If US sanctions on Lebanon are about corruption, Saad Hariri should be top of list

Protesters denounce politician Gebran Bassil in downtown Beirut on 8 August (AFP)

13 November 2020 10:55 UTC |

Source

Marco Carnelos

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He has served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East Peace Process Coordinator Special Envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, ambassador of Italy to Iraq.

If the US was truly concerned about corruption in Lebanon, it should have targeted the discredited prime minister

المدن - حيرة سعد الحريري: "أبو السنّة" أم "إبن التسوية"؟

The US Treasury recently sanctioned Gebran Bassil, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement party and member of parliament, for his role in corruption in Lebanon, using the Magnitsky Act. This provision is deployed when human rights abuses and corruption reach such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic system. 

Unfortunately, as frequently occurs with the US government’s decisions, even the application of this provision is not immune to double standards. In the case of Lebanon, for Washington, corruption is not a problem – provided that you are aligned with US policies. 

In this case, however, we are facing a real mystery. According to US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Bassil “has helped to erode the foundation of an effective government that serves the Lebanese people”. He noted that this decision “further demonstrates that the United States supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”.

Economic mismanagement 

The overall US analysis behind this decision is essentially correct. Lebanon has long suffered from endemic corruption and economic mismanagement by its historical power brokers, who have advanced their own interests at the expense of the Lebanese people. Since October 2019, widespread protests with participation from a broad segment of Lebanese society have called for political, social and economic reforms. 

All Lebanese governments have failed to curb inflation and mounting debt, as well as to improve the country’s failing infrastructure and to ensure basic services. Socioeconomic conditions for ordinary Lebanese people have continued to deteriorate, while political leaders remain insulated from the crisis. 


The US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos

The country is experiencing an energy crisis that leaves people without electricity for hours or even days at a time, and government officials appear unable to fix the problem. The political dysfunction was exemplified by the catastrophic explosion at the Beirut port on 4 August, which many saw as a further example of the negligence and corruption that victimises Lebanese citizens.

Financially, the country has already defaulted, thanks to a Ponzi scheme run for years by its central bank, and ordinary savers have been forced to settle for highly limited access to their bank deposits, bringing many to the brink of starvation.

Yet, while long overdue, the US decision remains inexplicable, to say the least. It did not target one of the top people responsible for Lebanon’s chaos: fourth-time Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who once again returned to power after he was ousted by a popular revolt in October 2019. As though nothing had occurred in recent decades, when Hariri repeatedly served as premier with zero results, he has been supported to assume the role again by the usual power brokers.  

Christian parties marginalised

Bassil, the Christian leader who aspires to succeed his father-in-law, Michel Aoun, as the country’s next president, has this time refused to support Hariri’s comeback to power, which had been pushed by some Sunni and Shia parties, including Hezbollah. The second-most important Christian party, the Lebanese Forces, took a similar decision. 

It is probably the first time, then, that a Cabinet has been formed in Lebanon without the participation of the main Christian parties – an unprecedented development that took place as major world powers watched idly, especially France, which since the 4 August explosion had taken the lead in attempts to save the country from complete collapse. 

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in September 2019 (AFP)

After the blast, French President Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut twice. He made specific, sound proposals and asked for clear commitments on reforms, but his appeals went unheeded by the traditional Lebanese power brokers. 

While France has always been proud of its strict secular approach to politics, up to the point of creating deep and probably avoidable fissures  with its Muslim minority, it has also attributed to itself the historical role of protector of the Christian minorities in the Levant. 

It is thus disconcerting how Macron has tolerated the marginalisation of Christian parties in the Lebanese decision-making process, facilitating Hariri’s disgraceful comeback. How is it possible that one of the main enablers of Lebanon’s chaos has again been assigned to rule and reform the country, amid a deafening silence from Paris?

A final disappointment

The US has maintained a similarly questionable position. After mobilising against the country’s endemic corruption and Hezbollah, the Trump administration has not objected to the fact that Hezbollah’s main power-sharing partner in recent decades, Hariri, is again in charge with the support of this same movement – which, incidentally, figures prominently in the US terrorism list, as Washington pushes its European allies to follow suit with a terrorism designation.Beirut explosion: A weapon of mass corruptionRead More »

If the targeting of Bassil really aims to show that the US “supports the Lebanese people in their continued calls for reform and accountability”, then why – considering his abysmal record – has Hariri not been sanctioned as well? If the primary US concern is the struggle against corruption, why it has decided, again, to go after a relatively small fish like Bassil instead of the bigger fish, such as Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri or veteran politician Walid Jumblatt? 

Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, Speaker Nabih Berri and MP Walid Jumblatt  during their meeting in Beirut on Sunday evening - ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English  Archive

Even on its way out, the Trump administration never misses an opportunity to surprise. The sad news is that this time, in serving one of its last disappointments, it is in good company with the French presidency.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Recommended

Lebanon’s Bahaa Hariri backtracks after interview with Israeli urging peace

Covid-19: Lebanon announces second lockdown after cases spikeUS sanctions imposed on Lebanon’s Gebran Bassil

ترسيم الحدود: بين لبنان و«إسرائيل» محتمل بين أمراء الطوائف المتصارعين مستحيل

د. عصام نعمان

حاولت الولايات المتحدة، بضغط من «إسرائيل»، منذ سنة 2010 ترسيم الحدود بين المياه الإقليمية اللبنانية والمياه الإقليمية الفلسطينية الواقعة تحت احتلال العدو. أحد كبار ديبلوماسيّيها، فردريك هوف، عرض على الطرفين تقسيم المنطقة المتنازع عليها البالغة مساحتها 860 كيلومتراً مربعاً بتخصيص لبنان بـ 500 كيلومتر مربع منها على أن يكون الباقي لـِ «إسرائيل». لبنان رفض العرض الأميركي لأنّ المنطقة المتنازع عليها تقع برمّتها ضمن مياهه الإقليمية.

بعد عشر سنوات من الاتصالات والمساعي والضغوط والإعتداءات الإسرائيلية في البر والبحر، أمكن عقد اجتماع الأربعاء الماضي بين الطرفين لترسيم الحدود برعاية الأمم المتحدة وبوساطة الولايات المتحدة. ما كان الاجتماع ليُعقد لولا نجاح واشنطن في إقناع تل أبيب بتقديم تنازلات تتعلق بأسس للمفاوضات يصرّ عليها لبنان وتكفل حصرها بترسيم الحدود ولا تتعداه إلى أيّ بحث في تطبيع العلاقات أو مصالحة العدو.

يبدو أنّ المفاوضات غير المباشرة بين الطرفين ستتواصل ليس لحاجة دونالد ترامب إلى تسجيل انتصار يوظفه في حملته الانتخابية فحسب بل لحاجة «إسرائيل» أيضاً إلى إنهاء النزاع مع لبنان ومع المقاومة خاصةً التي تهدّد منشآتها النفطية البحرية وخططها لتوسيع التنقيب عن مكامن الغاز لتسويقه في أوروبا عبر أنبوب بحري سيجري تمديده بموجب اتفاق مع قبرص واليونان وإيطاليا.

إذ يبدو ترسيم الحدود بين لبنان و«إسرائيل» محتملاً، فإنّ ترسيم الحدود في لبنان بين مصالح أمراء الطوائف وصراعاتهم اللامتناهية يبدو مستحيلاً. فأزمة لبنان المزمنة تفجرت قبل سنة بانتفاضة 17 تشرين الأول/ اكتوبر الماضي ما أدّى إلى استقالة حكومة سعد الحريري. ثم تفاقمت الأزمة وتدحرجت الى انهيار مالي واقتصادي في مطالع العام الحالي.

حاول أركان المنظومة الحاكمة تدارك المزيد من المفاعيل المؤذية بتأليف حكومة من الاختصاصيين برئاسة حسان دياب، لكن الانفجار الكارثي في مرفأ بيروت جاء ليزيد الأزمة تعقيداً وحماوة. لماذا؟

لأنّ كلا من أمراء الطوائف المتصارعين على المصالح والمكاسب والنفوذ حاول أن يلقي مسؤولية الانفجار على الآخر في وقت تعاني البلاد الكثير من الأزمات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية، وتواجه تحديات واستحقاقات خطيرة وماثلة.

حدّةُ الصراعات وتداعياتها الخطيرة على مصالح فرنسا في الحوض الشرقي للبحر الأبيض المتوسط وعلى مستقبل الثقافة الفرنكوفونية في لبنان، حملت الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون على زيارته مرتين في أقلّ من شهر لمحاولة التوفيق بين أمراء طوائفه المتصارعين. تدخلُ ماكرون أسفر عن تبنٍّ ظاهريّ من قبل رؤساء الكتل البرلمانية لمذكرته الإصلاحية المطلوب تنفيذها بواسطة حكومة اختصاصيين غير حزبيين. على هذا الأساس جرى التوافق، ظاهرياً مرة أخرى، على تكليف السفير مصطفى أديب تشكيل حكومة جديدة. أديب حاول بصمت ومثابرة تأليف «حكومة مهمة» للإصلاح والمحاسبة، لكن خلافات أمراء الطوائف حالت دون ذلك.

منذ اعتذار مصطفى أديب عن تشكيل الحكومة، والصراعات تحتدم بلا هوادة بين أمراء الطوائف، لا سيما بعدما أعلن سعد الحريري نفسه مرشحاً طبيعياً لتأليف حكومةٍ وفق الأسس نفسها (أيّ الفرنسية) التي كان اعتمدها أديب قبيل تكليفه رسمياً بتأليف الحكومة. الرئيس ميشال عون استبق احتمال نجاح الحريري بتأليف حكومة جديدة بتأجيل الاستشارات النيابية لمدة ثمانية أيام لحمله وحلفائه على مراعاة صهره، جبران باسيل، رئيس أكبر كتلة برلمانية (ومسيحية) تعارض تكليفه تشكيل الحكومة أو الاشتراك فيها.

لا بدّ من التوقف ملّياً أمام معارضة أكبر كتلتين برلمانيتين مسيحيتين (برئاسة كلٍّ من جبران باسيل وسمير جعجع) عن الاشتراك في حكومة يرأسها الحريري. ذلك انّ تداعيات انتفاضة 17 تشرين الأول من جهة وتفاقم مفاعيل الانهيار المالي والاقتصادي لا سيما بعد انفجار مرفأ بيروت الكارثي من جهة أخرى، بالإضافة الى هجمة التطبيع الأميركية في المنطقة وما رافقها من صراعات بين تركيا من جهة ومصر واليونان و«إسرائيل» من جهة أخرى على النفط والغاز في الحوض الشرقي للمتوسط، كلّ ذلك أدّى الى تأجيج التوترات والصراعات في مجمل منطقة غرب آسيا، لا سيما في لبنان.

من الصعب، إن لم يكن من المستحيل، ترسيم حدود مقبولة بين مصالح أمراء الطوائف وصراعاتهم في لبنان. انها صراعات «تاريخية» قديمة ومتجدّدة بفعل تدخلات دول كبرى وأخرى إقليمية تجد دائماً بين معظم هؤلاء الأمراء مَن يستدعيها ويتقبّلها وينخرط فيها.

الى ذلك، يمكن رصد هجومٍ صهيوأميركي يستهدف منطقة غرب آسيا برمتها من شواطئ البحر المتوسط غرباً الى شواطئ بحر قزوين شرقاً. هذا الهجوم المتصاعد له دوافع متعددة أبرزها ثلاثة:

أولاها، اضطرار الولايات المتحدة الى الانسحاب تدريجياً من بلدان غرب آسيا تحت وطأة مقاومات شعبية من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى بفعل عوامل سياسية واقتصادية داخلية في أميركا تدفعها الى وضع ترتيبات سياسية وعسكرية لحماية مصالحها ومصالح حلفائها الإقليميين قبل الانسحاب من المنطقة.

ثانيها، التقاء مصالح أميركا مع مصالح «إسرائيل» على تفكيك دول محيطها العربي، سورية ولبنان والعراق والأردن، الى دويلات او جمهوريات موز قميئة على أساس قَبَلي أو طائفي أو اثني لتبقى عاجزة عن التوحّد وعن تشكيل تهديد أمني للكيان الصهيوني او لمصالح دول الغرب الأطلسي في المنطقة.

ثالثها، حماية مصالح أميركا وفرنسا و«إسرائيل» الغازية والنفطية في شرق المتوسط من شواطئ ليبيا الى شواطئ لبنان وسورية، ومن شرق الفرات في سورية الى منطقتي الأهوار والبصرة في جنوب العراق. لهذا الغرض، نشرت أميركا قوات لها في منطقة التنف جنوب شرق سورية وفي منطقة شرق الفرات لقطع معابر الانتقال والنقل بين سورية والعراق. كما قامت أميركا بتشجيع جماعة من الكرد السوريين (منظمة «قسد» تحديداً) على إقامة منطقة حكم ذاتي في شرق الفرات معادية للحكومة المركزية في دمشق، كما على المباشرة في استثمار آبار النفط في المنطقة بالتعاون مع شركات أميركية.

