The assassination of the Hezbollah leader by the Israeli army in the southern suburbs of Beirut has caused a major division in the Arab arena, between those who exulted over his death recalling his brutal military intervention in Syria, and those who backed all of his positions, specifically his resistance against Israel, and considered him an untouchable political reference. Finally, there are those who, despite their disagreement with Hezbollah and its leader, considered that the mere fact that Israel assassinated him forgives him many mistakes and requires standing with him as long as he fought against Hebrew State.
Although the division over Arab leaders and rulers is great, and over the leaders of political and religious organizations is common, this time the degree of division was wide and deep, and it was not within the framework of the divisions and usual quarrels of political elites, but rather was societal, and took profound dimensions that were not due to religious and sectarian aspects.
The truth is that the problem arises for several reasons and the most prominent is Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian war, along with its accusation that it is the main reason behind the continuation of the Syrian regime and the fall of thousands of victims. The party also fought a battle in Beirut in 2006 that left bitter feelings among the Lebanese people, and it dealt as a repressive authority in the face of the 2020 civil movement. Many also rejected its political and military dominance over the Lebanese decision and its involvement in a war for the sake of Gaza, which the vast majority of the Lebanese refuses to enter, even though they fully sympathize with the Palestinian cause.
Hezbollah is an ideological party that chose to be an authority and not just a resistance faction. Sometimes it choose to be a state, sending its forces to Syria to fight for a regime that proved to be neither resistant, nor moderate. Contrary to what the party bet on, another regime in Syria would not have been a burden on Hezbollah like the regime it supported, and it would not have lost a large popular base of Syrians who believed that blood was shed in Syria because of its intervention in the war. In Lebanon, there is a movement that believes that there is “somewhere” a connection between Hezbollah and the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, while others hold it responsible for the endless presidential vacancy.
The disagreement between political and ideological projects and over Arab leaders has existed in contemporary history. There was a disagreement between Egypt and Saudi Arabia before the 1967 defeat by Israel, but it was not a deep societal disagreement that carried a discourse of hate between peoples. In this respect, it is sufficient to remember the historic reconciliation at the Khartoum Summit in 1968 between Gamal Abdel Nasser and King Faisal.
Finally, another division will remain between a group of those who disagree with the party’s orientations, and their colleagues who also disagree with the party, but were shocked by the series of Israeli attacks in Gaza and Lebanon, the targeting of civilians and the hunting down of resistance leaders. They presented another interpretation that says: As long as Israel declares its complete rejection of any peaceful settlement and the two-state solution, and does not care about the Palestinian Authority or UN resolutions, and the Arab moderate forces and various forms of civil and legal pressure are unable to push it to abide by international legitimacy resolutions, then Hezbollah’s mistakes can be overlooked or corrected at a later stage as long as it resists Israel.