Lebanon remains caught by history and Hizbollah

What the Arabic press is saying about Hizbollah's role in Lebanon, featuring Asharq Al Awsat and Al Hayat.

Hizbollah has been declared a terrorist organisation by the GCC and most of the Arab League. Mahmoud Zayyat / AFP

Recent developments in the way the region is seen have once more dragged Lebanon into the unknown. Internal instability nurtured by the “rubbish crisis” and a presidential vacuum seem to have taken the country towards a dead end, while Hizbollah and its role in multiple crises in the region have affected Lebanon’s relations with the Gulf states.

Writing in the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al Awsat, columnist Bassem Al Jisr explained that every country has its own stories, which differ from one national entity to another.

“Lebanon is a national entity that emerged from an international agreement, in 1920, under the French mandate. Over the decades, ‘Great Lebanon’, turned into the ‘Republic of Lebanon’ and it became independent in 1943, when the national consensus between Christians and Muslims gave way to coexistence in one independent Arab country,” he wrote.

Ever since its creation, Lebanon has been shaken by many developments, including the civil war that ended with the Taef Accord and was followed by a Syrian tutelage, which was brought to an end after the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

“As the Lebanese people prepared to rebuild their country on the basis of a new covenant, they failed to anticipate that Hizbollah would turn into a military force independent from the state, receiving its orders from Iran and become an ally of the Syrian regime,” he added.

“Lebanese leaders and people surmounted revolutions, regional and internal wars and successive crises instigated by Hizbollah, but the bottleneck today seems to be much tighter and far more dangerous.”

He said the Lebanese were able to survive all these post-war economic crises thanks to a combination of its nationals sending back money from working in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States and the flow of tourists from Arab and Gulf countries.

“Convincing Hizbollah to change its position is difficult, as it remains under the orders of Iran and the Iranian game in the region perseveres and relies on the presidential vacuum in Lebanon,” he concluded.

“In the meantime, Lebanon, the homeland, the nation, its people and economy, all plunge into the abyss of the unknown.”

In the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, Abdullah Nasser Al Otaibi, said the Arab League followed the Gulf Cooperation Council in declaring Hizbollah a terrorist organisation. This decision was vetoed by Lebanon and Iraq, while Algeria abstained but all the others agreed that Hizbollah, which represents Iran politically and militarily in Lebanon, is unwelcome in the region and that it is an outlawed organisation.

“The Arab League and the GCC know that Lebanon’s special situation must be taken into account. Since its independence, this small country survives on painkillers and temporary solutions because its so-called democracy is unable to cope with a Lebanese citizenship free of tutelage, where a bridge is always required to reach the Lebanese individual,” he wrote.

“But what of Iraq and Algeria? At first in Iraq, they tried to convince the people and the world that they rose to power through democracy. The word democracy became redundant in their media, as if it were one of the historic achievements of the post-Saddam era. How could the Iraq of today classify Hizbollah a terrorist organisation? It has much to lose.

“As for Algeria, it always retreats on matters of importance to the Gulf. I am afraid that the day will come when Gulf states will retreat on matters of importance for Algeria, so as not to interfere with its internal affairs,” he concluded.

Translated by Carla Mirza