Recently, it has come to light that there is a bitter rivalry occurring between al Qaeda and Hizbollah. Yet, this is not surprising, given that these two groups see themselves as the vanguards of their sects, and that there has been historic rivalry between militant Sunnis and Shia over who holds the true banner of Islam. Nevertheless, rivalries such as these tend to go beyond the philosophical and transcend into who gets to control minds and resources. In a word ... power.
For such militant groups, power rests with the grassroots; and to them, those who control the masses also seemingly command a potential army with which they may be able to wage successful jihad for the sake of Allah.
Now take a look at Israel -- too often seen as an enemy that must be repulsed from Islamic lands. It is no secret that Jewish control of al Aqsa, and lands once controlled by Islamic rulers, is an affront to quite a number of Muslims and is something they insist must be changed. It is at the point where the struggle against Israel has literally become a holy struggle to radicals. Militant Sunnis see the conquest of Jews as a sign of the End Times and a method to usher in paradise on earth, and so do militant Shia.
The question is, which Islamic sect is going to be the one to show the world that Allah has chosen their army to do it?
One would normally think this is a no-brainer since there are no Shia Palestinians. However, things aren't so easily cut-and-dry in the Middle East.
Al-Zarqawi also may have worried that Hezbollah was too popular among Arab Sunnis — that it was his rival for Sunnis' affections across the region — because of its fight against Israel.
Hezbollah has wide political support among Arabs because it spearheaded the guerrilla warfare against Israel's 18-year occupation of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, which ended with an Israeli withdrawal in 2000.
OK, so let's think about this. After Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May, 2000 Hizbollah was given a grand celebration as being the first Islamic army to have victory over the Jews. The eyes and hearts of disenfranchised and disaffected Muslims (including Sunnis), reeling from political inadequacy and lack of substantial power (over their own lives and on their world stage), stood up and cheered the Shia army. Of course, some of it was hate for Israel, but also much of it was an opportunity for team pride at a time when social stagnation was commonplace and chances for mobility seemed little. In a nutshell, Hizbollah demonstrated that fighting against Israel without being declared losers was a clear-cut method to gain international Islamic sympathy and appreciation when other opportunities seemed limited.
Now, let me ask you all this. How do you think militant Sunnis felt about the excellent public relations Hizbollah received in the eyes of so many Muslims, including Sunnis? Certainly, not good given their long-standing rivalry.
Four months later, the second Palestinian intifada broke out, which was particularly strange given Barak's willingness to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Coincidence? I'll let you decide.
Of course it is true that there was legitimate angst amongst Palestinians due to their living conditions, but it is also true that wars have historically been fought by poor people acting as pawns to gain booty on behalf of the wealthy elite ... generally to the detriment of those on the front lines.
It has been asked before whether the Palestinians are really considered a sovereign people by Arab regimes and jihadis. Could the Palestinian intifada be a calculated response to the Hizbollah victory by militant Sunnis, who had Arafat and other Palestinian factions in their pocket, to rile up an already-agitated Palestinian public to make it clear which faction is the one who will conquer Israel on behalf of Allah?