There is a foundational contradiction, rarely ever referred to, in the narrative Hezbollah and its supporters have developed about themselves. They say, at the same time, sometimes with the same phrase, that they are defending Lebanon. They have volunteered to take this task upon themselves, paying with their dear blood. They do so, a task that the Lebanese army and the state do not dare or are not willing to do, in defense of the country.
In other words, they are putting forward, in theory and practice, a radical form of patriotism that goes beyond those that preceded it and were mired by complacency and cowardice, if not treacherous conspiracy as well.
On the other hand, however, they are not concerned with Lebanon in the slightest. Beyond it being a battleground or a bridge to a battle, the country does not preoccupy them much or weigh heavily on their plans. They are, for example, not interested in developing an economic plan. Their deputies have not set an example with their legislation. Their secretary-general announced his enlistment in the Iranian Velayat-e-Faqih army. Their intellectuals, and the nationalist and leftist intellectuals who have joined them, do not miss an opportunity to ridicule Lebanon, show their contempt for it, and reiterate that it is superfluous. The opinions of the majority of the Lebanese about their resistance do not concern them. The country’s cultural environment is alien to them, and they are alien to it. The historical figures they are proud of (Adham Khanjar and Sadeq Hamza...) are among those who had objected to Lebanon’s existence since 1920 and were enthusiastic about Syrian unity under Faisal I.
One thing regarding Lebanon did concern and continues to concern Hezbollah and its supporters, the regime’s survival in such a way that facilitates their armed mission, that the regime remains a safe background for carrying out their resistance activities.
So, there is utmost determination to defend Lebanon and shed blood for it and, at the same time, the lowest possible degree of practical recognition of Lebanon, its past, present, and future, economically, politically and culturally...
How can this “practice” and that “theory” coexist?
It can be done with one of two possibilities or both possibilities. However, we can be absolutely certain that there is no third possibility:
The first is that what is meant by defense is defending a segment of the Lebanese population and a region of Lebanon after having isolated this segment of the population and its region from the entire country. Also, no links are established between defending them and connecting them to a particular economy and central authority. Such an understanding of “defense,” and by extension of “liberation,” is pre-national and extremely primitive: It deals with the issue as if it is a conflict between communities, groups, and regions, which history is brimming with. In its Lebanese translation, this is a sectarian defense or a sectarian liberation, and while it can be used against a foreign power like Israel, it can also be used, in different circumstances, against someone close or another Lebanese community.
The second possibility is that hostility to Israel, not defending and liberating Lebanon, is what drives this tendency. While such hostility is understandable and justified, leaving it to determine the fate of the Lebanese and asking them to plan their lives accordingly is neither comprehensible nor justified. Making this definition more viable is that Hezbollah and its milieu do not defend Lebanon in the face of non-Israeli occupation; indeed, they ally with it against the rest of the country. Hassan Nasrallah, in a symbolic gesture, gave the ‘resistance machine gun’ as a present to (Syrian officer) Rustom Ghazali, to give one of many examples.
Thus, it becomes legitimate, as is the case for every contrarian consciousness, to pose the question: Let us assume, theoretically, that Israel did not exist in the first place or that it has ceased to exist. Would this mean that nothing justifies Lebanon’s existence, given that fighting Israel is the only justification for this existence?
This zeal for defending an entity whose defenders do not like it is Hezbollah’s foundational contradiction- one that creates an arrangement of fabrications that represent a paradigm for understanding the world and its affairs before marketing it. Here, we suffice ourselves with two of those fabrications, which are now broadly familiar because they are the largest among them.
- It was the United States that created ISIS (once when Hillary Clinton was in charge and another when Mike Pompeo was at the held...), and, for some reason, it has killed its leaders, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, in succession. Before ISIS, this same United States had created al-Qaeda in the laboratory of Afghan cooperation against the Soviets. But al-Qaeda, for some reason, directed its major attacks against the United States, and so, the latter led the attack on Afghanistan and then eliminated the man who had established al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
- There is also a long line of “Israeli agents” in Lebanon. It starts with Rafic Hariri and does not end with Luqman Salim. But suddenly, they were all assassinated in the most horrific ways. Who assassinated them? Israel, of course.
No doubt, the narratives of Hezbollah and its followers entail a magical and fantastical world that has the capacity to enrich the myths that are invented by talented few and believed by many who are unfortunately not too talented at distinguishing myth from reality.
At the end of the day, we could marry an elephant off to an ant, and we could also celebrate their wedding. As for awaiting children to emerge from this happy marriage and asking others to wait for them with us, in order not to be traitors and spies, this is a little too much.
