Hezbollah FPM Understanding Marks Four Years of Success

On the 6th of February 2006, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah and the head of the Free Patriotic Movement General Michel Aoun signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) at the Saint Michael church; a symbol for the civil war era (1975-1990) when the church and the adjacent “green line” used to separate between Muslims and Christians in western and eastern Beirut. The event took place almost a year after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut; a schemed murder that split the Lebanese and pushed the country to the verge of a new civil war.

THE RIOTS OF FEBRUARY 5
Lebanon was divided between the March 8 and the March 14 (named by then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the Cedars Revolution) blocs.
The ambitions of the Christians had shattered after the so called “Cedars Revolution” monopolized power and turned against its own allies.

On the eve of the 5th of February 2006, one day before the MOU was signed, then Interior Minister Hasan Sabaa, held a security meeting and announced that a demonstration was going take place outside the Danish embassy in Ashrafiyyeh. He also said that the orders were not to confront the demonstrators. Sabaa also banned the use of live bullet rounds by police in the area. The demonstration was aimed at protesting against the publication of insulting cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) in a Danish newspaper. It was called for by Muslims affiliated with the March 14 bloc.

The morning of February 5 saw the destruction of private and public properties including churches and the torching of the some building near the embassy. The head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea urged his supporters through media outlets not to confront the demonstrators, given the fact that they are “allies” from the Mustakbal (Future) movement of then MP Saad Hariri.
The riot and the havoc continued for several hours. Geagea had to retreat his morning statement with another calling on minister Sabaa to resign.
The interior ministry announced later in the evening that police had arrested 160 rioters. Most of them were later released under a “special pardon” and pressure by the Future Movement. March 14 Christians expressed disappointment at how their leaders had handled the March 5 riots. Christians in Ashrafiyyeh realized that it was the first time that the performance of allies (Future – Lebanese Forces) could cause that much damage.

MOU RESULTS IN NEW REALITY OF COEXISTENCE
The MOU however, resulted in a new reality of coexistence in Lebanon.

It was not before the historical event that most of the Lebanese really felt that civil war in Lebanon was over. The MOU introduced a patriotic model of a freewill agreement, between different political groups, on a project to build a community and a strong, capable, and fair state for free compatriots.

THE UNDERSTANDING SURMOUNTS CHALLENGES
The first challenge was the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. After the resistance captured two Israeli soldiers, General Aoun declared that Hezbollah had engaged in “pure military action,” not a terrorist attack, at a time so called moderates inside and outside Lebanon were slamming the resistance as a group of adventurers. Hezbollah took over defending Lebanon militarily while Aoun, a former army commander, backed the resistance politically and socially. FPM supporters shared their houses, food and clothes with their displaced compatriots from south Lebanon and Dahiyeh (Beirut’s southern suburb.) The MOU was against the interests of both Israel and the United States. The FPM understanding with Hezbollah made General Aoun, according to intelligence reports, a main target for Israeli warplanes during the war.

Like Hezbollah, Aoun also earned the ire of Israel and Washington by publicly calling for the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to their homeland Palestine in line with their internationally recognized right of return.

The second challenge emerged right after the 33-day war ended; this time with an illegitimate government. Muslim Shiite ministers resigned from their posts to protest the PM Fouad Saniora’s handling of post-war efforts to compensate people and rebuild devastated areas, thus rendering Saniora’s government inconsistent with the National Charter and the constitution that stipulates main sects be represented in any cabinet.
Hezbollah, the FPM and other opposition parties held a 537-day sit-in in downtown Beirut to demand the government step down and improve living conditions in Lebanon. Eventually, Saniora did not resign.

Then came June 7, 2008. On that day, zero hour was set to embark in an action aimed at distorting the image of the Islamic Resistance, the armed wing of Hezbollah. After long hours of deliberations, in the absence of the five Shiite ministers, the Cabinet decided to consider the resistance’s private communications network illegal, knowing it played a major role in repelling the 2006 Israeli war. News reports said that Saniora’s government was reluctant to take such controversial decision and that pressure from Washington was behind adopting it.
The Cabinet decision developed into armed confrontations in Beirut, but the understanding between Hezbollah and the FPM prevented the bid to take the country into the abyss. The anti-resistance attempt backlashed and March 14 bloc leaders agreed to a Qatari initiative that later became known as the Qatar Agreement.

When feuding parties returned from Qatar after having agreed on a set of long waited measures, a government was formed and Aoun’s party was part of it. Three and a half years after the understanding, the March 14 bloc tumbled down, parliamentary elections were held and a new government was formed. Al-Mustakbal’s leader Saad Hariri was named Prime Minister and the new Policy Statement underlined the necessity and legitimacy of the resistance. The remnants of March 14 were dealt a severe blow when MP Walid Jumblatt withdrew from the bloc and when PM Saad Hariri paid a visit to Syria crowning regional reconciliations and rapprochements mainly between Riyadh and Damascus.

Much of everything has changed in Lebanon since the Hezbollah-FPM understanding in 2006. It is no longer seen as an understanding between two wide popular movements, but it has become an effective model to enhance confidence and hope among the Lebanese and to build a prosperous, indivisible Lebanon that is immune from occupation or schemes of appropriation. It is an understanding that constitutes a much needed entrance to any broader national understanding.