Destruction machine
With the admission that one of its fighters was responsible for the murder of Lieutenant Samer Hanna and the pride with which it announced the opening of the Imad Mugniyah “exhibition” in Nabatiyeh, Hezbollah has once again demonstrated that it is not fit for governing in peace.
This is hardly surprising given that the party’s strategic agenda is predicated on the destruction of Israel (and of course the subsequent liberation of Jerusalem), and the quixotic dream of an Islamic Lebanon. We have not seen a blueprint for lifting Lebanon out of the economic doldrums, encouraging pluralism, contributing to social awareness or even promoting environmentalism. In fact, one only has to look at the ghastly spectacle in Nabatiyeh – a celebration of violence and death if ever there was – to see, should Hezbollah ever draft a cultural agenda, where it would be rooted.
Au contraire! Every time Hezbollah has flashed its credentials, obstruction, stagnation and violence have followed. There was the 2006 July War, Hezbollah’s flagrant program to rearm, the 18-month downtown sit-in, the civil disobedience of early 2007, the attempted coup of May 2008, and most recently, the downing of the helicopter – all of which have demonstrated that Hezbollah’s core business is death and destruction.
Bearing this in mind, one must ask if Hezbollah really has a role to play in any nation-building initiative. It is clear that the party neither understands nor cares about the Lebanese private sector. It has its own insulated economy, receiving least $500 million dollars a year from Iran, while it is understood to have interests in the central and West African “blood diamond” trade and other nefarious activities. Unlike the militias of the civil war, it can be “clean” at home because it has kept its dirty activities abroad.
So why should the party be interested in strengthening Lebanon’s state institutions? A strong army would undermine its role as the Resistance, a strong welfare state would chip away at its appeal to grassroots Shia, while a sound economic plan, one that would create prosperity for all, would challenge any appetite for taking Lebanon into another war.
Let us not forget what Hezbollah said when it was offered the chance of integrating into the armed services. Its armed wing, it said, was not ready to integrate, as such a move would in all probability compromise its security and reduce its ability to maneuver as a guerilla outfit. It didn’t consider that, if it were part of the national army, Israel might think twice before attacking a sovereign institution rather than what it saw as a rogue element.
In fact, with its usual warped logic, Hezbollah argued that this tactic was vindicated in 2006, when, instead of going after the whole of the Lebanese state, Israel only went after Hezbollah. That Israel did indeed spare Lebanon’s fundamental infrastructure will have come as little comfort to those 1,500 people who died, or the 1 million who were displaced in a war that should never have happened and which Hezbollah provoked.
Of course, when faced with this reluctance to join hands and build a better, peaceful Lebanon, the obvious conclusion to draw is that, given its close ties to Iran, the party owes its loyalty to two flags – one only has to recall Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad’s promise to launch “11,000 missiles” – he did not specify from where – should the Islamic state be attacked. Should this be the case – and the evidence is pretty compelling giving the succession of “own goals” Hezbollah has conceded since 2006 – the party’s current posture is untenable within the Lebanese political dynamic.
At the end of 2006, a civil society campaign was launched under the banner of “I Love Life.” That it was eventually lampooned by the opposition does not detract from the intrinsic message. A democratic, self-determined and sovereign Lebanon can never have a culture of conflict and death as its default setting. That Hezbollah cannot see this only proves that it is out of step with the aspirations of the majority of Lebanese.