هذه الواقعات والتطورات لم تغب عن أذهان الأحزاب والتنظيمات السياسية الانعزالية اللبنانية التي وجدت فيها ما يساعدها على تحقيق رؤيتها لمستقبل لبنان في غمرة الهجوم الصهيوأميركي الذي يستهدف المنطقة برمّتها. فليس غريباً، والحالة هذه، أن تلجأ هذه التنظيمات الانعزالية الى تأجيج الصراعات الطائفية والسياسية الناشطة في هذه الآونة بقصد الإفادة من تداعيات الصراعات الإقليمية عموماً، وتداعيات الهجوم الصهيوأميركي على سورية خصوصاً لخدمة أغراضها السياسية في الحاضر والمستقبل.

بإختصار، ترسيم الحدود بين لبنان و«إسرائيل» أمر محتمل في المستقبل المنظور. لكن لا سبيل، على ما يبدو، الى ترسيم الحدود بين أمراء الطوائف المتصارعين بضراوة على الصدارة والمصالح والنفوذ.

نائب ووزير سابق

How Nasrallah’s sharp answer to Macron was softened by French media

October 04, 2020

Having failed to take advantage of the crisis to hand over Lebanon to the Hariri-Miqati-Siniora clique, main responsible for the decay of Lebanon since 15 years, as well as to the diktats of the IMF, Macron crossed all the red lines, unable to understand that France no longer runs the show in the Middle East. Hezbollah, for its part, has firmly denounced his conduct while respecting the rules of diplomacy, as a mature actor who knows its political and military power and has nothing to prove. As for French mainstream newspapers like Le Monde, as the sycophant journalists they are, they engage in gross falsifications to support the official narrative, taking advantage of their virtual monopoly on information.

By Resistance News

Read Nasrallah’s response in full below the article.

On September 26, Lebanese Prime Minister Mustapha Adib announced his resignation, having been unable to form a new government by the deadline. He was appointed on August 31, in the wake of the French initiative aimed at forming a government within 15 days. The previous government led by Hassan Diab resigned days after the Beirut port explosion on August 4, which killed some 200 people and left thousands homeless.

The Western media have blamed the Hezbollah-Amal tandem for this failure, accusing them of having demanded that the Ministry of Finance be devolved to a Shiite, allegedly violating the requirement of independence and neutrality, or even, according to France’s main newspaper Le Monde,  trampling upon customs and the Lebanese Constitution:

But [Nasrallah] did not explain the Shiite duo’s stubbornness in [wanting] to control the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.

In a press conference on Sunday, September 27 that lasted nearly an hour, held in linkup between Paris and Beirut, Macron strongly criticized the Lebanese political class in general and Hezbollah in particular, using reproaches and epithets light-years away from traditional diplomatic language (is this why the Élysée does not provide transcripts of presidential speeches?). Macron notably denounced

[…] a political class subjected to the deadly game of corruption and terror. […] The leaders of the Lebanese institutions did not wish, clearly, resolutely, explicitly, did not wish to respect the commitment made to France and to the international community. […] The Lebanese authorities and political forces have chosen to privilege their partisan and individual interests to the detriment of the general interest of the country. […] They made the choice to hand over Lebanon to the game of foreign powers, to condemn it to chaos instead of allowing it to benefit from the international aid which the Lebanese people need. […]

Lebanese politicians have made it impossible, by their dark maneuvers, to form a mission government capable of carrying out the reforms. Some first preferred to consolidate the unity of their camp rather than that of the Lebanese as a whole by negotiating among themselves to better trap others, by reintroducing a sectarian criterion that was not agreed by all for the appointment of ministers, as if competence was related to faith. The others believed they could impose the choices of their party and of Hezbollah in the formation of the government, in total contradiction with the needs of Lebanon and with the commitments explicitly taken withme on September 1. They did not want to make any concessions, until the end. Hezbollah cannot simultaneously be an army at war with Israel, a militia unleashed against civilians in Syria and a respectable party in Lebanon. He must not think he is stronger than he is and it is up to him to show that he respects the Lebanese as a whole. In recent days he has clearly shown the opposite. […]

No one has lived up to the commitments made on September 1. All of the (Lebanese ruling class) bet on the worst with the sole aim of saving themselves, of saving the interests of their family, of their clan. They won’t. To all of them I say today that none of them can win against the others. I therefore decide to take good note of this collective betrayal and of the refusal of Lebanese officials to commit in good faith to the contract that France offered them on September 1. They bear full responsibility. It will be heavy. They will have to answer for it before the Lebanese people. […]

I assert very clearly this evening my condemnation of all political leaders. […]

[The Lebanese leaders] are afraid of Hezbollah, they are afraid of war. […]

The question really is in the hands of President [of the Parliament Nabih] Berri and Hezbollah: do you want the politics of the worst today, or do you want to re-engage the Shiite camp in the camp of democracy and Lebanon’s interest? You cannot claim to be a political force in a democratic country by terrorizing with arms and you cannot be around the table durably if you do not keep your commitments around the table. […]

I am ashamed. I am ashamed for your leaders. […]

You have a system of terror that has taken hold and that Hezbollah has imposed. […]

Macron therefore accused the entire Lebanese political class, all officials and all institutions, without exception, in extremely serious terms (traitors, perjurers, corrupt, terrorists, profiteers, clans, despising the people, untrustworthy, etc.), while absolving France of all responsibility, of any breach: “Where are the responsibilities? They are not those of France.” And clearly, according to him, the greatest part of the responsibility for this failure would fall on Hezbollah, characterized as “militia, terrorist group and political force”, and threatened with sanctions or even of war if it does not come to a better frame of mind:

Sanctions don’t seem like the right instrument at this stage, [but] I haven’t ruled them out at some point. […] There are two lines, there are not three: there is a line which, I believe, is still the one followed by the international community, which is to get behind our initiative and the (French) roadmap. There is another line which may seem attractive and which has been taken by some, which is what I would call the worst-case policy, which is to say basically, we must now declare war on Hezbollah, and therefore Lebanon must collapse with Hezbollah.

So many bellicose declarations which did not prevent the virtuoso of 49-3 [clause of the French Constitution allowing the government to compel the majority if reluctant to adopt a text without a vote, and end any obstruction from the opposition] and torturer of the Yellow Vests from concluding by emphasizing his humble and prudent attitude (“I have a lot of humility”) and his respect for the sovereignty of the peoples (“The line which is mine everywhere [is] that of respecting the sovereignty of peoples”). One can only imagine what the gist of his speech would have been without these valuable qualities.

In a speech of September 29 that lasted nearly an hour and a half, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, responded at length to what can only be characterized as a blatant attack by the French President, trampling on the proprieties and on the sovereignty of Lebanon, to the point that even the pro-NATO Le Monde characterized Macron’s intervention as an “incendiary speech”, a “cannon blast” by a “professor scolding a class of dunces, who cannot open their mouth in front of him”. But we should not rely on the mainstream media to know the content of the speech of the Secretary General of Hezbollah. Here is a list of the approximations, omissions and falsifications of Le Monde in its account of Nasrallah’s intervention, reviewed and corrected by the statements of the chief interested party.

An agreement on the content, but the style is to be reviewed, according to the head of the Lebanese Hezbollah”. Thus begins the brief, free-access article in Le Monde devoted to this speech. Yet Nasrallah made it clear that he denounced both the style and content of the French attitude, and especially developed his criticism of the substance, which occupied almost all of his speech. If he remarked that “We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.”, he stated unequivocally that he was not only denouncing “the style”, but that “the procedures, the format and the content” of Paris’ approach must be “thoroughly reviewed”: “I call on (France) to (fully) reconsider things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used.

In essence, what did the French initiative plan? According to Le Monde,

Lebanese political parties, including Hezbollah, had pledged to Mr. Macron, who came to Beirut in early September, to form a cabinet of “competent” and “independent” ministers from the political swamp within two weeks, condition for the release of international aid essential to the recovery of the country in crisis.

Nasrallah confirms this point, adding a crucial question:

All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers.

The very appointment of the Prime Minister responsible for forming the government was not negotiated. In fact, Mustapha Adib was appointed by a Club made up arbitrarily of four political opponents of Hezbollah, the former Prime Ministers Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri, leaders, members or affiliated to the pro-Western 14-March alliance. Nasrallah reports it in detail:

At this time, a Club was formed, the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers. It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, [and] they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.

That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances.

If Nasrallah stressed the notable absence of Hassan Diab and Salim el-Hoss, two former Prime Ministers of Lebanon still alive, in the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” who chose the new Head of government, it is because their presence would have allowed for a better representation of the balance of political forces in Lebanon. Indeed, these 2 independent figures did not belong to the March 14 alliance, and were closer to Hezbollah and its allies of the March 8 alliance, which is the country’s leading political force, holding the majority in the Parliament since the 2018 elections. In fact, it is the parliamentary minority of March 14, notoriously hostile to Hezbollah, that chose the Prime Minister, who must be Sunni according to the Constitution but can belong to any political party. But from a conciliatory perspective, and with the understanding that the government must be formed in a concerted and representative manner, Hezbollah did not object:

If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government).

However, contrary to expectations, there was no consultation for the formation of the government thereafter, neither with the President of the Republic, nor with the political forces represented in Parliament, as Nasrallah points out:

After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, […] there was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.

If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.

Has Hezbollah gone against “the Constitution and customary rules” by demanding a say in the formation of government and the appointment of Shiite ministers, as Le Monde claims? Or was it his opponents who decided to ignore both the Constitution and customary rules and use the alleged advantage conferred on them by the initiative of their French godfather? The Lebanese Constitution, mentioned without further details by Le Monde, stipulates that

The President of the Republic shall designate the Prime Minister in consultation with the President of the Chamber of Deputies based on binding parliamentary consultations, the content of which he shall formally disclose to the latter. [Art. 53]

The Prime Minister is the Head of Government […]. He shall conduct the parliamentary consultations for forming the government. He shall sign, with the President of the Republic, the Decree of its formation. [Art. 64]

The sectarian groups shall be represented in a just and equitable manner in the formation of the Cabinet. [Art. 95]

The constitutional requirement to involve both the President of the Republic and the Parliament in the appointment of the Prime Minister and the formation of the government, flouted by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, is manifest; and in a country where the President is elected by Parliament, it is eminently more democratic to let the Parliament, elected by direct universal suffrage (albeit on a confessional basis), form the government, than to leave it entirely to the prerogative of an individual appointed by 4 personalities belonging to the same faith and to the same political force, in addition to being a minority, even if it enjoys the favors of France. Moreover, in a restricted-access articleLe Monde half-heartedly acknowledges the preponderant influence of the pro-Western alliance of March 14 in the formation of the Adib government:

“We were being asked to hand over the country to the Club of former Prime Ministers,”Nasrallah added, referring to the alliance Saad Hariri forged with three of his predecessors to closely direct Mustapha Adib. But he did not explain the stubbornness of the Shiite duo in controlling the financial portfolio, contrary to the Constitution and customary rules.

Without specifying the fact that a single political group, the March 14 alliance, had appointed the Prime Minister, Le Monde presents the requirement of Hezbollah’s participation as contrary to customs and to the Constitution, while it is quite the opposite : it was a democratic and constitutional requirement, by virtue of which the Parliament, which directly represents the people, unlike the Prime Minister and the President who represent them indirectly, must participate in the formation of the government. Hezbollah is not claiming, as Macron absurdly claims, that “competence [is] linked to confession”, nor is he rejecting, as Le Monde maintains, “the idea of ​​a collective of experts chosen on the basis of their skills”. Given the sectarian nature of the voting system in Lebanon, it is obvious that the democratic requirement must involve the representatives of each political force elected to Parliament in the choice of the holder of the ministerial portfolios which will be attributed to them, on both a political and religious basis. Far from a derogation to the “customary rule”, this is how ALL previous governments have been formed, without exception, since 2005: after an agreement of the political forces on the name of the Prime Minister, the nature of the government and the distribution of portfolios were negotiated between them, and each parliamentary group appointed its ministers, accepted without discussion by the Head of government. The only innovation in this scheme was that of Hassan Diab in 2019, when he allowed himself to negotiate the names of the proposed ministers until a personality accepted by both parties was proposed.

If Hezbollah is indeed the only party to have opposed the plan put forward by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, it is quite simply because it is the only party which has been consulted by Saad Hariri, acting as the representative of both Prime Minister Mustapha Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But the law, use and common sense made it necessary for Hariri & Adib to meet with all the forces represented in Parliament, though  they declined to. Contrary to what Le Monde claims, it was not simply a question of the Minister of Finance and Hezbollah, and far from remaining silent on this subject, Nasrallah justified at length the requirement to see each politico-confessional force appoint its own minister:

Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance].

The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone were to decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision). […]

Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us! […]

If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their appointment, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right? […]

In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure.

The French initiative, which presented itself as a desire to overcome political and confessional divisions, therefore quickly turned out as a juggernaut aiming to erase all the components of Lebanese political life, except one, that of the pro-Western and pro-French March 14 led by Saad Hariri, who wanted to monopolize the process of forming the government and therefore monopolize the political decision. This was obviously unacceptable to the March 8 parliamentary majority, as Nasrallah explained:

What has been proposed during the last month  is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month. […]

If we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been Heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all bear some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I pin responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.

The French initiative was indeed planning to put old wine in new wineskins, closely “directed” by the old wineskins which would simply remain behind the scenes but continue to pull the strings: it is the complete opposite of the revival touted by the marketing of the French roadmap, and of Macron’s promises that “no one will give money as long as those who led this villainous system for decades are there and as long as the system will be held by the same people with the same rules”. It is precisely the status quo and the impunity of the “profiteers” that Paris wanted to maintain.

