The faces of Islam: Hizbullah is not just a political party with guns - it is a hugely popular element of Lebanese society, a member of its leadership tells Mary Fitzgerald
Ali Fayyad apologises for arriving more than 45 minutes late. "It is difficult to move around at the moment," he explains, glancing about furtively. "We have to be careful." His face, grizzled with three-day-old stubble, looks tired and his forehead is furrowed with permanent lines so deep that at first sight they look like scars.
Short and stocky, he is dressed unassumingly in khakis and short-sleeved cream shirt. He puts two mobile phones down on the table and orders an espresso.
Fayyad has good reason to be careful these days. A senior member of the Hizbullah leadership, this middle-aged university professor is considered one of the movement's most prominent thinkers. His office in the southern suburbs of Beirut is now a pile of rubble and the organisation he grew up with is locked in deadly battle with an old adversary, the twists and turns of which will decide its very future.
Hizbullah is many things to many people. To its millions of supporters among Lebanon's downtrodden Shia population, it is a resistance movement, a benevolent welfare network, and the hugely popular political party that finally gave them a voice in national government.
To its critics, however, it is a dangerous terrorist entity, a puppet of Tehran and Damascus, a band of radical Islamists to be viewed with suspicion and distrust.
Since its creation under Iranian patronage in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hizbullah has evolved in many respects from the organisation linked to attacks such as the 1983 suicide bombing of a US Marine bases in Beirut and held responsible for the spate of hostage taking during the civil war. It is now one of Lebanon's main political players, with a strong presence in parliament and a minister in the cabinet.
Yet it is still difficult to define. That same formidable political movement is also a private army that effectively controls southern Lebanon as a "state within a state" and is now blamed by many for dragging the country into an unwanted war. Before this crisis, some wondered how Hizbullah would complete the leap from armed resistance to mainstream political party, others were sceptical that it ever intended to do so.
In Lebanon Hizbullah's standing has never been clear cut. It runs hospitals, schools, orphanages and welfare services in deprived areas where its provision of water, electricity and other facilities often surpasses that of the government.
Outside its Shia base, the movement earned respect from many in Lebanon's other religious factions for driving Israel out of the south in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation. The Lebanese government has regularly declared Hizbullah a legitimate national resistance movement, most recently prime minister Fouad Siniora, an anti-Syria Sunni politician, described it as such. Hizbullah can also confound expectations in the interests of political expediency - leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah raised eyebrows earlier this year when he formed an unlikely alliance with Michel Aoun, a right-wing Christian and former Lebanese army general.
"Ask any Lebanese of any religious or political background and they will tell you that Hizbullah is one of the biggest and most popular political parties in the country," says Fayyad. "It is not just a party with guns. It is a hugely popular part of Lebanese society and combines religious belief and pragmatic reality in a very successful way. How can Israel get rid of something like that?" Its name, which means Party of God in Arabic, is inspired by a verse in the Koran: "And whoever takes Allah and his Messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah [ God] are they that shall be triumphant."
While Hizbullah's ideology and iconography are steeped in the traditions of Shia Islam, many see it as less a fully-fledged Islamist political organisation like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
"The religious aspect is the lowest rung on the ladder," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic who has written a book on Hizbullah. "It is first and foremost a resistance movement, second a political movement and only third would I define it a religious organisation. Yes, its ideology in the intellectual realm is religious but on the ground, politically and militarily, there's nothing religious.
"For Hizbullah Islam is more of an identity, motivation and will than it is a political programme. It doesn't seek to Islamicise society and has never, while in government, called for anything remotely Islamic. More than anything it could be compared to a leftist secular party committed to social justice."
Conceived three years after the Iranian Revolution ushered in the world's first experiment in political Islam, Hizbullah initially dreamt of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic republic like that of Iran, a goal later abandoned as unrealistic.
"Lebanon is a multireligious, multicultural society so it is not applicable to enforce a religious state here," says Ali Fayyad, who describes his organisation as "more modern" than Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. "Creating a religious state without the agreement of the people is senseless. That is why we adapt the democratic political way. The goal is to have a fair political system. That is our core philosophy."
Long before the current crisis erupted following Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, the organisation's disarmament had dominated national debate in Lebanon, reaching its highest pitch after Syria's troop withdrawal last year. Hizbullah has dragged its heels on the issue, refusing to comply with UN Resolution 1559, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of its militia.
Ali Fayyad says Hizbullah will give up its guns when Lebanon can defend itself, particularly against what he calls the Israeli threat. "Our weapons will stay only as long as there are defence issues. When the Lebanese government can defend itself, then there will be no need for Hizbullah.
"We know logic demands that a country's government alone should have weapons but how can the Lebanese government defend itself against Israel? Lebanon doesn't have the capacity to defend the Israeli army. There is an imbalance between the two countries and their capabilities."
Fayyad outlines the four outstanding issues Hizbullah wants addressed: the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel; the handing back of the disputed Shebaa Farms area, a tiny patch of land under Israeli control and bordered by Israel, Lebanon and Syria; an end to Israeli cross-border incursions; and information on the location of Israeli landmines scattered in southern Lebanon since 1982.
