A sovereign Lebanon and national unity are high among Hizbullah's priorities in post-war Lebanon, Ali Fayad of Hizbullah's politburo tells Omayma Abdel-Latif in Beirut Recently prominent Lebanese writer Onsi Al-Haj wrote in his column in the daily Al-Akhbar newspaper; "One month after the Israeli war, the onus is now on Hizbullah. The party has one of two options: either it turns its achievement into a source of threat and intimidation for the rest of Lebanese society, or utilises it to rebuild national unity. It is a historic opportunity before Hizbullah, and we call upon it to make the utmost of it; not out of pity for Lebanon, but out of the heroism of the brave." Al-Haj's words truly captured what many described as one of the biggest challenges that confronts Hizbullah which not only fought the most powerful army in the Middle East to a standstill but emerged victorious in the eyes of millions of Arabs, its enemies, and undoubtedly its Lebanese constituency. Hizbullah's moment, both domestically and regionally, has arrived. But with it comes the heavy burden of introspection. Signs of this were apparent when a week ago Hizbullah's Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah admitted in a televised interview that had Hizbullah known beforehand of the human cost of the operation of capturing the two Israeli soldiers they would not have embarked on the operation. Many read this statement to mean that Hizbullah was acknowledging its miscalculation, which Nasrallah denied in an interview with As-Safir newspaper. While the defensive war against Israel may have ended, at least for now, the Islamic resistance movement continues a battle of a different kind on a number of fronts domestically. There is the issue of reconstruction, where the party wants to preserve the social fabric of the southern villages that constitute the bulk of its constituents. Meanwhile, the political battles in which the party is engaged with other Lebanese forces -- particularly those belonging to the 14th March alliance -- are not any less important than the actual conflict fought with the Israelis. Thus far, Hizbullah has avoided entering into a war of words that could exacerbate sectarian tension and has been working towards preserving national unity. Members of 14th March alliance, on the other hand, upped the ante in the past week with an escalation that reached unprecedented levels in the already strained relationship between it and Hizbullah, although both hold a place in the current Lebanese government. Accusations of Hizbullah being part of an Iranian- Syrian axis continued to be heard while at least one Christian politician, Dori Shamoun, accused Hizbullah of "seeking to establish an Islamist Shia state in Lebanon". Others called on Hizbullah to "enter the state" and drew a picture of Lebanon's Shia as being "a state within a state". Some even accused Hizbullah of wanting to capitalise on its victory over Israel to "turn against the current political formula that Lebanon has known since the implementation of the Taif Agreements in 1992". Sources close to Hizbullah spoke about attempts by political leaders within the 14th March alliance to create a schism within Lebanon's Shia to isolate Hizbullah from its main constituents. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Hizbullah sources say that domestic challenges faced by the party are massive in light of the polarisation currently taking root in Lebanese society. "There is an American-Israeli wish to see those divisions and political bickering exacerbated between us and the rest of the 14th March alliance," Ali Fayad, a member of Hizbullah's politburo, told the Weekly. Fayad said Hizbullah had already ignored many "insults" and much "black propaganda" because "the only alternative [to doing so] was conflict." There is a clear decision, Fayad said, that Hizbullah "will not be engaged in a war of words" that could lead to exacerbating already high political and sectarian tensions in the country. This policy, says Fayad, reflects the party's confidence in its achievement and its constituency. "We will only address political conflicts with our adversaries via dialogue, and not through TV or the newspapers," he said. When hostilities first broke out soon after 12 July, Saad Al-Hariri, majority leader in the assembly and head of Tayyar Al-Mustaqbal (the Future Movement) said that the time would come when those forces who led Lebanon to war -- a veiled reference to Hizbullah -- would be asked to account for their actions. But Fayad defends that the result of the war allows the resistance movement alone to hold others to account. "The clear message everyone should realise after this war is that Israel represents a real threat to Lebanon. This battle was not just a battle against Hizbullah, but against the existence of Lebanon as a whole." While he said the party was open to criticism, he pointed out that the "black propaganda campaign" to which the party has been subjected aims to