Hizbullah's hour
A sovereign Lebanon and national unity are high among
Hizbullah's priorities in post-war Lebanon, Ali Fayad of Hizbullah's
politburo tells
Omayma
Abdel-Latif in Beirut
Click to view
caption |
A villager hands a soldier the national flag as
local army troops took position in the war-battered border town of
Bint Jbeil, near the Lebanese-Israeli border. Lebanese troops
should soon control their southern border for the first time in
decades. Bint Jbeil saw some of the fiercest fightings between
Israel and Hizbullah in the past two months.
|
Israel's
other war
Commentary:
War stories
|
Recently prominent Lebanese writer Onsi Al-Haj wrote in his column in
the daily Al-Akhbar newspaper; "One month after the Israeli war,
the onus is now on Hizbullah. The party has one of two options: either
it turns its achievement into a source of threat and intimidation for
the rest of Lebanese society, or utilises it to rebuild national unity.
It is a historic opportunity before Hizbullah, and we call upon it to
make the utmost of it; not out of pity for Lebanon, but out of the
heroism of the brave."
Al-Haj's words truly captured what many described as one of the
biggest challenges that confronts Hizbullah which not only fought the
most powerful army in the Middle East to a standstill but emerged
victorious in the eyes of millions of Arabs, its enemies, and
undoubtedly its Lebanese constituency.
Hizbullah's moment, both domestically and regionally, has arrived.
But with it comes the heavy burden of introspection. Signs of this were
apparent when a week ago Hizbullah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah
admitted in a televised interview that had Hizbullah known beforehand of
the human cost of the operation of capturing the two Israeli soldiers
they would not have embarked on the operation. Many read this statement
to mean that Hizbullah was acknowledging its miscalculation, which
Nasrallah denied in an interview with As-Safir newspaper.
While the defensive war against Israel may have ended, at least for
now, the Islamic resistance movement continues a battle of a different
kind on a number of fronts domestically. There is the issue of
reconstruction, where the party wants to preserve the social fabric of
the southern villages that constitute the bulk of its constituents.
Meanwhile, the political battles in which the party is engaged with
other Lebanese forces -- particularly those belonging to the 14th March
alliance -- are not any less important than the actual conflict fought
with the Israelis. Thus far, Hizbullah has avoided entering into a war
of words that could exacerbate sectarian tension and has been working
towards preserving national unity.
Members of 14th March alliance, on the other hand, upped the ante in
the past week with an escalation that reached unprecedented levels in
the already strained relationship between it and Hizbullah, although
both hold a place in the current Lebanese government. Accusations of
Hizbullah being part of an Iranian- Syrian axis continued to be heard
while at least one Christian politician, Dori Shamoun, accused Hizbullah
of "seeking to establish an Islamist Shia state in Lebanon".
Others called on Hizbullah to "enter the state" and drew a picture of
Lebanon's Shia as being "a state within a state". Some even accused
Hizbullah of wanting to capitalise on its victory over Israel to "turn
against the current political formula that Lebanon has known since the
implementation of the Taif Agreements in 1992". Sources close to
Hizbullah spoke about attempts by political leaders within the 14th
March alliance to create a schism within Lebanon's Shia to isolate
Hizbullah from its main constituents.
Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Hizbullah sources say that
domestic challenges faced by the party are massive in light of the
polarisation currently taking root in Lebanese society. "There is an
American-Israeli wish to see those divisions and political bickering
exacerbated between us and the rest of the 14th March alliance," Ali
Fayad, a member of Hizbullah's politburo, told the Weekly. Fayad
said Hizbullah had already ignored many "insults" and much "black
propaganda" because "the only alternative [to doing so] was conflict."
There is a clear decision, Fayad said, that Hizbullah "will not be
engaged in a war of words" that could lead to exacerbating already high
political and sectarian tensions in the country. This policy, says
Fayad, reflects the party's confidence in its achievement and its
constituency. "We will only address political conflicts with our
adversaries via dialogue, and not through TV or the newspapers," he
said.
When hostilities first broke out soon after 12 July, Saad Al-Hariri,
majority leader in the assembly and head of Tayyar Al-Mustaqbal (the
Future Movement) said that the time would come when those forces who led
Lebanon to war -- a veiled reference to Hizbullah -- would be asked to
account for their actions. But Fayad defends that the result of the war
allows the resistance movement alone to hold others to account. "The
clear message everyone should realise after this war is that Israel
represents a real threat to Lebanon. This battle was not just a battle
against Hizbullah, but against the existence of Lebanon as a whole."
