��������Ƶ

The latest speech made by new Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem was extremely important for several reasons, in terms of both its timing and content.
Broadcast on Saturday, it was Qassem’s first speech since the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, which was brokered by the US and France, with Washington playing the leading role.
It was natural, indeed necessary, for the party to address its “sectarian” community, the broader national community and the regional community, given that its “unity of the arenas” was among the pretexts for this war.
Given the significant losses sustained by Hezbollah, many Lebanese keenly sought to find signs that a different approach would be taken by its leadership or that it would undertake a serious assessment and draw lessons for the future.
It was clear that the new secretary-general wanted his speech to serve two goals: to speak to the popular base and announce positions and commitments relating to both domestic and international actors. The sharp contrast between the segments of the speech addressed to these different audiences was stark, but it was to be expected after a costly military gamble that Qassem implicitly acknowledged and that the political and military commentators affiliated with the party and its base openly admitted.
Boosting morale after a real catastrophe struck dozens of cities, towns and villages from the far south of Lebanon to the far north (including the southern suburb of Beirut known as Dahiyeh, which is Hezbollah’s nerve center and where decisions are made) was undoubtedly a core objective of the speech.
Another major priority was reaffirming the principles that the party’s literature has emphasized for decades, for which sacrifices were made and slogans and narratives woven together and recited by party members, sometimes without any skepticism or even thinking.
To ensure that the speech served these major functions, the secretary-general emphasized that “a major victory greater than that of July 2006” had been achieved. “We won because we prevented the enemy from destroying Hezbollah; we won because we prevented it from ending the resistance or weakening it to a point where it couldn’t act,” he added.
He also highlighted three elements. Firstly, the length of the “Israeli assault” (implying that Israel could not decide the conflict quickly) and the party’s resilience in the face of this ferocious battle. Secondly, the American and Western support for Israel. Thirdly, the losses that Israel has sustained over the past year as a result of the party’s strikes, including the displacement of hundreds of thousands from northern Israel, while stressing that the resistance’s endurance left Israel without any other options.
Regarding the second half of this segment, the narrative of principles, the key points were: reiterating Hezbollah’s commitment to its special relationship with the Iranian leadership and its regional allies; and continuing support for Palestine, albeit “in different ways.”
He also emphasized that the ceasefire agreement is not “a new treaty,” or “an agreement requiring the signature of foreign countries.” Instead, it is a set of “measures” regarding the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which “the party had already agreed to.” The agreement “did not violate Lebanon’s sovereignty, and we agreed to it with our heads held high and insisting on our right to defend ourselves.”
All of the above is understandable. It is meant to keep the party and its base content, but other Lebanese communities have different opinions. The most amusing reflection of this disagreement was the viral clip of Lebanese Forces MP Ghayath Yazbeck’s bewildered body language as he stood behind Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah as he made an “absurd” statement about the party’s “victory” and its continued commitment to the “trinity of the army, the people and the resistance.”
One television broadcaster popular with Yazbeck’s community did not miss the opportunity to unpack Fadlallah’s claims with a report on the war through figures. The report addressed the realities of the territories controlled by both Israeli and Hezbollah forces, the extent of the destruction and the number of dead, wounded, prisoners, displaced and missing, including political and military leaders.

Returning to the discourse of treason accusations will not resolve political disputes and obstinate denial cannot build a nation.

Eyad Abu Shakra

Despite this, I believe the Lebanese should turn the page on the experiences and pains of the past year and look forward to the future.
Returning to the discourse of treason accusations will not resolve political disputes and obstinate denial cannot build a nation. Attempts to monopolize solutions, just like attempts to monopolize patriotism, are the most effective way to accelerate political, economic, security and institutional collapse.
The “60-day period” that ended the bloodshed and stopped the destruction machine might not work miracles, but it offers an opportunity to pause and reflect, to bury the victims, rebuild what was destroyed and catch our breath.
Lighting a candle is a thousand times better than cursing the darkness. A good start might be to respect the terms of the ceasefire agreement until Jan. 9, the date of the proposed parliamentary election of a consensus president who can at least maintain the symbolic existence of the state.
In a region like the Middle East, where victories and defeats are like betrayal or a point of view, mistakes are very costly.
Our world is currently without a compass. Established democracies are reeling under the blows of racist populism and ruthless greed. Human values, even in the most advanced societies, are on the verge of being sidelined and disappearing in the face of the terrifying, rampant force of technology.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949 This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.