Once again, Hassan Nasrallah proves that he is a master in violating the state’s concept, and undermining the Juridiciary prestige. In principle, there is no problem if the Secretary General of Hezbollah considers himself, above the leaders, commanders and presidents, as this is a personal problem, only the one involved will bear its aftermath and consequences. Nor does it have strong impact on the public course. But for Nasrallah to consider himself above the judiciary of his country and more important than the justice of his country, then this becomes a deep and dangerous problem.
The major dilemma also, is for Nasrallah to consider himself a judge above all of Lebanon’s judges, so he appears on his party’s television screen to mourn the Lebanese judiciary as a whole, and to criticize The General Authority of the Court of Cassation for its decision to reject the state’s lawsuits filed by the defendants accused in one way or another in the port crime. He even accused the highest judicial body in Lebanon of politicization and discretion, concluding that the current judicial process will not lead to truth or justice. We might have accepted this saying, if it was not Nasrallah’s.
For when did Nasrallah and his party support truth and justice? When Rafik Hariri and his comrades were martyred, was he with truth and justice? And when the party attacked the capital, Beirut, on May 7, did they support truth and justice? And when most of the symbols of the independence revolution were assassinated, were Nasrallah and his party with truth and justice? “Sayyed” Nasrallah, we ask you to stop your sweet talk about justice and truth, for your words are just blown in the wind, because no one believes it.
And remember that you and your party are responsible for the black fate that Lebanon has reached. You consider yourselves above the law, rather above any accountability, so do not talk about discretion and politicization. You do not rest except for two judgments: Either the judiciary of Hezbollah, or the judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The irony is that you consider that Iran is capable of saving Lebanon from its economic crisis, while it is incapable of providing water for its citizens, and the Isfahan demonstrations are the best evidence of that. How can Iran, which is incapable of securing water for its people, secure salvation for another country? Is it through a thirsty country, Hassan Nasrallah wants to quench Lebanon’s needs?