On the face of it, Thursday night’s speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah marked another milestone in the party’s proud policy of intimidation. Those of us who lived through the attempted coup of May 7, 2008 know only too well what Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition March 8 bloc can and will do if they feel their agenda is under threat.

Nasrallah’s speech, the second in which he has sought to discredit the Special Tribunal for Lebanon – the court formed to find the killers of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others as well as the victims of subsequent political violence – targeted the March 14 bloc and urged its members to reconsider the “choices they made.” In short, as March 14 General Secretariat Coordinator Fares Soueid said in an interview on Saturday with Radio Free Lebanon, Nasrallah was suggesting March 14 surrender the ideals forged in the heat of the 2005 Independence Intifada.

But so far March 14 has stuck by its political choices. There have been no concessions, and while the political grouping has had to adapt to the realities of the region, including opening diplomatic channels with Damascus – a move that many saw as signaling the end of the movement – its position on the tribunal has remained solid.

We must not forget that the purpose of the tribunal is twofold: It is about achieving justice, not just for the Hariri family, but the families of those who died with him on February 14, 2005, as well as the families of the dozens of victims – not just the MPs or state officials – of the political violence that punctuated daily life until the 2008 Doha Agreement brought a measure of calm to the domestic scene, albeit at the barrel of a gun.

Secondly it is about laying the foundations of a modern democratic state, one that can serve as a model for others in the region by demonstrating that there can be a mechanism to fight political violence. It will end the ability of regional despots to perpetrate murderous outrages and sell them as Zionist conspiracies, and it will show the common man that he can seek redress through the justice system. In this, the international community is standing squarely behind the Lebanese government, a commitment borne out by France’s recent assurances that funding for the court will not stop.

If we follow Hezbollah’s advice, we will have allowed threats and intimidation to derail justice, even if it is sold as a move to avoid civil violence. Nasrallah wants us to believe that the Resistance is more important than justice and that we should give up our pursuit of it because he will allow nothing to harm the Resistance.

Meaning what? That Hezbollah and its allies will take their gunmen onto the streets once again? That the government will be toppled and another more pliant cabinet installed to derail the tribunal? Both courses of action are hardly likely. They would not only be an admission of guilt to all but the most blinkered supporters, but would also once again prove that Hezbollah has no policy for advancing Lebanon as a modern state and no blueprint for building state institutions. It can only offer violence and conflict on behalf of its Iranian clients.

In fact, since 2005, Hezbollah’s contribution to the national whole has been one war, one downtown sit-in and one bout of murderous, civil violence. Let us also not forget the vast array of tools it has at its disposal for obstructing basic constitutional processes, such as elections, the selecting of a president and the forming of a government.

But short of throwing out the tried and tested, but ultimately weary Zionist card, Nasrallah has few options. This has been demonstrated by the mixed signals he has sent in the previous 24 hours. He will not allow the Resistance to be harmed, and yet he will enter into talks on the matter, either within the cabinet or at the national dialogue table, but only on the condition that the talks do not start on the basis of Hezbollah’s presumed guilt. These provisos have all the hallmarks of desperation.