Listen to the article
If it weren’t for Hezbollah, no one from the political class would have risen against the renewal of UNIFIL’s mission, a mission that, in some aspects, violated the sovereign attributes of the Lebanese State. But does this mean that the party of the Mullahs is the guarantor of our national sovereignty? Far from it…
In the European Union, to put it simply, national sovereignty would be reduced to the decision-making power of a member country in a face-off with the common decisions made in Brussels or Strasbourg, to such an extent that some leaders of the Italian or Hungarian far-right have declared that the sovereignty of their respective countries would be threatened by the primacy of European law. In any public debate, they can be heard repeating that it is time to “partially or completely, temporarily or definitively, break free from European rules to preserve the attributes of sovereignty.”
In Lebanon, we are experiencing a similar situation due to the excessive growth of Hezbollah, which now presents itself as an alternative to our rule of law, as it holds certain attributes of sovereignty. A sensible approach would lead us to acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon, which, by force of circumstances, has carved out a parallel domain alongside that of the state. Therefore, it would be urgent in the eyes of those who capitulate (to the dictates of Hezbollah) to rationalize this situation since collaborators have always draped themselves in formal legality to justify their lack of integrity and courage.
By following their lead, one could draw inspiration from the logic of European integration, which combines the exclusivity of national law with the primacy of European law, without necessarily reaching a state of total fusion. This arrangement would follow a shared decision-making process. Our foreign policy and security forces would thus fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the power of the Mullahs, while the management of other departments and sectors would be handled by the public administration in all its routine aspects.
However, in the European Union, member states voluntarily chose to relinquish a portion of their sovereignty because they already shared a common system of values and had opted for the rule of law. To my knowledge, we, the Lebanese, have not freely granted any power to the followers of Iran, and the system they advocate, with its institutional structure overseen by a Supreme Leader, hardly aligns with our political customs, even if they are deeply flawed.
Hezbollah jingoism
The Shiite tandem (Hezbollah and Amal Movement), remotely controlled from Tehran, can only thrive by violating our sovereignty and disregarding the Constitution. Yet, we see it rise and denounce any infringement on our sacred independence. Most recently, the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) provided it with an opportunity to speak out, declaring that said sovereignty was significantly undermined by Article 16 of Security Council Resolution 2650. This article allows UNIFIL to carry out its mission in South Lebanon without prior authorization and independently of Lebanese patrols responsible for maintaining order. How offensive to our patriotism! Without it, no one in the political class would have objected to the renewal of a mission that so flagrantly infringes on the prerogatives of the Lebanese state. Consider that the United States persisted in wanting to maintain this “sinister clause” that granted the UN force “free access to private properties without prior coordination with our national army” (1).
Listen to Mufti Jaafari, Sheikh Ahmad Kabalan, boldly proclaim: “There is no room for UNIFIL at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty,” “South of the Litani is not an open field for rent,” and “the inhabitants of South Lebanon know their interests and disregard what will be decided in the Security Council at the end of August, during the session on the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate in Lebanon” (2).
This was a resounding rejection, a thousand times over, of the clause that grants UN peacekeepers freedom of action in an area covered by Resolution 1701. The very next day after the Mufti’s admonition, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah reiterated his opposition to Article 16 of Resolution 2650, “under which the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was renewed for one year until August 31” (3).
Certainly, a “stylistic compromise” had been found at the last minute to break the impasse, and the UN Security Council ultimately extended UNIFIL’s mandate for another year (4).
Rhetoric vs. reality
In this global debate, it is Hezbollah that presents itself as the guarantor of our sovereignty, even though, in reality, no one violates it on a daily basis with as much relish. But who would dare to reproach it?
Because in this game, the aim is to assert the opposite of reality. The slogan will always prevail over the truth, just as demagoguery prevails over critical thinking. This is the common expansive practice of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian Baath in Damascus, and many other repressive regimes. One faction assassinates Rafic Hariri, lawmakers, and journalists and shamelessly declares: “We will not remain silent in the face of assassinations committed on Lebanese soil” (5). The same conspiracy with regional ramifications controls southern Lebanon, turning it into an “Iranian region,” and then has the audacity to vouch for our independence.
But where does Hezbollah get the right to speak on our behalf?
Where does it derive its legitimacy, and on what grounds does it challenge a United Nations resolution that has international approval? Only Carl Schmitt could provide an answer to such questions. If asked, he might have replied: “Hezbollah is sovereign because it is capable of declaring a state of exception,” that is, suspending the application of common law! Its political influence is maintained through the armed leverage it exercises over our institutions. With its military hegemony, it intervenes in debates and imposes its choices on the political stage. Otherwise, how can one explain that the civilian government submits to its orders and follows its instructions, as Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib did, who, at the United Nations, seemed more concerned with the interests of the Islamic Republic than those of his own country?
Yes, Hassan Nasrallah has succeeded where Yasser Arafat miserably failed. The party of the Sayyed has infiltrated the state.
So, how can we free ourselves from it “partially or completely, temporarily or definitively,” you may ask? And let no one come to us with the refrain: “No retreat into identity, no decentralization, no dream of federalization!”