Faced with the irreconcilability of the two parties, Hariri refusing to negotiate, and Hezbollah understandably refusing to give in to this attempted hold-up which tried to instrumentalize the emotion aroused by the national disaster of the explosion of the port of Beirut, France then intervened, asking Hezbollah why it was obstructing government formation and putting pressure on it. Here is Hezbollah’s response, as reported by Nasrallah:

We replied: “O our dear ones, o our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this. […]

In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents. We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.

The negotiations were therefore only a vain masquerade, and Saad Hariri wanted, as in 2005 when he capitalized on the emotion aroused by the assassination of his father Rafik Hariri, to fully seize the power, by appointing so-called technocrats selected not so much for their competence, which must be determined collegially and not by co-option, but for their political allegiance. Scarlett Haddad sums it up in L’Orient le Jour, a French-speaking and pro-Western Lebanese daily:

Under the pretext of having chosen Mustapha Adib, the former Prime Ministers have arrogated themselves the right to dictate his attitude, when they should, like the others, have stayed aside. Moreover, in his three meetings with the two Shiite emissaries Ali Hassan Khalil and Hussein Khalil, Mustapha Adib repeated on several occasions that he was obliged to conform to the will of the four former Prime Ministers, since they had named him. In this regard, Amal and Hezbollah recall that they accepted his appointment (the former Prime Ministers had sent a list of three names, two of which were unacceptable for Amal and Hezbollah), but that does not mean that they accept to be totally marginalized in the formation of government. Ultimately, they could have agreed to be, if that was the case for all political parties. But they found out that they were excluded, even from the choice of the Shiite ministers, not to mention the Finance portfolio, while the former Prime Ministers themselves intervene in all the decisions of Mustapha Adib, and that set off their alarm bells. Moreover, this issue was raised during the meeting between Hezbollah’s head of external relations, Ammar Moussaoui, and the French ambassador, Bruno Foucher. But despite this metting, Adib had not changed his style. He did hold two meetings with the Shiite emissaries, but without clearly answering any of their questions. Amal and Hezbollah thought that a trap was set for them. They had the feeling of reliving the situation of 2005: under the shock of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the Future Movement and the PSP then hastened to conclude with them the famous quadripartite agreement to wrest the parliamentary majority and then turn against them by excluding them from power. Thus, the two parties had the feeling that their opponents were once again seeking to take advantage of an immense tragedy to initially exclude them from executive power, before turning against them. […] And now? The circles close to the Shiite formations believe that it is still quite possible to save the French initiative. But this requires respect for political and community balances.

None of these essential facts is reflected in Le Monde’s report, which suggests that all political parties agreed to pull back in the best interests of Lebanon, while Hezbollah would have rejected any compromise and got tough, caring about nothing but the conservation of its weapons:

Tuesday evening, Hassan Nasrallah raised the one once again, stressing the need for his party to be part of the government, through partisans or not, in order to “protect the back of the resistance”.

This falsification is perhaps the most blatant of all of Le Monde’s lies, and aims to describe Hezbollah as a party from abroad which has nothing to do with the well-being of the Lebanese and only wishes to preserve its military arsenal, supposedly guarantor of its political strength. In fact, Nasrallah precisely said the opposite. In 2005, he explained, Hezbollah had indeed decided to join the government “to protect the back of the Resistance”. But today, he continued, the situation is very different, Hezbollah having nothing to fear for itself, and it is only for Lebanon that it is worried:

I want to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.

Though Western media often obscure this reality, Hezbollah is not merely a formidable anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist and sovereignist armed force close to Iran (while its Lebanese adversaries are mere tools of the Washington-Paris-Riyadh Axis) and a Shiite Islamist party representing the largest demographic community in Lebanon; it is also a progressive social force in the service of the most deprived, opposed to the ultraliberal doxa defended by the West and its godchildren of March 14. It is not to protect its weapons that Hezbollah wants to participate in the government, it is above all to protect the sovereignty of Lebanon and the purchasing power of the most humble Lebanese, who would be abused by the March 14 oligarchy ruled by billionaires like Hariri and Miqati.

In conclusion, Nasrallah denounced Macron’s attempt to put Lebanon under trusteeship, and the real attack against Lebanon’s national dignity that his speech constituted, calling on him to renounce interference, pressure and threats:

We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine) friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler, judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. […]

I would have liked President Macron to say that it was (only) Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces. […] There is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. […] Whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable.

This (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).

President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.

Le Monde‘s approximations and falsifications aim both to denigrate Hezbollah, presented as an instrument of Iran indifferent to the fate of Lebanon and the Lebanese, while it is its best defender, and to perpetuate the myth of French influence in the Middle East by validating Macron’s approach, allegedly accepted even by his fiercest opponents despite some criticism about the style. These illusions may flatter Macron’s oversized ego, but encourage him to keep his doomed paternalistic and neo-colonialist posture. By perpetuating this ignorance, France is only moving further away from Lebanon and the Middle East in general, where its once dominant role is now largely eroded and will be nothing but a bad memory tomorrow.

***

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on September 29, 2020.

We translate in full the central part of the speech devoted to the failure of the French initiative and to Macron’s press conference, key passages of which we have quoted above (emboldened in the transcript).

In introduction and conclusion, Nasrallah briefly touched on the role of the United States in the resurgence of ISIS in Lebanon and elsewhere, the situation in southern Lebanon and the unprecedented disappearance of occupying forces along the entire length of the border since several months, driven awat by fear of an inevitable Hezbollah response, Netanyahu’s recent lies about stockpiles of missiles stored in urban areas of Beirut and the Bahrain-Israel deal, doomed to fail as all the Arab-Israeli peace treaties because the peoples won’t ever accept them.

Source: https://video.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=2168

Translation: resistancenews.org

Transcript:

[…] Regarding the internal political situation, I will address the issue of the government, the formation of the new government, the French initiative, and the recent press conference of French President Macron. I want to bring this up first to explain to Lebanese public opinion what happened —of course, there are details that I will only cover briefly, and some truths that I will keep hidden for now, in order to leave the doors open, but I want to present a sufficient picture, I consider that it will be sufficient to understand what happened. And I also want to express our comments on President Macron’s press conference, and about where we are headed.

Regarding the government, after the explosion of the (Beirut) port on August 4, 2020, and the resignation of the government of Hassan Diab, as well as the visit of the French President to Lebanon, and the launch of the French initiative, there were two meetings at the Résidence des Pins (residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon), in the presence of the French President and 8 parties, political forces or parliamentary groups, which became 9 during the second meeting. An initiative has been presented, the text of which is present and circulated in the media and on social networks, and anyone can refer to it, nothing being hidden about it. We have all said that we support the French initiative. The first step was the formation of a new government. I will get to that in detail in a moment. The first step in the first phase was to appoint the Prime Minister who would form a government. I will tell it as it happened, citing the names, because the Lebanese people have the right to know things clearly. Nothing is secret, and there are no secrets in Lebanon, but I will talk about the facts.

Who were we going to name as Prime Minister? We have agreed that the parliamentary groups will consult on this matter, no problem. We said we would have no problem with the Prime Minister being Saad Hariri, if he wanted to. If he wanted to nominate someone, we had to see who he was going to suggest, and discuss it among ourselves, and accept or not. These were the initial discussions. At this time, a Club was formed, which I will call the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, because I will often talk about it, the Club of 4 (former) Prime Ministers (Fouad Siniora, Najib Miqati, Tammam Salam and Saad Hariri). It is not fair to speak absolutely of a “Former Prime Ministers’ Club”, because the former Prime Minister (Salim) el-Hoss is still alive, and was not a member. This Club was therefore made up of the last 4 Prime Ministers. Prime Minister Hassan Diab is also a former Prime Minister today (and was not present in this Club), so that makes two former Prime Ministers (who were excluded from this committee). This Club started to meet, as they declared, on several occasions, which is not a problem for us, on the contrary, because we want the greatest understanding between the different forces, movements and political parties of Lebanon, and these people have parliamentary groups and represent political forces. So they came up with three names, (clearly) favoring Professor Mustapha Adib, at least that’s what we understood. All the clues showed that they had appointed Professor Mustapha Adib as Prime Minister.

That night, as everyone was in a hurry and we had a 15-day deadline (to form the government), we inquired about the identity of this man, his liabilities and the data concerning him (which was) reasonable and positive, and in order to make things easier, we have not placed any conditions (on his appointment as Prime Minister), we have not asked for an encounter with him, we have not made any prior agreement with him. Some people are now saying that it was a mistake from our side, but whether (this decision) was right or wrong is not the point. Either way, our endorsement clearly expresses our desire to make things easier. We wanted to facilitate (the success of this French initiative). Because in any government, the most important figure is that of the head of government! In any government, the most important figure is the Prime Minister! But we accepted this suggestion (of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) on the assumption that this government would be formed on the basis of the broadest representation, and the broadest support (of all political forces), so that it would be able to move forward and get things done in such difficult circumstances. We therefore accepted this suggestion, very well, everyone was reassured, and the French President came for his second visit, and met everyone after the appointment of Prime Minister Mustapha Adib, inviting us to continue to carry out the French roadmap, reforms, etc.

After the appointment of Mr. Mustapha Adib, the protocol meetings with parliamentary groups (making the appointment official) were held, and it all ended. The Prime Minister has been asked to do so. He’s a respectable and respectful person, I don’t mean anything bad about him, but (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) told him to wait, and that someone was going to negotiate. Naturally, the negotiations had to take place with the parliamentary groups, because they are the ones who issue the vote of confidence, and it is not enough that they have (accepted the) appointment of the Prime Minister. There are parliamentary groups that did not vote for the appointment, but could vote confidence (in the government). But they haven’t spoken to anyone, with no political force, at least from what I know. There was no discussion, no interview, no debate, no solicitation of each other’s opinions (in order to form the government). To the point that subsequently, the President of the Republic was forced to summon heads or representatives of parliamentary groups to discuss it with them. Because (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) considered that (any consultation) was useless. And I’ll explain why. Even with the President of the Republic, who in reality does not represent a (particular) political force, but is, according to the Constitution, a partner in the formation of the government, his role not being limited only to accepting or rejecting (such or such government). He had the right, from the start, to discuss with the Head of Government the distribution of portfolios, the names of ministers, the nature of the government, etc. But it hasn’t happened once. Not even once. It’s like it was just a matter of forming a government and submitting it to President Aoun for approval or rejection, with no (possible discussion or) alternative route.

If he signs (his approval for such a government), it will mean a de facto government which will not have been discussed with him at all, neither at the level of its nature, nor at the level of the distribution of portfolios, nor at the level of the names of ministers, which amounts to remove the main remaining prerogative devolved to the President of the Republic after the Taif agreement, namely his participation in the formation of the government. And France must be aware of its (serious) mistake —I am now starting my denunciation. France was covering a political operation which would have led to the removal of the main remaining prerogative of the President of the Lebanese Republic. And if President Aoun refused to sign, the country would be turned upside down, the media & political opponents were ready (to go wild), as was French pressure, accusing President Aoun of obstruction (and sabotage). Of course, I don’t know if there were any negotiations with the Progressive Party or the Lebanese Forces (which are part of the March 14 minority alliance, opposed to Hezbollah), but I know that there have been no negotiations with the political components who are our friends & allies, and with whom we hold the majority in Parliament.

Certainly there were negotiations with us, that is true. Because naturally, for one reason or another, the force represented by Hezbollah and Amal could not be ignored [the Shiites are the main community in Lebanon, and the first political force, all their deputies being part of the Amal- Hezbollah alliance]. We therefore discussed with the representative of Mustapha Adib. The identity of the representative of Mustapha Adib or of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” posed no problem for us. But it turned out that the representative we spoke to was Saad Hariri (who represented both Adib and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).

During the discussions, the points that we understood about the government during the first days, and about which there was dissension between us and Hariri, were as follows. Of course, the negotiations were cordial and respectful.

The first point of negotiation was that [Hariri demanded that] the government be formed of 14 ministers. The second point was the rotation of ministerial portfolios, implying that we abandon the Ministry of Finance. The third point is that all the ministers had to be appointed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” (who are Sunnis) for all faiths: Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze, they themselves wanted to appoint all the ministers. Fourth, they alone should decide on the distribution of ministerial portfolios among the various faiths. When we asked them how they were going to proceed, they did not answer, everything was left to their whim. In short, they were deciding everything, and we and the other forces in the country just had to take good note (of their unilateral decision): we had to take note that the government would have 14 ministers —of course that was the conclusion, but the discussion was calm and respectful—, we had to take note of the rotation of the portfolios, we had to take note of the distribution of the portfolios (between the different faiths) and we had to take note of the names of the ministers who would represent all the religious sects. That is all.

We have debated these points. Regarding the first point, we agreed that 30 ministers were too many, and even 24 ministers, but if we keep only 14 ministers, it is (so to speak) giving two ministries to each person. Even with a single ministry, it is already difficult to operate effectively and competently. This is one of the problems in our country: it is difficult to find competent ministers capable of leading their ministries, (and this problem would have been magnified). Why give two ministries to each minister? We could have agreed on 18 or 20 ministers, it was open to debate, but they insisted on 14 ministers, (refusing any concessions on this point) despite the fact that most of the political forces who were then consulted by the President of the Republic did not want 14 ministers, being in favor of the widest possible representation.

