The Lebanese Hezbollah movement is facing unprecedentedly challenging times, having lost much of its senior leadership in its latest war with Israel.
Events in neighboring Syria have further compounded the organizations losses. Not only did Hezbollah lose its main transit route for weapons deliveries with the fall of the Assad dynasty, but it now has to live with the reality of a new leadership in Damascus affiliated with the very same Sunni-extremist groups Hezbollah had fought against in support of the former leadership.
However, the recent funeral procession for the movement’s former Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah was a stark reminder that it continues to enjoy broad public support. The procession was one of the largest events in Lebanon’s history, with hundreds of thousands of mourners taking to the streets.
Responsible Statecraft sat down with Hezbollah parliamentarian Ali Fayyad to discuss the party’s future following the latest developments. Fayyad has been an active member of Hezbollah since its founding and previously headed its think tank: the Consultative Center for Documentation and Studies.
Fayyad emphasized that under the current circumstances, the organization’s approach is for the Lebanese state to handle the situation with Israel, which continues to occupy parts of Lebanese territory. He is quick to highlight, however, that Lebanon reserves the right to use force, if necessary, in order to end the Israeli occupation. Any talk of integrating Hezbollah militarily into Lebanon’s state institutions is premature, says Fayyad, and hinges on factors like the state building its defensive capabilities.
Regarding the Trump administration’s policies towards Lebanon, the Hezbollah legislator argues that attempts to marginalize Hezbollah will not stabilize Lebanon. He also raises the possibility that Washington may be attempting to stir up a confrontation between the Lebanese army and the Shiite movement, warning of the dire repercussions resulting from such a scenario. Fayyad explained however that the issues Hezbollah has with the United States are not bilateral in nature, but rather stem from U.S. support for Israel and what he terms “unjust hegemony” over world affairs.
On the situation in Syria, he does not shy away from admitting that the fall of former president Bashar Al-Assad was a major setback for the movement, questioning the stance of the new Syrian leadership towards Israel.
Below is the full text of the interview:
RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: What is the future of Hezbollah after Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah?
ALI FAYYAD: Hezbollah is committed the path of Sayyed Hassan and to the principals and to its resistance role and vision towards the situation in Lebanon and the region. But there were also big shifts that took place in Lebanon and the region that must be taken into consideration, and Hezbollah is heavily focused on understanding these shifts and on contemplating how to deal with them. The charismatic leadership of Sayyed Hassan played a very fundamental role in leading the party and in managing the organization, politically and militarily. Now, under the leadership of the new secretary Sheikh Naim Qassem, it is expected that we will move more towards an institutional type of party rather than the party of a leader. This is consistent with the convictions of the new secretary general.
RS: When we speak about an institution-like party, will this be reflected in more focus on the domestic arena and somewhat lesser focus on the region?
FAYYAD: The issue of the party led by a leader and a party that focuses more on the institutional dimension in decision making has nothing to do with the shifts that took place in the region and in Lebanon. When we talk about shifts, we have that which relates to Lebanon after the document on implementing U.N. resolution 1701 was issued (the latest Lebanon-Israel ceasefire agreement), and the rampant U.S. attempts to reshape the region. Regarding Lebanon, we underscored our commitment to 1701 and to the implementation measures document. We committed completely to the obligations related to the South of the Litani River, and because the implementation document is concerned with explaining and implementing resolution 1701, its reference and geographical scope is subject to international resolution 1701.
RS: What can we expect from Hezbollah when it has more of an institutional nature?
FAYYAD: The presence of Sayyed Hassan was overwhelming. When he decided anything, this decision would be embraced by everyone given his historic leadership role. Now, the new secretary general, Sheikh Naim Qassem, is more in favor of the institutions playing their role in decision making; now, we have moved more towards a collective institutional leadership that makes decisions based on the internal bureaucracy, the internal institutions.
RS: Is Hezbollah in the process of becoming solely a political party?
FAYYAD: No, Hezbollah, despite the shifts that took place, remains a resistance party on the one hand and a political party on the other. However, every stage requires a different approach when it comes to resistance. Hezbollah remains committed to resistance and considers that it is Lebanon’s right to confront any Israeli aggression. But this current stage, given its unique nature and the shifts that happened, perhaps requires a different approach.
For example, one of the major developments of the current stage was that the Lebanese state stepped forward to manage the situation against the Israeli enemy, and Hezbollah accepted this role and is giving the state the opportunity to take charge of the situation with the Israeli enemy. This doesn’t mean that Hezbollah is no longer committed to its role as a resistance.
