The situation in Lebanon is very sophisticated. During the 17-month internal dispute both the loyalists and opponents have made mistakes, and taken provocative action. Although the discussion of these shortcomings is beyond the scope of the article, nobody can agree with what Hezbollah has done.
What happened in Gaza last year and in Beirut today proves that Islamists, despite minor differences in belief and priorities, have the same outlook. Whatever the position they adopt, they are strictly conditioned to believe on in their assessment of the situation, leaving no room for others to contest their views nor positions.
This inherent belief profoundly demonstrates that Islamists don t approach society from an equal position with other political groups. Instead They take a superior stance, claiming that they are the only group who own the truth to determine right and wrong. Thus Islamists always have two contradictory faces, which make them argue and support conflicting views at the same time. If they feel weaker than others, they prefer to center their rhetoric on co-existence, peace, dialogue. But if they feel stronger, they automatically rely on their muscles to gain more ground.
This means that Islamists constantly consider themselves to be the only ones who are right. Not surprisingly, they are regularly found swimming alone, and deciding on sensitive issues without deliberations neither with the ruling elite nor the opposition.
For example, while Egyptian nationalists and leftists severely criticize foreign countries that have troops in Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood s elected members in the People Assembly accepted the invitation of some of these countries ambassadors to talk about domestic politics. When asked why, they said that they are a part of legislative power and should act in accordance with that.
This argument is totally unconvincing, simply because Islamists themselves constantly demand a harsh government position towards foreign troops sweeping the region.
A few days before the situation erupted in Lebanon, Sheikh Youssef Al Qaradawy, one of the most prominent Islamic clergymen in the Islamic world, met with three Jewish religious leaders, one of them an Israeli. If any other intellectual or political figure had done that, he would be accused of normalization with Israel, and of co-operating with the enemies against Islam. These accusations, in most cases come from Islamists themselves. Hezbollah s militias have seized control of some parts of Beirut, killing some Lebanese and burning media outlets belonging to its adversaries, the 14th of March alliance. Last year, Hamas did the same in Gaza, leaving a strong divide between Palestinians themselves.
It is time for Islamists, if they seriously support democracy, to condemn what happened in Beirut. This is by all means, an illegitimate use of violence by the only armed Lebanese militia, left for years for the sake of the struggle against Israel. Last year, Islamists tried restlessly to market what Hamas did as a sign of their liberation from the Israeli-backed Palestinian authority.
Today, Hezbollah has a similar argument, justifying what they did in Beirut as a reaction to an illegitimate Lebanese government working as an agent for Washington, Tele Aviv, Paris, and some Arab countries.
It is not an appropriate time to tackle the 16-month Lebanese standoff, but it is important now to sound a flagrant condemnation of what Hezbollah dared to do. Lebanon is a very sensitively pluralistic society, which lives only on the consensus of its people, and breaks down if one of its components tries to supersede all others.
Islamists have to say clearly and vehemently No to violence. If they remain reluctant, it means they still believe in violence. How can anyone believe their claims of seeking democracy?
Sameh Fawzyis an Egyptian journalist, PhD researcher, and specialist on governance and citizenship.
