The Lebanese opposition has some serious explaining to do, says Hizbullah chief. Omayma Abdel-Latif looks into the knotty relations between the resistance movement and the Lebanese opposition A few days after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, Hizbullah's Secretary- General Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech in which he sternly warned Lebanese politicians against using "the Lebanese street" as a tool to serve their political ends. "In Lebanon," he said, "every group has the ability to mobilise its own street and organise protests. But let's put this aside and act in a responsible manner and through legitimate institutions." For three weeks Nasrallah's call seemed to have fallen on deaf ears as Lebanese opposition went ahead with their carefully orchestrated rallies and marches to push for an agenda which the majority of Lebanese did not necessarily share. This week, Nasrallah had little option but to resort to the same street tactics he once shunned. During a press conference on Monday Nasrallah called on all Lebanese people to participate in a massive protest in Riad Al-Solh Square, some 100 metres away from the ongoing anti-Syrian protest in Sahet Al- Shuhada Square. The main purpose, he said, was to thank the Syrians for the sacrifices they had made for Lebanon and to protest against foreign intervention in Lebanese affairs. Nasrallah's shift in policy, according to Hizbullah sources, was not meant to be a "muscle-flexing" exercise. Rather, it sought to send a clear message to the outside world that anti-Syria rallies in Sahet Al-Shuhada, widely covered by Western media, did not necessarily represent all of Lebanon. "There is an 'other' Lebanon that needs to have its voice heard," Mohamed Fneish, an MP for the Hizbullah parliamentarian bloc told Al- Ahram Weekly. Fneish dismissed accusations that by calling for the demonstration, Hizbullah has abandoned its long-standing neutrality and has decided to throw its weight behind the pro-Syria alliance. "We are neither with the opposition nor with the pro-Syria forces," he said. "We stand on a middle ground and are thus supported by the majority of the Lebanese people," Fneish said. But for most observers, Tuesday's demonstration was closely linked to an internal power struggle currently taking place on the Lebanese political scene. It is a contest which will decide who is able to mobilise a wider public following, and thus display the upper hand in dictating the future of a Syria-free Lebanon once all forces finally come to negotiate a deal on the kind of political project they want for Lebanon. While there is clear recognition amongst opposition circles of Hizbullah's influence, on the Lebanese street, Tuesday's massive demonstration has clearly erased any lingering doubts regarding which side of the argument the majority of Lebanese people stand in relation to the issue of resistance. Fneish believes that Tuesday's protest will restore balance to political life at a time when Lebanon is on the brink of radical changes. Notwithstanding the "war of streets", many observers believe the key factor that will either exacerbate or release the political tension is the relationship between Hizbullah and the opposition bloc. The Hizbullah-opposition axis is therefore expected to influence the shape of things to come. Nevertheless, some insist that Damascus remains the agenda setter for most political discussions in the Lebanese capital. In his speech, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad touched briefly -- albeit with careful calculation -- on some of the most important and perhaps most contentious issues that are likely to make or break the relationship between Hizbullah and the Lebanese opposition. These pertain to the future of Hizbullah both as a resistance movement and as a key player in Lebanese politics and society. Another important issue relates to disarming the Palestinian camps, settling the Palestinians and a possible unilateral move to sign a peace deal with Israel in what President Al-Assad called "a new 17th May agreement" in reference to the agreement which former Lebanese President Besheer Ljmayel was about to sign with Israel in 1983 before he was assassinated. According to Hizbullah sources, the Lebanese opposition has some serious and immediate explaining to do concerning a number of crucial issues. In the press conference, Nasrallah himself demanded some answers, particularly with regard to Israeli press claims that Israel has been approached by members in the opposition for talks. This is an issue which Hizbullah and other national forces in Lebanon consider to be in complete contradiction to the national project of a country that has long prided itself on being "the first to take up arms against Israel and the last to sign a peace deal with it." "The fears and suspicions of the Lebanese national forces concerning this issue are legitimate ones," explained Ali Fayad, a senior member of Hizbullah's politburo told the Weekly on Tuesday. "Some elements in the opposition have had a tarnished record concerning their relationship with Israel and as such, are called upon to respond to the Israeli allegations and dismiss them if they are false," Fayad said. So far, no clear cut response has emerged from the Lebanese opposition regarding this issue. However, some key figures have repeatedly made general statements that "no individual in the opposition ranks has sought contact with any outside power, let alone with Israel". "We are not struggling to replace the Syrian mandate with another foreign mandate," Botrous Harb, a key opposition figure and a member of Qornet Shehwan said. "A deal with Israel that is independent from an overall peace deal with Syria is not in our cards," he said. But the opposition has demonstrated that it does not speak with one voice when it comes to a number of issues, namely, disarming Hizbullah and the stand vis-À-vis Resolution 1559. Pledges to "defend the resistance' were made routinely by members of the opposition. But in the eyes of Hizbullah, such statements remain vacuous unless supported by more profound steps. Party sources said that given the volatile situation, there are growing fears that the national consensus that has been built around the party's role will be undermined. "Hizbullah invariably derives its legitimacy as a national resistance movement from the Lebanese people and not from the Syrians or the Iranians," Fayad explained. He added that had there not been a national consensus on the importance of the resistance, it would not have lasted so long. "Bearing in mind current developments, there are signs that some in the opposition are working to break the national consensus on the role of the resistance in an attempt to weaken it and force it to give up arms," Fneish said. This might explain why Hizbullah believes the opposition has to translate their pro-resistance rhetoric into action. One such move would involve securing "a letter of intent" from the opposition on some of the most contentious issues, specifically the question of contact with Israel and other foreign powers. Nasrallah also demanded that the opposition should clearly state that the resistance is not a "militia" and therefore Resolution 1559 becomes irrelevant as far as Hizbullah is concerned. The important question, according to Joseph Smaha, editor-in-chief of As- Safir newspaper, is not whether the opposition will sign a unilateral peace deal with Israel but how willing it is to actually defend the right of the resistance to exist. "The Lebanese opposition," Smaha wrote, "claims to have utilised Bush to restore sovereignty to Lebanon. But there are valid concerns" he added, "that we may possibly witness an attempt to repackage American demands regarding the resistance and Palestinian camps and present it as a Lebanese demand. The lessons of the past tell us that the US has been more successful in using local players than being used by them."
