Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese attended the funeral of the late Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah and his cousin and successor Hashem Safieddine on Sunday. The two leaders were assassinated within a week of each other five months ago by Israeli strikes in residential neighbourhoods in Beirut using US-made 2,000 pound Bunker Buster bombs, claiming hundreds of civilian casualties.
The funeral had had to be delayed until after the ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. It was held in the 50,000-seat Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium, which filled to more than capacity in the early morning hours.
Tens of thousands more mourners filled the streets around the stadium. Delegations from around 70 countries also took part in the funeral, according to its organisers. Contrary to expectations, a high-level delegation represented the Lebanese government. President Joseph Aoun designated Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri to represent him, while Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was represented by Minister of Labour Mohamed Haidar.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohamed Bagher Ghalibaf attended the funeral at the head of an approximately 40-member delegation that included Iranian MPs and judges.
There were also delegations from the families of former Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, former foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and former Al-Quds force commander Qassem Suleimani.
The Iranian delegations arrived in two planes, landing in Beirut Airport after a controversy over a ban on Iranian civilian flights to Lebanon and the threat they could be targeted by Israel. Delegations from Iraq and Yemen also arrived, mostly representing organisations aligned with the Iranian axis.
The massive funeral underscored the broad popular support that Hizbullah continues to enjoy in Lebanon despite the heavy losses it sustained during the Israeli war on Lebanon, which displaced 1.2 million people from the Bekaa Valley, Southern Lebanon, and the Dahiya district of Beirut.
The sight of tens of thousands of mourners gathered to bid farewell to Nasrallah, chanting slogans “Death to Israel,” “Death to the US,” and “We remain true to our pledge,” sent a powerful message. Even if Hizbullah has been forced into an agreement reducing its military presence in Southern Lebanon, its political influence and popularity among its Shia base remain strong.
Hizbullah’s domestic political adversaries criticised the signalling of continued foreign backing for the organisation through the presence of the Iranian, Iraqi, and Yemeni delegations. Thousands of expatriate Lebanese flew home especially to attend the funeral.
The government came under criticism by some for allowing the stadium, a public facility, to be used for the funeral, which they characterised as a religious event concerning one of Lebanon’s denominations. Others countered that Nasrallah was a major Lebanese public figure, even if he was instrumental in strengthening Iran’s regional influence.
Some commentators characterised the outpouring of mourners at the funeral as a form of denial of the new regional and international realities that have rendered Nasrallah’s approach no longer tenable. The ceasefire agreement that went into effect on 27 November banned Hizbullah from Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River, and only the Lebanese Army can be deployed in that area.
After violating the terms of the ceasefire deal countless times, Isreal extended the deadline for withdrawing its forces from 26 January to 16 February. Then, Israel refused to fully withdraw its forces, illegally occupying strategic hilltop locations north of the Israeli border, among them Al-Labuna, Jabal Al-Balat, Jal Al-Deir, Hula, and Tallet Hammamis.
Israeli warplanes flew at a low altitude over the stadium during the funeral, reminding the Lebanese that Tel Aviv has total control over their country’s airspace.
Nasrallah’s funeral threw into relief the gap between the aspirations epitomised by the mourners’ slogans and current realities. After the previous wars with Israel in 2000 and 2006, Hizbullah leadership promised the Southern Lebanese generous compensation for reconstruction and proceeded to meet its pledges.
However, the situation is different this time around. For one, the magnitude of the destruction wreaked by the Israeli carpet bombing is unprecedented, as are the costs of reconstruction. The financial burden cannot be provided by Iran, as current Hizbullah Secretary General Naim Qassem noted in one of his speeches. He suggested that the Lebanese government be responsible for the reconstruction.
In his speech at Nasrallah’s funeral, Qassem said that Hizbullah had tolerated the multiple Israeli violations to give the ceasefire a chance. However, the Israeli insistence on holding the five hilltop villages in the south creates a new illegal occupation, he said, adding that the resistance still has the wherewithal to fight the aggressor but is waiting for the right moment so as not to undermine the authority of the Lebanese state.
The US and other powers have made it clear that reconstruction aid for the south is conditional on Hizbullah’s retreat not just from that region but from political involvement in Lebanon. This may explain why the country’s president and prime minister opted to send delegates to Nasrallah’s funeral instead of attending themselves.
The messaging surrounding Nasrallah’s funeral raises questions about the future of Hizbullah and its military and political role in Lebanon. Israel claims that it is remaining in parts of Lebanese territory because Hizbullah has not yet withdrawn from the south. The hilltop locations afford Israeli forces a vantage point to monitor Hizbullah’s actions and determine whether it is serious about its commitment to withdraw to north of the Litani River.
But withdrawal means more than personnel. Hizbullah has weapons arsenals that it is also required to dismantle, and some suspect that it will not fully cooperate on this matter. Hizbullah is said to have indicated a willingness to transfer at least a portion of its weapons and ammunitions to the state. However, it is unlikely to relinquish all of them in one go and may even hold on to some of them until it determines what role it will play in the forthcoming phase.
Qassem has vowed that the resistance will persist. On the other hand, the statement that Salam presented to the Lebanese Parliament to win a vote of confidence in his government omitted a reference to the “resistance,” which Hizbullah once insisted must be included in any such ministerial statement.
The fact that Hizbullah conceded the omission signals that it is ceding the role of national defence to the state, after having assumed that role itself for decades. At the same time, it is mobilising its popular bases to keep their eyes on the state’s actions. Any failure will confirm the need for Hizbullah to step forward again as the champion of resistance.
Nasrallah’s funeral has drawn the curtain not just on a crucial phase in Lebanon’s history, but also on the history of non-state actors in the region. It may mark the threshold of an era in which Hizbullah will still be able to leverage its considerable popularity to carve out a new role for itself in the Lebanese political arena, while not being at odds with the state, sovereign decision-making, and the state’s monopoly on legitimate arms.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 27 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: