When the issue of the need to confront the extensive role that Hezbollah plays both at home and in the region is raised, a clearly harmful matter impacting internal stability and Lebanon having normal relations with its neighbors and the rest of the world, one hears: this is a Lebanese party whose members are Lebanese. It has representatives in the government and parliament; what can we do about it?
This answer is not only given by Hezbollah’s allies; many of its rivals have adopted it as well, despite knowing the nature of the party and truth about its identity, priorities and interests. They nonetheless cajoled its leadership for personal gains and electoral interests at various stages. Subsequently, over the years, they felt the viciousness of its policies and were faced with the negative role it plays in paralyzing the country and toppling governments, through self-made rules they imposed on everyone, among which is the “blocking third,” which it exploited to ensure the dominance of its interests over the interests of the state, opposing the majority of both ministers and deputies. The most recent manifestation of this policy in Hezbollah’s actions today is against the lead investigator into the Beirut port blast, and how it is preventing Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government from convening before “removing” Judge Tarek Bitar; that is, before it carries out the threat made by a Hezbollah security official during his “historic” visit to the Palace of Justice in Beirut.
Speaking of Hezbollah’s identity as a Lebanese party, the way parties are usually identified as: British, French, Indian, or even Iranian parties, needs some reflection and a lot of bravery for its assessment to see if this description matches the reality of the policies Hezbollah adopts in Lebanon, which is supposedly “its country”.
We start with a legal issue regarding Hezbollah’s right to engage in political activity in Lebanon. We know that establishing any party, or even an association, in Lebanon requires the Ministry of Interior’s authorization. Does Hezbollah have one? Better yet, has it even thought of obtaining or seen a reason to justify seeking one given that it sees itself as above the law? It grants deeds of innocence and certificates of “the most honorable of people,” to those who enjoy its favor while granting accusations of treason to those who anger it by speaking out loud against its policies, with the ensuing threat to their interests, and in known cases to their lives as well.
The second matter regards Hezbollah’s ideological commitments and source of funding. Here, we should admit that the party is honest about both. Its commitment to Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurists) and the fact that it has imported the Iranian system of governance does not scare the party; in fact, Hezbollah is proud of this commitment. As for the question of funding, the party’s secretary-general has declared, on several occasions, “his party’s money, its fighters’ gear, their food and drink, and the funds it needs for its projects” come from Iran. Can we imagine that, in any other country in the world, a party explicitly announces its affiliation to a foreign country so transparently and is left free to engage in politics?
The other matter, which is not less critical, regards the contradictions between Hezbollah’s domestic and foreign interests and the Lebanese state’s interests. Usually, all parties work to further their country and citizens’ interests, refraining from taking any actions that threaten the country’s stability and security. This is a legal matter that governs any party’s activities. When any party breaks this law, it becomes vulnerable to being questioned and banned from taking part in political life.
In Hezbollah’s case, the incidents of it taking actions that undermined Lebanon’s security and the country and its people’s interests, the most recent of which is the ongoing crisis with the Gulf states, are too many to count. We recall the July 2006 war with Israel, which Hezbollah instigated by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated with a sweeping attack that caused many human losses and left immense destruction in its wake, as well as severely damaging the country’s economy and infrastructure. At the end of it all, Hezbollah’s secretary-general declared that he would not have launched the war if he had known the destructive outcome it would have.
Despite this recognition, the party was not held accountable in any way after the damages that the war had inflicted on Lebanon. All of that came under the pretext that it is a “resistance” party, though the fact is that there was no longer any justification for the maintenance of its arsenal after Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, especially that the Shebaa Farms’ status is contested between Lebanon and Syria, not Israel. Damascus must recognize that it is Lebanese territory, as the United Nations has told the Lebanese authorities on several occasions.
The fact that Hezbollah’s members carry Lebanese ID cards is not a sufficient reason for allowing it to engage in politics freely in this country. We know that many parties around the world are banned despite their members being nationals. The most prominent example is the Nazi Party, which is banned in Germany although there are those who support Nazi ideology and fascism in that country and others. The same applies to many other countries, where they forbid partisan activity that undermines the country’s interests or when it is clear that those running these parties are linked to foreign countries, even allies.
In Iran itself, Hezbollah’s exclusive sponsor, the authorities have banned political activity that opposes the Velayat-e Faqih system of governance or calls for the reinstatement of the Shah’s regime. Those who oppose the current Iranian system are either dead, in prison or in exile.
However, we are talking about Lebanon, and I am not so naive as to think that opening the discussion on Hezbollah and its loyalties is possible. The party’s dominance of the county’s politics has become so strong that it is impossible to call for debate or opposition. The crises Lebanon is facing today are among the direct outcomes of that domination.
