Two prevailing perspectives shape the relationship between Hezbollah and Christians, or the political Shia's relationship with the key figures and factions within the Christian forces.
The term "political Shia" is used in this context for two reasons. Firstly, it reflects the dominant and prevailing alignment between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement in political and strategic directions. Secondly, it acknowledges the occurrence of disagreements between one of the factions and the Free Patriotic Movement.
This ongoing dispute between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Amal Movement leads to the consideration that the Free Patriotic Movement believes that Hezbollah often prioritizes its relationship with Nabih Berri over its relationship with them.
The first perspective originates from a fundamental question: whether the current developments lead to increased divergence between Christians and Shiites. These developments are grounded in political tensions, the lack of consensus during presidential elections, and the growing inclination among Christians to distance themselves from Hezbollah.
The second perspective suggests the potential positive impact of these developments on the relationship between Christians and Shia, possibly leading to a reconciliation between the two sides.
The relationship between Christians and Shiites in Lebanon spans multiple eras. With the establishment of Greater Lebanon and beyond, relations were governed by political alliances that continued even after the election of Bachir Gemayel alongside Kamel al-Assad. An objective convergence between them was also evident in their shared rejection of the activities of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon and the south.
The political relationship fractured with the rise of the Amal Movement and later Hezbollah, which aligned with a certain political direction taken by General Michel Aoun, who opposed the Taif Agreement. However, the divergence between these groups has always persisted, and it was reinforced during the political settlement that shaped Lebanon throughout the 1990s.
After the assassination of President Rafik Hariri, popular sentiments among Christians shifted towards animosity with Hezbollah. There were demands from party supporters for Michel Aoun's return from exile and Samir Geagea's release from prison.
At that point, a perceived objective divergence emerged, as Hezbollah felt isolated. It sought to break this isolation by expanding its alliances, leading to the creation of the "Memo of Understanding" with the Free Patriotic Movement. Before this, or possibly in tandem, a series of bombings occurred in Christian areas in 2005. Although no one claimed responsibility for these bombings, they did not result in casualties. Explosions took place every week for four weeks in various Christian areas, as if someone aimed to instill fear among Christians, with the notion that the existing division would lead to negative consequences for them.
This situation was further exacerbated by the notable protest towards the Danish embassy, which was organized by committed or extremist factions. The events that followed reinforced a social and "cultural" divide between Sunnis and Christians. This was in contrast to the narrative presented during the March 14 period, which promoted a unified image of Lebanon. Sunnis, during that time, returned to the slogan "Lebanon first."
All these political developments led to a clear Christian division. One faction aligned with Sunnis and Druze, while the other, represented by the Free Patriotic Movement, aligned with Hezbollah. This vertical division prompted questions about the impact of these intermittent security events on the consolidation of the alliance between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement. However, the mutual interests between the two sides couldn't be overlooked.
With the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, its militarization, and the influx of extremist forces like ISIS and al-Nusra, Hezbollah declared its intervention in that war to defend Shiite and Christian sites, particularly in Maaloula, Sednaya, and others. Hezbollah emphasized the slogan of preemptively defending Lebanon from terrorism entering the country and targeting Christian areas, aiming to prevent their displacement. This intervention solidified the objective alliance between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, with Christian solidarity extended to Hezbollah.
However, this wave of understanding and solidarity began to wane after Michel Aoun assumed the presidency of Lebanon. Aoun believed that Hezbollah's relationship with Nabih Berri had come at his expense and that of his presidency. As the level of disagreement increased amidst economic collapse, banking sector deterioration, and the failure of most Lebanese sectors, including the Beirut port explosion, which was a decisive blow to any Christian-Shiite political convergence.
To maintain stability, negotiations between the two sides began and continue to this day. These, However, this wave of understanding and solidarity began to wane after Michel Aoun assumed the presidency of Lebanon. Aoun believed that Hezbollah's relationship with Nabih Berri had come at his expense and that of his presidency. As the level of disagreement increased amidst economic collapse, banking sector deterioration, and the failure of most Lebanese sectors, including the Beirut port explosion, which was a decisive blow to any Christian-Shia political convergence.
Disagreements further escalated regarding the presidential candidacy, as the political Shia opted for Sleiman Frangieh, the head of the Marada Movement, as president. This choice was vehemently rejected by the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, which initially fostered a political rupture between the two sides. Eventually, the "presidential crisis" brought them together, initiating direct dialogues between them. The idea was that if a mutual understanding couldn't be reached, the path to the presidency would lead to the Commander of the Army, Joseph Aoun. This placed Gebran Bassil between two options: either Sleiman Frangieh or Joseph Aoun.
To maintain stability, negotiations between the two sides began and continue to this day. Amidst these negotiations, the Kahaleh incident and the Ain Ebel incident occurred, raising questions about whether these events would complicate Bassil's negotiations with Hezbollah or create an opportunity for understanding. Bassil sought an agreement where Hezbollah would need to regain some of its support among Christians in exchange for providing Bassil with gains that would enhance his position in the upcoming government. However, this would not deviate from Bassil's fundamental principle in such situations: to reject escalation or war to prevent the displacement of Christians. Thus, the necessity of returning to an understanding with Hezbollah remains to preserve stability, security, and safety and to avoid returning to the experiences of war or autonomous regions.