While he said the party was open to criticism, he pointed out that the
"black propaganda campaign" to which the party has been subjected aims
to tarnish its image and belittle its achievements.
Part of the reason for Hizbullah coming under attack, perhaps, has to
do with the party's championing Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel
Aoun's demand for a new government. Fayad said that Hizbullah --which
has two ministers in the cabinet -- does not aim to topple the
government but insists that a national unity government "is what Lebanon
needs now". "When the government crosses certain red lines, then there
is no point in having it ruling the country," said Fayad.
So what are Hizbullah's red lines after the 34-day war with Israel?
"National unity, extending Lebanon's sovereignty over all territory and
defending the resistance," said Fayad. Disarming the resistance movement
was no longer an issue after Israel's catalogue of atrocities, says
Fayad. While Hizbullah avoided responding to calls made by members of
the 14th March camp that the resistance movement should disarm, treating
the party as though it had lost the war to Israel, recently some
Hizbullah officials harshly criticised others who demanded the same.
Nawaf Al-Mussawi, head of the party's foreign relations contingent, said
in recent statements that "if Israel, with all its military might, could
not disarm Hizbullah then no one should think about disarming it."
Fayad dismissed baseless statements by members of the 14th March
alliance that Hizbullah was seeking to overthrow the Taif Agreements,
which provided the political formula under which Lebanon has been ruled
since 1991. He pointed out that when Nasrallah spoke about "the just
state" he meant that this state could only be realised when political
sectarianism is abolished. "Taif has clearly drawn mechanisms by which
this sectarian politics is abolished," he said. He stressed that
Hizbullah was fully committed to the Taif Agreements. This came in
response to insinuations made recently by Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt
who cast doubt over Nasrallah's commitment to Lebanon's post 1991
political framework. "We should commit to the Taif in its entirety and
not be selective about what to take and what to leave according to what
suits our political ends," Fayad said in response.
Fayad ridiculed what Saudi commentator Dawoud Al-Shoryan said of
Hizbullah's intent to change the political system. Al-Shoryan suggested
in a column in the Saudi-financed Al-Hayat newspaper last month
that many within Shia circles ask why the position of prime minister or
even the president -- according to Taif reserved for a Sunni and
Maronite Christian respectively -- should not be occupied by Shia
candidates. "In a perfect world, we would not want the president or
prime minister to be the prerogative of a particular sect, but we want
every Lebanese citizen, regardless of his sect, to have the right to run
for the post and we want him to be elected in a fair and free poll."
Hizbullah's victory, insisted Fayad, would not be used to score
political gains in the domestic game for a simple reason: "we want the
resistance to be above political polarisation and sectarian tensions,
and not to be cause of more polarisation."
With some speaking of a silent tension between Hizbullah and sections
of the Lebanese Sunni street, particularly those rallying behind
Al-Hariri, many believe that while the party succeeded in massing
unprecedented levels of popularity in the Sunni world outside Lebanon as
well as across many parts of the Muslim world during the 34-day war with
Israel, it has failed to appeal to the Sunni population inside Lebanon.
Others argue Hizbullah has also failed to forestall attempts to fuel a
Sunni-Shia divide. Fayad begs to differ. Hizbullah, he explained, has
managed to make breakthroughs with the Sunni community, though the
assassination of former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, with fingers
pointing at Syria, Hizbullah's ally, exacerbated sectarian polarisation.
"This has adversely affected the resistance, but we know that among
sections of the Sunni community Hizbullah is held in high esteem. The
problem is that for some -- including the Sunni leadership -- the
priority is not to resist the Israeli occupation and outline a defence
strategy for Lebanon. Their number one priority is how to punish
Syria."
How will the resistance and the army co-exist after the deployment of
15,000 Lebanese soldiers in the south? "Both the resistance and the army
are in full cooperation and coordination," stressed Fayad. Asked his
opinion on reports that suggested that American military aid for the
Lebanese army would implicitly include changing military doctrine as to
who the enemy is, Fayad responded: "The enemy -- as we know it and as
the Taif Agreements defines -- was and remains Israel. No one can change
this doctrine because it would be a coup on Taif and would be a grave
escalation." The Lebanese army, added Fayad, has always been supportive
of the resistance.
