The Shia taxi driver who brought me home from the airport a few nights ago answered my question about the fate of the 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims kidnaped in Syria with a rather shocking statement: “We don’t care. We don’t want them back if this causes any humiliation to the Sayyed. He will not apologize to anyone.”

Of course, the Sayyed here is Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. And the humiliation would be agreeing to the kidnapers’ request for Nasrallah to apologize to the Syrian people for supporting the Syrian regime. 

I did not know what apology he was talking about, because, interestingly, the kidnapers’ request was released 24 hours later. How did a taxi driver know about this? Only God, or to be precise, the Party of God, knows. This raises another question: Is it true that they really don’t care if the hostages are released, or is it denial because Hezbollah and its community are more worried about the real humiliation, the one they have to pay as a penalty for supporting Syria’s dictator.
 
A couple of nights later, Nasrallah ignored the request in a speech commemorating Ayatollah Khomeini’s death. He addressed the kidnapers, saying: “If your problem was with me, there are a lot of means and ways to resolve it. We can resolve it the way you want, whether through war or through love and peace.”
 
It is amusing to watch the leader of Hezbollah threaten the kidnapers of the Shia pilgrims from behind a giant screen. The ironic fact is that the kidnapers are not waiting for Hassan Nasrallah’s options. On the contrary, they have given him some options: Apologize or they will not be freed. The other funny but sad part is that, in the case of war, Nasrallah will remain hiding behind the screen, while the Lebanese, as always, will pay the price for Hezbollah’s decisions.

In every war, conflict or street clash, Nasrallah remains hidden in a safe and probably luxurious place, while the Lebanese lose their lives and property. So far, no one’s complaining has led anywhere. So here he goes again, threatening with war and giving options without consulting state institutions or the Lebanese people.

This is sending the wrong message to the Syrians about the Shia community, which is also paying the same, if not at times higher, price. It adds to the viciousness of the circle that puts all the Shia in one bag and which led to the kidnaping of the pilgrims. Because of this attitude, the group that kidnaped the pilgrims made a mistake by capturing unarmed Lebanese Shia to send a message to Hezbollah.

It is a vicious circle that only hurts the innocent people, Shia or not. But that’s why Nasrallah has probably started to give signs of rapprochement, without showing any sign of weakness. The same speech carried a number of suggestions that bear out Hezbollah’s preference for stability in Lebanon.

Although the Syrian regime is trying to move the crisis to Lebanon—with the continuous bloody clashes in Tripoli and those in Beirut last month, in addition to other incidents of individual killings and arrests— Hezbollah seems to have been trying to control it. When the pilgrims were kidnaped, many from the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut blocked roads with burning tires, but Nasrallah came out immediately and asked them to go home. Also, it seems that the party was not involved in the clashes that occurred in Tripoli and Beirut, which were limited to anti- and pro-Syrian groups.

Hezbollah needs stability in Lebanon today, and Nasrallah’s call for a national dialogue now could be seen as a sign of this outlook. Otherwise, clashes would have escalated to a very dangerous level. Stability in Lebanon today protects the government, which Hezbollah formed, which is going to carry out the parliamentary elections in 2013.

Without stability, this government might collapse and another government, probably less controlled by Hezbollah, could be formed before the elections. This would decrease Hezbollah’s chances of winning the next parliament, and without Bashar al-Assad next door, its control over Lebanon will be seriously reduced.

Therefore, for the first time in a very long time, there could be a real discrepancy between what Hezbollah and the Syrian regime want for Lebanon. This will not change Hezbollah’s stance on the Syrian uprising or stop it from supporting the regime. However, it says a lot about Hezbollah’s fear of the future.

Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW Lebanon. She tweets @haningdr