Most of Nassrallah’s speech was bluff, except for one serious part.
The speech was threatening, repulsive and worryingly disruptive. It came at a time where many were hoping for a quiet denouement of our presidential crisis via the French/Arab initiative. As one March 14 MP puts it: “The speech was like poison to the little hope the Lebanese people had developed”
The entire world, from the Pope to the Saudis, wants a consensus Lebanese president, and it’s likely what we’re going to get. We are now in the period where negotiations will decide how much the next President will tilt towards one group or the other, and it is here where negotiation muscles are being flexed.
In negotiations, both parties have to have on the table a credible BATNA that convinces the other party to stay on the table. The logic is that mutually assured destruction will keep the parties talking. March 14 have been flaunting their 50+1 option lately, and Hezbollah needed to regain leverage. This explains the part of the speech where Mr. Nassrallah threw a tantrum to create the impression that the opposition will also go all the way (via Mr. Emile Lahhoud) if need be. The aim of course is to create an equilibrium of terror -a game Hezbollah loves- under which negotiations could resume.
One must be careful however not to see all of Nassrallah’s speech as bluff. The serious part is where he spoke of the weapons. Hezbollah has a real issue with UNSCR 1559 which ordains its disarmament, and is willing to fight any President who endorses that resolution.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the battle: Should we have a consensus president who is soft on Hezbollah’s weapons? Or should we insist on resolution 1559 for which martyr Rafic Hariri and many after him died?
also read in English:
- Reactions by Lebanese officials to speech
- Article by Elias Bajjani in reaction to the speech
Hello, my name is Mustapha and I've been blogging about Lebanese society, business and politics since February 2005.
It’s called Sha3rit Mu3awiya, and the Shi3a should know better how to preserve it in my humble opinion.
Nasrallah is getting crazy from hiding in a basement under civilian women and children! No compromise on Hizb-Iran weapons because then they will cause anytime they feel like it! No! No body should have weapons (I am not talking about personal hand guns) except the Lebanese Army!
Right now nasralla feels empowered by his arsenal yet on the long run it will be a devastating strategical faux pas to link the entire shiaa community’s fate and future to the weapons issue and 1559. They will be made to pay the heaviest of prices while their big brother takes all the credit for the dismantling.
In a way the issue is even bigger than Hezbo’s weapons.
Hezbo wants to control the levers of gvmnt or else dismantle the state as we know it.
No prez candidate, not ONE, wants to talk about Hezbo’s weapons before a very very long time and they know it.
So what’s the big fuss? It’s for Syria/tribunal and destroying Lebanon as we know it. They are very happy with people emigrating. For every 100 who leave there’s 1 Hezbo guy and 99 anti-Hezbo.
It’s the Leb state
oops scratch that last line.
ehem… Don’t take my vote away. The March 14 motto is “Hurriye… Siyedeh and Insteklel” (Freedom, Self-Governance, and independence – from Syria”.
Hariri died for it.
Tueni died for it.
Pierre dies for it.
and all the rest died for it.
None of them died, to disarm Hezbollah.
Compromise, consensus, innovative solutisons etc. these are nice words you would use with someone who’s willing to honor agreements. These negotiations tools don’t work with someone who holds weapons and looking for to kill anyways (and God knows how Hizballa and syrian Mukhabarat are experts in car bombs!).
Ok, let me say it in other words: Hizballa is Lebanon’s worst nightmare in modern history. He wants to change the face of Lebanon. We should wake up! and trust me you cannot separate 1559 and 1701. Hariri, best Lebanse leader since Fackherddine, tried to compromise and they killed him (Syrian in full collaboration of Hizballah).
They’ll kill everyone, who says No to the Wilayat Al Faqih project, SOONER OR LATER!
Whatever what March 14th leaders will do, the final judgment is made, it’s a matter of time to apply the death sanction against them! That’s why, they should not surrender or compromise. Let’s make Hizballah pay HEAVY price to his destructive project. Sadly enough, this is the only way to stop it. But at very heavy price!
support a president that supports the un resolution. once hezbollah is finished, lebanon will live in peace with everyone…except maybe iran-syria.
Nasrallah knows that a consensus candidate will be elected on the 21st november(closer to 14 mars agenda). Nasarallah clearly had put this issue behind his back since the syrian regime apparently guaranteed a non intervention in the leb elections as long as the candidate does not hold animosity against the regime. Nasrallah`s concern in my opinion is not the president its the issues related to both lebanese military control and security and of course the part of 1559 that exclusively realtes to hzb weapons. I think Nasrallah is well aware that Iran will be targeted by the US (backed this time by the whole int`l comunity)for its nuclear ambitions. The two most fervid nations backing the continious pressure on Iran is the US and france(was the only nation which publicly spoke about a war)Nasrallah noticed that France by her continious effort to save the presidency is doing one thing; its persuing bkirki and 14 mars that it would be the best choice to avoid Lebanon being involved in war had US and France decide to go ahead with the strike. By neutralizing Lebanon hence HZB, ìt can undergo her pre-emptive strikes. Nasrallah speach is to remind the french surprisingly enough the syrians also that if Iran got hit I will not stay neutral and I will use all in my power to change the face of the whole region! Sadly the condensus president(weak) will not be able to manage this international crisis and Lebanon will one more time subject to a similar war between hzb and Israel. I strongly disagree on a consensus president.Why? Although a consensus president will save the country from vacuum and what might result of that (same goes for 50+1 elections0, however its only temorary until the big confrontation.I`d rather have the big confrontation now (it won`t be a large scale war)skirmishes here and there since there are no weapons except with the hzb and nasrallah will never use it to kill lebanese civilians knowing this will lead to his end.
