Lebanon: Divorce between Aoun, Hezbollah Is Final

Hezbollah is accused of stabbing the FPM several times in the back.

Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
TT

Lebanon: Divorce between Aoun, Hezbollah Is Final

Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)
Then FPM leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah shake hands as they declare their understanding in February 2006. (Reuters)

A Lebanese official following the relations between former President Michel Aoun with Hezbollah said the “marriage” between them, which was held at a Maronite church in Beirut’s southern suburbs in 2006, is over.

All that is left is for them to announce the official divorce, marking an end to an alliance between two of the most opposite parties in Lebanon.

Many had believed that the understanding - signed at the Mar Mikhael church in February 2006 between then head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) Michel Aoun and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah - was doomed to fail.

Even though it brought two parties that could not be any more different, their understanding turned out to be a solid alliance wherein the personal relations between Aoun and Nasrallah played a big role in consolidating it, leading to a major change in Lebanon’s political identity.

However, Aoun’s political successor, his son-in-law and MP Gebran Bassil played a major role in ruining the understanding, leading to its collapse and now, divorce.

The FPM and Hezbollah achieved major gains from the alliance. Hezbollah gained sizeable Christian cover for its arsenal of weapons, while the FPM gained unlimited support in internal files that allowed it at first to control Christian shares in governments and then state institutions. The alliance also allowed Aoun to be elected president after two years of vacuum in the country’s top post.

Ironically, Aoun’s election as president marked the beginning of the end of the alliance. As soon as Aoun became head of state, he found himself at great odds with influential parliament Speaker Nabi Berri, a major ally of Hezbollah.

Aoun believed that Hezbollah’s support to him in domestic affairs must be unlimited, but the party chose to take the middle ground and avoid confronting Berri out of its keenness on the “unity of Shiite ranks.” Aoun was very disappointed, openly informing his guests that Berri was the greatest obstacle to his presidential achievements and Hezbollah did not intervene to rein in its ally.

Aoun believes that Berri was the major obstacle that hindered the success of his term as president – an argument that many agree with. Hezbollah chose to take a “hands off” approach in internal files, prioritizing its regional role.

Berri, however, did not take a “hands off” approach. He confronted Aoun’s ambitions in state institutions. The speaker is a main political player and refused to turn into an “affiliate” to Aoun, said one of the figures close to him. The lack of “political chemistry” between Aoun and Berri was obvious to them and others from the start.

Aoun’s term in office ended with a vacuum in the presidency with political parties failing to elect a successor. The way Hezbollah is approaching the vacuum has dealt a strong blow to the alliance with Aoun.

The party is clear in backing the candidacy of former minister Suleiman Franjieh, but Bassil, now head of the FPM, has strongly rejected this choice. He believes that he has made a great sacrifice by refraining from nominating himself, calling on Hezbollah to reach an understanding with him over a “third choice”.

Nasrallah and Bassil met, with the former frankly telling him that Franjieh was their choice. Bassil strongly opposed the suggestion. Nasrallah told him to think about it, but Bassil was adamant in rejecting Franjieh.

Other points of contention were related to the caretaker government. The FPM argued that the government, in its caretaker capacity, could not hold meetings amid the presidential vacuum. Hezbollah disagreed and granted the needed quorum for the cabinet meetings to be held. Bassil was furious, striking below the belt by speaking of “honest parties who renege on the agreement, vow and guarantee.” The party was forced to respond openly to the accusation, the first time it had done so since the 2006 understanding.

The relationship between Hezbollah and the FPM was based partially on the latter’s support of the party's conflict with Israel. In return, the party would support the FPM in domestic political affairs, leading to a “balanced partnership”, as Bassil has told his visitors. An imbalance in this equation will break the partnership. On whether Hezbollah’s latest positions were viewed as a stab in the back, Bassil’s visitors said: “There are many knives in the back this time.”

Hezbollah and Bassil’s ties were never completely rosy. Bassil never shied away from criticizing the party every now and then. His biggest reservation was that the party prioritized its relations with Shiites over all else. According to Bassil, this “encouraged corruption and prevented the rise of state institutions.” Bassil went so far as to tell his visitors that Hezbollah fought for Aoun to be elected president and when he finally became so, it did not support him in the battle to build the state, abandoning him before his rivals.

Bassil’s visitors said he was clear with Hezbollah over the need to agree on another presidential candidate besides Franjieh. “If they believe he is maneuvering or seeking something else in return, they are wrong and it would be a big problem if the party believes so,” they added.

Bassil has said that the relationship between the FPM and Hezbollah was perfect. “We were capable of reaching understandings with foreign parties, while in return, the resistance [Hezbollah] would perform its duty in protecting the nation,” he was quoted as saying.

In short, Bassil believed that the 2006 understanding with Hezbollah changed Lebanon's identity and if the relations with the party were to collapse, then Lebanon’s identity will again be changed.

Hezbollah’s view

In return, Hezbollah appears unconvinced of Bassil’s justifications. An official close to the party said the divorce has happened with the party and they are now awaiting the official announcement. He stressed, however, that the announcement will not be made by the party, leaving it up to Bassil.

The official disagrees with the Aounist camp’s claims that the FPM’s support for Hezbollah gave the former free reign in domestic affairs. “They are giving the party support it doesn’t need. It is already a regional power and recognized as so by the world,” he remarked.

Internally, he said the “weight” of the alliance with the FPM “cost Hezbollah several of its Christian friends and strained its relations with other parties because it was always siding with Bassil.”

Moreover, he added that the formation of governments was obstructed on numerous occasions “just so Bassil could get what he wanted. The parliament was also obstructed just so Aoun could be elected president.”

