August 1, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hezbollah Logic
By Hussain Abdul-Hussain

WASHINGTON: Many of us have tried to understand the Hezbollah logic, but to no avail.

Hezbollah demands the formation of a national unity government despite the fact that it commands no majority in parliament. When reminded of its parliamentary representation, Hezbollah blames the March 14 majority for the 2005 election law, even though it was the 2000 parliament dominated by Hezbollah and its allies that approved this law.

March 14 got along and approved the election law as well, but they seem to have had no other option at the time when they did so.

According to Hezbollah, however, national unity is sought in the government only. Talk about the presidency and Hezbollah officials would say that this is a controversial issue that should be solved at a later stage. Why is a cabinet, which usually has no constitutionally fixed tenure, is more important than the election of a president, whose term is ending soon? Such a question never gets answers from Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s ally, or say puppet, Speaker Nabih Berri, has closed off parliament and held no sessions since December. Then, both Berri and Hezbollah criticize what they describe as the “unconstitutional” cabinet of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. As if closing off parliament is as constitutional as it can get. Mind you, the presence of the Siniora cabinet does not violate any constitutional article.

Hezbollah claims that the cabinet is not representative of all sects mainly in the absence of the Shiite and the Maronite representatives inside it. This to Hezbollah is a breach of the constitution that stipulates the participation of all sects in the ruling leadership.

But President Emile Lahoud, a Maronite and part of the executive power, and Berri, a Shiite and head of the legislative power, are both there and are Hezbollah’s allies. Does anyone see that Maronites and Shiites are being left out of the Lebanese system except for Hezbollah? If so, what does Hezbollah call Maronite Lahoud and Shiite Berri, non-ruling figures?

Hezbollah also says that what it calls the “ruling team” has been monopolizing decision-making in the country even though Hezbollah alone dragged the nation into the July 2006 War with Israel. The March 14 cabinet, which is supposedly monopolizing decision making, probably heard of the beginning of clashes in southern Lebanon like all of us, from the news.

Hezbollah argues that there should be a cabinet reshuffle because Michel Aoun’s bloc is not represented. In 2005, Aoun and his bloc gave the Siniora cabinet a vote of confidence but did not elect Berri as speaker. If Aoun believes that he has changed stances, even though he never admits that he did, let us have a revote on both the cabinet and the speaker.

Hezbollah claims Iran and Syria are not intervening in Lebanese affairs. Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly praised Hezbollah while his deputy Farouq Sharaa said that Syria’s allies in Lebanon “are stronger” than the March 14 group. Meanwhile, the spiritual leader of Iran and Hezbollah Ali Khaminei promises Israel destruction at the hands of the group while Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinijad promises more wars and “victories” in the region.

All of these Syrian and Iranian statements could have been ignored if Hezbollah behaved in a nonchalant manner toward them. However, Hezbollah never does. Its leader Hassan Nasrallah rather makes sure to take trips to Syria to meet with both Assad and Ahmedinijad whenever these two hold meetings in Damascus.

Hezbollah resigned from the cabinet. It accuses March 14 of sabotaging national unity upon American instructions, as if it was the March 14 ministers who resigned from the cabinet.

Hezbollah says the Lebanese Army is a “red line.” But to Hezbollah, those who kill the Lebanese Army troops are also “a red line.” How to go from there? No one knows.

Then Hezbollah expresses fear that it would never dare to start a war against Al Qaeda in Lebanon. The party does not want the army to wage such a war either. To Hezbollah, such an endeavor is dangerous and might lead to war. Now listen who is talking, the militia that claims to have defeated the fourth strongest army in the world is now shying away from a couple hundred terrorists. Why?

Then Nasrallah gives an interview. He claims that March 14 were unwilling to deploy the army to the south because they never trusted the army command. In the same interview, Nasrallah argues that one of the differences his ministers had with Siniora and the March 14 ministers during the July War was that these insisted that the army be deployed to the south and that it be given authority to demilitarize any groups there. So according to Nasrallah, the March 14 ministers wanted to send an army they do not trust to control the south. What a contradiction in a single interview!

One can cite dozens of claims that Hezbollah make and that do not add up, or are simply contradictory. But, in a country were people follow their sectarian leaders no matter what, and where some of these leaders are armed and might break hell lose over the heads of people who might criticize them, or make fun of them in TV, one should take it easy and merely state the obvious.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a freelance journalist.