Naim Qassem, Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah, is a “party theorist” just like Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet statesman during the Cold War, and Michel Aflaq, the Former Secretary General of the National Command of the Iraq-based Ba’ath Party.
Qassem’s statements truly represent Hezbollah’s official viewpoint, as well as one of its ideas that must be considered.
Qassem’s most recent beliefs concern “the identity of Lebanon,” as Hezbollah desires, and he asks, “Which Lebanon do we want?” Do we want a strong or a weak Lebanon? Do we want a dependent or an independent Lebanon? Are we seeking a Lebanon that accepts instructions or one that shapes its own future? We stand with Lebanon, which desires the future of its generations as well as independence and strength. This is Lebanon, which has achieved a global reputation as a result of its struggle and triumphs. This is the Lebanon we want, therefore whomever wants to join it should, and whoever does not, should find another option. We are the ones who resemble Lebanon, not you, since whoever is identified with a country must be associated with it as a free and autonomous ruler.”
Is there a more eloquent statement than this?
According to “theorist” Naim Qassem, Lebanon’s identity is defined as follows:
“Lebanon of the Resistance,” which means “Lebanon of Hezbollah,” and “anyone does not want it, let him seek another solution,” implying that he wants the Lebanese to “join” the Lebanon that Hezbollah desires.
This challenge is intended to compel the others, all the others, without exception: parties and currents, to speak out: Do they want “Lebanon, Hezbollah”? What will their reaction be? Is it stillness, which is frequently seen as a “symbol of contentment”?
What Sheikh Qassem is suggesting is hazardous, as if he wants to tell the Lebanese that regardless of the outcome of the legislative elections next year and the Parliament that will emerge from them, Hezbollah has already decided what it wants!
This is the idea of “democracy” in which Hezbollah believes; if you do not answer, you will be either accepting or yielding, and in all three situations, history will not be kind to you.
Who among you would dare to speak aloud: This is not our Lebanon that Hezbollah want, and the location of this “Lebanon” is not in Lebanon?
The first response is due to Hezbollah’s partner, the Free Patriotic Movement, which has been affiliated to it through a memorandum of understanding since March 2006. Does it react to it? Or that he is unable to answer due to electoral considerations?