TIME or Hezbollah: Who’s telling the truth?

An interview in “Time” magazine has prompted heated debate in Lebanon.

Did the magazine really conduct an interview with one of those accused of assassinating former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri?  Did the defendant really say that the Lebanese authorities are aware of his current whereabouts but cannot arrest him?

We will wait for the debate to verify whether this meeting actually took place. This is something that requires more courage on the part of the US magazine, namely to reveal some of the information regarding the circumstances of the interview, whilst retaining the journalistic right to protect its sources.

In any case, the magazine’s management confirmed that the interview took place, whilst Hezbollah denied this.

However, we can now clearly see the parity between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state – which falls under its protection – particularly with regards to this interview.

Hezbollah, via its private, affiliate media, launched a campaign claiming that Time magazine’s Beirut-based correspondent, Nicholas Blanford – who published an editorial on the sidelines of this interview with the [Hezbollah] defendant – did not conduct this interview.

But why did this interview and this particular quote – in which the defendant allegedly derided the Lebanese state’s ability to arrest him – arouse the ire of Hezbollah, particularly when Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said something very similar just a few weeks ago?

Didn’t Nasrallah say that no one will be able to touch the accused, even after three hundred years?

The Lebanese public is completely gripped by the details of this interview, and the debate surrounding it, in the same manner as they were following Nasrallah’s previous comments that nobody would be able to touch the accused.

Prime Minister Najib Mikati quickly visited Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri after the interview was published, whilst former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri issued a statement of condemnation, and Hezbollah issued a statement denying the interview had ever taken place.

Prime Minister Mikati’s problem with Hezbollah is that Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah had previously announced that nobody would be able to arrest the accused.  In this context, the interview’s content does not constitute a significant departure from what Nasrallah had previously laid out, with regards to himself and the government.

Yet Hezbollah’s eagerness to deny the interview is strange. This suggests a lack of internal harmony with Nasrallah’s logic.  In other words, Hezbollah responding to Mikati’s request for them to deny that this interview took place contains an implicit acknowledgement that Lebanon does not want to publicize a confrontation with the international community.  Therefore Hezbollah has put itself to the test, and failed to achieve its desired results.

The second strange issue is Hezbollah daring to question the credibility of a media outlet that enjoys an esteemed reputation, and so this is a battle that Hezbollah lost on another level.

Yet it would be naïve to believe that Hezbollah has suffered a blow here. It is more likely that the internal messages garnered from the interview impressed Hezbollah’s allies and harmed Prime Minister Mikati, whose reputation was most affected by the interview’s revelations. More importantly, it revealed the fragility of the face that Lebanon is presenting to the world.  This is a fragility that Hezbollah is attempting to hide, as this is in its own interests.