Staying vigilant

Hizbullah moves to calm fears of an imminent war with Israel, but remains on high alert, reports Omayma Abdel-Latif from Beirut

The Islamic resistance movement, Hizbullah, launched a media offensive to dismiss speculation over an imminent Israeli war on Lebanon. Repeated remarks by US officials about Hizbullah's missile arsenal raised fears that war might be close.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, while in the company of Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, on Tuesday 27 April parroted Israeli allegations that both Syria and Iran provide the Lebanese resistance movement with "so many rockets" that "they -- Hizbullah -- have more missiles than most governments in the world."

On the same day, another senior official of the Obama administration, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan, while on a visit to Beirut expressed concern over reports of weapons smuggling to Hizbullah through Syria, calling the alleged arms transfers a "threat to the stability and security of Lebanon and the region".

Hizbullah officials refused to confirm or deny the allegations, deeming the "Scud stunt" but the last in a series of Israeli intelligence service fabrications about weapons deliveries to Hizbullah. "When US Defense Secretary Gates says that Hizbullah has more weapons than most governments in the world... whether this is right or wrong, I will not comment," Hizbullah Secretary- General Hassan Nasrallah said in a TV interview with the Kuwaiti channel Al-Rai on Saturday, 1 May.

Nasrallah added that the resistance movement has "a legal and humanitarian right" to own any weapons it wants to protect people oppressed and threatened by Israel's occupation policy.

This "right to arm" was also reiterated by other party officials: "We have the right to arm ourselves, to empower the resistance on the principle of defence, confronting aggression, occupation and other threats," said Hizbullah's Sheikh Naim Qasim in press statements. "We ask why Israel has the right to be armed and with unjustifiable quantity. How can Israel be allowed to acquire nuclear warheads?" Qasim added.

Yet, despite asserting the right to armed defence, Nasrallah and others appeared keen on calming fears of an imminent war. "I don't believe that all this fuss about the missiles is a prelude to a war," Nasrallah said, adding: "It is not a climate of war."

Controversy over the resistance movement's missile arsenal comes with Hizbullah party to Lebanon's national unity government. This has brought for the movement and the country a much- needed period of political stability. According to Qasim, it has also reinforced "internal solidarity" against any possible Israeli aggression.

Party officials cite their latest achievement in this regard: neutralising Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. It was thanks to Hizbullah's mediation that Jumblatt was received by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad earlier this month, ending five years of animosity between them. One outcome from this period of seeming national reconciliation is a change in the discourse on Hizbullah's arms -- for long a divisive issue amongst the Lebanese. For example, Jumblatt said the issue of Hizbullah's disarmament should not be discussed in the media, but rather during national dialogue sessions concerning a national defence strategy for Lebanon. Another key Lebanese figure, Michel Aoun of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), even threatened to boycott the national dialogue if the issue of Hizbullah's arms continued to be discussed in the media.

While it is not realistic to speak about a national consensus over the arms of the resistance, such positions suggest that there is a greater realisation amongst key political players on the Lebanese scene of the role the arsenal of the resistance plays as a deterrent in the face of constant Israeli threats. And it is precisely because of this deterrent that Israel, in the words of Qasim, will not launch a war, because it fears a repetition of its 2006 defeat. "Israel knows that the deterrent of the resistance is very effective," Qasim said.

The US escalation against Hizbullah should also be placed against the backdrop of heated debate over a security agreement signed between Lebanon and the US. The Lebanese opposition called for the cancellation of the agreement, which they deem to be in violation of Lebanese sovereignty. On Monday 3 May, Jumblatt threw his weight behind the opposition demand and also called for the cancellation of the agreement. In a related development, a tour by a US security delegation to the Lebanese-Syrian border elicited much criticism. Coming on the heels of US-Israeli accusations against Hizbullah and Syria, the trip was condemned by both government and opposition.

A Lebanese Foreign Ministry statement said it "was not informed" in advance about the visit by the US team to Al-Masnaa border crossing. It said the visit violates an article of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that such missions should be conducted through the host country's Foreign Ministry. The trip, according to US embassy sources, was part of an assessment mission from the State Department's anti-terrorism assistance programme, which trains Lebanese security forces.

Hizbullah and the Lebanese opposition demanded an investigation into who gave the US security team permission to inspect the border area. There have been several press reports that suggested that the US was considering submitting a draft resolution to the UN Security Council in June on deploying an international monitoring force on the Lebanese-Syrian border to prevent weapons smuggling. There has not, however, been official confirmation of this.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/997/re2.htm