Hizb Should Disband its Militia

I do not typically feel the need to make any disclosures before I speak my mind, but when it comes to discussions about Hizbullah, many otherwise reasonable people have rigid, unchangeable impressions that defy what the facts actually reveal. My older brother and I generally agree on most political issues but we diverge radically when it comes to the issue of Hizbullah. I am a Sunni Muslim who despises sectarianism in any form. Having lived in Lebanon for years, I am also fully aware of the historical disadvantage of the Shia when it comes to the established Lebanese social and economic pecking order. I used to cringe when I heard a Lebanese Sunni or Christian refer to Shia in a derogatory manner. But I also know very well that sectarianism cuts both ways, especially when one particular sect feels it has the upper hand; all you have to do is look at Iraq.

I have little sympathy for most of the March 14 politicians but my anger today is directed squarely at Hizbullah and Nasrallah. Many of us, because Hizbullah managed to deliver a black eye to the Israeli army in the summer of 2006, seem to be willing to overlook their transgressions or question their political motives. But I cannot escape the fact that, no matter how you slice it, the presence of an independent militia, armed to the teeth, that is accountable to no one is an unsustainable and destabilizing situation in a sovereign state. The repeated claims, that the arms are only for protection against Israel, ring hollow, especially in the last twenty four hours with Nasrallah’s bombastic threats of civil war if he does not get his way. What has become abundantly clear is that the arms and the militia are to be used as leverage for Hizbullah's political aspirations. The formula is clear: We will ask softly but if you don't do as we say, we'll bring our men into the streets. Moreover we will sack and burn the media outlets that we don't like because we think they are lying as if Al Manar is a bastion of journalistic integrity and objective reporting.

Hizbullah got deservedly high marks for its resistance to the Israeli occupation whose withdrawal they forced in 2000. Hizbullah could have leveraged the gratitude of most Lebanese at the time to turn itself into a formidable political machine. Why didn’t they incorporate their militia into the Lebanese Army then and become a purely political party? They would have been in an excellent position to advocate for their constituency and they would have transformed the national Lebanese army into a formidable fighting force truly capable of protecting Lebanon's southern borders. Moreover, they could have diverted their seemingly limitless flow of cash away from supporting and arming a militia to improving the well being of their community. All other militias from the civil war were dissolved following the Taef agreement, why should Hizbullah have a free pass after 2000? Some will dispute that last statement but clearly the recent rearming of some of these militias was in response to the perceived threat from Hizbullah . Besides, as the pitiful showing of Mustaqubal's militia demonstrates, none of these armed groups can compare in scale and equipment to the standing army that Hizbullah has. However, given a couple more years of Lebanese turmoil, the situation will be akin to that of 1975 and a full fledged civil war will be a certainty.

Many non-Lebanese support Hizbullah because of its successful confrontations with Israel . They see it more as an abstraction, as a the bastion of "resistance" against the encroachment of Israeli designs and American Neocon aspirations. They seem to overlook the fact that Hizbullah's existence as an autonomous militia erodes the viability of Lebanon as a state. It is as if Lebanon is a disposable sacrificial lamb on the altar of regional and global power struggles. It is telling that those same supporters of Hizbullah would balk at the very thought of having a parallel autonomous militia within their own country that does not feel obligated to follow the laws of the land. The Syrian government is guilty of this type of blatant hypocrisy. If they were true believers in "resistance" politics, why don't they invite Hizbullah to the Golan Heights?

Lebanon needs and deserves peace after more than three decades of strife. It has, more than any other Arab state, established institutions of a working, albeit corrupt, democracy. There is no reason why Hizbullah with its large constituency and tremendous resources cannot work within the political system to its advantage within the need of a militia. The biggest threat to Israel is not a militia in a weak divided state, but a stable, successful Lebanon capable of defending itself and capable of competing with it economically and intellectually.