Middle-east Arab News Opinion | Asharq Al-awsat

The Hezbollah State | ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English Archive 2005 -2017
Select Page

Lebanese MP Mohammed Raad, head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, made some important comments in which he outlined the features of the Lebanese state according to the view of the opposition, i.e. Hezbollah, if it were to achieve a victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Raad also expressed Hezbollah’s opinion of Syria’s negotiations with Israel to regain the occupied Golan Heights. The importance of Raad’s comments lies in the fact that they come at a time when the British government claims that there is a military Hezbollah on one hand and a political Hezbollah on the other!

Raad said that the state of opposition is the state of “resistance” and that “[given the choice] out of the project of surrendering, which comes under the name of peace, and the project of resistance that maintains dignity, we choose the project of resistance.” He added that there needs to be an internal political resolution to protect the resistance. Moreover, he called for the government to protect the resistance and “understand Lebanon’s need for this option,” and stated that Hezbollah or the opposition, requires “a brave government that can comprehend that the main threat towards Lebanon is the Zionist threat.”

This is what Raad said about Lebanon. As for the peace option, Raad said that Hezbollah rejects a government that “rallies behind those who have been defeated in the Arab region who strive for peace with Israel.” The obvious question here is who is he talking about?

Raad’s comments indicate that the specifications of the Lebanese state that Hezbollah wants is a state that is dependent, takes risks and gambles, for which the Arabs will rush to cover its costs. Nevertheless, how can we interpret the quarrels over Saudi money, especially in light of what Nabih Berri said and what the media of the opposition announced despite bragging about pure money?

If Raad is proud that he has reassessed the security situation saying, “We dealt with it [the security situation] and it is now at its best,” then what about the civilians who were injured in the 2006 war? Who will give them back their homes and business projects? Does the Arab world, the Gulf in particular, have to pay the price for the adventures of the divine party?

This is absurd. In the midst of the financial crisis that is taking the world by storm, Raad comes out to present us with a recipe for new wars that require funding; in reality, we are in need of a recipe for improving education, creativity, jobs and healthcare. This is the truth that those who are reckless with other people’s money must hear.

Moreover, Raad’s statement completely contradicts what Hezbollah’s partner Michel Aoun said as he attacked the majority [government] saying, “We are suffering from the financial crisis because of their policies that burdened us with debt.” So what do we need now, an effective economy or new wars? What debt is Michel Aoun talking about when the country came out of a war only to experience a coup because of his divine partners? Raad and Aoun’s statements completely contradict one another!

As for Raad’s statement that Lebanon must not rally behind the Arabs who have been defeated, this is clearly an attack on Damascus. Is restoring the Golan Heights an issue of defeatism? Logic states that restoring occupied territories is a right by any means available including negotiation.

We have the right here to question whether Raad’s comments represent Hezbollah’s position on Arab reconciliation, in particular the Riyadh summit that brought together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Kuwait or whether Hezbollah figures fear that if Syria regains the Golan Heights they will be weakened and taught a lesson.

I believe that reconciliation and negotiations have sounded the alarm for Hezbollah and its leadership.