The pro-opposition Lebanese daily As-Safir featured an article yesterday illustrating how Hezbollah is dealing with the political fallout of its recent “small war” against the country's ruling majority. Despite the potential political risks involved with this move, the author states that the group apparently saw its actions as worth taking in order to safeguard its status as 'the Resistance’ in the long-term. Nonetheless, he asserts that the group now sees it necessary to contain the effects of the battle at both the “political and psychological levels”.
Allegations that the group's campaign sparked sectarian tensions between Beirut's Sunnis and Shias – a key criticism leveled by the group's opponents – are addressed as well. In fact, the author states that Hezbollah refuses to concede that its “preemptive strike” is what awoke these sectarian sentiments. Instead, its representatives argue that other parties had previously been working to “activate” these emotions, and continue to do so even after the cessation of fighting in Beirut, thus implicitly attributing culpability to entities within the pro-government March 14 coalition for any sectarian discord.
In an apparent attempt to downplay the physical impact of the group's takeover, an unidentified Hezbollah party official compares the damage left in the wake of the event to the marks left behind from laser surgery, rather than scars that would result from the “cutting open [of one's] stomach”, stating that a mark “here or there” was left on the body of Beirut, not a “severe hemorrhaging wound” that would require years of treatment. However, the article also states that members of the pro-government Future Movement contend that the violence did inflict serious damage by deepening differences between Hezbollah and the Sunni 'street’.
In the aftermath of this 'surgical procedure’, the article states that Hezbollah is now working diligently to prevent the renewed polarization of Shia-Sunni differences, accusing the majority of exaggerating talk of sectarian discord in order to use it as a “profitable commodity” in the Sunni street to rally against the opposition. It is alleged that such an environment would then be employed by the majority at the ballot box in future parliamentary elections to make “political gains” and to collect “electoral dividends”.
In order to address the concerns of Beirut's citizens regarding the events of May, Hezbollah has allegedly started to consult with the city's local entities and governing bodies to clear the air. The article also states that phone lines have also been kept open to receive any complaints, while the party is also preparing to meet with the Union of Beirut Families to discuss these matters. Simultaneously, Hezbollah's representative, Amin Shiri, is said to be consulting with concerned parties in Beirut in order to explain the true motives behind Hezbollah's actions. He is to stress that the group's takeover was an act of self-defense to prevent the Resistance from being stabbed in the back in “broad daylight” by the government's two controversial decisions: the dismantling of the group's communications network and the removal of a pro-opposition official as the head of airport security.
Now that the feuding parties appear to have reached a compromise via the Arab-sponsored Doha talks, will Hezbollah's ‘damage control’ strategy help facilitate a smooth transition towards normalcy? Perhaps, only time will tell whether or not the wounds endured in the May conflict will reopen once again.