RS: The clearer question, which people want to know the answer to is that of arms, because there is this understanding that the ceasefire agreement tacitly includes ultimately getting rid of Hezbollah’s arms.
FAYYAD: I was saying that 1701 geographically refers to the South of the Litani River. Now, regarding the North of the Litani River, the implementation document said that no weapons can be imported and developed. We call on the Lebanese state to exercise its role completely regarding controlling the situation on the borders. We have no problem in this regard, however, everything that is related to the resistance in the North of the Litani River, we consider to be a sovereign issue that concerns the Lebanese government, and Hezbollah calls on the government to reach an understanding regarding the situation in the North of the Litani.
RS: So you view President Joseph Aoun’s call for addressing the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons via dialogue positively?
FAYYAD: This is consistent with what Hezbollah wants.
RS: Should an understanding be reached regarding the weapons, is Hezbollah ready to be integrated into the state militarily?
FAYYAD: It is too early to speak about these issues. There are a number of issues that are intertwined. This issue can’t be dealt with on its own, but rather has to be approached holistically. When I say that, it means it is closely linked to making sure the state is able to exercise its role of defending the land and the people in Lebanon.
RS: There are five positions which Israel still occupies in Lebanon. How will Hezbollah deal with this should the state fail in addressing this issue?
FAYYAD: We consider that this stage — the stage of implementing the measures of 1701— we consider it to be the responsibility of the state and we are closely following the situation. When the state reaches a dead end, we call on it to assess the situation and identify the opportunities and to look into the options that will liberate the territory. But in any case, the Israelis being in five points is something which we consider to be occupation and this gives Lebanon the right to use all possible means to liberate these occupied territories. This is the exact same official Lebanese stance because the meeting of the three leaders (the president, prime minister and parliament speaker) in Baabda (the Lebanese presidential palace). … When the Israelis announced that they will stay in Lebanese territories, the three leaders met and issued a very important statement announcing that the Israeli presence in this area is occupation and Lebanon has the right to use all possible means to liberate these territories.
RS: All possible means, does this include armed resistance?
FAYYAD: The term “all possible means,” which was included in the Taif Agreement and in the Cabinet manifestos for many years, and was reintroduced in the presidential statement, means diplomatic and non-diplomatic means.
RS: I am getting a sense that there is a kind of optimism towards this government bearing in mind that we know what happened with the Iranian planes (Lebanon’s top officials have decided to halt direct flights between Tehran and Beirut indefinitely after Israeli threats). Are you optimistic in light of what happened?
FAYYAD: We think that this Lebanese government deserves to be given an opportunity to prove itself and to show that it is able to fulfill the promise made in the Cabinet manifesto. It said the priority is to liberate the land and defend the people. It also said this is the state’s main role,and it is true there is no meaning of state sovereignty without being able to protect the people and land. Number two, this government promised to rescue, reform and rebuild the state, and we are completely ready to cooperate in both issues
RS: How does the party view the American role, specifically the Trump administration? The American envoy (U.S. Deputy Middle East envoy Morgan Ortagus) said Hezbollah has been defeated and must be excluded from the government. What is your stance regarding these statements and the Trump administration more broadly?
FAYYAD: These stances are irresponsible, and they are an intervention in Lebanese internal affairs, in addition to the fact that they don’t take into consideration the sensitivities and the delicate foundations on which Lebanese political stability is based. They put pressure on the Lebanese state more than it can take and therefore don’t help in achieving stability and recovery.
Hezbollah is the most popular political movement in Lebanon and a prominent political player, and it enjoys widespread public support as a resistance. The American stances ignore the will of a large segment of the Lebanese people and a parliamentary block representing Hezbollah elected democratically. Furthermore, these stances look more like media propaganda than actually being a responsible political approach towards the situation in Lebanon, because Ortagus set a condition that Hezbollah not be represented in the government, but while the American envoy was issuing this statement in Baabda, the government was being formed and Hezbollah was part of it. So, Hezbollah is represented with two ministers in the government.
The stances issued by the American administration and the way in which the Americans are approaching Lebanon contradicts the declared American goal that expresses a firm commitment to stability and rebuilding of a strong state in Lebanon. Hezbollah calls on the government and the other factions to discuss the outstanding issues domestically via dialogue. The American stances don’t go in that same direction, but rather their end result would be Lebanese infighting. And we fear that the American goal is for there to be confrontation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah and its supporters. This is something very dangerous for Lebanon and we don’t want it, and want to avoid it. Rather, we want the best possible ties with the Lebanese army and we support the army.