Fayad described political bickering in Lebanon as not being between
Hizbullah and Aoun on the one hand and every one else on the other hand.
It was a battle between those who want real sovereignty for Lebanon as
an essential part of their national identity and those who have drawn
their agenda according to external alliances and narrow interests. He
added that Hizbullah was neither a militia nor a state within a state;
rather it represents what he described as "the dynamism of Lebanese
civil society".
"The Lebanese law," explained Fayad, "allows for political parties to
be engaged in civilian activities and the compensations we offered for
those whose houses were destroyed fit within this criterion,
particularly in light of state failure to do so."
Fayad could not hide a sense of bitterness and disappointment over
Arab reactions, pointing out that the Arab political system once again
squandered a valuable opportunity to right all the wrongs that have been
committed in the Arab-Israeli conflict and allow for a radical shift in
favour of the Arab side. "If only Syria had moved into the Golan Heights
and allowed resistance forces; if only Egypt had closed down the Israeli
Embassy, Hizbullah's victory would have been really historic and
strategic," Fayad said.
In his latest interview with the Lebanese daily
As-Safir newspaper, Hizbullah's secretary-general responds to
criticism about his 'miscalculated adventure'. Below are excerpts from
the interview
ONE of the most significant achievements of Israel's war on Lebanon
was that it united Sunnis and Shias across the Muslim world and closed
the door before any attempts to plant the seeds of fitna
(sedition) among them, Hizbullah's Secretary-General Sayid Hassan
Nasrallah told the Lebanese daily As-Safir newspaper in an
exclusive interview published Tuesday. "Both Sunnis and Shia realised
that they are confronting one enemy and face the same threats and same
battles, and this in my view is one of the most significant strategic
consequences of the war," he said.
Nasrallah, who was pictured with the paper's publisher Talal Salman
and its news editor Hussein Ayoub, could not hide a sense of bitterness
and frustration at the ways in which Hizbullah was portrayed to be the
cause of the destruction that has befallen Lebanon during Israel's
34-day war. Nasrallah is faced with the unusual dilemma of the victor
being burdened by his own victory.
In spite of attempts to belittle Hizbullah's achievement, Nasrallah
said that there was a consensus in the Arab world and even in Israel
that "Israel has been defeated in Lebanon." He reiterated that he
considered this "to be a strategic and historic victory". When asked
whether or not he expected a second round of hostilities, Nasrallah
pointed out that while the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, "if
the resistance continues to keep its arms and cooperate with the
Lebanese army, Israel will think a thousand times before attacking
Lebanon again as long as the force which defeated it continues to be
prepared."
Nasrallah said that Hizbullah would keep its arsenal of rockets and
that they would be used only in such circumstances as when Israel
launches an all-out war against Lebanon. Nasrallah stated that it was
"the miserable Israeli failure in the ground operation and the huge
military loss" that forced Israel into a cessation of hostilities, not
pressure from the international community as some have claimed.
While Israel unleashed the full force of its military power, it
failed, according to Nasrallah, to achieve any of the goals for which
its war was launched. "Olmert says that his achievement is that he put
me in a bunker. Is this why he launched a massive war like this? They
have launched this war just to put me in a bunker?" exclaimed Nasrallah.
Nasrallah ruled out that Israel was ready to confront Syria. "They
had the opportunity to bring Syria into this war if they wanted, but
there was a clear decision to avoid bringing Syria onboard," he said. "I
think the Israelis will need a long time before they plan for a new war,
not just with Lebanon but with Syria also."
Nasrallah defended his position and that of the party stressing,
"Hizbullah did not miscalculate the Israeli reaction when it captured
the two soldiers." Hizbullah knew, Nasrallah continued, "that the United
States and Israel were planning a war to liquidate Hizbullah but we did
not know the exact timing. We expected when the capture took place that
they, the Israelis, would respond in a limited but painful way but this
war was beyond any logic. The capture has been used by Israel as a
pretext to launch a war that has been planned for already. And I did not
regret what we did."
Nasrallah reiterated that Lebanon was in need of a national unity
government that could strike a balance in representation of all
political forces. "When we called for a national unity government, we
did not do this to create a political crisis but simply because the
national interest of Lebanon requires such a government since Lebanon is
facing huge challenges in the coming period."