Editor Of Saudi Government Daily: Hizbullah Must Be Disarmed, Willingly Or By Force

Memri

4 days ago

In a recent article, Khalid Bin Hamad Al-Malik, editor of the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, harshly criticizes the Hizbullah and Amal organizations for opposing Lebanon's decision to disarm Hizbullah, and argues that if this organization refuses to surrender its weapons willingly, it must be divested of them by force. Hizbullah, he says, has caused the death and wounding of thousands of Lebanese, as well as extensive destruction in the country, and has committed terror against civilians. Moreover, it serves a foreign (i.e., Iranian) agenda, and torpedoes every reform aimed at rebuilding Lebanon, wanting to keep it backward, unstable and under its control. Therefore, Al-Malik argues, allowing Hizbullah to continue its policies and retain its weapons, which are directed mainly against rivals at home, is "an unforgivable crime."
Khaled Bin Hamad Al-Malik (Image: X.com/1khalid_almalik)
The following are translated excerpts from his article:[1]
"Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem admits that 5,000 Lebanese have been killed and 13,000 have been wounded, although he neglected to mention the considerable damage to property, the loss of [Hizbullah's former] leader and much of its weapons, the destruction throughout Lebanon, and Israel's occupation of five areas in the south. And the losses may be greater than Na'im Qassem announced. The Lebanese state was supposed to openly declare the actual scope of the losses, and Hizbullah was supposed to comply with the Lebanese consensus and surrender its arms to the military, thus ending [the situation] whereby it possesses weapons to intimidate the Lebanese and threaten their lives.
"But Hizbullah refuses to disarm or to set out a timetable for disarmament. It continues to insist that the army is incapable of defending Lebanon against Israel's attacks, yet it retains its weapons without using them against Israel. [Instead], it tolerates the strikes of the Israeli army against its people and strongholds, and does not retaliate.
"The Hizbullah and Amal representatives walked out of the cabinet meeting two days ago, headed by Lebanese President [Joseph] Aoun, when [they realized that] the intension was to set out a timetable requiring Hizbullah to surrender its arms by the end of the year. This proves that the [Shi'ite] Hizbullah–Amal axis has no intention of [complying with the demand] to confine the weapons to the state and disarm all the [Lebanese] organizations. [This axis means to] leave Lebanon occupied and at Israel's mercy, without security or stability.
"Ahead of the cabinet meeting Hizbullah's secretary-general stressed that the weapons would not be handed over, and threatened that the war between Lebanon and Israel would turn into a war among Lebanese, i.e., between Hizbullah and the Lebanese. This means that he wants Lebanon to remain a backward state, with Israel, Hizbullah and Amal controlling of all its resources. More than that: one day before the cabinet meeting, Hizbullah organized protests against its disarmament, and threatened to organize another protest after the meeting, which forced the army and security forces to deploy in order to prevent clashes between citizens…
"I ask: What did Hizbullah wish [to accomplish] by plotting against Lebanon's unity and dragging it into wars that destroyed it, ruined its economy and growth and left it without income from tourism?... [Another] question: Do the organization's leaders not know that, by plotting against Lebanon, they obstruct its recovery, deprive it of Gulf and international aid, and provide Israel with an excuse to continue attacking it and occupying territory in the south?...
"I have [yet another] question: Who is responsible for the death of 5,000 Lebanese and the wounding of 13,000 others, if not Hizbullah? Who is responsible for terror against civilians, if not this organization? Who has thwarted Lebanon's development and spread anarchy within it? Is there anyone to blame, except for Hizbullah, which implements a foreign [i.e., Iranian] agenda and conspires against the state on foreign orders?
"Finally, I ask: When will Hizbullah realize, after decades of foiling every attempt at reform… that its policy and its weapons, which are directed against the Lebanese, are an unforgivable crime, and that its [tendency to] embroil Lebanon in wars with Israel is the reason [this country] is weak, wretched and succumbs to Hizbullah's decisions to destroy it?
"[I address] Na'im Qassem and his helpers in Hizbullah, as well as Nabih Berri and his helpers in the Amal movement – the two Shi'ite [forces] that destroyed and are still destroying Lebanon, toyed with the interests of the state and thwarted the repair of what they have ruined in the country. Remember that things have changed in Lebanon. The situation is not as it was in the past, and if you do not hand over your weapons willingly, you will be divested of them by force and coercion."