Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Hizbollah-ising the Lebanese State

Their attitude [on joining the government] is a dramatic change from the past. But they are going to instrumentalise the state to protect the resistance. They know how difficult it will be for the U.S. and Israel to mess with them. The party is not becoming “Lebanonised”; rather it is “Hizbollah-ising” the state.

That was what Amal Saad Ghorayeb told ICG interviewers on June of 2005. Her short analysis was eventually confirmed by a speech Nasrallah gave in UNESCO on February 16 of 2006 (two days after the February 14 commemoration of the late Rafik el Hariri). He said something to the effect that Hizballah would support a strong Lebanese state on condition that it is guided by a clear, unambiguous strategy.
I do not recall whether he articulated exactly what that strategy would be; but he did not need to. Nasrallah gave (and continues to give) Lebanese two choices:
  1. Either maintain the current paralysis and a weak Lebanese state
  2. Or gain a strong state with more centralized authority at the expense of what Saad Ghorayeb termed: the "Hizbollah-ising" of the Lebanese state.
Anyone with half a sense realizes that Hizballah will not compromise. The organization barely flinched even as Lebanese personalities and politicians that opposed its position died at the hands of its stalwart ally in Damascus. If even in the face of such brutality, Hizballah refused to cave in, then what exactly will induce it to compromise?
Once Hizballah gets its way, Lebanon will simply return to the same condition it was in under Syrian tutelage. Those who oppose the Syrian-Iranian-Hizballahi agenda will be forced to shut up or leave the country. Those who remain will be forced to benefit from the status quo to the greatest extent possible. The "resistance" will become an untouchable topic, and Lebanese will be at the mercy of its political calculations, and the Israeli reprisals.
If the Lebanese state is Hizbollah-ised, there will be no need for the Syrian Army, or the Mukhabarat... Simply put, the Syrians would have accomplished their mission.


Dr Victorino de la Vega said...

Dunno dude
Last time I checked, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah didn’t saddle future generations of Lebanese taxpayers with $ 50. bn in debt (Hariri/Riyadh Salameh from 1991 to 2004), or illegally expropriate ethnic Lebanese landowners and transfer the proceeds of his thefts to Saudi “investors” (Hariri/Fuad Saniura, 1994), or pass a Gerrymandering electoral law deliberately diluting the influence of Christian and Shiite voters (Hariri/Ghazi Kanaan, 2000).

I guess “Al-Haqiqa” is in the eye of the beholder…

Anonymous said...

Fellow countrymen, support me in my quest for the presidency...nick for prez! serious contender - pass it around -

yaman said...

And this is of any significance... why? Isn't it the aim of any and all political parties/organizations to "politicize" the state in a way that favors their interests?

Isn't Hariri Hariri-izing Lebanon, etc?

Seems pretty natural to me.

Raja said...


I see that in your own twisted way, you agree with my analysis.


if you agree with Hizballah's agenda, then i guess hizbollah-izing the state would be exactly what you want.

I agree with the agendas of both Future and the Tayyar... maybe not their politics, but definitely their agendas. I certainly cannot say the same for "god's party" on Earth.

ya khayyeee... why the hell did we have "arbata3sh azaar" if we're simply going to go back to the way things were when the syrians were here?!?!?!?

You know what? if the March 14th movement crumbles, it will even be worse than when the Syrians were in Lebanon, because Rafik el Hariri no longer stands as a counter weight to the "other" agenda!

Jumblatt is who remains... and he is a feather-weight compared to the late Hariri Sr.

Ramzi S said...


Good point. The crumbling of the March14 group would be a disaster. And would sway Lebanon even closer to the Iran/Syria axis than it was before.

If UN 1559 did not mention Hizb. It may be easier now to disarm them. Because Hizb does not want to look like it is caving to the West. At the same time, you wonder if Hizb and Berri have any negotiating room as their support is from Iran and Syria.

As I said in the past the only solution may be to increase the heat in Lebanon on Hizb until it is hotter then the pressure from Iran/Syria to stay armed. But that is risky. And Aoun taking the middle road is not helping in that strategy...

why-discuss said...

I think Lebanon may gain a lot by beeing somehow hezbolla-ized. Many of the party leaders have a lot to learn from Nasrallah, in term of social awareness, charisma, disinterest in bribery, coherence and discipline in his ranks... and if Raja wants to play Cassandra and tells us that Hezbollah is the Trojan horse for Syria and Iran, I am telling him this is mythology not politics...

yaman said...

I do not agree with Hizbollah's agenda but I respect the fact that they are (generally) honest about what they want. Unfortunately, I do not feel comfortable saying the same about the March 14 movement.

However, I DO sympathize completely with the March 14 movement and would like nothing more than a strong, sovereign, democratic Lebanon that doesn't fall into sectarian warfare. It is essential that sectarianism not destroy the country... if it does, it will delay the "reform" process in the rest of the ME (especially Syria) for quite a while.

frencheagle said...

*always respect ur enemies and never underestimate them*

sun tzu, the art of war :)

Anonymous said...

I'd rather hizballize the state than risk civil war!