tarnish its image and belittle its achievements. Part of the reason for Hizbullah coming under attack, perhaps, has to do with the party's championing Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun's demand for a new government. Fayad said that Hizbullah --which has two ministers in the cabinet -- does not aim to topple the government but insists that a national unity government "is what Lebanon needs now". "When the government crosses certain red lines, then there is no point in having it ruling the country," said Fayad. So what are Hizbullah's red lines after the 34-day war with Israel? "National unity, extending Lebanon's sovereignty over all territory and defending the resistance," said Fayad. Disarming the resistance movement was no longer an issue after Israel's catalogue of atrocities, says Fayad. While Hizbullah avoided responding to calls made by members of the 14th March camp that the resistance movement should disarm, treating the party as though it had lost the war to Israel, recently some Hizbullah officials harshly criticised others who demanded the same. Nawaf Al-Mussawi, head of the party's foreign relations contingent, said in recent statements that "if Israel, with all its military might, could not disarm Hizbullah then no one should think about disarming it." Fayad dismissed baseless statements by members of the 14th March alliance that Hizbullah was seeking to overthrow the Taif Agreements, which provided the political formula under which Lebanon has been ruled since 1991. He pointed out that when Nasrallah spoke about "the just state" he meant that this state could only be realised when political sectarianism is abolished. "Taif has clearly drawn mechanisms by which this sectarian politics is abolished," he said. He stressed that Hizbullah was fully committed to the Taif Agreements. This came in response to insinuations made recently by Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt who cast doubt over Nasrallah's commitment to Lebanon's post 1991 political framework. "We should commit to the Taif in its entirety and not be selective about what to take and what to leave according to what suits our political ends," Fayad said in response. Fayad ridiculed what Saudi commentator Dawoud Al-Shoryan said of Hizbullah's intent to change the political system. Al-Shoryan suggested in a column in the Saudi-financed Al-Hayat newspaper last month that many within Shia circles ask why the position of prime minister or even the president -- according to Taif reserved for a Sunni and Maronite Christian respectively -- should not be occupied by Shia candidates. "In a perfect world, we would not want the president or prime minister to be the prerogative of a particular sect, but we want every Lebanese citizen, regardless of his sect, to have the right to run for the post and we want him to be elected in a fair and free poll." Hizbullah's victory, insisted Fayad, would not be used to score political gains in the domestic game for a simple reason: "we want the resistance to be above political polarisation and sectarian tensions, and not to be cause of more polarisation." With some speaking of a silent tension between Hizbullah and sections of the Lebanese Sunni street, particularly those rallying behind Al-Hariri, many believe that while the party succeeded in massing unprecedented levels of popularity in the Sunni world outside Lebanon as well as across many parts of the Muslim world during the 34-day war with Israel, it has failed to appeal to the Sunni population inside Lebanon. Others argue Hizbullah has also failed to forestall attempts to fuel a Sunni-Shia divide. Fayad begs to differ. Hizbullah, he explained, has managed to make breakthroughs with the Sunni community, though the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, with fingers pointing at Syria, Hizbullah's ally, exacerbated sectarian polarisation. "This has adversely affected the resistance, but we know that among sections of the Sunni community Hizbullah is held in high esteem. The problem is that for some -- including the Sunni leadership -- the priority is not to resist the Israeli occupation and outline a defence strategy for Lebanon. Their number one priority is how to punish Syria." How will the resistance and the army co-exist after the deployment of 15,000 Lebanese soldiers in the south? "Both the resistance and the army are in full cooperation and coordination," stressed Fayad. Asked his opinion on reports that suggested that American military aid for the Lebanese army would implicitly include changing military doctrine as to who the enemy is, Fayad responded: "The enemy -- as we know it and as the Taif Agreements defines -- was and remains Israel. No one can change this doctrine because it would be a coup on Taif and would be a grave escalation." The Lebanese army, added Fayad, has always been supportive of the resistance. Fayad described political bickering in Lebanon as not being between Hizbullah and Aoun on the one