This face-off will transcend borders, for it is a microcosm of the wider struggle in the Middle East. On one side is the American-led West and Israel, with some very quiet Arab allies; on the other is the movement to affirm an Arab-Iranian-Islamist identity. The ultimate contest will be the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, followed by the ongoing tug of war over Hamas’s democratic incumbency in the Palestinian territories. As for today’s war, the Lebanon-Israel conflict will shape the contours of this emerging ideological battle in a variety of important ways.
Even now, the military clash is largely a political war of wills, deterrence and resistance, at least in Hizbullah’s view. Holding out for a month and emerging to negotiate a ceasefire represents, to many, a considerable victory. Yet within Lebanon itself, the fighting has both accelerated and camouflaged deep political tensions. Many concern Hizbullah’s true identity and ultimate intentions.
Before the war, just over half the Lebanese said they supported Hizbullah’s role as an armed resistance group that deterred Israeli attacks. Two weeks after the fighting started, more than 85 percent of Lebanese in one poll said they supported Hizbullah’s military attacks against Israel. This included 80 percent of Christians, a figure that was obviously inflated by anger against Israel for its savage attacks against all parts of Lebanon, not just Hizbullah strongholds in the south. But beneath this wartime rallying lurk deeper divisions, and much mistrust. Christians, especially, view the group as Iranian-backed hegemonic extremists. Many say it has brought destruction not only upon itself but the entire nation, and they are angry–even those who express support for the guerrillas. Some privately hope that the American-backed Israeli assault will defeat Hizbullah once and for all. With every bomb that has dropped around us in Beirut, I can feel this divide widening as Hizbullah’s supporters grow more vocal–and its critics more bitter.
The war has also seriously damaged Lebanese confidence in the United States. The “March 14” anti-Syrian coalition of Christian, Sunni and Druze parties expected U.S. support to transform Lebanon into a truly democratic, sovereign and prosperous country. Instead, Washington’s unqualified backing of Israel has pushed more Lebanese toward Hizbullah.
An alternative political alliance may emerge from the negotiations over a U.N. ceasefire. Hizbullah has accepted the seven-point plan to end the fighting put forward late last month by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. It incorporates Hizbullah’s claims against Israel–involving, among other things, an exchange of prisoners and the return of occupied land–and theoretically opens the door to placing its arms under Lebanese government control.
But Hizbullah, as arbiter of a settlement, would likely emerge from these talks with far more clout than it went in with. Would it then try to flex its newfound muscles by dominating the domestic political scene and seeking more cabinet or parliamentary seats? Or, as some analysts who are intimately familiar with the party suggest, would it continue to leave national governance to a consensus cabinet in which it is only symbolically represented, while focusing its energy on defining Lebanon’s overall political identity and strategic orientation? From Hizbullah’s perspective, that would involve loosening traditional ties to the United States and France, and engaging more with the Arab-Islamic world. Critics also fear this would mean a renewed (even dominant) role for Syria in Lebanon–along with a greater Iranian say in Lebanon’s foreign policy.
Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has tried to allay such concerns, stating recently that a Hizbullah “victory” would be for all Lebanese, Arabs and Muslims, and not for Shiites only. In this respect, it was worth noting late last week that Nasrallah threatened to attack Tel Aviv in retaliation for Israeli attacks on largely Sunni and Christian central Beirut. He did not do so when the mostly Shiite areas of southern Beirut were being hit.
The very ferocity of the latest fighting may signal a waning of the military battle. The ensuing Lebanese political battle will soon begin. Watch closely, for as it goes, so goes the larger Middle East.
