Offering impartiality embarrasses Hizbullah between two major merits


Saad Elias wrote in “Al Quds Al Arabi”:

Hizbullah may believe that Lebanon has become a preoccupation with it because of its weapons glow and its success in dominating the country’s official decisions and its unprecedented alliance with the President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, unlike the previous situation of the former Presidents. Hezbollah still believes that Beirut is indeed one of the four Arab capitals controlled by Iran, and that Lebanon, this small country in its area, is no longer of international and Arab interest, allowing it to extend its control and confiscate the national decision, but it has been surprised since the Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros Al-Ra’i was released. His appeal about the “neutrality of Lebanon” with an unusual international and Arab diplomatic movement that coincided with a national detour around the Maronite Patriarchate, recalled the famous call of the Maronite Archbishops in September 2000, which called, headed by the late Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, to evacuate the Syrian forces after the completion of the Israeli withdrawal from the south.

When the appeal of the bishops was issued in 2000, it acquired great importance during the era of President Emile Lahoud, an ally of Syria and Hezbollah, but some then underestimated the importance of that appeal on the balance of powers until the Christian opposition started to mass with the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and then the martyr president Rafik Hariri. With strict international resolutions, the Syrian army ends up leaving Lebanon.

The same situation is happening today, and Hezbollah and its allies underestimate the size of the patriarch Al-Ra’i and accuse him of accusations of treachery and employment, out of a feeling of excess power due to the weapons and missiles chosen by the party without realizing that this particular force has become a weakness of the covenant and the government and the cause of Arab and international isolation.

In the end, Patriarch Al-Ra’i’s invitation to neutrality is only synonymous with the Baabda Declaration that former Lebanese President Michel Suleiman sought to reach with the participation of various political forces, including Hezbollah, before he turned against this declaration and considered it a dead letter. The patron patron’s invitation to neutrality is only synonymous with the principle of self-distancing, which was followed by successive Lebanese governments, which included ministers of Hezbollah and the party turned against him and turned his back on him by killing him in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

If Hizbullah actually committed itself to declaring Baabda or to distance itself, the Maronite Patriarch, who holds the responsibility for preserving Lebanon’s identity, safety, and sovereignty from the historical role of the Maronite Church, would not need to call for neutrality. If the President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, took the matter upon himself and called for a dialogue table on the defense strategy that he had previously committed to after his election, instead of fulfilling the request of Hezbollah to ignore it, the patriarch would not have had to raise the voice.

As for the pretext that neutrality requires the compatibility of the Lebanese components around it, then the question calls for the reason why the decision of war and peace that Hezbollah confiscates does not need such compatibility?

According to the information of “Al-Quds Al-Arabi”, the patriarch patron looks at all the reports and stances that are issued, whether they support or oppose him, but he is on the threshold of the end of the first centenary of Greater Lebanon and wants to carry out a review of the state of affairs in the Land of Cedars and the situation of the Lebanese, including the Christians who were behind The emergence of Greater Lebanon with a Lebanese mandate for Patriarch Elias Al-Hwaik in 1920, through the attainment of independence from France in 1943, and freedom from Syrian guardianship in 2005 through the second independence patriarch, Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, until the year 2020, when the sponsor does not want the centenary to pass without leaving a historical imprint . Therefore, he is determined to visit the Vatican and communicate with the United Nations to support Lebanon, lift the blockade of legitimacy and liberate the national decision.

With regard to Hezbollah, which rejects any neutrality or neutrality of Lebanon under the pretext that there is no neutrality with Israel and to maintain its weapons, the sponsor stressed that neutrality is towards everyone except Israel, a commitment to the question of Palestine and the Arab League Charter that imposes standing next to Arab issues, but to keep Hezbollah, in its war arsenal, should keep the southern front open in the interest of Iranian interests and the policy of axes. This is another matter.

The proposal for neutrality comes between two important entitlements, firstly the ruling on the assassination of President Rafik Hariri and the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution on August 7, and secondly the extension of UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon in the light of American positions rejecting such a move unless accompanied by the expansion of the tasks of the international forces and strict implementation of Resolution 1701 End Father. These two stations are considered critical for Hezbollah, and along with the sponsor’s positions are a focus of polarization for local, Arab and international powers. Will Hezbollah retreat and meet the rest of the Lebanese, or will it flee to the front and keep the country captive of its weapons and ties, and threaten civil peace?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here