allied with Israel, that party is responsible for what might happen in Beirut and other areas of Lebanon. And if the [Sunni]Mufti Qabbani allows himself to feed the conflict then he and his followers [the Sunnis of Lebanon?] are responsible for the consequences[ as seen on TV].”
“Hizbullah,with the participation of Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, took the second option to protect the Resistance’s weapons and to confront the threat of a Sunni-Shia conflict."
“Hizbullah did not use its heavy stick [against the defenseless Beirutis] but offered the government and the Future Movement a sample of what would happen if the Resistance’s weapons are touched.”
….
“Hizbullah broke the sectarian Fitna and proved that it can control most of the Sunni area of Beirut without a Sunni-Shia Fitna [the Sunnis have no militia to counter the Hizbullah]. This way it removed the threat of blackmail and threat of Fitna that the government used to make.
The Hizbullah has new rules for the [political] game and the outlines of these rules will be clear in the following days [As Chris Mathews would react, HA, and how does he know, one might wonder?].
The most important rule is that the time of marginalization and carelessness[ in dealing with Hizbullah] from the government are gone and that the government parties have to deal with a new status quo.”
Comments