This squarely puts Hezbollah at odds with the Lebanese government and Israel seeks to capitalise on the internal tensions within Lebanon. Through its massive retaliation against that country, it hopes to turn the Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims and Druze of Lebanon against the pre-dominantly Shia Hezbollah. In other words, while the entire country suffers from the ongoing violence, the interests of Hezbollah and the non-Shia population of Lebanon are not co-terminus.

At another level, the conflict also exhibits the inability of the Lebanese government to exercise complete control over its territory. For nearly three decades, Lebanon has been used as a battle field for not only Israel and Syria but also Hezbollah and various Palestinian militant groups. Until the summer of 2000, for nearly two decades, much of southern Lebanon remained under Israeli occupation.

The position of Syria was more enduring. Like the position of Saddam Hussein vis-a-vis Kuwait, the Syrian leadership never recognized the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon. It had never reconciled to the formation of Lebanon and hence never recognized Lebanon as a sovereign state. Not many would know that the Syrian representative in Beirut was called ‘Governor’ and not Ambassador. Hence the UN Security Council Resolution 1680 adopted in May categorically called on Damascus to “establish full diplomatic relations and representation” with Beirut and recognize “Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.”

Three, since the April 2005 hasty withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as the principal supporter of Syrian interests in Lebanon. Despite the ideological differences between the Islamic militants and the Ba’athist rulers in Damascus, since the founding of Hezbollah in the early 1980s Syria has remained its principal patron, supporter and supplier.

... contd.