Hizbu’llah’s reluctance to grant Israel recognition is rooted in its rendition of the origins of the Israeli state, which it unequivocally portrays as a ‘rape’ or ‘usurpation’ of Palestinian land, there by rendering it a state which ‘is originally based on aggression’. By extension, the continued existence of the Israeli state constitutes ‘an act of aggression’, insofar as it represents a perpetuation of the original act of aggression. Therefore, Hizbu’llah ‘does not know of anything called Israel’. It only knows a land called ‘occupied Palestine’. In fact, the party never refers to the state of Israel as such, but to ‘occupied Palestine’ or ‘the Zionist entity’.

• pg 134

Based on the party’s delegitimisation of the Israeli state, its excoria-tion of Israeli state and society and its emphasis on the Zionist essence of both, certain existential elements of Hizbu’llah’s conflict with Israel can be readily discerned. Upon closer examination of these elements, the following three existential themes emerge: the party’s legitimisation of the use of violence against an essentially Zionist society; its rejection of the notion of a negotiated peace settlement with the Israeli state; and its pursuit of the liberation of Palestine.

• pg 142

According to the party, this aspiration to return ‘every grain of Palestinian soil’ to its rightful owners necessitates Israel’s ‘oblit-eration from existence’. Put simply, the reconstitution of one state is contingent upon the annihilation of another. The only way that the Palestinians can return to Jerusalem, and the ‘original Palestineof 1948’ generally, is for all Jews, with the exception of those native to Palestine, to ‘leave this region and return to the countries from whence they came’

• pg 162