 |
Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters during a rally on the seventh anniversary of the end of Hezbollah's 2006 war with Israel, in Aita al-Shaab village in southern Lebanon, Aug. 16, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Ali Hashisho) |
By: Elie Ferzli Translated from As-Safir (Lebanon). | اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية |
Former Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora did not want his meeting with the committee designated by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to present his initiative before parliamentary coalitions to be regarded as mere protocol. Siniora was keen to have a large number of MPs, in addition to leaders from the Future Movement, present during the meeting. Through this move, he wanted to convey a message – first to Berri and secondly to his Hezbollah allies – that he is willing to meet Hezbollah halfway if the latter decides to withdraw from Syria. The message relies first and foremost on analysis saying, “Hezbollah is looking for a way out that shields it against the disadvantages of becoming embroiled in Syria.”
According to the Future Movement, there is data justifying this analysis, the most prominent of which is Berri’s initiative itself. The latter includes in its third article a call to discuss “mechanisms to stop Lebanese involvement in the Syrian issue.” Future Movement coalition sources believe that Berri would not have added this article without discussing it with Hezbollah. The Future Movement, however, considers the clearest sign to be the fact that Hezbollah's "Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc" has welcomed the initiative, announcing that it is an "adequate and realistic initiative."
The radar of the Future Movement did not content itself with picking up internal signs, instead relying on signs coming from the Iraqi government, an ally of Iran, which presented an initiative within the same context. One of its articles stipulates “withdrawing all non-Syrian armed groups active on Syrian territories.”
Members of the Future Movement admit that they rely in assessing the stance of Hezbollah on analysis rather than data. This is why they do not base their stance on the issue of Hezbollah withdrawing from Syria on their analysis. They believe that the likelihood of this happening is enough to encourage Hezbollah to take this step. This can be done through openness and dealing positively with any initiative.
Whoever meets with Hezbollah circles hears a repeat of Hassan Nasrallah’s statement in that regard. They limit the answer to what Nasrallah said in mid-April: “For us, what comes after Qusair is similar to what came before it. Did the data change? Did the project change? On the contrary, we will be where we should be. We will continue doing until the end what we began to take responsibility for.”
According to Hezbollah, the data is still the same. The party is “partially responsible in facing the universal project that wants to make the whole region fall and not only Syria, this project being the extreme Islamist-Israeli-American project.”
If some parties are still linking the continuity of internal political deadlock to the withdrawal of Hezbollah from Syria, this means that “the internal crisis will go on and Lebanon will be the victim of foreign considerations.”
According to Hezbollah, “All local, Gulf, and international conflicts will not deter us from our duty in regard to protecting sacred places [in Syria] first and second in waging a proactive war that stops the battle from reaching our home. Cursing the party will only bolster its conviction of the correctness of its choice.”
If these two missions will eventually lead to stopping attempts at toppling the Syrian regime, does this mean that Hezbollah will not withdraw from Syria until the regime wins? A leading member in the March 8 camp calls to mind what Nasrallah said, “We have a margin to discuss everything about Syria.” Despite this, the leading member does not allow negotiations in that regard. Nasrallah said, “As long as the Syrian regime is facing a universal war, Hezbollah will not abandon it and will help it whenever possible.” He denied at the same time what is said about the deployment of the party on Syrian land, noting that after the Qusair battle, Hezbollah reduced its presence in Syria. Its members now number to a few hundreds in the countryside of Damascus.
When talking about the Iraqi initiative, the leading member affirmed, “It is apt to be a ground for discussions, away from the Gulf position that sees nothing in Syria but Hezbollah while it turns a blind eye to all the groups the Gulf has founded and financed.” He noted that whoever wanted to refer to the Iraqi initiative had to read it within the context of the party that presented it. In other words, and as the party presenting the initiative affirms, “The entryway to discussing the issue of Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria is the withdrawal of all groups coming from the four corners of the world who number in the thousands and have nothing to do with the Syrian people.”
Read more