"When a peace agreement is concluded between the Lebanese government and Israel, we would surely disagree with the Lebanese government about that, but we would not make any turmoil out of it"
About this Quote
Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of Hezbollah, threads a line between ideological rigidity and political pragmatism. By saying that if the Lebanese state were to conclude a peace treaty with Israel his movement would disagree but not create turmoil, he frames Hezbollah as a disciplined Lebanese actor that recognizes the primacy of national institutions even while rejecting normalization with Israel. The message is aimed as much at domestic rivals as at external observers: Hezbollah is not seeking a return to civil war-era fragmentation, and it wants to preserve its image as part of a consensual political order.
The context is the post-civil war landscape shaped by the Taif Agreement, Syrian tutelage, and the unresolved conflict with Israel, which occupied southern Lebanon until 2000. Hezbollah built legitimacy as a resistance force while gradually entering parliament and cabinet. That dual identity required constant reassurance that its weapons were not tools for internal coercion. Nasrallahs phrasing draws a line between political dissent and destabilization, signaling that strategic choices like a peace deal, however objectionable to Hezbollahs worldview, should be contested within the political arena rather than through street battles.
Yet the statement also carries ambivalence. It does not concede the ideological point, nor does it clarify whether a formal peace would compel disarmament or end Hezbollahs claim to resist. In later years Hezbollah has accepted state-led negotiations of a technical kind, such as the US-brokered maritime border arrangement with Israel in 2022, while insisting that it did not amount to recognition. That pattern echoes the balance here: rejectionism without domestic rupture.
Ultimately, Nasrallah situates Hezbollah within a Lebanese logic of national consensus, asserting that contestation can be intense but contained. It is a bid to reassure that the movements veto on war and peace is political, not an open-ended license to plunge Lebanon into turmoil.
The context is the post-civil war landscape shaped by the Taif Agreement, Syrian tutelage, and the unresolved conflict with Israel, which occupied southern Lebanon until 2000. Hezbollah built legitimacy as a resistance force while gradually entering parliament and cabinet. That dual identity required constant reassurance that its weapons were not tools for internal coercion. Nasrallahs phrasing draws a line between political dissent and destabilization, signaling that strategic choices like a peace deal, however objectionable to Hezbollahs worldview, should be contested within the political arena rather than through street battles.
Yet the statement also carries ambivalence. It does not concede the ideological point, nor does it clarify whether a formal peace would compel disarmament or end Hezbollahs claim to resist. In later years Hezbollah has accepted state-led negotiations of a technical kind, such as the US-brokered maritime border arrangement with Israel in 2022, while insisting that it did not amount to recognition. That pattern echoes the balance here: rejectionism without domestic rupture.
Ultimately, Nasrallah situates Hezbollah within a Lebanese logic of national consensus, asserting that contestation can be intense but contained. It is a bid to reassure that the movements veto on war and peace is political, not an open-ended license to plunge Lebanon into turmoil.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Hassan
Add to List