Likewise for the second point, we were opposed to portfolio rotation, and the issue of the Ministry of Finance is well known.

The third point is that of the appointment of ministers. The question is not only that of the Ministry of Finance. Even after establishing that such and such a ministry should be attributed to Christians, Sunnis, Shiites or Druze, they wanted to appoint the said ministers themselves, instead of the political forces or parliamentary groups that represent those faiths. Even leaving the parties aside, the parliamentary groups representing the confessions had to be involved, because they are the elected representatives of their communities: they are the elected representatives of the Lebanese people, and in particular of their faith. But (the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”) didn’t want to involve them in any way, just notify them (of their decision). Of course, this point was unacceptable to us, it was not negotiable. Not just for Shia ministers. That a single political force designates all ministers of all faiths is in our eyes a (great) danger for the country.

Let us take a step back and consider the Taif Accord, the constitutional prerogatives and traditions. Very good. From the Taif Agreement (1989) until 2005… It is not useful to refer to the way governments were formed before the Taif Agreement, because today there is the Taif Agreement. It is not useful to refer to the way in which the governments were formed from the Taif Agreement until 2005, because until 2005, we will be objected that this happened at the time of the Syrian tutelage and the Syrian administration. Very good. So let’s look at things from 2005 to this day: how were all the governments formed, in which you [March 14 Alliance] most often had the parliamentary majority, and were the main political force in the country, applying the Taif Agreement?

(Let’s look at things from) the first government formed after Syrian forces left the country, or during their departure, namely the government of Najib Miqati, to this day. There were always negotiations and agreement on the person of the Prime Minister, who then personally negotiated (with the political forces) to agree on the number of ministers and on the distribution of portfolios, then the ministers were appointed by deputies or parliamentary groups representing each faith, without even the Prime Minister negotiating the names proposed. The only deviation from this took place with the government of Hassan Diab, and we accepted it without problem, namely that the Prime Minister could reject a proposal from deputies or political parties and ask that another minister be suggested to him. We were open to this even before the government of Hassan Diab, and it is with him that we put it into practice. And we were and still are ready to do it this time around. In our view, this is a positive step which strengthens the prerogatives of the Head of Government. It doesn’t weaken him. This was the Prime Minister’s practice in force from 2005 to the present (for the formation of the government). When he came to an agreement with the parliamentary groups and political forces wishing to participate in the government, they would agree on the portfolios and their distribution, but each force appointed its own ministers, and the Prime Minister did not debate the names put forward to him. Today we say that the Prime Minister can debate and refuse the names that are suggested to him, and whoever is refused, we will put him aside and come up with other names. In truth, it is a reinforcement of the prerogatives of the Head of Government, different from all previous stages since the Taif Accord to this date. That is, anyone who wants to use sectarian language and claim that this weakens the status of the Prime Minister, in any case, it strengthens him more than ever! We agreed and considered it normal and logical.

But (this time, the way Ministers would be chosen) remained a point of dispute (between us and the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”).

Regarding the distribution of portfolios (between the different faiths), same thing.

Even with regard to the names put forward (for the post of minister), we were ready to negotiate several ideas that were put forward to us, such as the appointment of ministers who do not belong to any party, or who did not participate in previous governments, or that the Prime Minister can refuse 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 names of ministers who will be proposed to him. We said we didn’t have a problem with that. All of this made things easier and did not obstruct the process! But they remained inflexible in their desire to appoint all the ministers themselves.

They remained inflexible on these four points until the 15th day, without even having taken the trouble to discuss and debate them with the President of the Republic: we had to accept (without discussion) 14 ministers, the rotation of portfolios, the appointment by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” of all the ministers, and the distribution of portfolios among the different faiths by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. It was unacceptable as far as we are concerned, and we reached a dead end.

Of course, we can discuss this process by comparing it to the way things were done since 2005 to the present day, because they talk about traditions, but governments have never been formed according to these ways. And we can even discuss it from a constitutional point of view, by referring to what the Constitution says about the formation of the government and the role of representatives of the faiths. Because when the Taif Agreement made government the main body of power, the decision-making force, that was something new; and it was established that all faiths should be represented in this government through the representatives of these faiths in the Parliament. I will not dwell on the exegesis of article 95 of the Constitution (affirming the need for the end of confessionalism, but stipulating that in the meantime, “The communities will be fairly represented in the formation of the Government.”), but I only want to say that we can debate the constitutionality (of the procedures of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”), by saying that this interpretation is possible, without imposing myself the interpretation of this article.

Either way, without getting into a constitutional dispute, these procedures are not those that were in effect from 2005 to the present day. Why do you want to impose new uses, suppress (the role of) parliamentary groups and the parliamentary majority, suppress the President of the Republic and suppress political forces, and monopolize the formation of the government in the interest of a single party, which represents only a part of the current parliamentary minority, although we respect it and respect its position? But this is a whole new way of doing things, which contradicts the traditions, the Constitution and the democracy that Mr. Macron demands of us!

It was at this point that France began to call everyone and put pressure on everyone, in the last days of the 15-day deadline, speaking to the Presidents (of the Chamber of Deputies, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic ) and to the party leaders —of course, the contacts with us were different—, 30-minute, 45-minute calls from President Macron, the guy was making an effort, that’s good, but in which direction was he making his efforts? I am not going to speak of the debates which took place with the others, which do not concern me, but of those which took place with us. “Why aren’t you in, why are you obstructing things,” we were asked. “We want you to help and make things easier,” we were told. All this was said in diplomatic language but with pressure, threatening us with terrible sanctions, etc.

We replied: “O our dear ones, O our friends, did the French initiative provide for a government of 14 ministers?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for a Club made up of 4 former Prime Ministers to appoint all the ministers of the government for all faiths?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide that they would distribute the portfolios between faiths on their own?” They said no. “Did the French initiative provide for the rotation of portfolios, and that the Ministry of Finance would be removed from this faith in favor of another?” They said no, and said they just wanted a smaller government —14, 12, 10, 18 or 20 ministers, and it was up to us to come to an agreement on their appointment. Great. So how are we obstructing the French initiative? Because the debate is now between us and France. They have spoken publicly, to the media, so I do the same. What I am saying is true. The roadmap of the French initiative is accessible to the public, O Lebanese people, and does not mention any of this: no 14 ministers, no rotation of portfolios, no method of appointing ministers, no distribution of portfolios

In the end, France accepted our view that the Ministry of Finance should remain with the Shiites —I will make clear later the reason for the insistence on this issue and the importance of this point—, but asked that he be appointed by the Head of Government, that is to say by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”. But we replied that we are not simply looking for the minister to be Shiite and from Shiite parents (it is an issue of political allegiance, and not merely of faith). We are committed to this minister being Shia because of the decisions he will have to make, and on which we must have a say. The Head of Government is capable of finding a Shiite official who is 100% loyal and sincere to him. This is not what we are looking for. We want each denomination to appoint its ministers, even if the Head of Government can refuse names 10, 20 or 30 times, until one can be found that works for all. But this idea was categorically rejected by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”.

Finally, Saad Hariri declared that he exceptionally accepts that the Minister of Finance be Shiite, but that he must be appointed by the Prime Minister. But we had already rejected this idea 5 days before. He claimed he was drinking the poisoned chalice by accepting this, but there is no reason for you to swallow poison, O Saad Hariri, we wish you health, and God preserve it, and I hope that we will get along eventually, no problem. But what you are suggesting is not a solution, and cannot be the solution. Then the other 3 members of the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”declared that they did not agree with what Saad Hariri had said. I don’t quite understand this story (a puerile attempt to fool us), but we’re not interested in its details anyway.

We reached a dead end: we did not agree on the form of government, on who would appoint ministers, on the rotation, or on the distribution of portfolios. Because of the dead end, the head of government resigned.

I want to make it clear that there was a desire among some to impose a de facto government. I won’t name them, but there was clearly the will to send everyone to hell by (unilaterally) forming a government, appointing ministers and submitting it to the President of the Republic for approval. If he signed, so much the better. If he didn’t sign, everything would be set up against him. But they felt that he would sign because of the difficult situation of Christians and the Free Patriotic Movement, his desire to see his mandate crowned with success, French pressure, etc. They thought he would have no choice, even if they were sorely mistaken about it, because they underestimate President Aoun.

Mustapha Adib, seeing that he would not achieve anything and wouldn’t gain broad support, and not wanting to go towards a confrontation, decided to resign, and it was a respectable choice. We wish he had waited a bit more, but whether he resigned on his own because he couldn’t stand the situation, or has been asked to step down, I don’t know, but it isn’t important anymore.

After the resignation of the Prime Minister —I am still narratiing the facts, I will soon come to our assessment— the media machine financed by the Americans (and their allies) unleashed against President Aoun, Hezbollah or the tandem Amal-Hezbollah, depending on the targets of each. We had been designated as responsible of the failure beforehand, even before the failure of Mustapha Adib. France got angry and announced a press conference of President Macron, and all Lebanese were waiting to see who they blamed. And we all heard his press conference, and the questions and answers from Lebanese (pro-Western) journalists that followed.

After summing up the facts, I would like to make the following comments and clarify for all the following points.

First, what has been proposed during the last month —after the first 15 days ended, 15 days have been added, which makes a month— is not a government to save Lebanon. What was proposed by the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club” is that in the end, all the parliamentary groups of the country, all the Lebanese political forces, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Republic hand over the country to them, unconditionally, without discussion, without debate, and without asking any questions. What will be the nature of the government, who will be in it, how will the ministries be distributed, etc., none of these points was to be debated, and it was necessary to rely blindly on the “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”and accept the government that they were preparing to form (unilaterally), otherwise the sanctions would fall, as would the French pressures which would make us bear the responsibility in the eyes of the Lebanese people and the international community, presenting us as saboteurs. This is the project that has been put forward for one month.

Of course, this was all founded on a wrong assumption. In this project, the most important thing was to see whether the Hezbollah-Amal duo accepted the plan or not. I am saying it frankly. That’s why they didn’t negotiate, discuss and argue with anyone else. They thought that if Hezbollah and Amal walked along, no one would be able to stop this project, because even if President Aoun wanted to exercise his constitutional prerogatives, he would find himself isolated, confronted and put under pressure. (I’m telling you) so that you understand our position. What has been proposed for a month now is not a rescue government, but a government appointed by a “Four Prime Ministers’ Club”, made up of 14 ministers, a sort of Board of Directors, specialist civil servants whose political decision is entirely vested in a single group, which is part of the parliamentary minority in Lebanon and represents only one political color (that of March 14). They represent a large part of Sunnis, but they do not (even) represent all Sunnis. There are many elected Sunni MPs who are not part of this alliance (and are close to Hezbollah).

Such was the plan put forward, and we all had to walk along. But it was all based on a misreading, namely that the current situation was difficult, that people were afraid, were helpless, that the pressures were exerted (from all sides), that the (American) sanctions were coming, already having struck two (former) Hezbollah ministers, Ali Khalil and Yusuf Finyanus, with threats of (additional) sanctions against a list made up of 94 personalities, etc., etc., etc., in addition to French pressure… If they could use such (threatening) language with us, while they are very careful when addressing us, telling us to fear the worst if the project does not come to fruition, what have they told the other (less powerful) forces, what have they threatened them with, what kind of pressure did they put on them? So much for the first point.

In this regard, I want to say that this (paternalist) conduct and this way of doing things will never succeed in Lebanon, whatever the identity of those who exercise them and of those who support them. Whether it is the United States, France, Europe, the international community, the Arab League, the planet or even the whole universe, the language of threats will never work with us. This will never work in Lebanon, and whoever you are, you are wasting your time (trying to intimidate us).

President Macron accused us of terrorizing people, but those who accuse us of intimidating are those who have exercised a policy of intimidation during the past month, against the Presidents (of the Republic, of the Council of Ministers and of the Parliament), parliamentary groups, and political parties & forces in order to impose such a government. The threats, the sanctions, the dangers (mentioned), the idea that we’d be heading for the worst (namely war against Hezbollah), etc. You saw the language (used by Macron). All of this is now public. But it won’t work.

Second, if we have rejected this form of government, it is not because we would or would not want to be in the government. The fundamental question we are asking ourselves is that of the interests of Lebanon, of the Lebanese people, the recovery of the country… Because we can go from bad to better, and from bad to worse. The question is, in which direction are we going? To whom were we about to hand over the ark of our salvation? Who would have been at the helm of the saving ship? These 4 Prime Ministers were Prime Ministers from 2005 until just a few months ago. Isn’t it true? They have been heads of government for 15 years. They are not the only ones responsible for the current situation, of course. We all have some responsibility. But it is they who bear the greatest burden of responsibility. For they were the Heads of Government, and had ministers & officials in (all) (successive) governments. I blame responsibility on them, and I ask them to take responsibility and not to run away from (it). We must help each other, cooperate, work hand in hand. But to believe that we can save Lebanon by handing over the country to the political force that bears the greatest responsibility for the situation we have arrived at for 15 years is completely illogical and even absurd.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned, you know that before 2005, we didn’t want to participate in governments, (but then we changed our mind). Why? I talked about it a lot during the 2018 elections during the electoral rallies, and I explained why we had to be present in governments (after 2005). It’s not because we’re after honors, ministries, dignities or money. Glory to God who has provided us with His blessings, so much so that we have no need of this State’s wages, budget, or wealth. I had spoken of a clear reason, to which I will add a second reason today. The reason I mentioned was the need to protect the rear of the Resistance. I’ve explained it at length, and no need to repeat myself. Some of our friends say that Hezbollah does not need to participate in governments to protect itself. This is a respectable point of view, but we do not share it. Why? We have to be in government. Whether it is a partisan government or not, it is open to debate. But we (had explained that) must be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance, so that the experience of the government of May 5, 2008 is not repeated [the government of Fouad Siniora and Walid Joumblatt wanted to dismantle the underground communications network of Hezbollah, central element of its military force, and to push the army to fight the Resistance; this seditious plan was neutralized by force of arms, the only time where Hezbollah used its weapons on the domestic scene]. Who was this government made up of? From the very people who want to form the new government today. It is exactly the same as the government of May 5, 2008. The government of May 5, 2008 had taken a dangerous decision which was going to lead to a clash between the Lebanese Army and the Resistance, which is an American, Israeli and Saudi project. We were able to avoid it. Quite frankly, we have no fear of the military institution, the leadership of the military, or its officers and soldiers. Because it is a national and patriotic institution. But we have the right (and the duty) to be wary of political authorities and political decision-making. And we decided to be present in the government to protect the rear of the Resistance. This is the first point (which I mentioned in 2018).

And as for the second point that I will announce now, during all the past debates, Hezbollah was accused of being an armed Resistance, of having fought in Syria, Iraq, and whatnot, in Palestine, and of neglecting the economic, financial and social situation, etc. And a whole host of accusations and equations have been deployed (against us), like our weapons in exchange for (ending) corruption, (saving) the economy in exchange for Resistance, etc. I will not discuss this point, but I want to build on it, in order to explain why, quite frankly, it is impossible for us to be absent from the government. Quite frankly, we fear for what’s left of Lebanon, economically, financially, and in every way. We are afraid for Lebanon and for the Lebanese people. I have already said that we are not afraid for Hezbollah (which would survive and maintain its power even if Lebanon collapsed, because Iran will always be there), but for the country, for the people, for the future of this country. If a government had been formed (without us), how would we know that it wasn’t going to sign a blank check to the IMF and give in to all its demands without discussion? I’m not accusing anyone but it’s a possibility. I know each other’s beliefs (and the March 14 submission to the West). As a parliamentary group, are we going to give our confidence to a government knowing, or very strongly presuming, that it will blindly sign the IMF’s roadmap, without discussion? Whatever the conditions of the IMF, Lebanon would comply. Should we not be afraid that a government, using the pretext of our financial situation or any other pretext, sells national assets? It is already proposed in some projects to sell State property (massive privatization). Should liquidation of Lebanon’s assets be carried out on the pretext of the need to obtain money to pay off the debt, remedy the paralysis, etc., etc., etc.? Shouldn’t we be afraid of such a government, when, and I solemnly assert this to you, during previous governments, two-thirds or more of the ministers bitterly defended an increase in VAT? If the intended government had been formed by Mustapha Adib, the first decision he would have made was to increase VAT on everything. The tax policy would have hit the people, while we promised the Lebanese people that we would not allow it and would not accept it. Can our people endure an increase in VAT? Because of a proposed tax of a few cents on Whatsapp calls, people took to the streets on October 17 (2019). Shouldn’t we fear a government with which we do not know what will happen to the savings of the people in the banks? No our dear ones, we fear for our country, for our people, for national assets, for the savings of the inhabitants. We fear the IMF conditions and we fear to go from a bad situation to a much worse situation.

I am not claiming that we have quick fixes. We have put forward alternative solutions, such as the petroleum products of Iran (which can be acquired in Lebanese currency or against goods) which would save billions of dollars to the State Treasury, turning to the East, without renouncing the West if possible, namely towards Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, etc. France is afraid of these alternatives, and especially the United States. There are alternatives (to the West). We are not talking about replacement but about cooperation (with both East and West, to our advantage). But as far as we are concerned, we will never turn our backs and close our eyes to blindly hand over the country to any government that will run the economy and the finances of the country as it pleases. This is no longer an option. It is not just a question of participating in power or not.

Second, when you blamed all the political forces for the failure, Mr. Macron… I am not going to defend Hezbollah. On the contrary, I would have liked President Macron to say that it was Hezbollah that thwarted the initiative, no problem, and I wish he had spared the rest of the political forces. In reality, there are political forces in Lebanon that no one has spoken to, that have not been solicited, with whom no one has negotiated, and who do not even know what happened! If we ourselves, who were involved in the negotiations, did not know the names of the ministers, nor (the distribution of) portfolios, it means that other forces knew absolutely nothing (of what was going on). So how can you blame them like you do? You accused all the Presidents of the (Lebanese) institutions. All right, (let’s say that) the Speaker of the Parliament (Nabih Berri) is part of the (Amal-Hezbollah) tandem. But the President of the Republic, what is the mistake he made, what are the failings he is accused of? Why should he be held responsible? Because Macron put the responsibility on (absolutely) everyone: the Presidents (of the Parliament, of the Council of Ministers and of the Republic), the institutions and all the political forces. He even included the President of the Republic! What are the errors or inadequacies he is accused of? The issue didn’t even reach him! Nobody came to bring him a proposal for the distribution of portfolios and names of ministers!

Third, when we are blamed and accused of leading the country to the worst, I say it is quite the opposite! What we have done is prevent the country from going to the worst of the worst. We are still in a bad situation, but we hope that the (French) initiative will reconsider its approach and that the Lebanese will cooperate so that we can go from bad to good (and not from bad to worse).

Next point, what are the promises we made that we would not have kept? A roadmap has been put on the table. Our brother Hajj Mohammad Raad, God preserve him, leader of the parliamentary bloc of the Loyalty to Resistance, and true representative of Hezbollah at the (negotiating) table, frankly said that we agreed with 90% of the content of this roadmap. Macron asked him if he was sure, and he said yes, although he did not determine what 10% we disagreed with. But even assuming that we would have accepted 100% of this road map, it stipulates in no way the method that was implemented, nor this mode of government formation (by a single political color, minority and hostile to Hezbollah, to the detriment of all the others). O President Macron, what have we promised and how have we broken our word? How can you accuse us of breaking our commitments and being unworthy of respect? How can you accuse us of perjury? At first you talked about a government of national unity, and then you backtracked and gave up on the idea. We understood and didn’t object. Some have spoken of a translation error, others of American or Saudi pressure, whatever. All you talked about was forming a mission government with competent, independent ministers. Very well. But these independent ministers, who should name them? Who was to name them? It was not mentioned in the (French) initiative. No one agreed on how to appoint these ministers. If it had been agreed that political parties do not participate in their nomination, Saad Hariri is the leader of a party (and therefore should not have participated). Just as Najib Miqati heads a party, and Fouad Siniora is a member of a party. Why should one political color have the right to appoint all ministers, while all other forces do not have this right?

Mr. President, O Lebanese people, we have never made a commitment to accept any government at all, whatever be its formation and whatever be its composition. We have never made a commitment to hand the country over to any government at all, regardless of the way it’ll be formed and regardless of its composition. No one has agreed on how the government will be formed and how the ministers should be appointed. This was neither mentioned in the project nor in the (French) initiative. On the contrary, the initiative was instrumentalized to impose this project on the Lebanese political parties and forces. O French President, we are well-known, both to our friends and to our enemies, for keeping our promises and our commitments, and our (high) credibility with both friends and enemies is well established. Our way of doing things is well-known, and when we make promises it is well-known that we are willing to sacrifice anything to keep those promises. We go so far as to anger our friends and allies for keeping our promises. I don’t need to give examples, this is well-known (in Lebanon).

Among the points that I would like to mention is that no one has the right to use promises of financial aid to simply suppress the main political forces of the country, and wipe out the result of the elections (which gave the parliamentary majority to Hezbollah and its allies). President Macron tells Amal and Hezbollah, the Shiites, that they must choose between democracy and the worst. We have chosen democracy. What you are asking us is contrary to democracy. If democracy is not elections (and respect for their outcome), then what is democracy? The 2018 elections elected a parliamentary majority. And what you are asking, O President, is that the parliamentary majority withdraw and hand over the country and its own neck to the parliamentary minority, to a part of the parliamentary minority! We have chosen (to respect the result of) legislative and municipal elections, to respect the preeminence of the Parliament (main political body according to the Constitution), and to cooperate. We didn’t choose the worst.

We did not choose war. We didn’t attack anyone. It was the Zionists who attacked our country, forcing war on us and occupying our territory, seizing our choices and our resources. And it is they who threaten our country. We did not go to Syria to fight civilians. We went to Syria, with the agreement of the Syrian government, to fight the groups that you yourself designate as terrorists and takfiris [Nasrallah did not mention the well-known fact that France has armed, financed and supported these terrorist groups ]. And France is part of the international alliance (which claims to) fight them. And you yourselves are present in Syria (for this same reason), illegally, without the agreement of the Syrian government. We did not go to fight civilians in Syria, but to defend our country, Lebanon, as well as Syria and the region against the most dangerous project in the history of the region after the Zionist project, namely the terrorist and takfiri project.

We are not part of the corrupt class. We have never stole government money. Everyone knows where our money comes from, clearly (it comes from Iran). We have neither money nor financial oligarchies to defend, nor private (lucrative) projects to defend. We do not allow anyone to address us in this way or describe us in this way.

If we have to talk about who obstructed and who facilitated (the French initiative), I would remind you that we accepted the appointment of Mustapha Adib without prior agreement, without conditions or discussions. We have presumed good intentions (from everyone). But it was in the perspective of moving towards an agreement and facilitating (the joint formation of the government). As for giving up (everything) or surrendering the country blindly, that is quite another matter.

We are not playing the game of terrorism and intimidation against anyone in Lebanon. Macron has unfortunately thrown this accusation, aimed at questioning the result of the elections (which would have been obtained by the threat of weapons), but you only have to question your embassy and your intelligence services in Lebanon, who will tell you how many media, journalists, politicians, newspapers and social networks, in our small country, insult us day and night, vilify us day and night, denigrate us day and night, slander us deceitfully and unfairly day and night. And they live peacefully, not fearing for their lives. If they were afraid (of us), they wouldn’t open their mouths. While there are Arab countries that you protect and of which you are the friend and ally, and where nobody dares to publish even a Tweet to express a position against the normalization (of relations with Israel), or a criticism against such and such king, such prince or such regime. No, we don’t intimidate anyone. If anyone is afraid, that’s their problem, but we don’t intimidate anyone. And you just have to come and ask the locals.

The last point on the matter is that I hope that the French leaders will not (blindly) listen to certain Lebanese (sides), and that if they themselves hold this wrong view, they will amend it. We must not blame everything on Iran, which would have hampered the French initiative by asking for intransigence on the appointment of ministers, and asking the Amal-Hezbollah tandem not to let go of the Ministry of Finance. All of these accusations against Iran are meaningless and unfounded. Iran is not like that. Iran is not like you (France or the United States, countries who interfere, threaten, demand, impose, etc.). Iran does not interfere in Lebanese affairs. The decision in Lebanon is in our hands, it is we who determine what we want to do, what we accept or refuse. We in Hezbollah, in the Hezbollah-Amal tandem and with our allies, decide everything that concerns us in Lebanon. Iran does not interfere or impose. You know that for 20 years, and even for more than 20 years, because I speak of the period when I was the Hezbollah Secretary General, during which the link with Iran is made directly with me, since 1992, all those who were talking (about Lebanon) with Iran, Iran invited them to speak directly to us, because our decision is in our hands.

Hezbollah is accused of delaying matters pending the outcome of negotiations between Iran and the United States, while there are no negotiations between Iran and the United States. At least during this election period, it’s official, Iran has made it clear that there will be no dialogue (with the Trump administration). Some claim that Iran is pressuring France (in order to get a favorable vote) in the Security Council (regarding the proposed US embargo). But this is completely absurd. If this ignorance and wrong thinking persist, nothing will be achieved in Lebanon, for wrong assumptions will always lead to wrong results.

Mr. Macron, if you want to identify those outside Lebanon who thwarted your initiative, look towards the United States which threatened sanctions and imposed sanctions, and look towards the King of Saudi Arabia and his speech at the UN (where he violently attacked Iran and Hezbollah).

As for the form (of your intervention), when you come to say that all the political forces, all the Presidents, all the constitutional institutions, etc., have committed a betrayal, by what right (do you say such a thing)? What are you basing yourself on? Who said they committed treason? First, we don’t accept that you accuse us (of anything) and say that we have committed treason. As far as we are concerned, we categorically reject it and condemn it (firmly). This condescending behavior with us and with all the Lebanese political forces is unacceptable. We do not accept this language or this process. We do not allow anyone to doubt our dignity and honor, or the fact that we keep our promises and respect others. We do not accept anyone accusing us of corruption. And if the French friends have corruption files on Hezbollah ministers, deputies or officials, indicating that we have taken State money, I accept that you hand them over to the Lebanese justice, and we’ll hand over anyone who is affected by such a corruption case. It is a very serious challenge, which I have put forward a hundred times and which I reaffirm. But just throwing gratuitous accusations like that, denouncing the entire political class and all the institutions as corrupt, is unacceptable.

