Where does Al-Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's political stand ends and the contours of his sectarianism begins? Is the secretary-general of Hezbollah a sectarian chief or a political leader not interested in sectarianism?
The question is not a new one. When the Syrian revolution broke out and Nasrallah took a stand supporting Bashar Assad, the same question cropped up again.
What is sectarianism and why is it particularly attached to Nasrallah?
Sectarianism, is viewing a man, a society, events or history from a sectarian perspective. It is a partisan stand in support of a sect in terms of its values, conviction and myths considering the sect as the most right, the closest to truth and consequently the most deserving support.
This definition is applicable to a politician when he lays down his plans, chalks out his policies, builds up his alliances and determines his objectives from a sectarian angle.
The Syrian revolution is the greatest event of these days. Regional and international stands toward it have been clearly expressed. Nasrallah chose to stand by the Syrian regime against the people. It is a stand that betrays his political and religious leanings because the man is combining politics and his religious sect and with his alliances.
In his recent address Nasrallah went to the extent of identifying himself with the Syrian regime. He described the security commanders killed in the Damascus explosion as “martyrs and companions of weapons.”
What does he mean by martyrs? As a man of religion he must know clearly that they do not fulfill the standards of martyrdom. On the other hand, people ask: What about the thousands of civilians killed by the regime’s military forces under the supervision of the security commanders?
But Nasrallah is not concerned with such questions. What is important for him is to sustain the regime whatever may be its price. What is the explanation for this stand? He knows that his stand is contradictory to the idea of resistance for which his party stands for. The sacredness of the resistance springs from the fact that it is for the cause of freedom.
Nasrallah allies with the regime that kills its citizens in order to bury the freedom alive. His stand also supports the violation of the rights of the Syrian people in an unprecedented manner. Nasrallah also realizes that his stand is an echo of the Iranian’s position.
He is in fact a partner of the regime. The most outstanding feature of this partnership is the sectarian identity. Does the Hezbollah secretary-general realize that his political stand has been uncovered?
The stance also supplies an answer to the question of why the position of Nasrallah is under question. He is a man of religion and wears a turban. He is a politician allied to Iran. He is proud to believe in the Shiite concept of the Wilayat Al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist) to the point of conviction.
At the same time he is an ally to the Syrian regime which is a combination of the Baath party and family gang. He has adopted resistance as his career and then he uses his career in favor of Iran and then for Assad’s Syria. Despite this backdrop, Nasrallah leads a party exceptional in its identity, its size and roles and alliances.
The conventional definition of a party does not apply to the Hezbollah. It is larger than a party and slightly smaller than a state. Its alliances extend from Beirut to Damscus and to Baghdad and stops in Tehran. The only driving force of this network of alliances is the sectarian identity.
In Lebanon the party is a state within the state. Hezbollah’s weapon collection is so huge that the army of the country does not even dream to possess half of those weapons. Nasrallah, who has no formal authority, wields more power than the president of the Lebanese republic. He has the power to make war and peace. He can bring down governments and set up governments while the president of the republic finds it hard to sack even a minister.
We are up against an exceptional phenomenon that grew up under Iranian-Syrian care and under the Arab cover.
The Hezbollah was formed for the resistance of the enemy, Israel, but this resistance halted in 2006 and its accomplishments are undeniable. But now the question is for who is Hezbollah undertaking the resistance and with what objective?
Why is this resistance linked to assassinations and also with the most oppressive and blood-stained regimes in the modern Arabian history? Hezbollah is a religious organization and its leadership also religious. Its authority comes from Tehran.
It shows that the basic relation between Hezbollah and Iran is their common sect. The Islamic Republic of Iran defines itself according to the 12th clause of its constitution: “The official religion is Islam and the madhab (religious school of thought) of Al-Jaafari Al-Ithna Ashri. This clause should never be changed…”
This is how Iran becomes the first state in the history of Islam to define itself in its written constitutional text on the basis of a sectarian identity.
The republic also adopted the theory of the Guardianship of the Jurist and considers itself as a Shiite state in the world.
Nasrallah affirms repeatedly his pride that he is functioning under the Guardianship of the Jurist. Iran’s alliances in the Arab region including Syria is in line with the 12th clause of its constitution. Is it just accidental that the Shiite Iran’s regional alliances are limited to Shiite forces? And the Hezbollah alliances are also made in the same lines?
Now another question is about the role of Hezbollah as a resistance power. Nasrallah has spoken on it repeatedly and is not repeated here. However he never spoke of the relation between Hezbollah’s resistance and its regional role. Nasrallah wants to convince everyone that his party’s goal is limited to the defense of Lebanon and liberation of the Lebanese territories.
Then why does it enter in Lebanese politics? Why does it form regional alliances with those who share its sectarian identity? Why should it ally with Iraq’s Shiite forces which have nothing to do with the resistance and which came to power on American tanks?
Another pertinent question is why Hezbollah joined politically in media promotions and perhaps militarily to defend the Syrian regime against a people’s revolution. A real resistance party cannot shackle itself in a sectarian camp and draw its policies and alliances on the basis of sectarian principles besides permitting its sectarian bias to defend a regime that kills its own citizens who are fighting for their freedom.
The word freedom cannot be seen in Hezbollah literature and particularly Nasrallah’s lengthy speeches are conspicuous with the absence of the word freedom. The sectarian identity of Hezbollah and its subservience to the Iran’s strategies and its alliances outside Lebanon are on the basis of its sectarian identity and also on its bias to the regime.
The relationship between Iran and the Hezbollah is not an alliance. It is more than that. Hezbollah is an arm of Iran in Syria and Lebanon though Nasrallah insists that he is totally independent of Iran. It is attempting to present Iran as a charitable society. Iran established Hezbollah in 1982 and trained and armed its cadres with annual budget allocations.
That is how Hezbollah’s alliance with Iran differs from the alliance with Syria. The first is a pledge to follow with conviction, out of its own choice while the second is dictated by the needs of geographical situation and the regional balance. The alliance of needs may develop if time permits to an alliance of choice and conviction.
Now what is the relationship of the alliances and Hezbollah’s stand toward the revolution?
Nasrallah with his sectarian inclinations is not exceptional. He is part of the political pattern that has been controlling the Arab political culture over centuries. A civilian national state on the principles of freedom, justice and equality in the Arab region has not crystallized thanks to a number of reasons.
One of the reasons is that there did not appear a political leadership free from the hold of sectarianism and tribalism. The emergence of Nasrallah as a party leader and not state leader and his secret sectarian attachment reflects the influence of the prevailing culture and the weight of the political interest accompanying it.
The pattern that Nasrallah planned for himself, which pawned its political interest for the sectarian identity is not new. It is a pattern that emerged centuries before his birth. He has only strengthened the pattern. A question that comes up here, is what is the use of a resistance led by the “master of the resistance” in this situation? Why does he keep on reminding us that the resistance is a favor from him?

n Courtesy of Al-Hayat newspaper
.