"When Hizbullah captured the two soldiers we wanted to close the first issue," he says. "If Israel had agreed to exchange the captured soldiers with our prisoners, the Shebaa farms issue would be next. If the international community had succeeded in making Israel withdraw from Shebaa, the remaining issue would be Israeli penetration of our borders. If we reached this stage, Hizbullah would be ready to agree with the Lebanese government a strategic way of defence - that is resolving the weapons issue.
"The government has always given the resistance the right to defend the south and get back our land. Even prime minister Siniora gave that right."
But many in Lebanon, in government and among the general public, are angry with Hizbullah for acting unilaterally when it stole across the Israeli border to seize the soldiers. They see this as proof that the presence within Lebanon of a militia that operates independently without government control can only bring instability to the country.
Fayyad's response is hardly convincing.
"The resistance cannot inform the government that it is going to capture something or someone at a particular time," he retorts. "It is impossible because those are military secrets. You cannot discuss something like that with 30 government ministers when each one has his own political beliefs."
Was Hizbullah surprised by the Israeli response to its actions this time round?
"No one expected this furious reaction of destruction and killing. Our goal was to capture those soldiers to secure the release of the Lebanese prisoners in Israel."
Does Hizbullah regret its actions, in light of what Lebanon has been plunged into these past weeks? "We feel a lot of pain due to the death and damage caused to the country, but we never regret the resistance or its actions. It has done a lot for this country and hopefully it will succeed now. Israel had this attack prepared some time ago, they had a scenario agreed with the Americans and applying it was just a matter of time." Critics of Hizbullah believe Iran and Syria are never far behind when it comes to the group's manoeuvrings, providing financial and military support to bolster their own interests in the region.
The largesse from Tehran is believed to amount to some $100 million yearly in the form of cash, goods and weapons, including an estimated 13,000 rockets and missiles.
"We don't hide our friendship with Iran and Syria and we acknowledge that we have intersecting aims and goals," says Fayyad. "We all have problems with Israel and the US but we are not just obeying or following Syria and Iran. We don't take orders from them. We are an independent Lebanese party and movement. If we share interests and goals with Syria and Iran, it doesn't mean we work for them. Is it OK that the US and Europe is behind Israel, but if we have support from Iran and Syria it's a big deal?"
Fayyad is vague when it comes to defining the exact nature of that support and will not be drawn on the details.
"The primary support is political, moral and social. Much of the Iranian support is towards rebuilding people's lives after the destruction of war. One thing I can say is we don't have financial problems." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused outrage earlier this year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and Hizbullah's leader has indulged in equally fiery pronouncements, once vowing to finish off "the entire cancerous Zionist project".
When Israel pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, Nasrallah declared: "We have liberated the south. Next we'll liberate Jerusalem." The organisation has faced criticism for couching its rhetoric regarding Israel in anti-Semitic language and imagery.
Ali Fayyad picks his words carefully when asked about the organisation's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We believe the geography of Palestine cannot allow for two states because one of the two will not be able to live. It is a small piece of land and its natural resources are limited. That's why we believe the only choice is to have one country, the historical one Palestine."
Does that mean the dismantling of the state of Israel? Fayyad's response is mealy-mouthed. "The answer isn't yes or no. It is more about having one country with all the citizens together, a country that is democratic, equal and not based on racism like the Israeli state today. We would call it Palestine." Fayyad smiles when asked about how Hizbullah has been affected by more than two weeks of Israeli bombardment and, in recent days, a ground offensive.
"Militarily, it hasn't affected Hizbullah much. The military structure of Hizbullah is still active, capable and strong. It can still send missiles and it is capable of resisting the Israeli army even though we don't have airplanes, we don't have tanks. The Lebanese people, however, have suffered too much."
Jan Egeland, the UN's humanitarian chief, this week accused Hizbullah fighters of contributing to the rising toll of civilian casualties by "cowardly blending in" among ordinary Lebanese. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men," Egeland said.
Fayyad is dismissive. "Who told him this? The Israelis? Hizbullah always does its best to avoid civilian areas. If you know the geography and nature of southern Lebanon, you know that there are no gaps between places, everything is close. That makes the conditions of battle difficult. Hizbullah tries as much as it can to be away from the citizens. Israel has destroyed the southern suburbs of Beirut."
Was Hizbullah firing rockets from southern Beirut? He reiterates Hizbullah's positions on a possible resolution of the crisis - it rejects proposals to deploy an international force in the zone north of the Israeli border with Lebanon and will only enter negotiations if Israel calls a ceasefire. Israel, for its part, has rejected calls for a ceasefire, insisting the two captured soldiers are released first.
"The only way to solve the problem is for Israel to stop the fighting without any conditions and then we move to indirect negotiations to trade the prisoners. The other issues will be looked at too but we won't give an opinion on those issues under fire," Fayyad says, acknowledging that a ceasefire appears to be a long way off.
"Nothing inspires the idea that this battle may be over soon. Will it expand and others come into the war? I don't know but I know there is more and more possibility of that happening. The pressure in the region is higher than ever. People are amazed and shocked that a whole country can be destroyed just because of two soldiers.
"And now the US is talking about a new Middle East. It is a strategic mistake for the US, and Israel is bringing many problems on itself. There is no doubt it will lead to more violence in the region."
• Mary Fitzgerald is the inaugural Douglas Gageby fellow at The Irish Times. "The Faces of Islam" appears every Friday. maryfitzgerald@irish-times.ie