“National solidarity is a moral and political duty at this stage in Lebanon’s history. Support for our people in the South, the Bekaa and the suburbs [de Beyrouth] is the responsibility of all Lebanese, above all other considerations.” This message, published on X on September 24, was not written by a political ally of Hezbollah. But by former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri , whose father, Rafic Hariri, was assassinated in 2005 by members of the Lebanese Shiite paramilitary group.
It testifies to the gravity of the human losses inflicted by Israel on Lebanese civilians since its government shifted the “center of gravity” of the war “to the North” and launched a murderous bombing campaign on Lebanon. A new phase which follows eleven months of cross-border exchanges of fire with Hezbollah since the latter unilaterally opened, the day after the October 7 massacres in Israel, a “support front” for Hamas, its ally in Gaza. The deluge of comments which greeted this tweet sums up the complexity of the Lebanese feeling towards Hezbollah, oscillating between common hostility towards Israel and denunciation of the Shiite militia allied with Iran, against a backdrop of internal political fractures.
“Lebanese society is extremely polarized on the issue of Hezbollah,” explains Karim Bitar, professor of international relations. Faced with the violence of the Israeli offensive, which hits a large majority of civilians, we observe real solidarity with the inhabitants who are fleeing the South and the Bekaa plain. Notably, the Shiite party’s political opponents have even muted their criticism. But they judge the Party of God no less harshly. “The current emotion does not mean that Hezbollah will not be accused of having contributed to bringing Lebanon to this dramatic situation. Because given the collapse of its state institutions and its socio-economic disrepair, the country is not able to face a war of this magnitude and society is deeply traumatized,” continues Karim Bitar.
A destabilized population
Many Lebanese do not hide their despondency. “I am exhausted, no one wants this war. Whether for Hezbollah or Israel, our lives are worthless; we are caught in the middle of clashes that have lasted since Lebanon and Israel existed,” sighs Hanna, a old activist who has been passionate about all causes since the 1970s, but who today only thinks about his livelihood in a bankrupt country, without a pension system or health coverage.
Why did Hezbollah choose to open the front on October 8, despite the risk of setting Lebanon ablaze? Due to its strategic positioning in the “axis of resistance” to Israel led by Iran, “it was playing on its local and regional credibility”, analyzes a Western observer requested to remain anonymous. According to the same source, the organization armed by Iran has benefited so far from “relatively solid political support, in a Lebanese environment where this issue is highly sectarian and particularly complex. In addition to the Shiite community [NDLR : environ 30 % de la population]he could count in particular on the Sunnis and the Druze. Only Christians have expressed their reluctance very clearly, through their community leaders.”
“Protection contract” undermined
In a context of political vacancy in the Sunni community, deeply shaken by what it perceives as the martyrdom of the Palestinians, the anchoring of Hezbollah at the forefront of the defense of Gaza has clearly increased its popularity rating in this part of the population. “We witnessed spontaneous and massive solidarity initiatives in the Sunni neighborhoods of Tarik Jdide, in Beirut,” continues the same analyst, in reference to the blood donations organized after the sabotage operation of thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies civilian and military members of Hezbollah who killed dozens of people and injured hundreds. But the series of hard blows inflicted by Israel is now destabilizing the population which supports the Islamic resistance.
In a political system where leadership is structured communally, one of Hezbollah’s main assets is its “protection contract” with its social base based on the concept of military deterrence, despite the obvious imbalance of forces. This contract is today shaken, even if it is very far from being broken. During the previous war with Israel, in 2006, Hezbollah was still crowned by its struggle against 22 years of occupation (Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000). Today, people have doubts because of the seriousness of the relaxation of security. “I really don’t understand how they organized an emergency meeting of 20 leaders right after the pager attack which revealed how infiltrated the party was,” asks one supporter. “People ask simple questions, like why so many executives were eliminated so easily, to which there is no real answer,” continues the Western observer.
Criticism of the organization’s strategic choices is increasingly strong outside its ranks. “Hezbollah made a mistake again on October 8,” said Fadi Assaf, co-founder of the consultancy firm Middle East Strategic Perspective. Already, in 2006, he had, by his leader Hassan Nasrallah’s own admission, underestimated the Israeli response to what he thought was a simple prisoner exchange operation. Rather than seeking to recover its soldiers and carry out the exchange, the Jewish state razed the southern suburbs of Beirut (Dahieh in Arabic), considered a Hezbollah stronghold, implementing its new “Dahieh doctrine”, based on the disproportionate use of force. “This time, Hezbollah is trapped by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will stop at nothing to deploy all his power,” continues Fadi Assaf. However, if he committed himself on the basis of concerted action by all the actors of the axis of resistance [NDLR : l’Iran, les Houthis yéménites, les milices chiites irakiennes]he is among them the one who has taken the biggest risks and is threatened with losing the most.”
“Little applause, a lot of fear”
A weakening which encourages Hezbollah’s opponents to push their advantage. “One less” openly rejoices a Lebanese established in France on social networks, sharing the announcement of the elimination by an Israeli strike of a party official for the Mount Lebanon region. “Today there is very little applause [des opérations militaires du Hezbollah] and a lot of fear,” says Hanine Ghaddar, researcher at the Washington Institute, representative of the Shiites protesting the hegemony of Hezbollah.
This is precisely the objective of the “enemy”, warns Ibrahim el-Amine in an editorial inAl-Akhbara daily close to Hezbollah “For the first time, [les opérations] have touched the heart of trust between the resistance and its people”, he recognizes, calling on the supporters of the Party of God to keep their cool. For him, Israel has “no creativity outside the logic of pure violence and has not understood that the essential thing is to build a workable strategy”. An objective of de-escalation that no party at this stage seems able to initiate.
.