• News & Politics
• Life & Action
• Faith & Practice
• Arts & Culture
• Media & Tech

Why I Agree with Nasrallah (Well, Sort of...)

• Email
• Print
• Share

The Daily Star reported recently that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is calling upon Lebanon’s factions to put aside their differences. Join forces, he says, and we will have a strong Lebanon.

I applaud him.

It may seem counter-intuitive that this Tel Avivit is cheering on Beirut, let alone a notorious Shia leader. But consider things, as The Daily Star summarized them:

“Speaking at a news conference through video phone… Nasrallah said political sectarianism prevented the country’s modernization and impeded the promotion of a democracy that grants the majority the right to govern and the minority the right to oppose.”

And straight from Nasrallah’s mouth, via the same article: “…consensual democracy is the best guarantee to preserve stability…”

Setting aside Nasrallah’s opinions on Palestine and Israel, the Hezbollah leader—and Lebanon—ironically offers lessons to Israel and her citizens.

As is the case with our neighbors to the north, political sectarianism is a threat to Israel. Right now, this issue is more relevant than ever as rifts seem to be deepening, and cracks appear to be widening at an alarming rate.

Genuine or not, Netanyahu’s calls to temporarily freeze settlements has highlighted Israel’s political fragmentation, with right-wing Knesset members like Tzipi Hotovely and Uri Ariel leading the settlers’ resistance—a movement which turned out 10,000 protestors on December 9 That same day Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the hawkish head of Yisrael Beiteinu and a settler himself, offered his public support to those who are against the freeze.

But the fractures go beyond the government and the civilians—cracks are appearing in the army, too. A week before the pause was announced there was the IDF unit that hung a sign on their base, announcing their intention to refuse any orders to evacuate settlers. Reporting on the incident, Haaretz quoted the head of Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, who said that some settler leaders are “prompting a rebellion within the IDF and endangering Israeli society.”

Oppenheimer went on to tell the newspaper that “Right wing leaders and all government parties must speak out against this phenomenon before the army loses control of its soldiers.”

Further, the IDF is concerned that settlers will turn on Palestinians in the West Bank which could, of course, sparking more global animosity towards Israel (as though Israel hasn’t done enough already with the separation barrier, Jewish-only roads, and over 40 years of occupation).

Imagine a worst-case scenario: a split within the army; a splintered—and thus crippled—political body. Armed settlers unite with IDF troops, creating a militia that is led, in part, by extreme-right members of Knesset (and Lieberman at the head, perhaps?). Israeli forces, which are staying relatively quiet right now, will be forced to respond. The settlers’ movement will square off against the army, the rest of the government, and will attack the Palestinians. We will be torn, irrevocably, into three.

Rumblings from the settlers and their supporters are not new, but the announcement of a 10 month freeze brings this, one of Israel’s thorniest internal conflicts, to the spotlight once again.

Israel’s political sectarianism manifests in other ways, as well: elections.

In February when Israel’s citizens, including me, went to the polls, we had 34 parties to choose from. Acquaintances and friends who complain about the disproportionate sway of the religious, a segment of the population that tends to vote in a block, chatted eagerly about voting for fringe groups like the similarly named Green Party and Green Leaf Party. (It is the leaf, of course, that is the biggest distinction between the two).

My suggestion that secular voters band together to create a counterweight to the religious was met, of course, with the explanation that none of the mainstream parties were appealing.

Today, as some of those same acquaintances and friends decry the minority’s hegemony over the majority, Nasrallah’s vision of seeing a balanced government ruled by the masses seems apropos.

Of course, I have to admit that Nasrallah’s call for unity isn’t entirely benevolent. It is important to remember that Hezbollah was founded in reaction to the IDF’s occupation of Lebanon and Israel remains on its agenda. The Lebanese people must band together, Nasrallah says, to stand strong against the “Israeli threat.”

If I’m to be entirely honest here, I have to admit that Nasrallah’s speech has me scratching my head a bit. After all, he was against the Cedar Revolution—a popular movement that called for Lebanese sovereignty and unity and which is credited with the expulsion of Syrian troops. So, why the sudden change of heart? Is Nasrallah going mainstream? Unlikely. Is it a move to shore up confidence in and build support for Hezbollah, which is a minority in the government’s fragile coalition? Probably. Or is he bracing the Lebanese people for the war with Israel that some say will come in the spring? Perhaps.

According to Ya Libnan, Nasrallah explained the policy shift plainly: “People evolve. The whole world changed over the past 24 years. Lebanon changed. The world order changed.” Reuters offered the interpretation that Nasrallah’s speech is a sign of “changes to Hezbollah thinking about the need to respect Lebanon’s diversity.” Both Nasrallah and he wire service are, perhaps, being shockingly over-simplistic.

I must point out, as well, that there are crucial differences between our two countries. One being that the devastating consequences of sectarian fighting manifested in Lebanon already—in a civil war that spanned 15 years and took hundreds of thousands of lives. A chilling prediction, perhaps, of what could happen in Israel.

But my enthusiasm for Nasrallah’s call for unity isn’t just about Israel. I’ve got hopes for Lebanon, too.

Some might counter that my championing of a strong Lebanon is against Israel’s best interests. But if Lebanon will, indeed, produce a “democracy that grants the majority the right to govern” it can only bring stability to the region.

Why?

While anti-Israel sentiment is deeply rooted in Lebanon, most want a safe country governed by the rule of law—and, as the Cedar Revolution testified, the Lebanese want a nation free of outside influence and extremists.

And Lebanon, where almost all of the region’s conflicts converge, is not just a litmus test for the Middle East as some say—it’s a mirror of the Middle East.

Israel would do well to look at the reflection before us and to listen to Nasrallah’s call, as though it were a warning from our future. But we shouldn’t follow Nasrallah’s suggestion of uniting for the sake of confronting an enemy. Israelis—Jewish, Muslim, and Christian—must join hands for the sake of building a better country, and a stronger Middle East.

If we, an infamously stiff-necked people, refuse to learn from our neighbor’s lessons we’ll end up living our own Lebanon.