When President Macron visited Lebanon, we welcomed the French initiative. But we have never accepted that he is the attorney general, investigator or judge, we have never accepted that he is the guardian, the ruler or the governor of Lebanon. No way. We welcomed President Macron as a friend of Lebanon, who loves and wants to help Lebanon, get it out of its crises, bring together divergent points of view: this is the way (genuine)friendship, benevolence, mediation, fraternity and love (are expressed). But in no case can there be for anyone, be it the French President or anyone else, the power to impose himself as guardian, governor, ruler or judge & executioner of Lebanon. To my knowledge, the Lebanese have never taken such a decision. This is why we hope that the conduct, style and substance will be completely revised.

To conclude on this point, we have welcomed the French initiative, and today, His Excellency the Lebanese President has extended (its implementation deadline). We always welcome the French initiative in a benevolent manner, and are ready for dialogue, cooperation, openness, discussion and debate with the French and with all the friends of Lebanon and all the political forces in Lebanon. But the procedures deployed during the past month, the arrogance that has been exercised, the trampling of truths and realities that has taken place must not be repeated, otherwise we will not achieve any results. We are ready (for dialogue) and want this initiative to succeed, we support its continuation, and we rely on it as others do, but I call for (a full) reconsideration of things at the level of its conduct, actions, understanding, analysis, conclusions, and even management and language used. Because there is nothing more important than respect. There is nothing more important than the dignity of people. What was violated two days ago (during Macron’s intervention) was national dignity. There are people who are angry with certain members of political factions, it is their right to be angry, but there is more important: whoever stands up and accuses everyone without distinction —institutions, parties, political forces, etc.—, in truth this undermines the national dignity and it is unacceptable. We know the French as well educated people, diplomats, who use a (tempered) language even if the content may be vehement, trying to wrap it with conciliatory words. I don’t understand what happened to them on Sunday night.

Regardless, for the sake of our country, we remain open (to dialogue). Currently, at this new stage, it is natural that after what has happened, the parliamentary groups must return to dialogue, consultation, meetings, and the French say that their initiative is still on the table, very well, now we have to see what are its new ideas, its new bases. I am not going to come up with ideas or solutions today, or state our terms and red lines, because it requires dialogue with our friends and allies, but we must not despair, we must cooperate. We are always committed to the cooperation of all, to mutual understanding of all, and to remain positive, to move from a bad situation to a good situation, and not from bad to worse. […]

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

قراءة سياسيّة وهادئة لكلام ماكرون

ناصر قنديل

راجت منذ لحظة انتهاء المؤتمر الصحافي للرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون قراءة بدت موضع إجماع من خصوم حزب الله وأصدقائه، وهذا بحد ذاته أمر غريب ولافت للنظر، محورها ان خطاب ماكرون يمثل تحولاً في النظرة للعلاقة مع حزب الله باتجاه التصعيد، وأن ماكرون حمّل حزب الله مسؤولية إفشال مبادرته في لبنان، واستخدمت في تبرير هذا الإستنتاج مفردات الخطاب التنديدي بدور الحزب في سورية، وبوصفه مستقوياً بالسلاح في الداخل، يرهب به خصومه ويسعى للتصرف كأنه أقوى من الآخرين، ودعوته للاقتناع بعدم أخذ الشيعة اللبنانيين نحو الخيار الأسوأ، وقبول القواعد الديمقراطية، هذا من جهة؛ ومن جهة ثانية تركيز حجم رئيسيّ من كلام ماكرون في نص المؤتمر والإجابة عن الأسئلة حول حزب الله.

لا يخطئ الذين يقرأون ما قاله ماكرون بعين البحث عن عمق الموقف في التعامل مع حزب الله ورصد التحولات فيه، باعتباره القضية الرئيسية في الكلام، والقضية الرئيسية في جوهر المبادرة الفرنسية، والقضية الرئيسية في نظرة فرنسا لموقعها وموقفها من الصراعات الكبرى في المنطقة، والقضية الرئيسية التي تتمحور حولها الأزمة اللبنانية ببعدها الدولي والإقليمي، بمعزل عن نقاش آخر ضروري، لكنه بالمعنى السياسي والاستراتيجي أقل أهميّة من الأول، وهو مسار المبادرة الفرنسية وفرص نجاحها أو فرضيات تعطّلها، لجهة السعي لاستيلاد حكومة جديدة، تتولى الإصلاحات المتفق عليها بعيداً عن استثارة قضايا الخلاف، وفقاً لما تمّ تضمينه في كلام ماكرون في قصر الصنوبر كإطار لمبادرته، التي توجهت نحو حزب الله أسوة بسائر القوى والقيادات، لصياغة نقطة تقاطع افتراضية محلية في زمن الصراع المفتوح على مساحة المنطقة ولبنان في قلبها.

كي نقدّم قراءة صحيحة لما قاله ماكرون يجب أن نتحرّر من نبرة الكلمات ودرجة التكرار في بعض التوصيفات السلبية، لأنها تقنيات إقناع البيئة السياسية والنخبوية التي ينتمي إليها المتحدث، وتأكيد للموقع الذي ينتمي إليه المتحدث، والأهم لأننا ندرك بأن الأزمة اللبنانيّة الواقفة على شفا انفجار أو انهيار، هي رغم ما يتصل بأسبابها الداخلية الوجيهة من فساد وسياسات ماليّة مدمّرة، تعبير في تجلياتها الداخلية وبعديها الدولي والإقليمي، عن قرار أميركي شاركت فيه أوروبا وفرنسا ضمنها، وشاركت فيه حكومات الخليج بلا استثناء، محوره وقف التمويل الذي كان يضخّ في شرايين المصارف اللبنانية والنظام المالي اللبناني، ومن خلالهما في الأسواق الماليّة ومن خلالها جميعاً في القطاعات الإقتصادية وهو تمويل كان مستمراً لعقدين، رغم إدراك أميركي وغربي وعربي لتفاقم المديونية وصولاً للعجز عن السداد منذ العام 1998، وتصاعداً في 2002 و2012 وتكراراً بصورة أشد تفاقماً في الـ 2017، ورغم إدراك أنه تمويل لنظام سياسي اقتصادي قائم على لعبة الفوائد المرتفعة من جهة، لربحية غير مشروعة للنظام المصرفي، وبالتوازي الإنفاق القائم على المحاصصة والفساد والتوظيف العشوائي في سياق العملية التقليدية لإعادة إنتاج النظام السياسي نفسه، فقد قرّر الأميركيون أنهم غير معنيين بما ستؤدي إليه عملية وقف التمويل من انهيار، وشعارهم فليسقط لبنان كله إذا كان هذا الطريق يمكن أن ينتهي بسقوط حزب الله، ووفقاً لهذا الشعار سار معهم الحلفاء، بحيث يجب أن يبقى حاضراً في ذهننا أن القضيّة المحوريّة في الصراع حول لبنان هي القرار الأميركي بالمواجهة مع حزب الله، وهذا لا يحتاج إلى جهد لاكتشافه فكل سياق المواقف الأميركية علنيّ جداً في التعبير عنه، قبل تفجير مرفأ بيروت وبعده، وواشنطن لا تنفكّ تسعى لحشد الحلفاء لخوض هذه المواجهة، وصولاً لكلام الملك السعودي من منصة الأمم المتحدة حول توصيف حزب الله كمصدر لأزمة لبنان وأزمات المنطقة والدعوة لأولويّة نزع سلاحه.

– كي نضع الكلام الفرنسي في السياق الصحيح، يجب أن ننطلق من معرفة الموقع الذي يتحدّث من خلاله ماكرون، ففرنسا كانت ولا تزال العضو في حلف الأطلسي والحليف القريب من أميركا، والشريك في الحرب على سورية، المتوضّع فيها على ضفة مقابلة لحزب الله، حيث لغة السلاح تتكلم، والضنين بأمن ومستقبل “إسرائيل”، حيث لغة العداء تحكم علاقته بحزب الله. فرنسا هذه هي التي تتحدّث عن محاولة لفعل شيء مشترك مع حزب الله، على قاعدة عدم مغادرة الفريقين لمواقعهما، وربط النزاع حولها، لصناعة تسوية تحول دون الانهيار في لبنان، انطلاقاً من استكشاف مصالح مشتركة بذلك، حيث فرنسا تعتبر خلافاً لحلفائها ومعسكرها التقليدي دولياً وإقليمياً، أن خيار الضغط الأميركي المدعوم سعودياً وإسرائيلياً، حتى ينهار لبنان أملاً بأن ينهار حزب الله معه، خيار أرعن، سيرتب نتائج مؤذية للحلف الذي تقف فيه فرنسا، فبدلاً من الفراغ يأتي المنافسون الإقليميون والدوليون، وقبل أن تسقط بيئة حزب الله يسقط الحلفاء، وفي الفراغ والفوضى يتموضع الإرهاب على سواحل مقابل أوروبا وترتفع بصورة جنونية حالة النزوح، وينتظر الفرنسي من حزب الله أن يقرأ من موقعه كخصم، ومن موقع تحالفاته ومعسكره، أن منع انهيار لبنان مصلحة، فهو إنقاذ لشعب يعنيه، وتحقيق لاستقرار سياسي وأمني يفيده، وقطع لطريق الفوضى والفتن التي لا يرغبها، وفتح للباب نحو فرص لتسويات أكثر اتساعاً ربما تقبل عليها المنطقة خلال سنة مقبلة. وهذه المنطلقات التي تحركت من خلالها المبادرة الفرنسية، هي ترجمة سياسية لمضمون الدعوة التي أطلقها وزير مالية فرنسا برونو لومير في مؤتمر وزراء مالية قمة العشرين مطلع العام، عندما قال بالنص “تدعو فرنسا لفصل مساعي تعافي لبنان عن المواجهة التي تخوضها واشنطن ضد طهران وحزب الله”.

لنفهم أكثر وأكثر تنطلق فرنسا في مقاربة مبادرتها نحو لبنان، من حسابات مصلحية متمايزة عن حسابات حليفها الأميركي، بعضها يتصل بسعي فرنسي لاستعادة موقع تقليدي على المتوسط ورؤية فرصة لذلك من باب التمايز فيما فرنسا تخسر آخر مواقعها التقليدية في أفريقيا، وخسرت مع الذين خسروا الحرب على سورية، وبعضها يتصل بصراع وتنافس حقيقيين بين فرنسا وتركيا في المتوسط، وبعضها يتصل بالفرص الاقتصادية التي يوفرها لبنان للشركات الفرنسية في زمن الركود، لكن بعضها الأهم ينطلق من موجبات القلق من البدائل التي يفتح بابها طريق الانهيار الذي تتبناه واشنطن، ولكن الأهم أن منهج فرنسا في المقاربة المتمايزة يتم من داخل حلفها التقليدي وليس إعلان خروج من هذا الحلف لموقع منفصل يعرف ماكرون أنه فوق طاقة فرنسا، وربما يعتقد أنه في غير مصلحتها. والفهم هنا يصبح أسهل إذا اتخذنا المقاربة الفرنسية للملف النووي الإيراني والعلاقة مع إيران نموذجاً بحثياً، حيث لا تغيب الانتقادات واللغة العدائية عن الخطاب الفرنسي للسياسات الإيرانية، وباريس لا تتوانى عن تحميل إيران مسؤولية التوتر في المنطقة، من اليمن إلى سورية وصولاً إلى لبنان والعراق، وتحدّثت بلسان ماكرون عن تدخّلات إيرانيّة غير مشروعة في الأوضاع الداخلية لدول المنطقة، وحملت فرنسا دائماً إيران مسؤوليّة ما تسمّيه المبالغة بفرض نفوذ بقوة السلاح في المنطقة، بمثل ما كانت تسجل اعتراضاتها على بعض مفردات سلوك إيران في ملفها النووي، وتعلن مشاركتها للأميركي في الدعوة لوقف البرنامج الصاروخي لإيران، لكن فرنسا ومعها أوروبا لا ترى في الانسحاب من الاتفاق النووي وفرض العقوبات وتصعيد التوتر الطريق المناسب، لأنها تخشى تبعات مدمّرة لخيار المواجهة، وتؤمن بأنه لن يوصل إلى مكان. وهذا هو بالضبط ما شكل منهج المقاربة الفرنسية للوضع في لبنان، وبمثل ما عجزت فرنسا ومعها أوروبا عن ترجمة تمايزها في الملف الإيراني بخطوات مستقلة عن سياسات واشنطن كالتمرد على العقوبات وإقرار آلية مالية جدية للتعامل مع إيران من خارج منظومة العقوبات، يمكن طرح السؤال حول فرص نجاح فرنسا بترجمة تمايزها اللبناني، أي إنجاح مبادرتها، التي تحتاج من جهة إلى تجاوب حزب الله، ولكنها تحتاج أكثر إلى تسهيل حلفاء فرنسا لفرص النجاح.