Here’s another take on things: Hezbollah most likely realizes it will not get everything it wants from the new president. In order to lose face, Nasrallah now has bolstered up his position once again on the disarmament of his party…only to walk away head held high after Nov 22: he can claim that thanks to him, the new president will not touch their weapons.
However, as other commenters have already stated, no one wants to even discuss the arms of Hezbollah, it’s not a priority. Also, Hariri didn’t die for this. In fact, Hariri and all the others never really opposed the weapons of Hezbollah per se. So Nasrallah stressing this point is to secure a result that he already got. Still, he could sell it to his voters as a small victory.
Remember the PLO arms and militias? The Lebanese government and the Lebanese Forces couldn’t do anything to disarm them. The PLO had the political cover and the physical power. It finally took the Israelis to kick them out of Lebanon.
Hizzballah is no different. They have political and physical power. What’s even worse is that they are Lebanese. So who’s to kick their butt? Certainly not Lebanon. Until a foreign power agrees to teach Hizz a real lesson by taking them to war, we’ll be treading water. And as long as Hizz has arms and power, Lebanon will have no peace, simply because Hizz will have power over everybody else and will keep pledging allegiance to Iran and Syria.
Bottom line, is that we need a president who will make an alliance with whoever wants to engage Hizzballah. It could even be the enemy within, i.e. the non-Hizz abiding Shias. But please, let’s not go back to square one and elect yet another useless consensus president.
Mus, you know what is most frustrating to me, each time you write about Hizbullah??
It’s the fact that no one really listened when people were warning against them for so many years now, especially before the 2005 elections.
I was one of the few who have felt betrayed when the quadripartite electoral alliance was stricken; THAT alliance is the source of all our woes. Had it not existed, the Christians would have never reacted as strongly in favour of Michel Aoun in the first place. True, Mar. 14 could have lost some seats in sensitive places, but Michel Aoun would have never claimed to be the Christian saviour against Muslims in Lebanon.
Back to my main argument; I think Mar. 14 leaders showed a lot of short-sightedness at the beginning of the crisis, and FPM showed lots of short-sightedness in the middle of it by signing that stupid agrement with Hizbullah (remind me what has been achieved from that piece of paper so far).
The only winner through it all is Hizbullah and for that, I commend them for their stratagem. I think Mar. 14 is getting better now, albeit a bit late. Better late than never, I guess.
However, now is the time to start thinking about why Hizbullah is so against a pro-Mar.14 president. To find that out, try looking up how many Shias have been replacing other public officials in key areas such as Education, Energy, Transport, Telecommunication, Security and Trade; you’ll know what I mean when you see it. They’re draining the whole economy.
So you see, Mustapha, there can never be a consensus president because he’ll take away the privileges they worked, trained and stole so hard to achieve.
Z.H. you hit it on the spot! BRAVO. That to me said it all concise and precise
Currently, only force will make Hizbollah give up its weapons. I can’t see that there’s any way around that at this time. Everyone is hoping that in ten years things will get incrementally better and, through social change and the mental de-militarization of the pro-Hiz Shia, things will ease into a more prosperous era for Lebanon.
But will all the other factors giving Hizbollah such a firm position in the region go away as well, allowing this easing off? Iranian pressure may wane a bit, with talk of supervised nuclear power development, and with the US and Iran maybe getting tired of butting heads, both having made their point. Unfortunately anti-Israeli rhetoric is still a pretty effective distractive tool. Will Syrian pressure go away? Not as long as Assad clings to the dream of Greater Syria.
Would positive pressure help? From who? The UN doesn’t take strong stands in internal disputes, not on the ground, and especially not when renewed fighting between Hizbollah and Israel may resume. Aid from the US? Such help always comes with the problems of anti-American sentiment in the region, and the Lebanese leadership’s constant need to prove its “Arabness”, with whatever political baggage you choose to associate with that. Few things are poisoning Lebanese politics more than the constant background anti-Israeli sentiment that does no good at all for Lebanon, and plays into Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran’s main political strategem for retaining popular support.
So, back to force then? Memories of the civil war scare everyone; people prefer not to think about it at all, let alone learn from the past. And what would you learn? How many people stick to their clan allegiances? Looking for an edge against the others? Would enough pro-Hiz Shia give up their addiction to the “power” Nasrallah displays? Is everyone thinking of the “long game” with their clan magically in power in 100 years? And controlling what, Lebanon, or the Lebanese province of Syria? Or Greater Syria? Greater Palestine? Super Pan-Arab Magicland? Civil war wouldn’t help anyways, that at least is certain; it only invites mass Syrian intervention. Unless a counter-force prevents them, politically or physically? Which of course can turn the civil war into regional war.
Grass-roots political change? Civil war? People actually giving a sh*t about Lebanon as a whole? Foreign intervention? UN solution? Demilitarization? Remilitarization? Peace with Israel? War with Israel?
What exactly? What will make things better for the non-crazies? And how badly can things go from here? Who the f*ck knows.
All I know is this: Lebanon needs to stay independent. Assad’s regime has tried so f*cking hard to make Lebanon Syrian, used every political strategem, wreaked so much havoc, and caused so much misery, they don’t deserve their f*cking “prize” for their childish bullsh*t behaviour. And neither does anyone else who tries to dominate Lebanon, even from within. Stop playing games, people, there’s a better life possible.
Very good point Z.H.
Sunnis and Druze refused to demonize el hezb until the hezb stabbed them with his trident tail. 15 years they kissed nasrallah beard. hariri himself defended the weapons of the hezb on many opportunities, and jumblat was the bestest friend of hassouna until end of 2005. One got killed by a bomb prepared in Haret Hreik and the other is now a zionist agent.
If we remember, we won’t forget!