RS: Since you mentioned this point, how do you view the American support for the Lebanese military?
FAYYAD: Never did we announce a stance rejecting grants, especially in light of the difficult economic and social circumstances. But we always stressed that we place emphasis on the independence of the military institution and it not being hostage to any foreign power, and that foreign aid must not be linked to political conditions.
RS: Wafik Safa (the head of Hezbollah’s Liaison and Coordination Unit) recently said that the Americans always try to contact the party and meet Hezbollah directly and that this continues to be the case. What is the stance of the party regarding any attempts to establish direct contact with the United States?
FAYYAD: Internationally, we have very good ties with a large number of countries in the world including countries in the EU. But when it comes to the United States, because of its complete alignment with Israel which occupies our territories and committed genocide against the Palestinian people, we have a political stance that rejects establishing any form of contact with the American administration. But we also differentiate between the American administration and American society, whether it be media organizations or academic institutions or activists or intellectuals. There is no problem whatsoever with having such nonofficial meetings between Hezbollah and these parties.
RS: Many say that Hezbollah is a common danger to Israel and the U.S. and go back to the (1983) marine barracks attacks, accusing Hezbollah of being involved in terrorism activity and targeting Americans. But based on what I’m understanding from you, the only problem between the party and the U.S. is the American support for Israel. Is that the case?
FAYYAD: We don’t have bilateral problems with the Americans. The stance towards the Americans is linked first of all to the Palestinian cause and this alignment (with Israel) which ignores human rights and the U.N. laws and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. And as a follow up to this point, this American armed support to Israel which used its weapons to destroy 200,000 (Lebanese) homes in the recent war, and killed the Secretary General (Hassan Nasrallah) with weapons that only America possesses — the bombs weighing 2,000 pounds, and the Israelis admitted this. The Israelis were rearmed recently with 9,000-pound bombs. These kinds of bombs are the heaviest non-nuclear bombs in history. So, the problem with the American administration is this issue first of all and second this intervention in the affairs of other societies and countries, and exercising unjust hegemony over international relations. So, we have two problems, one related to the Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflict and the intervention in our internal affairs, and the other related to the American approach towards the global system. This contradicts completely with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points. It also contradicts with all of the constitutional and humanitarian ideals that were established by the founding fathers in the United States.
RS: How do you respond to Hezbollah being accused of pursuing terrorist activities and plans in places like Cyprus and Thailand and other faraway places?
FAYYAD: Hezbollah doesn’t pursue any terrorist activity be it in Lebanon or abroad. Hezbollah openly operates in Lebanon to liberate territories occupied by the Israeli enemy. This right is enshrined in the laws of the United Nations and is one of the basic principles concerning the rights of nations and human societies. And second, we have the right to defend ourselves against the Israeli aggressions. These societies pay a heavy price and are killed in the thousands, and their institutions and homes are destroyed. They are also victims of internationally-banned weapons, like the use of white phosphorus in south Lebanon. If you compare Israel’s losses with those inflicted on us, these losses are almost negligible.
RS: How heavy of a blow were the events in Syria for Hezbollah, and how do you assess the repercussions on Lebanon domestically and on Hezbollah’s supporters, because we saw confrontations on the border (between Lebanon and Syria).
FAYYAD: There’s no doubt that the political transformation which took place in Syria was a major strategic loss, we can’t deny that. We did not support the approach which was taken in regards to the complicated ties between the former Syrian regime and the Syrian people. We don’t support any kind of oppression and corruption or sectarian practices.
RS: Then why did you support the regime?
FAYYAD: Our previous ties with the regime are linked to one specific issue related to the necessity of establishing a balance against Israel in a complicated regional struggle, whereby Israel receives all forms of international support and for the sake of having regional depth. Our ties with the regime were strictly tied to these considerations.
RS: And regarding the confrontations on the boarder?
FAYYAD: Regarding the new leadership in Syria, we are not looking for trouble and we adopt the stance of the Lebanese state that called for balanced ties between the two countries. But we underscore the importance of protecting minorities, respecting freedoms and not having a new oppressive leadership in Syria. We are also keeping an eye on the stance of the new leadership in Syria towards Israel. This stance is confusing and poses a lot of questions, as Israel infiltrated and occupied Syrian territory without any stance taken from the new leadership. This is something strange from every legal and political standpoint which you wouldn’t find in any other country.
The confrontations (on the Lebanese Syrian border) have been linked to smuggling and smuggling gangs, but we believe it is more than that. It aims to put political pressure on Lebanon, and what we want is for the eastern northern borders to be stable.
