J. Archibald is Visiting Professor, Université Libanaise and Director,Department of Translation Studies, McGillUniversity

The Arab world is in turmoil. Autocracies are falling or in danger of falling all around. Other autocrats are shivering in their boots as they watch the old leaders of the Arab League fall one by one gradually pushed out by peoples who have found their voice. In the midst of all this Lebanon watches and waits. Yes, waits and waits. But that is an accepted way of doing politics in this bastion of “participative democracy” built on the nostalgic dreams of a Lebanese-style French Republic.

So, why is Lebanon watching? Why is she waiting? And in all this, why has Israel and the “Palestinian question” taken a backseat on the street in Beirut, Tripoli and Saida? First of all, Lebanon’s priority today is to defend the democratic institutions which all parties have worked so hard to preserve in a balancing act involving all those factions, both religious and political, which make-up this small but complex nation. Second, the state needs to bolster the economy, reduce under- and unemployment and maintain international confidence in a nation with great potential as one of the sole places in the region where reasonable accommodation between opposing parties and ethnicities may have a chance to survive.

Even though Israel and the Palestinian question may have taken a backseat for the time being, these issues are still very real, and resolving them fuels in great part the current struggle to form a “national unity government” where Hezbollah will have a seat at the table and where its fiery-tongued leader may play the role of kingmaker.

Nasrallah’s recent actions have focused on keeping his formation’s agenda in the fore: resistance, military capability and the people’s needs. But first on the agenda is resistance. Yes, resistance to the threat – perceived or real – and resistance to the military threat from Israel and from American interference in the domestic affairs of Lebanon. Nasrallah has to talk this talk to rally his own troops and to feed the myth that Israel is a real and present danger to state security and integrity. To resist one needs the military capability to defend the nation and the wherewithal to provide services to people in their everyday lives. Indeed, this three-pronged thrust sums-up rather neatly Hezbollah’s platform. The party needs to ensure that people understand how important its future action will be. Is this not one of the basic lessons of marketing: create the need, and then fill the orders?

Creating the need in this case means feeding a pervasive sense of anxiety. Nasrallah, a master in the art of getting his message out, has focused on the tribunal whose expected findings may point an accusing finger at Hezbollah and its links with both Syria and Iran in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Moreover, while maintaining this focus, Nasrallah must cast his movement in the role of the indefatigable defender of Lebanon who, on the one hand, is not in the pocket of the American-Israeli pact and, on the other, plays liberator and protector of the oppressed.

In the midst of all this, Senators McCain and Lieberman show-up on the scene for what the Lebanese press labeled a “lighting visit”. What was on their agenda? “Fact finding” under the imprimatur of the US Congress with a series of political leaders, reinforcement of the need to shed light on the Hariri assassination, and homage to the late Prime Minister who led what is commonly viewed as a pro-Western, that is pro-American, government. The picture which the press highlighted was of both senators placing a wreath at Hariri’s tomb in Martyrs Square was worth a thousand words. The message was clear.

Following a meeting with the Prime Minister designate, Nagib Mikati, the two former presidential candidates, morphed into spokesmen of bipartisanship, noted that in the current context of uncertainty in the Middle East and in North Africa, the international community should lend its support to the democratic process and the creation of a political climate which will lead to the formation of a functioning government in Lebanon. Motherhood some may say, but Lebanese politicians detected another message which reflects America’s distrust of Hezbollah and the potential disruptive geopolitical force it represents.

The reality is, however, that Hezbollah will be part of the new cabinet; it will have a voice, and the democratic process has wished it so. Determined to show his impermeability to foreign influences, Mikati stated emphatically that the Lebanese people and they alone will shape the new government and that it alone will decide what measures to take following the decision in the Hariri affair. Moreover, blatant and unabashed meddling by the United States in domestic politics will not be tolerated. That message decrypted means that Mikati cannot get in bed with the US and form at the same time a government of “national reconciliation”. So, we wait… Lebanon waits… Israel waits…

It is this waiting game which has given Nasrallah some power, because as all wait, he has the opportunity to react to the “growing potential threat” of Israel as Lebanon’s neighbor to the south has in the last few days reinforced its communication capabilities in the North and increased in a show of force the number of surveillance flights around Lebanese airspace. All this allows Nasrallah to increase the rhetoric to resist, to protect, to liberate and to envisage armed intervention proportionate to the perceived Israeli threat. On the other side of the border, Israel cannot ignore this bellicose language and must prepare proportionate preventive and retaliative measures should the current stability in Lebanon prove to be unsustainable.

Hezbollah and Israel share a common culture in what Bernard Lewis referred to as the Judeo-Islamic tradition: waiting. Sourate XXXVIII, Verse 42, reminds the faithful that waiting is a sign of faith, indeed, of hope in what the future may hold. That waiting is patience. Is Ayoub that different from Job?

Beirut, 25 February 2011