hand and every one else on the other hand. It was a battle between those who want real sovereignty for Lebanon as an essential part of their national identity and those who have drawn their agenda according to external alliances and narrow interests. He added that Hizbullah was neither a militia nor a state within a state; rather it represents what he described as "the dynamism of Lebanese civil society". "The Lebanese law," explained Fayad, "allows for political parties to be engaged in civilian activities and the compensations we offered for those whose houses were destroyed fit within this criterion, particularly in light of state failure to do so." Fayad could not hide a sense of bitterness and disappointment over Arab reactions, pointing out that the Arab political system once again squandered a valuable opportunity to right all the wrongs that have been committed in the Arab-Israeli conflict and allow for a radical shift in favour of the Arab side. "If only Syria had moved into the Golan Heights and allowed resistance forces; if only Egypt had closed down the Israeli Embassy, Hizbullah's victory would have been really historic and strategic," Fayad said. In his latest interview with the Lebanese daily As-Safir newspaper, Hizbullah's secretary-general responds to criticism about his 'miscalculated adventure'. Below are excerpts from the interview ONE of the most significant achievements of Israel's war on Lebanon was that it united Sunnis and Shias across the Muslim world and closed the door before any attempts to plant the seeds of fitna (sedition) among them, Hizbullah's Secretary-General Sayid Hassan Nasrallah told the Lebanese daily As-Safir newspaper in an exclusive interview published Tuesday. "Both Sunnis and Shia realised that they are confronting one enemy and face the same threats and same battles, and this in my view is one of the most significant strategic consequences of the war," he said. Nasrallah, who was pictured with the paper's publisher Talal Salman and its news editor Hussein Ayoub, could not hide a sense of bitterness and frustration at the ways in which Hizbullah was portrayed to be the cause of the destruction that has befallen Lebanon during Israel's 34-day war. Nasrallah is faced with the unusual dilemma of the victor being burdened by his own victory. In spite of attempts to belittle Hizbullah's achievement, Nasrallah said that there was a consensus in the Arab world and even in Israel that "Israel has been defeated in Lebanon." He reiterated that he considered this "to be a strategic and historic victory". When asked whether or not he expected a second round of hostilities, Nasrallah pointed out that while the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out, "if the resistance continues to keep its arms and cooperate with the Lebanese army, Israel will think a thousand times before attacking Lebanon again as long as the force which defeated it continues to be prepared." Nasrallah said that Hizbullah would keep its arsenal of rockets and that they would be used only in such circumstances as when Israel launches an all-out war against Lebanon. Nasrallah stated that it was "the miserable Israeli failure in the ground operation and the huge military loss" that forced Israel into a cessation of hostilities, not pressure from the international community as some have claimed. While Israel unleashed the full force of its military power, it failed, according to Nasrallah, to achieve any of the goals for which its war was launched. "Olmert says that his achievement is that he put me in a bunker. Is this why he launched a massive war like this? They have launched this war just to put me in a bunker?" exclaimed Nasrallah. Nasrallah ruled out that Israel was ready to confront Syria. "They had the opportunity to bring Syria into this war if they wanted, but there was a clear decision to avoid bringing Syria onboard," he said. "I think the Israelis will need a long time before they plan for a new war, not just with Lebanon but with Syria also." Nasrallah defended his position and that of the party stressing, "Hizbullah did not miscalculate the Israeli reaction when it captured the two soldiers." Hizbullah knew, Nasrallah continued, "that the United States and Israel were planning a war to liquidate Hizbullah but we did not know the exact timing. We expected when the capture took place that they, the Israelis, would respond in a limited but painful way but this war was beyond any logic. The capture has been used by Israel as a pretext to launch a war that has been planned for already. And I did not regret what we did." Nasrallah reiterated that Lebanon was in need of a national unity government that could strike a balance in representation of all political forces. "When we called for a national unity government, we did not do this to create a political crisis but simply because the national interest of Lebanon requires such a government since Lebanon is facing huge challenges in the coming period."
