After the resignation of Hezbollah ministers from the Lebanese government, I asked the resigned Lebanese Energy Minister, Mohammed Fneish: "Do you raise the ceiling of your demands because you possess weapons, unlike others?"
He answered: "If we had acted on the basis that we have weapons, we would have demanded more than this."
At the time, Hezbollah was acting, apparently at least, as a political party. It was talking about dialogue and democracy, but today, it is clear that it seeks 'more than that'. It wants to have the right to shape political life. It had explicitly announced, through its secretary general, replacing dictation through weapons with dialogue. In Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech last Monday, it was clear that the man was determined to sidestep the current political approach on the Lebanese arena. He closed the door to the opportunities that have been afforded in the previous stage and told his political enemies in an incontrovertible way: 'Either you accept Hezbollah's conditions or face chaos'.
Hezbollah's conditions, which Sayyed Nasrallah referred to in his speech, are not limited to canceling the establishment of the tribunal - although that is impossible - or to finding a formula so that the State legitimizes the Party's weapons, although the issue of incorporating Hezbollah's weapons is a lie that was made by the Party and believed by others.
The conditions are far from rejecting the details of the government solution. In short, they mean re-arranging the rights of communities in the Lebanese political life.
In his speech, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah linked the fate of Lebanon to the political changes in the region by recalling the tense situation between Washington and Tehran. This link should not only be viewed from the perspective of disengagement between the majority and the opposition or of its impact on the enthusiasm of the international parties, particularly the US, which has lost interest in searching for solutions for the Lebanese problem.
In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah sidestepped the crisis and went straight to his long-sought objective: possessing arms in the name of liberation. He wanted to deliver a message to the effect that we have been patient in the hope that you will understand that the balance of power between the communities has changed, not only in Lebanon, but also in the region. But you did not realize that. I am reading to you from the last page: Lebanon has been living on the basis of sectarian pro rata since independence, and our share today is 'more than that'. If the Maronites feel that they are marginalized and seek to regain their role, we feel that we have been victims of injustice, because we did not have a role in the past. Therefore, you should sit next to us at table that is not round, and at the head of which we will sit, to correct the distribution before talking about the details of the last stage.
He hinted at the new shape of Lebanon to come through deciding the future of the Presidency of the Republic, saying that President Emile Lahoud will remain until the last day of his tenure. He insisted on toppling the prime minister. In his next speech, he will be more straightforward in dictating his terms to the majority.
There is no doubt that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech resembles, to a great extent, the first statement of military confrontations that are almost certain. Furthermore, it is part of Hezbollah's attempt to undermine the Lebanese State with its current structure. In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah closed all the windows of opportunity, saying in a supercilious voice: 'My way or the highway' (or 'me or the cataclysm'), but he forgot the fact that the majority sees no difference between the two options. The implementation of the agenda put forward by the Secretary General in his speech will lead to a cataclysm: releasing the accused in the assassination of Hariri, canceling the tribunal and maintaining Hezbollah's State within the Lebanese State will not grant the Lebanese sovereignty, freedom and coexistence. He also forgot that the cataclysm will not leave him any room to achieve his dream of a 'State'.
Certainly, Hezbollah as it is currently is not the party that the Lebanese and the Arabs knew before the July War. The party of liberation, resistance and symbol of dignity has today become a political and military tool to achieve the foreign objective, which is being implemented in the region.
Unfortunately, we may say that Hezbollah is trying hard to undermine the formula of sectarian coexistence between Muslims and Christians. He has even gone too far by repeating the Iraqi experiment through fomenting sectarian division between Muslims in Lebanon.
More dangerous is that the 'Resistance Party' now moves in accordance with the developments on other fronts: if pressure is increased on Tehran, he will create a war with Israel, and if tension is heightened between the US and Syria, he will fan the flames in the Lebanese arena. The Party has subjected Lebanon to the interests of others in the name of opposition to the US project at some times, and in the name of libration at other times. Ironically, he never stops accusing others of being dependent on foreign powers.
It seems that Lebanon has a date with summer wars. Although the previous war broke out by accident, or because of miscalculation, this time it will be started by Hezbollah by design.
Israel wants to restore its dignity through another round of war against Lebanon. Hezbollah has not failed until now in playing its role. The escalation experienced by the Lebanese arena will facilitate the job of Israeli generals. Hezbollah believes that through the new war, it will avoid the international tribunal, or it just pretends to do so to serve goals whose results will come to light next summer. |
He underlined that "no one can think of weakening the Resistance's capabilities, unless they are stupid, conspiring or ignorant of their country's interest."
[An Nahar] Hizbullah on Monday denied involvement in the 2005 
Hizbullah cabinet member