Hizbullah remains an iconic resistance movement, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif from Beirut Haret Hureek -- or simply Al-Hara (the alleyway) as it is commonly known -- in the southern suburb of Beirut is the heartland of Lebanon's Shias. The space here is covered in symbols, banners and images of Hizbullah leaders past and present. There are murals invoking historic events such as Karbala and Ashoura, as well as pictures of iconic figures such as Imam Musa Al- Sadr, Abbas Al-Musawi and Hizbullah's current Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Pictures of the movement's martyrs hang from every lamppost. While the images speak volumes about Hizbullah's standing in the Lebanese politics and society of today, the movement's sphere of influence also stretches far beyond the Lebanese borders. In the eyes of most Arabs, Hizbullah remains the symbol of resistance movements in the region, since this is the only movement which managed to expel Israel from occupied Arab territory. As Hizbullah marks the liberation of southern Lebanon on 25 May, sources inside the movement say that it is a time to contemplate the challenges ahead. The movement, observers say, is hard-pressed to find a workable strategy to deal with changing regional realities, particularly in light of hostile rhetoric coming from Washington on how Hizbullah should be reined in. That the organisation should be targetted is not open to question by Washington's neo-conservative cabal; the important issue is not when, but how. Shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks various neo-cons signed an open letter to the United States' president insisting that "the war on terror should target Hizbullah". In a similar vein, the US State Department's annual report on terrorism, issued last week, harshly criticised the Lebanese state for failing to contain the movement. The dominant view within Hizbullah's rank and file is that while such threats should be taken seriously, they serve to strengthen the party's resolve rather than weaken it. This sentiment was echoed by Ali Fayyad, a senior member of movement's politburo. Such threats, he told Al-Ahram Weekly, had to do with what he described as a "lack of understanding of the politics of resistance". "The problem with the Americans, and within some political circles in Europe, is that resistance is confused with terrorism. Whether or not this is done to serve some agenda is another story, but we consider ourselves a resistance movement and not a terrorist organisation," said Fayyad, who also chairs the Centre for Studies and Documentation, Hizbullah's main think-tank. Hizbullah's war against Israel, Fayyad continued, is not one of aggression but has to do with the "defence of occupied Lebanese territory in the Shebaa Farms and Lebanese sovereignty in the face of Israeli aggression". Emerging in 1982 in the throes of the Lebanese civil war, Hizbullah grew from being a guerrilla group training in the secrecy of the Beqaa Valley to becoming one of the most prominent resistance movements in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the course of its history, Hizbullah managed to build up a wide social network offering services the Lebanese state failed to deliver. According to the enemy itself, Hizbullah proved the single most effective adversary Israel has ever faced, thanks to skilled operations and an emphasis on long-term struggle and the ability to learn from past mistakes. As the movement grew, its political wing became involved in civil and parliamentary society, while resistance against the Israeli occupation of the South continued to constitute its landmark. In 1985 Hizbullah forced Israel to withdraw to a "security zone", and 15 years later forced it out of the country altogether. After the liberation of southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbullah sought a workable strategy on how to continue armed resistance on the one hand and participate in political and representative institutions of the state on the other. Fayyad explained that the past four years have been crucial to the restructuring of the Hizbullah agenda. "After the liberation we needed some revolutionary thinking as to how the movement should pursue its goals," he said. The main thing, he pointed out, was to prevent Hizbullah from taking unnecessary risks and being dragged into unnecessary adventures. "The last thing we want is to play into the enemy's hands," he finished. Such a stand has, to a great extent, shaped the rules of resistance in southern Lebanon in the post-liberation period. "Our current stand in the south of Lebanon is defined by two principles, namely the right to resist the Israeli occupation in Shebaa Farms and the right to respond to Israeli aggression on Lebanese territories. Both principles are compatible with international law." During the past four years, Fayyad believes that the party has managed to achieve "some victories". "In