Beirut brought together on the same day, the day before yesterday, all the contradictions and disputes that rankle in the region. Perhaps it was coincidence which determined that the Lebanese capital would host together US Administration representative and Advisor to the President, General James Jones, and the leaders of movements opposed to United States policy under the name of “Resistance Forces”. Yet it is no coincidence for the Lebanese scene to turn into an arena for the struggle between the two sides, at the level of the media and of politics, so far at least, while officials in the Lebanese state try to indulge and humor both sides, being in effect incapable of choosing. This indicates, at the Lebanese level, that resolving the disputes that have erupted in the country since 2005 has become quite likely on the ground, even if its components and its motives remain the same. It is such a likelihood that places state officials in rickety positions, between the fixation on strengthening the state and making use of international support, and the fear from the effects of the balance of power on the ground. This is what the “Resistance” has become aware of and what it seeks to make use of to the furthest extent, by way of making its policy and its views the policy and views of the state. That is what has imposed itself, at least partially, on the talks of Lebanese officials with Jones, as with other international officials before him. At the Arab level, the forum of Arab “Resistance Forces”, by what the extension of each of its main branches (Hezbollah, the Hamas movement and the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq) represents, expresses the nature of the classification it seeks after in the Arab region, between fundamentalist and extremist forces taking the forefront of the battle against the enemy, and between other Arab countries and forces, invited to join “the Resistance” or condemned and accused of conspiring with the enemy. Such a classification is based on the rule that force and weapons are the only way to freedom from US hegemony, as are continuing to defeat it and to thwart its plans in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. Such plans bear the slogans of implementing UN Resolutions in Lebanon, a political solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis and strengthening the political process in Iraq; in other words, everything the Arab world has officially adopted at summits, and what its main forces, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are striving for. Regardless of the contradictions that exist between “Resistance” forces, especially Hezbollah and the Association of Muslim Scholars, they are all connected in what used to be called the forces of “defiance” confronting the forces of “moderation”, which speakers targeted at their forum in Beirut. Yet it seems that the atmosphere of Arab reconciliation can no longer bear the presence of “defiance” and “moderation” at the level of countries, thus turning “defiance” into “resistance”, one which would gather movements and political parties unashamed to persist in targeting Arab “moderation”. And if Egypt has attracted the lion's share of the campaign and of “demonization”, it is because that is what is least embarrassing, and also because there is a major Egyptian force that is present yet absent alongside the “Resistance”, a force represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, the presence of which is expected to grow in strength on the internal scene with its new General Leader, Mohammed Badi, known for his stringency.
