Whale Rebels Leadership of “Congregation”?
The Islamic Group in Beirut is completing its turn towards establishing relations with Hezbollah as a reflection of the close relationship between Hezbollah and Hamas. However, this is happening amidst disagreements expressed by some leaders, led by MP Emad Al-Hout, who complains about the “group’s” distancing from its popular base, in addition to the “imposition of close supervision” on its movements, which may push him to resign from the group, while sources within the organization confirm that differences in viewpoints are still “under control”.
The Islamic Group is not an ironclad organization, as shown by the experiences of the elected leaders, but it is certainly not “cartoonish”. Six months after Sheikh Mohammed Taghoush was elected Secretary-General of the group was enough to confirm that he was capable of “collecting” the differences and gathering the conflicting levels within “Aisha Bakkar”, at the lowest possible cost. The man led a “storm of decisiveness” on the pockets intending to rebel, but he has not yet been able to eliminate them completely.
Emad Al-Hout is one of the leaders who has not yet understood how things have been turned upside down and how the group smoothly moves from one shore to another, after the return of the wing affiliated with the Hamas movement internally, although some deny this, affirming that Hamas’ influence in a number of files is not as promoted. Some reports say that Al-Hout is not satisfied with the political performance of his party, just as he is not satisfied with the “attempts of oppression” he is subjected to. The positions he expresses are examined through a “microscope”, in order to prevent any tweet outside the flock, and his monitoring has become “an open world”.
On his hearing, leaders of the group recall the circumstances of his selection to represent it in the parliamentary council. Some point out that al-Hout did not originally pass the “numbers test” in a meeting designated to choose a candidate’s name for the “Group”, but rationality called for his choice so that the popular base would not be affected by the differences that occurred in the elections and so that the internal institutions would not be shaken before the election of the new leadership. “Doctor” knows that Hamas’ money kept the group standing “on its feet”, and enabled him to be elected as a deputy for Beirut. All of this makes al-Hout weaker than the resistance of the “mukherz” leadership that was clear in its request that he “line up” regardless of his personal opinions, considering that he belongs to a party and does not represent himself in parliament, but he must reflect the orientations of “the group” and abide by its ceiling.
On their hearing, leaders in the group recalled the circumstances surrounding their choice to represent them in the parliamentary council. Some suggest that Al-Hout didn’t even pass the “numbers test” in a meeting specifically designed to choose the “group’s” candidate, but rationality required his selection so as not to affect the popular base with the differences that occur in elections and to avoid internal institutions being shaken up before the new leadership is elected. “Dr.” knows that “Hamas” money kept the group standing “on its feet” and enabled him to be elected as a deputy for Beirut. All of this makes Al-Hout weaker in resisting the leadership’s “Mukhraz” which was clear in its request that he “align himself” regardless of his personal opinions, considering that he belongs to a party and does not represent himself in parliament, but must reflect the “group’s” orientations and abide by its ceiling. This is what Taqoush said to “Al-Akhbar” in his first media interview: “I challenge Al-Hout to answer the questions directed at me with contradictory answers, otherwise, I will resign from my position.”
However, al-Hout has a number of criticisms of the group’s political positions. All positions on one side and approaching Hezbollah on another. It is not easy for a man who once said that “Hezbollah suffers from a crisis of conscience because it practices what Israel used to do in the south and occupies part of Syrian territory” to say otherwise.
All leaders know that Beirut MP hasn’t “digested” the group’s U-turn yet. Some, however, point out that the al-Hout’s troubles are greater than the “Pavilion Story” inside Aisha Bakkar and the muzzling of its views, even the mere act of muzzling its movements. For example, he was prevented from participating in the dinner hosted by Saudi Ambassador Walid Al-Bukhari after the meeting of Dar Al-Fatwa, which included Sunni representatives last September. It was only the first rain. Some point to the fact that the Brotherhood’s MP asserts in private that he is under “close scrutiny” and that he is considering announcing his resignation from the group, especially as he believes he is expressing al-Qaeda’s ideas, which are not yet convinced of rapprochement with Hezbollah. “The al-Hout’s exit has not been proposed,” the leaders said. These do not deny the discrepancies between al-Hout and leadership, but consider that they are “still under control, and that differences of opinion are being quietly addressed between the two parties.”
Therefore, they believe that the al-Hout’s “rebellion” will not be apparent, at least in the foreseeable future, though what tickles their dreams is the idea that has been floated within Aisha Bakkar since the time of former secretary-general Sheikh Ibrahim al-Masri (he served as secretary-general from 2010 to 2016), namely, the establishment of a political party at the Brotherhood’s womb without having commanded it, and leaving the Brotherhood to its ideological priorities. The idea of such a party stems from the conditions imposed on membership in the Brotherhood and organizational development at home, in addition to opening the door for further settlements that those with a religion are unable to pass. On the other hand, some leaders believe that the party’s idea, while on the table, has not matured yet. Therefore, the al-Hout’s departure from his “skin” is not on the agenda at this time, while his “Beiruti movement”, in which he enjoys a margin of freedom, does not raise concerns, especially with regard to his proximity to the Islamic associations in Beirut and harmony with their officials.
On the other side, the group is still quietly completing its U-turn without affecting its popular base or the opposition wings growing within it. Channels with Hezbollah are almost open, and no news of a meeting between Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sheik Mohammed Taqosh has been heard yet, as the arrangements are not over, although some assert that the relationship between the two parties has remained the same since the time of former Secretary General Sheik Azzam Al-Ayoubi, and that the difference that has occurred is the clarity of Taqosh in expressing the relationship with the party. Meanwhile, the group’s position on the events in Syria remains hardline, and Hamas’s turn has not affected it.
