Understanding the growing criticism of Hezbollah within Lebanon

Why are we hearing more and more opposition to Hezbollah today? Does this mean that it’s loosing the political support it used to enjoy?I believe not. The opening up of the political debate in Lebanon during the past year, what the Lebanese call “the loosening of tongues”, just shows us that Hezbollah doesn’t enjoy unanimous support. But this doesn’t mean that it’s become a minor player in Lebanese politics and that it has lost its popular support. What it has actually lost is its “godfather” (the Syrian Intelligence Services in Lebanon) that insured a cross-communal public backing, and silenced all opposition to it, especially within the ranks of the Shiite community. And tongues loosened. Here’s how it happened: 

During the first months that followed the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, the political class that was set up and trained by the Syrian regime didn’t change its behaviour. It tried to silence all opposition to Hezbollah and completely ostracised all Shiite politicians that were critical of the party, so much so that none of these politicians got into Parliament. The Lebanese media didn’t help either because it completely ignored these independent voices during the elections period.   After the formation of the government, the same politicians started criticising Hezbollah, questioning its loyalty to Lebanon and its right to hold arms (although it was part of the common electoral platform). Very quickly, Hassan Nasrallah’s party lost the public support it enjoyed from the Future movement’s base (Sunnis) and the PSP’s base (Druze). And the media started voicing Shiite opposition to Hezbollah, presenting it as signs of the party’s dwindling influence and power. 

During the past two years the circumstances have changed and the “God’s party” had to adapt to something it had never experienced before: Lebanese opposition to it and public criticism of its actions. At first it reacted aggressively to this change (with the usual accusations of treason), but the party seems to have gotten used to this now. Hezbollah does not enjoy unanimous support, but then, no party does in a liberal democracy. The support it used to enjoy was artificially maintained by Syria and then by the quadripartite alliance.  

Nevertheless, Hezbollah remains undeniably one of the strongest political forces in Lebanon. It has shown during the elections and its mass rallies, that it enjoys a very strong support within the Shiite community, and every single poll indicate that it remains the first Shiite political force. What has changed is that its rivals and adversaries from within or from outside the Shiite community are becoming more and more vocal in their opposition to it.

Why Lebanon isn’t starting peace talks with Israel -2

I haven’t heard lately any Lebanese politician or journalist mention any word about peace with Israel, at least publicly. This is quite understandable when one comes to think of it. The country has just come out of two months of air and sea blockade imposed by the Israeli government and a month of heavy bombing by the Israeli armed forces that destroyed civil infrastructures (roads, bridges, houses, buildings, oil storages…) in most parts of Lebanon, provoked the internal displacement of about ¼ of the Lebanese resident population, not to mention the number of people it killed, injured or destroyed their livelihoods. It’s certainly not the best of times to talk about Peace.

Nevertheless, what I found quite surprising was the prime minister’s use of a strange formula to talk about something related to peace: in his own words, he was searching for a permanent solution with Israel. It wasn’t exactly peace he was asking for, but something similarWhat he meant was a permanent truce that would come about after the Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa farms, the release of all Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel and the end of Israeli violation of Lebanese airspace. These were the basic elements of his seven-points plan proposed in Rome, approved by the Lebanese council of ministers, and supported by the Arab foreign ministers.

Other Lebanese politicians talked about the implementation of the 1949 Armistice agreement between the two countries. And many repeated on the airwaves that Lebanon would be the last country to sign with Israel. Why should we be the last? Where does that claim come from? Is it a sign of Arab patriotism to be the last to sign peace? And why is it thought so? As Fuad Siniora said in a speech to the Arab foreign ministers, Lebanon’s sacrifices to Arab causes are undeniable. No other country has paid such high a price in the name of the Arab, the Islamic or the Palestinian cause. So why should Lebanon refrain from advancing Peace in the Middle East? And why should we be the last to sign a Peace agreement with Israel? 

Is it such an important privilege to be the last? And why is thought so to be? Is there anything intrinsically wrong with signing peace with Israel or getting into talks with its government in order to get there?

Why shouldn’t Lebanon be working for peace knowing that the Syrian regime, which today is the most anti-Israeli regime in the Middle-East, has been actively and officially asking for it for the past couple of years?

Here are a couple of hypothetical reasons that can be easily shown to have no founding. Lebanon cannot envisage peace talks with Israel because of:

a)     Timing. Why could it be wrong to do it today? Haven’t the Palestinians, the Jordanians and the Egyptians already signed peace?

b)    Israel’s nature. This argument is founded on the idea that Israel is something evil in itself. Signing peace with it would be like practising with the devil. But if that were true, then Lebanon shouldn’t envisage it even if all Arab countries signed Peace with Israel.  

c)     Lebanon’s nature. Why is Lebanon different from any other neighbouring country? Why would peace with
Israel threaten its Arab identity as some politicians claim? Are Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians less Arab now than they were before they entered Peace agreements with Israel? How can it be a sign of lack of solidarity when you know that even Palestinians have engaged talks and signed agreements with Israel? And can’t Arab issues (such as the evacuation by Israeli troops of the Golan) be taken into account during talks with Israel, and even a temporary solution found?

d)     A Lebanese political consensus on that issue. This is undeniable today, even though it is no secret that many political forces such as the Lebanese Forces (Christian) and Future Movement (Sunni) have been in favour of Peace and betting on it for some time. But one can’t help but wonder how this political consensus came about. One could find its origins before the war with the overbidding that Kamal Joumblatt (and his likes) used to do on Arab solidarity issues (such as the support of the “Palestinian cause” that translated in allowing the PLO to have check points in Beirut and elsewhere). Anything less than that kind of support was seen not only as treason, but as un-Arab, as a break away from Arab identity. Walid Joumblatt for some time followed in his father’s footsteps, but now it is Hassan Nassrallah that is doing the Arab nationalist (and Islamic) overbidding. The Christian leadership has since the mid-1980s backed up on this issue. If it tries to venture close to anything related to peace or armistice with Israel, it is reminded of its involvement in the May 17^th Agreement (ending in 1983 the state of war between Lebanon and Israel and signed by plenipotentiary representatives of both countries) which in the local jargon is synonymous with high treason.

So basically, there is no real agreement in Lebanon on the issue of peace with Israel, just remnants of a general public consensus forcefully imposed by Syria and its allies from 1983 to 2005. But as there is no public discussion about peace today, the consensus is holding, and nobody is trying to break it up by talking sensibly about the May 17^th Agreement or about concrete advancement of Palestinian issues.

A step closer to federalism in Iraq

This Wednesday, 141 Iraqi MPs voted in favor of a bill setting up a system that will allow provinces to merge into autonomous regions… in 2008. Even though the Iraqi Constitution mentions federalism as a principle of government, it doesn’t really specify the distribution of power between the federal States and the central government, nor does it include a mecanism for the creation and recognition of federal entities.

The new bill takes Iraq a step further towards federalism, but it postpones it until 2008 because of a provision that prevents the formation of federal regions for another18 months. This decision was reached two weeks ago. Federalism is a very controvesial issue in the Middle East in general. And Iraq is the first State to provide for it in its constitution. Opponents to the Bill tried to prevent the vote by walking out of Parliament hoping the quorum wouldn’t be reached. Their plan nearly succeeded, but the Bill passed anyway without any vote being expressed against it (those who opposed it had already left the building).

For ideological reasons, federalism is equated in this region with weakness and division, as being the antonyme of unity.