تبدأ قراءة الكلام الفرنسي بعد فشل النسخة الأولى من المبادرة، من اختبار الرهان الفرنسي على ضوء أخضر من الحلفاء، أولاً، ومن كيفية تناول الرئيس الفرنسي لمواقف الحلفاء، قبل الحديث عن تقييمه لدرجة تعاون الخصم، أي حزب الله، وقبل الحديث عن النبرة التي تحدث من خلالها عن هذا الخصم، فالمبادرة تحوّلت منذ انطلاقتها إلى ساحة صراع، محورها من جانب حلفاء باريس الأميركيين والسعوديين واللبنانيين، السعي لكسب باريس إلى خيار المواجهة، وإقناعها بأن لا جدوى من الرهان على فرصة تسوية مع حزب الله، ودون دخول في التفاصيل، يكفي كلام ماكرون عن أن العقوبات الأميركية كانت أحد أسباب تعقيد المشهد، وأن الحلفاء الداخليين الممثلين بالرئيس السابق للحكومة سعد الحريري ورؤساء الحكومات السابقين حاولوا توظيف المبادرة للعبث بالتوازنات الطائفية فتسببوا بتعثرها، بمثل ما حمل حزب الله مسؤولية التشدد في شروط التعامل مع مبادرة الحريري لتصحيح “خطأ اللعب بالتوازنات”. وهذا يعني أن الذين انتظروا أن يخرج ماكرون بإعلان الانضمام إلى جبهة المواجهة مع حزب الله، وأن يحصر به مسؤولية فشل المبادرة الفرنسية ليحمله تبعات أخذ لبنان نحو الانهيار، وربما حلموا بتصنيفه على لوائح الإرهاب وإنزال نظام العقوبات الأوروبية عليه، قد أصيبوا بالخيبة والإحباط، فهل كان من حق حزب الله ومناصريه انتظار أن يخرج ماكرون ليعلن أن حزب الله كان دون الآخرين عنصراً إيجابياً للتفاعل مع المبادرة، أم أن مجرد تركيز ماكرون على القول بأن الطبقة السياسية اللبنانية قد فشلت بالمجمل وأن القيادات اللبنانية بلا استثناء خانت تعهداتها، وأن الحفاظ على المصالح تقدم عند القوى اللبنانية على دعم المبادرة لإنجاحها، يجب أن يكون كافياً ليعتبر حزب الله أنه ربح الجولة، ولا يدع خصومه الخاسرين يصورونه خاسراً بدلاً منهم؟

خلال خمسة عشر يوماً كانت المعركة السياسية والإعلامية، تدور حول نقطتين، الأولى هي هل طرح المداورة في المواقع الوزارية هو مجرد ذريعة تم دسها على المبادرة الفرنسية من نادي رؤساء الحكومات السابقين، لاستفزاز الثنائي وخصوصاً حزب الله، أم أنها طرح إصلاحي تضمنته المبادرة وانقلب عليه حزب الله؟ والنقطة الثانية هي هل العقوبات الأميركية جزء من سياق الضغوط لإنجاح المبادرة الفرنسية ام هي باستهدافها حلفاء لحزب الله، تعقيد لفرص المبادرة واستهداف لها؟ وقد قال ماكرون ما يكفي لترجيح كفة الرواية التي تبناها حزب الله وحلفائه في القضيتين.

هل استجابت فرنسا لدعوات الانضمام إلى جبهة المواجهة مع حزب الله، أم أنها وجدت من الأعذار والتبريرات ما يكفي للقول إن الفرصة لم تسقط ولا تزال متاحة لإنعاش التسوية على قاعدة الفرضيات ذاتها التي قامت عليها، وفي قلبها، فرضية المصلحة المشتركة مع حزب الله بتفادي المواجهة وتفادي الانهيار؟

ماكرون ليس حليفاً لحزب الله، بل هو في قلب معسكر الخصوم، وهذا معنى أن حزب الله ربح جولة الحفاظ على التفكك في هذا المعسكر الدولي والإقليمي، وعزّز انقساماته، ونجح بإبقاء فرنسا خارج هذا الخيار، وماكرون لم يكن ينتظر من حزب الله منح الاطمئنان لمبادرته بلا شروط الحذر الواجب مع خصم، واتهام حزب الله بهذا الحذر ولو استخدم من موقعه كخصم في وصفه نبرة عالية، متوقع ولا يفاجئ، لكنه كان ينتظر ممن يفترضهم حلفاء ألا يقوموا بتفخيخ مبادرته، لكنهم فعلوا، وقال إنهم فعلوا، بالعقوبات الأميركية والتلاعب بالتوازنات الطائفية من خارج المبادرة، والربح بالنقاط بالنسبة لحزب الله يجب أن يكون كافياً، بمعزل عن فرص نجاح المبادرة، كما هو الحال في الملف النووي الإيراني، بقاء فرنسا وأوروبا على ضفة التمسك بالاتفاق ورفض العقوبات كافٍ بمعزل عن قدرتهما على بلورة خطوات عملية بحجم الموقف.

من حق حزب الله، لا بل من واجبه أن يتناول بالتفصيل كل المنزلقات التي تورط فيها خطاب ماكرون، وأن يفند أي اتهام، ويتصدى لأي لغة عدائية ولكل تشويه لمسيرته النضالية، ولكل توصيف غير لائق، وأن يقدّم روايته لما جرى ويكشف كل ما يثبت تعامله بشرف الوفاء بالتعهّد خلافاً لاتهامات ماكرون، لكن على حزب الله أن يفعل ذلك وهو يضحك في سره، لأنه ربح جولة هامة، وأن لا يتيح لخصومه أن يضحكوا بشماتة مَن أصيب بالخيبة وينتظر تعويض خسارته بأن يتصرّف الرابح كخاسر، فربما يحوّل الخاسر خسارته انتصاراً.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Israel And The Emirates Sign The “Abraham Accords”

Written by Thierry MEYSSAN on 25/09/2020

The situation in the Middle East has been blocked since the Oslo Accords signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat in 1993. They were supplemented by the Jericho-Gaza Agreement, which recognizes certain prerogatives of the Palestinian Authority, and the Wadi Araba Agreements, which concluded peace between Israel and Jordan.

At the time, the Israeli government intended to separate definitively from the Palestinians. It was ready to do so by creating a Palestinian pseudo-state, devoid of several attributes of sovereignty, including an independent army and finances. Labour’s Yitzhak Rabin had previously experimented with Bantustans in South Africa, where Israel was advising the apartheid regime. Another experiment took place in Guatemala with a Mayan tribe under General Efraín Ríos Montt.

Yasser Arafat accepted the Oslo Accords to derail the process of the Madrid Conference (1991). Presidents George W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev had tried to impose peace on Israel by removing Arafat from the international scene with the support of Arab leaders.

Despite all this, many commentators believed that the Oslo Accords could bring peace.

In any case, 27 years later, nothing positive has limited the suffering of the Palestinian people, but the state of Israel has been gradually transformed from within. Today this country is divided into two antagonistic camps, as evidenced by its government, the only one in the world to have two Prime Ministers at the same time. On the one hand the partisans of British colonialism behind the first Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanhyahu, on the other hand the partisans of a normalization of the country and its relations with its neighbors, behind the second Prime Minister, Benny Gantz. This two-headed system reflects the incompatibility of these two projects. Each camp paralyzes its rival. Only time will come to end the colonial project of conquering Greater Israel from the banks of the Nile to those of the Euphrates, the comet tail of an outdated era.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has implemented the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy aimed at adapting the US army to the needs of a new form of capitalism based no longer on the production of goods and services, but on financial engineering. To do this, they began an “endless war” of destruction of state structures throughout the “broader Middle East” without taking into account their friends and enemies. In two decades, the region became cursed for its inhabitants. Afghanistan, then Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen are the theater of wars presented as lasting a few weeks, but which last indefinitely, without perspective.

When Donald Trump was elected president, he promised to put an end to the “endless wars” and to bring US soldiers home. In this spirit, he gave carte blanche to his special adviser and nevertheless son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The fact that President Trump is supported in his country by Zionist Christians and that Jared Kushner is an Orthodox Jew has led many commentators to portray them as friends of Israel. If they do indeed have an electoral interest in letting this be believed, it is not at all their approach to the Middle East. They intend to defend the interests of the American people, and not those of the Israelis, by substituting trade relations for war on the model of President Andrew Jackson (1829-37). Jackson managed to prevent the disappearance of the Indians he had fought as a general, although only the Cherokees signed the agreement he proposed. Today they have become the largest Native American tribe, despite the infamous episode of the “Trail of Tears”.

For three years, Jared Kushner travelled through the region. He was able to see for himself how much fear and hatred had developed there. For 75 years, Israel has persisted in violating all UN resolutions that concern it and continues its slow and inexorable nibbling of Arab territory. The negotiator reached only one conclusion: International Law is powerless because almost no one – with the notable exception of Bush Sr. and Gorbachev – has wanted to really apply it since the partition plan for Palestine in 1947. Because of the inaction of the international community, its application if it were to happen today would add injustice to injustice.

Kushner worked on many hypotheses, including the unification of the Palestinian people around Jordan and the linking of Gaza to Egypt. In June 2019, he presented proposals for the economic development of the Palestinian territories at a conference in Bahrain (the “deal of the century”). Rather than negotiating anything, the idea was to quantify what everyone would gain from peace. In the end, he managed, on September 13, 2020, to get a secret agreement signed in Washington between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. The agreement was formalized two days later, on September 15, in a watered-down version.”

Press in the Emirates
The press in the Emirates does not have the same version of the events as that of Israel. None of them has an interest in expressing itself frankly.

As always, the most important thing is the secret part: Israel was forced to renounce in writing its plans for annexation (including the territories allegedly “offered” by Donald Trump in the “deal of the century” project) and to let Dubai Ports World (known as “DP World”) take over the port of Haifa, from which the Chinese have just been ejected.

This agreement is in line with the ideas of the second Israeli Prime Minister Benny Gantz, but represents a disaster for the camp of the first Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Not having read the secret part of the agreements myself, I do not know if it clearly indicates the renunciation of annexing the Syrian Golan Heights, occupied since 1967, and the Lebanese Shebaa Farms, occupied since 1982. Similarly, I do not know whether compensation is provided for the port of Beirut, since it is clear that its eventual reconstruction would be detrimental both to Israel and to the Emirates’ investments in Haifa. However, the Lebanese President, Michel Aoun, has already publicly evoked a real estate construction project instead of the port of Beirut.

In order to make this treaty acceptable to all parties, it has been named “Abraham Accords”, after the common father of Judaism and Islam. The paternity was attributed, to the great joy of Benny Gantz, to the “outstretched hand” (sic) of Benjamin Netanyahu, his toughest opponent. Finally, Bahrain was associated with it.

This last point aims to mount the new regional role that Washington has granted to the Emirates in replacement of Saudi Arabia. As we announced, it is now Abu Dhabi and no longer Riyadh that represents US interests in the Arab world Other Arab states are invited to follow Bahrain’s example.

The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, has not had harsh words against the Emirati “betrayal”. He was taken up both by those who remain hostile to peace (the Iranian ayatollahs) and by those who remain committed to the Oslo Accords and the two-state solution. Indeed, by formalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and the new Arab leader, the Emirates, the Abraham Accords turn the page on the Oslo Accords. The palm of hypocrisy goes to the European Union, which persists in defending international law in theory and violating it in practice.

If President Trump is re-elected and Jared Kushner continues his work, the Israeli-Emirati agreements will be remembered as the moment when Israelis and Arabs regained the right to speak to each other, just as the overthrow of the Berlin Wall marked the moment when East Germans regained the right to speak to their relatives in the West. On the contrary, if Joe Biden is elected, Israel’s nibbling of Arab territories and the “endless war” will resume throughout the region.

Relations between Israel and the Emirates had long since stabilized without a peace treaty since there was never a declared war between them. The Emirates have been secretly buying arms from the Jewish state for the past decade. Over time this trade has increased, especially in terms of telephone interceptions and internet surveillance. In addition, an Israeli embassy was already operating under cover of an intelligence agency.

In addition, an Israeli embassy was already operating under cover of a delegation to an obscure UN body in the Emirates. However, the “Abraham Accords” challenge the dominant Arab-Israeli discourse and shake up internal relations in the entire region.

Source: Voltaire Network

عندما تسبق الاساطيل المساعدات وحرب المرافئ والطرق…!

محمد صادق الحسيني

لا معنى ولا مكان للصدفة في السنن الكونية وكلّ شيء بقدر وبيروت ليست استثناء…!

انفجار هائل في ميناء بيروت، يدمّر الميناء بشكل كامل ويدمّر عشرات آلاف المنازل في الأحياء المجاوره، بتاريخ ٤/٨/٢٠٢٠، تبعه بتاريخ ٩/٨/٢٠٢٠ اجتماع دولي عن طريق الفيدو كونفرنس، بين جهات دولية لبحث إمكانيات مساعدة لبنان بعد الكارثه، قيل إنّ المشاركين فيه أبدوا استعدادهم، للرئيس الفرنسي، بمساعدة لبنان بثلاثمائة مليون دولار. لكن القطع الحربية الفرنسية، التي كانت موجودة في شرق البحر المتوسط، قد وصلت المياه الإقليمية اللبنانية قبل وصول ايّ مساعدات، سواء من فرنسا او من غيرها من الدول.

كان هذا التحرك العسكري الفرنسي، المنسق مع الأسطول السادس الأميركي، عبارة عن أداة التمهيد لزيارة الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون للبنان، بتاريخ ١٣/٨/٢٠٢٠، ما يعني انّ الحملة الديبلوماسية الفرنسية كانت ولا تزال تتمتع بغطاء حربي من أسطولين في شرق المتوسط، الأسطول السادس الأميركي والأسطول الفرنسي، الأمر الذي يوضح بجلاء انّ وراء الأكمة ما وراءها.

