Omayma Abdel-Latif examines the looming debate over disarming Hizbullah and how it might impact on the Lebanese political scene In the southern Beirut neighbourhood of Al-Dahiya there is hardly a building left that does not bear the scars of Israel's war. One flyer hanging from a burnt residential building reads "God's promise has been fulfilled", an allusion to the one-month resistance operation which Hizbullah called The Honest Promise. In the words of its leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah has achieved "a strategic and historic victory" over Israel. The fighting may have ended but, say many observers, another battle awaits the party, this time on the home front where calls began to be voiced for Hizbullah to disarm even before the guns went silent. The calls, at a time when almost one million Lebanese citizens are displaced and Israeli troops remain on Lebanese soil, were described by Nasrallah in his latest speech aired Monday night, as "immoral". The speech directed harsh yet veiled criticism at those demanding Hizbullah hand in its weapons, and was the opening shot in what is likely to be a hard fought battle over the fate of the group's arsenal. Hizbullah has emerged from the month-long aggression with far broader support in Lebanon, and across many parts of the Arab world, than it previously enjoyed. Public backing of Hizbullah now goes beyond the Lebanese Shia community to include Christians, mostly belonging to the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and Sunni forces. It came as no surprise that Nasrallah devoted the bulk of his last speech to issues surrounding the disarming of Hizbullah. The debate, he said, was "a sensitive and serious issue" and should have been conducted behind closed doors and not in front of TV cameras. Nasrallah, who appeared to be keen on keeping Lebanese national unity intact, reiterated that he was open to dialogue over Hizbullah's weapons but only "at an appropriate time and through appropriate channels". He steered clear from engaging in a war of words against his opponents. "My beloved ones," he said, "this sensitive issue -- the disarmament -- cannot be solved through hasty decisions or provocation. Israel could not do it through military might, wanton destruction, the demolition of houses and the killing of children." "Before we ask questions about the fate of Hizbullah's arms we have to ask whether or not the international community has real guarantees to protect Lebanon from future Israeli aggression. Can UNIFIL defend Lebanon if Israel attacked again? What alternatives do they have if the resistance handed in the weapons as they want? These are all questions that are tied to the future of Lebanon and they should not be addressed in a simplified and hasty manner." Such questions are likely to test the unity Lebanon demonstrated during the one-month crisis in the crucible of post-war politics. Analysts agree that the US-Israeli military campaign against Lebanon failed to push the Lebanese into rallying against Hizbullah, one of the main goals of the campaign. While hitting civilian targets and infrastructure was designed to push the Lebanese population into blaming the destruction on Hizbullah, and thus rise against it, apart from a few within the 14 March coalition, the tactic backfired spectacularly. "Lebanon was taken hostage not by Hizbullah but by the Americans and the Israelis who wanted, through their wanton destruction and targeting of civilians, to force the Lebanese population to do the dirty work of disarming the only force that stood up to Israel," said one Lebanese observer. There is growing concern, though, that national unity is beginning to show signs of fracture under the intense international pressure being placed on the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been quoted as warning the Lebanese premiere of "the grave consequences" facing Lebanon should it fail to implement Resolution 1701. A cabinet meeting scheduled for Sunday was delayed amid speculation that there were growing divisions within the government over the disarming of Hizbullah. While Hizbullah sources denied they were behind the delay one cabinet minister was quoted as directly blaming the group. Sources close to Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora said the main item on the meeting's agenda was to address the logistics of deploying the Lebanese army in the south and not the disarming of Hizbullah. While Hizbullah will rely heavily on its constituency in the battle to keep its arms it also has the backing of other groups. Fathi Yakan, the founder of the Islamic Group in Lebanon, one of the main Sunni factions, accused those calling for disarmament as "being in the same camp as Israel and the United States". "They want to turn the victory into a defeat and hand the Israeli enemy a victory it could not itself obtain," he said. Hizbullah also has support within the cabinet. Defence Minister Elias Al-Murr stressed in a television interview with LBC on Monday that disarming Hizbullah "was not a priority in Lebanon today". "Before we ask Hizbullah to disarm we should ask what defence policy we want for Lebanon in the coming period," said Al-Murr. In what appeared to be a response to French foreign minister's call to disarm Hizbullah, he pointed out that "the Lebanese army which will be deployed in the south will be the only armed force there", but stressed that "Hizbullah will not be disarmed by force." "What can be done to disarm Hizbullah that Israel did not do? The war has shown that it is facile to think Hizbullah can be marginalised and forced to disarm, or that there can be any settlement outside the context of national dialogue." Hizbullah ministers in the cabinet have stressed that the party is willing to assist the Lebanese army in deploying its troops in the south of the country, while Al-Murr has dismissed any suggestion that it is the army's job to hunt for Hizbullah, saying, "the Lebanese army is not in the business of targeting Hizbullah... We have to assure the residents in the south that the state is strong enough to protect them." Joseph Smaha, editor-in-chief of the newly published Al-Akhbar newspaper, accused those who call for the disarmament of Hizbullah now as "completing the circle of Israel's aggression against Lebanon". "It seems that there are some politicians desperate to jump on the first opportunity to reformulate Lebanon's political equation. They are treating Hizbullah as though it was defeated and want to force it out of the political game altogether," he said. Hizbullah believes that the ceasefire period will be a crucial test of Israel's real intentions. "How can Hizbullah, or Lebanon, be asked to give up a very important card before Israel's intentions are known," says Hizbullah MP Ali Ammar. The debate over arms and the shape of Lebanon's post-war political map will test the mettle of Al-Siniora's cabinet. There are already calls for the cabinet to be dissolved in favour of a government of national unity. Nasrallah made a reference to the issue in his speech, suggesting "a strong state representative of all Lebanese" is what is most needed. Members of Michel Aoun's FPM, which represents the bulk of Lebanon's Christian community, have also been floating the idea of a national unity government. The FPM is not represented in the present government. The idea has been gaining ground. "At crucial times like these," says Smaha, "only a national unity government can be trusted to make what many believe will be historic decisions. Lebanon is going through a very tough moment in its history and only a government with representatives of the majority of Lebanese can be delegated to make the necessary decisions. The current government simply does not pass the test."
