Political chatter swirls, but the Hezbollah-Amal Movement partnership ‘holds firm’

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

In recent weeks, discussions have intensified over alleged differences between the Amal Movement–Hezbollah alliance.

This prompted a clarification from MP Raed Berro, a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, who said during a Hezbollah political meeting that attempts by some to create a rift between the party and the movement — particularly with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri — are bound to fail.

This has raised questions about whether a real dispute exists that both parties are trying to conceal, and why the relationship between the two has become a subject of public debate.

Speculation about tensions increased following an incident between supporters of both parties in the southern town of Kfar Hatta, against the backdrop of Israeli threats to the area and anger among some Amal Movement supporters. 

Kfar Hatta has long carried historical sensitivities between the two sides, which Hezbollah and the Amal Movement have managed to contain over the years.

Both Hezbollah and the Amal Movement remain convinced that their unity is a safeguard for both parties, particularly in light of what they describe as shared existential threats, making their alliance a strategic necessity.

The alliance has historically managed differences, as reflected in the sharing of seats from municipal councils to Parliament and in public appointments. For example, since 2010, the mayoralty in Tyre has been held by the Amal Movement, while Nabatieh’s mayoralty has gone to Hezbollah, and seats within municipal councils have been divided.

There is no retreat from this alliance in the upcoming parliamentary elections. LBCI reported that a high-level coordination meeting between the Amal Movement and Hezbollah was held within the past 24 hours to discuss all outstanding issues, particularly following the approval of the state budget and the Interior Ministry’s issuance of a decree calling voters to the polls.

Despite alignment on major positions and a shared commitment to maintaining Shiite unity, both sides acknowledge differences, which they describe as natural among any two political parties.

Differences over how to address recent statements by the presidency were reflected in a meeting between Speaker Berri and President Joseph Aoun at the Baabda Palace. These differences, however, remained within limits and later resulted in a meeting between a Hezbollah official and a presidential adviser. 

Politically, the Amal Movement’s approach is rooted in the principles of its founder, Imam Musa al-Sadr, who viewed Lebanon as a final homeland for all its citizens, emphasizing integration into society and rejection of foreign dependency. Accordingly, the movement does not support any intervention to assist Iran.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has expressed readiness to support Iran on the basis of self-defense and views Lebanon as part of the broader regional landscape, openly acknowledging its allegiance to the concept of the “Wilayat al-Faqih.”

Sources from both sides again stress that Shiite unity remains paramount, as demonstrated within the government when ministers from both parties withdrew during discussions of the U.S. proposal. This was despite Speaker Berri not objecting to debating and amending the document, whereas Hezbollah opposed discussing it altogether.

Ultimately, both Hezbollah and the Amal Movement are aware that any difference turning into an open dispute would have catastrophic consequences for their shared constituency, which is already unable to withstand further pressure or fragmentation.