"Not even in 300 years" said Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, as he appeared on Lebanese television a few days ago bluntly declining to adhere to an indictment and arrest warrants issued by the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) against four of his party's members.
Mr. Nasrallah also claimed that the four men were wrongfully accused by the investigation team examining the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. He added that the four suspects were victims of a corrupt and biased court aimed at tarnishing the image of "the anti-Israeli resistance."
(a snap-shot of Hasan Nasrallah's live speech which aired on Hezbollah's channel, Al Manar on 2 July 2011)
The good news, however, is that he vowed that there "will not be a sectarian strife in Lebanon between Sunnis and Shiites" -- a statement intended to comfort those worried that another armed takeover by the predominantly Shia militant group of the predominantly Sunni areas of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, similar to what occurred in May 2008.
The bad news is in that particular statement itself: It implies that Mr. Nasrallah can, as he did before, indeed ignite a sectarian feud in Lebanon with the mere flick of a finger. It also implies that Mr. Nasrallah seems to believe that he speaks for all Shiites in Lebanon, which is not true.
In his same speech mentioned above, Mr. Nasrallah also said "don't ask of the government of (new Prime Minister) Najib Mikati to do something they are incapable of."
This is another indicator that the legitimate government of Lebanon will not be able to impose the handing over of the four suspects to the STL on Mr. Nasrallah or his party.
Come to think of it, who is to force Mr. Nasrallah to do anything, anyway? Over the years, all attempts to negotiate with Hezbollah have failed miserably when it came to convincing them to disarm and becoming an exclusively political party.
In fact, Hezbollah even decides when the country should go to war with Israel and when it shouldn't, as was evident five years ago when the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near a border checkpoint unleashed the disproportionate wrath of the Israeli Defence Force for 36 days.
In that war we all learned, including the Israelis, that Mr. Nasrallah just can't be stopped.
After all, we are talking about a man who had the audacity to declare himself victorious following a UN-brokered agreement that came after the IDF killed more than 1,000 people in Lebanon (mostly civilians) and caused grave destruction to the country's infrastructure and buildings.
Now, up until 2000, Hezbollah was considered by most people as a true example of an impeccable resistance movement, since it took the burden of fighting the Israeli forces occupying southern Lebanon and eventually managed to get them to withdraw.
However, like Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, which has contributed to the division between Fatah and Hamas, Hezbollah's guns eventually turned inward as it found itself without a real enemy for the first time since its creation in the early 1980s.
Throughout its existence, Hezbollah gained much popularity in the otherwise deprived areas of southern Lebanon, which were predominantly Shia, as it built schools, clinics, its own television station, and offered incentives for people to join.
One reason for the Shia deprivation was that, historically, the Lebanese elite were always the Sunni Muslims and the Christian Maronites. Another was that during the time Hezbollah was growing in influence and power, the rest of the country was engaged in a 16-year civil war.
Following the civil war, Saudi-backed Rafik Hariri emerged as a leader determined to rebuild and revive the country. It is worth mentioning here that until the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, Mr. Hariri was an avid supporter of Hezbollah's resistance efforts.
The problems began when Hezbollah declined to hand over their weapons, refused to serve as part of the country's formal army, and began appearing as more of an Iranian "playing card," used more to pressure the United States whenever needed as opposed to a party dedicated to serving Lebanese interests.
This leads us to the key question: If members Hezbollah did kill Rafik Hariri, how exactly do the STL and the Lebanese government intend to bring them to the justice?
This article was first published on Al-Arabiya's English website as "In Lebanon, Nasrallah just can't be stopped. Ask the Israelis!".
Follow Faisal J. Abbas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/faisal_abbas
Nasrallah is only interested in his own power, he doesn't care about the good of Lebanon. The argument on that point was put to rest in the summer of 2011 when he turned his weapons on fellow Lebanese.
He killed his rival with a bomb that took out dozens of innocent people. I don't see what anyone can do about it, armed to the teeth by his Iranian puppet masters, he and his assassins probably can't be brought to justice. Poor Lebanon, once the Paris of the middle east, now competing with Gaza to become the Mogadishu of the Mediterranean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLAitMq3zI&feature=player_embedded#at=172
Re your comments on 'playing card': there is something called a 'proxy war'
I also know what a 'proxy war' is. In any war, there has to be an objective, either political or economical. Neither is present here for Iran. Hezbollah is not even trying to turn Lebanon into an Islamic Republic. Facts is Hezbollah was created due to Israeli invasion and occupation of Israel, and totally isolated, Hezbollah asked for help from Iran, and Iran provided assistance that helped liberate Lebanon and is standing by Lebanon despite sanctions and political pressure from Israel and United States.
Respectfully, I disagree, those are exactly what the article says.
Is there anything at all for Lebanon to gain by being dragged into another war with Israel?
If some conflict starts between Israel and Iran, Israel will obviously have no reason to start another front in Lebanon while they are already engaged and attacked from Iran and perhaps Syria as well. Yet I don't think anyone doubts under Iranian orders Hezbulla would try and open that front by attacking Israeli cities with rockets. It is obvious that the people that would come out loosing the most from this war would be the people of Lebanon.
But I agree an attack is de minimis threat not even on the radar. Hezballah's significance to Israel is as a conduit to pass weapons and money to Hamas.
I find it comical that we constantly speak of "Iran threat" and their plans, meanwhile the reality that hits us over our head is that all wars in the region have started by either the Western powers or their proxies. I don't see Iran occupying Afganistan, Iraq, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza strip, or Southern Lebanon. I also seem to remember it was the US backed Saddam Hussein that occupied Iran then went on to Kuwait. It is also important to point out that it was Bob Gates' pet project in the '80s, the Taleban and Al-Qaida, that the CIA called "blowback."
Why should I worry about the Iranians when there are bigger fish to fry. Why evade history as you do?