Hezbollah is justifying the participation of elements belonging to it in the ongoing civil fighting in Syria, by saying they are Lebanese nationals affiliated with the party, living in Syria and defending themselves in the face of the attacks staged by the armed Syrian opposition. Regardless of the position adopted by the party in defense of the Syrian regime, the Iranian authority which the party follows and which believes that the regime in Damascus is a red line – with what this means in terms of its readiness to fight alongside it – and the importance of these two factors, there is still a legal facet related to the presence of armed Lebanese citizens in another state, whose use of their weapons is being justified. This brings back to mind the commotion that was raised when a Lebanese television channel aired a comedy show, stating that Hezbollah will engage in fighting wherever there are Shiites suffering injustice around the world. This right, which the party granted itself and its elements, means on a deeper level that the party has actually exited the context of the Lebanese nation state, despite the fact that its leaders keep saying otherwise on various occasions. It also means that the party is unconcerned about the fate of the nation state in Lebanon, except to the extent to which it serves its supra-nation state project. In that sense, the fighting in which the party's elements are engaged in the Syrian villages near the Lebanese border - up to the town of Al-Qusayr and Homs' outskirts - cannot be dissociated from its insistence on the Orthodox election law in Lebanon. Indeed, this law enhances the sectarian system, eliminates any common denominator between the Lebanese, and undermines their chances of establishing their nation state, instating equality among them at the level of their rights and obligations, and limiting the right to carry weapons to the state. The party used the pretext of a clause featured in the Taif Accord about Lebanon's right to resist to keep its weapons, knowing this clause was included based on Syrian will. But the party violated this constituent accord when it considered that its weapons were a private matter and that it had the right to use them to achieve goals having nothing to do with the establishment of the state of coexistence between the Lebanese. Also in that sense, it exited the spirit of the Lebanese constitution, and confirmed this exit when it rushed to support the Orthodox law, after it exited the nation state with its transnational project. There is an old discussion surrounding the nature of the Lebanese system which stemmed from the Taif Accord, one which was settled with a fatwa from the Iranian guide in favor of participation in Lebanese political life. And consequently, the party entered parliament, then the government. But it turned out later on that this participation did not transform it into a “Lebanese" party, i.e. one belonging to the nation and working in the context of the state, and all those who wagered on the Lebanese identity of the party, whether inside or outside of Lebanon, lost their wager. But on the other hand, the party benefitted – in the context of its supra Lebanese project – from Lebanese official protection, especially at the level of the international dealings with it and its classification by some countries as a terrorist organization. It was always said, particularly when it came to Lebanese foreign policy, that any attack against the party – in light of the series of accusations made against it – would undermine stability in Lebanon. This argument was put forward in the case of the explosion in Bulgaria and the party's accusation of being behind it. The intention at this point is neither to incriminate nor exonerate the party from its responsibility for the explosion, but to say that its participation in Lebanese political life provided it with an international cover, at a time when its role, despite this participation, went against the constitution and its spirit.
