Beirut- Lebanon lives a sensitive moment, in which political and security developments intersect with unprecedented internal and external challenges, and this was evident in the speech of the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, on the occasion of the Lebanese Army Day, in which he presented an accurate reading of the current situation.
In his speech, Aoun revealed the details of the American paper aimed at achieving a calm with Israel, which includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the south, the release of Lebanese prisoners, and the inventory of arms in the hands of the Lebanese state only.
Aoun considered that this paper constitutes an exceptional opportunity for Lebanon, with Arab and international support that guarantees the enhancement of the capabilities of the Lebanese army, but with clear conditions based on the delivery of weapons outside the state authority.
On the other hand, Hezbollah Secretary -General Naim Qassem stressed, during a speech to him on the first anniversary of the assassination of the party’s military leader Fouad Shukr, his complete rejection of the idea of handing over weapons, stressing that the party’s weapon is directed to Israel and not to any internal conflict, and accused the American envoy Tom Brak of trying to threaten Lebanon in the interest of Israel.
These statements come in light of the escalation of international pressure on Lebanon to confront the file of Hezbollah’s weapon, amid Israeli threats that are continuing to launch strikes if not disarmed, putting the country at a critical crossroads between strengthening stability and security risks.
Created confrontation
Political analyst Ibrahim Haider believes, in an interview with Al -Jazeera Net, that the statement of the President of the Republic today is the first clear official position on the state regarding the file of weapons, after the escalation of American pressure and the statements of the American envoy, and Haider explains the President’s use of the “armed forces” phrase as it also includes the Palestinian weapon, within the framework of a government plan to control weapons in the camps and abroad.
Haider notes that the speech reflects a political commitment, but it does not constitute a tangible executive plan, as it has not yet been presented mechanisms or a timetable for implementation, amid a sharp internal division about the future of weapons.
On the level of the interior, Haider indicates that the course of the dialogue between the president and Hezbollah on the weapon file appears to be stumbling, and reached a dead end, especially after the last meeting with the head of the “Wafa Resistance” bloc, Mohamed Raad, who rejected a presidential proposal to gradually hand over heavy weapons.
This is strengthened – according to Haider – the party’s Secretary -General’s statement, Qassem, who saw that any of the extraction of disarmament serves the Israeli project, and Haider believes that President Aoun’s statement – despite his political impact – clashes with complex internal obstacles, and that any practical move in this context may lead to a direct confrontation with the party, a scenario that the state does not want or its president, for fear of slipping the country to chaos and division.
Haydar concludes his speech by saying that Lebanon today is facing a crucial stage, amid interrelated internal and external challenges, and that August may witness articulated stations that are difficult to predict, in light of the continued division over the fate of the party’s weapon, and the fate of the entire state.
Decisive
The writer and political analyst Youssef Diab confirms, in an interview with Al -Jazeera Net, that the speech of the President of the Lebanese Republic today came as a renewal of the discourse of the section he delivered on January 9, especially in terms of emphasizing the principle of exclusive arms in the hands of the Lebanese state.
But he stressed that “the lesson is not in the sayings, but rather in the ability to translate these situations into practical steps, especially in light of Hezbollah’s adherence to its weapons and its refusal to hand it over to the Lebanese army.”
Diab notes that the party “is not satisfied with rejection, but rather depicts any invitation to remove its weapon as being in the interest of Israel, and continues to use the language of treachery against everyone who puts this file for discussion,” adding that “this position puts the Lebanese state – president and government – in front of great embarrassment, especially in light of its pledges before the American delegate Barak, and in front of the Arab and international societies.”
Diab believes that “the president put himself and the state in front of a serious test and credibility, if he will actually be able to implement what has been pledged,” and continues, “The first test will be next Tuesday in the session designated to discuss the weapon file at the Cabinet table, a session that does not represent a exam only for Hezbollah’s position, but for the state in its entirety, and if it will be associated with the verbs.”
He points out that the American delegate was clear that “the time no longer allows construction situations, and today is required to be tangible steps,” considering that “the government entered practically in the stage of confrontation with this file, and the question arises: Will the session come out with compatibility paving the way to set up a mechanism and a timetable for withdrawing weapons, or will it end with the division or withdrawal of basic political components from the government?”
Diab confirms that “what this session will lead to will constitute a crucial indication, either the course of actual implementation begins, or the country will enter into a more complex and dangerous stage.”
He adds: “Personally, I see that things are heading towards escalation, not calm, and fear is all the fear that the Council of Ministers will take a decision with a majority, and this is met with a field rejection from Hezbollah,” asking, “Will we then be in front of a direct challenge to the state? Or on the threshold of an internal coup?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqsevxwe
Different names
On the other hand, political analyst Tawfiq Shoman, in his interview with Al -Jazeera Net, believes that there is no contradiction between the position of President Aoun and what was stated in the statements of Hezbollah Secretary -General Naim Qassem, “because both give priority to stopping Israeli attacks in all its forms, and restoring the occupied lands.”
This is followed – according to his opinion – to discuss the defensive strategy that President Aoun calls “national security strategy”, while Hezbollah calls it the “defensive strategy.”
Shoman notes that President Aoun’s talk about the memo that he will present to the American delegate Tom Brak, and put it for her in the next government session, reflects a “national consensus”, especially since the president emphasized the understanding of it with the heads of the House of Representatives and the government.
He concludes by saying, “I do not see in the positions of President Aoun any change, pressure, or departure from national understandings, especially with the Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, and the Shiite duo in general,” meaning Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.
Details problem
In his interview with Al -Jazeera Net, the researcher and political writer Hassan Shukair considers that the speeches of the President of the Republic and the Secretary -General of Hezbollah were “detailed speech in this sensitive stage in the history of Lebanon, because they deal with how to protect and advance the country”, and Shukair adds that “the two discourse intersect in many points, and this is normal in light of the circulation of ideas about responding to the Barak memo.”
Regarding the issue of weapons, Choucair says that “the problem is that the weapon was mentioned in the ministerial statement, as there was a paragraph in the department’s speech that is concerned with the necessity of approving a comprehensive national security strategy at all levels, including the military,” and adds that “Hezbollah had been elected the president and participated in the government based on this vision and granted it confidence.”
Shukair asserts that “the President of the Republic approached the issue of weapons by saying that he must be handed over to the Lebanese army, but the issue lies in identifying the areas where the weapon is delivered.”
He continued, “If the intended area of the south of Litani, Hezbollah handed over most of its weapons there without registration or condition, but in the north of the Litani there is a problem, where Hezbollah refuses to hand over weapons in these areas, while accepting a discussion of the national security strategy as stated in the ministerial statement and the department’s speech, after Israel implementing the agreement to stop hostilities.”