The party is clear in saying that Bassil takes issues personally. It holds him responsible for the failure to form a new government before Aoun’s term ended. At the time, Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati agreed to Bassil’s conditions, but at the very last minute, the FPM leader said he would not support the new lineup even though he was to be granted shares other than those of the president and the greatest number of seats as he demanded.

Even in rejecting Franjieh’s nomination, Hezbollah believes that Bassil is taking issues personally. The official said the MP constantly tries to undermine Franjieh’s image and influence, even calling him by his first name, without any of his titles.

The official added, however, that he has not ruled out the possibility that Bassil could take advantage of the political upheaval and possibility of the United States lifting sanctions on him to emerge as a leading candidate for the presidency. Hezbollah does not have a Plan B to deal with such a scenario, acknowledged the official.



Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
TT

Gaza War Resonates But Has Global Diplomacy Shifted One Year On?

Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER
Internally displaced Palestinians walk in a street in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza Strip, 25 September 2024. EPA/MOHAMMED SABER

A year after the October 7 attack that sparked war in Gaza, diplomacy has failed to produce a ceasefire and the world watches on as the death toll mounts.
Fears of war engulfing the wider region have soared as exchanges of fire have escalated between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Over the past year, South Africa has taken Israel to court and some European governments have drawn Israeli anger by recognizing the State of Palestine, but analysts say only a radical change in US policy can stop the conflict, AFP said.
Here is a breakdown:
How has the war resonated?
Palestinian militant group Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack against Israel on October 7, resulting in the deaths of 1,205 people on the Israeli side, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures, which includes hostages killed in captivity.
Out of 251 people taken hostage that day, 97 are still being held inside Gaza, including 33 the Israeli military says are dead.
Israel's retaliatory military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians, a majority of them civilians, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
To the north, Israeli air strikes killed at least 558 people in Lebanon on Monday in the country's deadliest day of violence since the 1975-1990 civil war, the health ministry said.
Around the world, the conflict has had a polarizing effect, generating passionate support for both sides.
"This war has considerably deepened fracture lines," said analyst Karim Bitar.
"What is happening today in Lebanon only compounds this."
For many people, especially in countries which experienced colonial rule, the West's perceived failure to defend the human rights of Palestinians had exposed its "hypocrisy", he said.
In the Arab world, "there is this idea that all great principles fly out the window when it comes to Israel and that the West remains consumed by guilt" from World War II and the Holocaust.
Palestinian historian and diplomat Elias Sanbar said that the West had given the Israelis a "carte-blanche of impunity" for decades, ever since the creation of Israel in 1948.
But today "it will be much harder to show unconditional support to Israel", he said.
Has international law prevailed?
South Africa in December brought a case before the International Court of Justice, arguing the war in Gaza breached the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, an accusation Israel has strongly denied.
Colombia, Libya, Spain, Mexico, Türkiye and Chile have since joined the case.
Analyst Rym Momtaz said the ICJ proceedings against Israel were "unprecedented".
"International law is taking over the issue," she said.
In May, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court sought arrest warrants against top Hamas leaders -- but also Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister -- on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Since October 7, violence against Palestinians has also flared in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where far-right parties in the governing coalition have championed a quickening expansion of Israeli settlements, regarded as illegal under international law.
At least 680 Palestinians have been killed in the territory by Israeli troops or settlers, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
UN member states have adopted a non-binding resolution to formally demand an end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months.
But Israeli historian and diplomat Elie Barnavi said his country "doesn't care" about what the so-called global South thinks.
Is European support for Israel waning?
Some European governments have taken a stance.
Slovenia, Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognized the State of Palestine, drawing retaliatory moves from Israel.
The European Union has implemented sanctions against "extremist" settlers, and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has called for more against some far-right members of the Israeli government.
The United Kingdom has suspended 30 of 350 arms exports licenses for Israel.
Barnavi noted a "real shift in the attitude of Europeans towards Israel", but said it was "insufficient".
Zeenat Adam, of the Afro-Middle East Centre in South Africa, said the UK arms exports suspension was "minuscule".
"The recent 'recognition' by European states of Palestine is mere lip-service," she added.
In the end, said Sanbar, countries in Europe largely still supported Israel, even if "a sort of embarrassment" at times triggered statements of concern.
"It's simply not enough," he said.
What of the United States?
All eyes are instead on Israel's main ally the United States, which has pushed for a ceasefire but kept up its military aid to Israel.
"If the United States does not change their stance, there will be no change," said Momtaz.
"There has been no real fraying of US military support to Israel. Yet it's that support that is crucial and makes all the difference," she said.
The Israeli defense ministry said on Thursday it had secured a new $8.7 billion US aid package to support the country's ongoing military efforts, including upgrading air defense systems.
Momtaz said it was not clear that the US presidential election in November would change anything, regardless of whether the winner was Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
"There has been no sign that a Trump or Harris administration would be ready to use US leverage, the only efficient means to help both parties stop this war," she said.
Bitar said that among US voters, the Jewish community and young progressive Democrats were more openly distancing themselves from Israel, but that might only have a political impact in 10 to 15 years' time.
No end in sight?
The Gaza war has revived talk of a so-called "two-state solution" of Israeli and Palestinian states living in peace side by side, but that goal seems today more unattainable than ever.
For too many years, the international community "promised a two-state solution without doing anything to end the occupation, to end settlements to make a Palestinian state viable," Bitar said.
"Many believe the train has left the station, that it's perhaps already too late," Bitar said.
Barnavi said there was "no other solution", though it would involve dismantling most settlements in the West Bank.
"It would imply a lot of violence, including a period of civil war in Israel," he said.
Sanbar said: "Never have the two sides been so distanced from each other. I don't know what could bring them closer."