a sense we have managed to restrict the enemy's movement, to free some of our prisoners, and we have succeeded in deterring Israel along the border." This week Hizbullah has set a two-week deadline for Israel to settle the second prisoners exchange. The Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported this week that "progress was being made to advance the second phase of the prisoners exchange." Fayyad would not respond to such reports. He nonetheless indicated that "negotiation was still underway". The first exchange took place last February. The Germans, who are championing the mediation efforts between Hizbullah and Israel, are the movement's friends in Europe. According to Fayyad, Hizbullah maintains ties with many circles in Europe. "We hold talks with European diplomats in Lebanon and abroad. The Europeans are interested in maintaining a dialogue with us," he said. Perhaps one of the points of contention between the US and the European Union is where to place Hizbullah. On the one hand America routinely accuses the organisation of conducting terrorist attacks against US interests in Lebanon and abroad. The European perception of the group's activities is not as simplistic -- there is some recognition of the movement's social and political legitimacy. Fayyad, however, remains critical of the European position because it has succumbed to US pressure to brand Hamas as a terrorist organisation. "Hizbullah," he said, "is not yet on Europe's list of terrorist organisations." On the domestic front, there is even less consensus on Hizbullah's current activities. While the Syrian-backed Lebanese Cabinet still voices its support of armed resistance in the struggle against Israel in Shebaa Farms, some sections of Lebanese society oppose it. Some, especially the ruling classes, fear all-out Israeli retaliation. Others are suspicious of Syria's ongoing occupation of Lebanon, and wonder how far Bashar Al- Assad's regime will put the Lebanese at risk of a second debacle similar to the 25-year civil war as it tries to play out its strategic enmity with Israel on Lebanese soil. The Shebaa Farms area is in fact originally Syrian territory, but both the Syrian and Lebanese governments claim it is Lebanese. On the popular level, however, the picture is quite different. In a recent poll conducted by the Assafir daily, 68 per cent of those who responded said they supported Hizbullah's resistance. Fayyad nonetheless acknowledges that the Lebanese front remains a weak point for the movement. The schism within the political class in Lebanon and its inability to address the chronic economic and political crises has not helped the resistance face the challenges. The State Department has reported that Hizbullah has "activities" in Iraq. There are growing fears within US circles that Hizbullah might be seeking to export its "model of resistance" to the Iraqi Shias. While Fayyad dismisses these charges, it nonetheless holds talks with Iraqis from across the political divide. In light of a regional situation fraught with uncertainties and an American administration which clearly and openly adopts an Israeli agenda and is bent on targetting the movement, how will Hizbullah face the future? "I don't think we have many options at hand. As long as our land is occupied, then we have no other option but to resist," Fayyad said. "At the same time," he added, "we fully understand that the regional situation is very critical and the threat posed by the US policies in the region and the brutality and ruthlessness of Sharon policies will only strengthen our resolve." Statements like that of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who dubbed Hizbullah the "A-Team of terrorists" -- with Al-Qa'eda as the B team -- fail to intimidate Hizbullah. "Hizbullah is not some isolated minority militia. Hizbullah is embedded in Lebanese society and politics and has a stake in the system and it is an important part of the political make-up of Lebanon, so any attack on Hizbullah must take into consideration the movement's standing, both in Lebanon and regionally." Fayyad thinks it unlikely that the Iraqi scenario would be repeated in Syria. "It is obvious that the Americans have failed miserably in Iraq," he said. The US has routinely accused Syria of supporting Hizbullah, but Fayyad believes that, unlike the former Iraqi regime, the Syrian regime derives its legitimacy from a strong social and national base. "It would backfire against the Americans if they chose to attack Syria only on the pretext of its hosting or supporting resistance movements." With hostility towards the US on the increase as a result of US practices in Iraq and the US support of Sharon, Hizbullah will remain an icon of the resistance movement in the region. Indeed, it seems that the more turbulent the times and the more passive Arab states are to US and Israeli arrogance and aggression, the more legitimate such a resistance movement is.
