The Two-Faced Rhetoric

The Two-Faced Rhetoric
Elias Harfouch Al-Hayat - 18/02/07//

With regards to the investigation into the murder of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the establishment of the International Tribunal, and its role in the Resistance, Hezbollah is facing two major predicaments: either it confronts these issues like a Lebanese party, or it sides with another project that would keep it out of the Lebanese equation.

Hezbollah's declared and written rhetoric completely points out that it longs to play a leading role, as if it were saying: 'If it were not for my circumstances!' On the other hand, however, its attitude suggests that it is compelled to stand elsewhere.

On February 14, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah wanted to take part in the commemorations for Hariri's murder. Since his security circumstances kept him from participating openly, as Beirut's division prevented his party from attending, as well, he wrote an article in the 'As-safir' newspaper. Most of this speech could have been delivered by one of the majority's main figures, as he affirmed that there is an 'obligation to find the truth' and to 'persecute the killers'. He also expressed his 'feeling about this calamity, as well as his worry and even panic about the possibility that the country could fall apart as a result of the earthquake it was struck by the assassination'. He also said: 'Truth has become a unifying national request, and there are now many fears that this great martyr's blood may have been shed in vain'.

In his speech delivered two days ago, during the commemorations for the killing of Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, Nasrallah wanted to take Hezbollah back to the south, after the party had been accused on more than one occasion that its sit-in protest in Beirut had distracted it from the main mission it charged itself with, that is, the liberation. He did so by re-affirming the party's right to possess arms, and criticized the officials who seized a truck of arms, threatening that the 'weapons that are confiscated from us are usurped, even if they are taken to the South'. He also confirmed that 'for us, resistance is a project of life, glory, dignity, survival and continuation'. In other words, he linked the party's survival and continuation to the survival of the Resistance, and not to the sit-in held in Riyad el-Solh Square or the 'understanding' with Michel Aoun.

Nevertheless, the Resistance, as is well known, is a fact on the ground and not propaganda. Otherwise, it would just turn into a political speech using the 'resistant' attitude in favor of its internal and regional goals, so that nothing more is said in support of those the Resistance dubs as having 'surrendered' and are 'subjugated'.

However, Nasrallah, by confirming the priority of the Resistance, said at the same time that the party is committed to protecting the international forces (UNIFIL) in the South and avoid any clash, since 'Lebanon has no interest in stirring problems between the opposition and UNIFIL'. He even accused other parties of instigating and planning such clashes to hold Hezbollah responsible, should they occur.

Hezbollah's problem with this peaceful speech is that it only goes half-way. If its orator follows this logic until the end, he would meet other Lebanese parties, namely the majority, on one single national attitude. But for some reason and somehow, Nasrallah and his party cannot do that.

It is surprising that Hezbollah's Secretary General does not find any contradictions between his support to find the 'truth' about the assassination of PM Rafik Hariri and his ambiguous stance on the International Tribunal in curtailing the constitutional institutions liable to establish this court.

It is also surprising that he does not find any contradictions between his positive attitude toward UNIFIL and his claim that the party has the right to possess weapons 'to liberate the land and defend the country'. Indeed, he realizes before anyone else the commitments arranged by UN Resolution 1701 for the Lebanese government. In particular, this Resolution has to do with the government preserving security along the border and authorized weapons in this area. Resolution 1701 states that arms must exclusively be in the hands of the Lebanese security forces or must be present under the Lebanese government's approval. In other words, 'liberating the land and defending the country' is no longer Hezbollah's exclusive mission.

Before thinking about national reconciliation with others, Hezbollah is now forced more than ever to reconcile its internal political rhetoric with its real stances on the ground. These stances are, at the very least, concealing great embarrassment about the position in which the party has been put and the commitments that have been arranged for it.