وهذا ما اتضح، من خلال مسار زيارة ماكرون الأولى للبنان، وما تبعها من تصريحات لبنانية داخلية، حول مقولة الحياد، ثم التصريح الذي أدلى به البابا فرنسيس، قبل أيام، وفي تناغم مع تصريحات لبنانية داخلية أطلقتها بعض الجهات المعروفة الارتباطات، والذي جاء فيه (تصريح البابا) انّ لبنان يمرّ بفترة صعبة ولا يجب التخلي عنه.

وبالعودة الى كارثة الانفجار نفسها، فإننا وبغضّ النظر عن تفاصيل أسباب الانفجار ومسبّباته، وهل كان عرضياً أو مدبّراً، وما إذا كان نتج عن ضربة خارجية او من خلال عمل تخريبي، عن طريق عملاء على الأرض، فإننا مقتنعون تماماً بأنّ هذا الانفجار كان عملاً مدبّراً، منذ لحظة شراء نيترات الأمونيوم، من فرع شركة أسترالية في ميناء جبل علي بدبي، وحتى وصولها الى ميناء بيروت وتخزينها هناك طوال هذه السنين، بانتظار لحظة الحاجة الى تفجيرها، كان عملاً مخططاً بدقة وتقف وراءه أجهزة استخبارات دولية، كانت تتابع كلّ ما يجري في لبنان، من النواحي الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية والأمنية، ولديها ما يكفي من مواد التفجير اللازمة لقلب الأوضاع رأساً على عقب، سواء في لبنان أو في المنطقة أو حتى على صعيد أوسع وأبعد.

من هنا فإننا نعتقد بقوة انّ هدف من دبّر عملية التفجير، والذي يُفترض انه بات معروفاً للكثيرين، قد شمل في أهدافه أكثر من مجال أهمّها:

1

ـ الأهداف التكتيكية، المحدودة جغرافياً، والمتعلقة بتفجير الأوضاع اللبنانية الداخلية، في وجه حلف المقاومة ودرّة تاجه في لبنان، حزب الله، خلطاً للأوراق وتمهيداً لشنّ حملة عاتية ضدّه، تؤدّي الى شنّ أو طلب شنّ عدوان أميركي «إسرائيلي» على لبنان وحزب الله، تمهيداً لنزع سلاحه، تماماً كما حصل مع الجيش السوري سنة ٢٠٠٥، اثر اغتيال رفيق الحريري، الذي كان مخططاً بدقه، وربما من قبل نفس الجهة التي نفذت تفجير ميناء بيروت أوائل آب من هذا العام.

2

ـ قطع الطريق على ايّ تعاون اقتصادي، او من ايّ نوع آخر، بين إيران ولبنان، خاصة بعد المقترحات التي تقدّم بها سماحة الامين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله، والتي تضمّنت القيام بتنفيذ العديد من المشروعات الاقتصادية الاستراتيجية، من قبل شركات إيرانية، ودون تكليف الخزينة اللبنانية أية أعباء مالية، حيث كان يُفترض أن تنفذ بواسطة معادلة: البناء ثم التشغيل، من قبل الشركة المنفذة، لاسترجاع استثماراتها، ومن ثم تسليم المشروع للدولة اللبنانية.

3

ـ توجيه ضربة استراتيجية لمشروع الصين العملاق، طريق واحد وحزام واحد، وذلك من خلال تدمير ميناء بيروت بالكامل، وإفشال كلّ المحاولات الصينية للدخول الى السوق اللبناني، سواء في القطاع البحري من بناء وتوسيع موانئ او من خلال نشاطات الشحن البحري وتطويره. وكذلك الأمر بالنسبة الى النقل البري، الشوارع الدولية وسكك الحديد، او النقل الجوي، عبر تطوير المطارات الموجودة وإنشاء أخرى جديدة. إضافة الى قطاع الكهرباء وقطاعات صناعية أخرى في لبنان، مما يأخذ لبنان باتجاه الاندماج او التكامل الاقتصادي مع محيطه العربي، الأمر الذي يفتح آفاقاً عابرة للقارات لهذا الاقتصاد الصغير والمثقل بالديون، ونقله من هذا الوضع المنهار الى وضع مزدهر مستديم النمو، وتمتدّ حدود نشاطه من سواحل المتوسط غرباً وحتى سواحل الصين وروسيا الشرقية على المحيط الهادئ شرقاً.

ولكن الرياح لم تأتِ كما اشتهت سفن المخططين لهذا العمل الإجرامي، الذي يرتقي الى مستوى قصف المدن اليابانية بالقنابل الذرية، وقتل مئات الآلاف من سكانها المدنيين الأبرياء، ذلك القصف الأميركي الذي تمّ تنفيذه بتاريخ ٦ /٨ ١٩٤٥ و ٩ /٨ /١٩٤٥، ما يجعل تقارب تاريخ تفجير ميناء بيروت مع تاريخ القصف النووي الأميركي للمدن اليابانية يثير الكثير من التساؤلات لدى كلّ من لديه منطق سياسي يعتمد على تحليل المعادلات الرياضية وليس على كيل التهم السياسية للآخرين دون ايّ حجج او دليل.

نقول انّ الرياح لم تأتِ كما اشتهت سفن المخططين لهذا العمل الإجرامي لأنهم كانوا ينامون على أوهام انّ جريمة تفجير ميناء بيروت ستحقق لهم أهدافهم كلها بضربةٍ واحدة، بضربةٍ قاضية تنهي الخطر الوجودي، على دويلة الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، وتفرغ انتصارات محور المقاومة، على مدى السنوات الأخيرة الماضية، من محتواها، وتكرّس «إسرائيل» قوةً إقليميةً، تواصل دورها التدميري، الذي يمنع ايّ تعاون او تكامل اقتصادي عربي، او عربي موحد مع تكتلات اقتصادية إقليمية أو دولية موحدة.

فها هي جمهورية الصين الشعبية، وكما نشر الكاتب الأميركي، إيتش آي ساتون، في مجلة «فوربس» الأميركيه، بتاريخ ٣/٩/٢٠٢٠، نقلاً عن تقرير لوزارة الحرب الأميركية جاء فيه انّ سلاح البحرية الصينية قد زوّد طرادات ومدمّرات بصواريخ باليستيه، تستخدم في ضرب أهداف جوية وأهداف بحرية بنفس الكفاءة والفعالية. وهي صواريخ صواريخ مضادة للسفن. ويحمل كلّ طراد او مدمّرة ١١٢ من هذه الصواريخ، بالإضافة الى انّ جميع هذه القطع البحرية قد تمّ تزويدها بقاذفات صواريخ عمودية، مما يجعل كلّ قطعه قادرة على إطلاق ٣٢ صاروخاً دفعة واحدة.

وهذا يعني انّ سلاح البحرية الصيني، حسب المجلة الأميركية، قد أصبح أول سلاح بحرية في العالم يتسلح بهذا الطراز الثقيل من الصواريخ، ونعني هنا صواريخ دونغ فينغ ٢٦ ومداه اربعة آلاف كيلومتر، وصاروخ دونغ فينغ ومداه الف وسبعمائة كيلومتر.

وبالتالي فانّ الصين الشعبية قد أصبحت دولة قادرة، ليس فقط على حماية مصالحها الاقتصادية في العالم، بل على وضع حدّ لعربدة الأساطيل الأميركية في بحار العالم، خاصة في المحيط الهادئ وبحار الصين واليابان والفلبين والبحر الأصفر.

4

ـ أما إذا أضفنا قوة سلاح البحرية الروسيه الى تلك الصينيه،. فاذا ما دقق المرء في قدرات القطع البحرية الروسية، وأخذ الطراد «موسكو» كمثال وألقى نظرة على تسليحه فانّ بإمكان المرء ان يصل بسرعة الى استنتاج انّ هذه الجوهرة الروسية لا يوجد لها مثيل في العالم، خاصة بعد خضوع هذا الطراد لعمليات تحديث وإعادة تجهيز واسعة النطاق، استمرّت من سنة ٢٠١٨ حتى قبل أيام معدودة، حيث انطلق لممارسة أعماله القتالية من جديد. علماً انّ هذا الطراد الأسطورة كان، قبل الخضوع لعمليات التحديث، قد زار كلاً من: البرتغال وكوبا ونيكاراغوا وفنزويلا.

ولا داعي بطبيعة الحال، للتوسع أكثر، في تعداد القطع البحرية، التابعه للأساطيل البحرية الروسية، في بحر الشمال والمحيط المتجمّد الشمالي، والبحر المتوسط والبحر الأسود والمحيط الهادئ، ويكفي ذكر الطراد الصاروخي النووي «بطرس الاكبر»، وهو أكبر سفينة غير نووية في العالم، لنرى التأثيرات الهائلة، لتكامل القدرات البحرية الروسية مع تلك الصينية، واضعين في عين الاعتبار احتمال نجاح الجهود الروسية، في إنهاء الخلاف الحدودي الصيني الهندي، خاصة بعد نجاح وزير الدفاع الروسي في عقد اجتماع بين وزير الدفاع الصيني ووزير الدفاع الهندي، على هامش مؤتمر شانغهاي في موسكو، وما قد ينتج عنه مع تطبيع العلاقات بين البلدين، وافتكاك الهند من بين أنياب الوحش الأميركي، وضمّ قدراتها الى قدرات الصين وروسيا وإيران، التي تسعى إلى اقامة نظام تعاون دولي شامل يحلّ محلّ نظام الهيمنة الأميركي الأحادي.

5 ـ أما إذا انتقلنا الى إيران وقدراتها الدفاعية والهجومية فلا بدّ من التذكير بالموضوع الذي نشره الكاتب الأميركي، ميخائيل پيلار ، في مجلة «ذي ناشيونال انتريست» بتاريخ ٧/١٢/٢٠١٩، حول قيام إيران بتحديث كافة مدمّراتها وطراداتها، وتزويدها بأجهزة رادار قادرة على كشف الأجسام المعادية، وعلى إخفاء القطع البحرية الإيرانية عن أعين الرادارات المعادية، وتزويدها جميعاً بصوامع إطلاق صواريخ عمودية لتصبح بذلك قادرة على إطلاق رشقات صاروخية، تتكوّن كلّ رشقة من ٣٢ صاروخاً، الأمر الذي يجعل القدرة النارية، لسلاح البحرية الايراني، عالية جداً.

وهذا يعني انّ الأساطيل الإيرانية قد أصبحت قادرة على الدفاع عن مصالح إيران الحيوية، ليس فقط في محيط إيران، ولكن في مناطق بعيدة أيضاً. وما قيام إيران بإرسال ناقلات النفط الإيرانية، محمّلة بالنفط، الى فنزويلا بحماية من بحريتها، إلا دليل ساطع على التعاظم الهائل الذي شهده هذا الصنف من صنوف الأسلحة الإيرانية.

من هنا، ومن منطلقات الأدلة المادية الملموسة، فإنّ هذا الهجوم الديبلوماسي العسكري الفرنسي، المترافق بغطاء عسكري وديبلوماسي أميركي، كانت ذروته تصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركي، مايك بومبيو، التي أعلن فيها عن تنسيق أميركي فرنسي وثيق، في ما يتعلق بالتحرك الخاص بلبنان، قبل أيام. إنما هي تحركات يقودها نفس المايسترو، الذي أوعز لهذه المجموعة من العازفين، بالهجوم على لبنان، بدءاً بتفجير الميناء مروراً بتحريك الأساطيل البحرية، وصولاً الى رحلات ماكرون المكوكية الى لبنان. وهي حزمة تحركات تهدف، حسب الذين خططوا لتفجير الوضع اللبناني، في وجه حلف المقاومة وكلاً من روسيا والصين، إلى حماية لبنان من السيطرة الكاملة لحزب الله عليه حسب زعمهم، خاصة أنّ عملاء واشنطن و«إسرائيل «في لبنان لم يتمكّنوا من تنفيذ مهام التخريب التي أوكلت لهم أميركياً. وهو ما دفع المبعوث الأميركي الى لبنان، ديفيد شينكر، الى توبيخهم بشكل علني تقريباً، خلال اجتماعه بهم في آخر زيارة له لبيروت.

اي انّ مخطط خلط الأوراق، الذي بدأ بتفجير الميناء، قد فشل أيضاً، وانّ ديبلوماسية المستعمر الفرنسي وسيده الأميركي في لبنان لن تغيّر في الواقع شيئاً. اذ انّ لبنان ليس بحاجة الى طائرات عسكرية فرنسية ينبعث منها دخان ملوّن وانما هو بحاجة الى استثمارات ملوّنة عملاقة، صينية روسية إيرانية. وبالنظر الى عجز ماكرون وسيده في واشنطن عن القيام بتنفيذ مثل هذه الاستثمارات المنتجة كما يؤكد محللون اقتصاديون مطلعون، فانّ ضجيج محركات طائرة الرئاسة الفرنسية، بعد إصلاحها إثر الحادث الذي تعرّضت له في مطار بيروت كما يزعمون، نقول انّ هذا الضجيج لوحده سوف لن يسفر عن أكثر من الدخان الأسود الذي تنفثه في أجواء لبنان، مسبّباً مزيداً من التلوّث وحجب الرؤية.

لبنان ليس بحاجة الى دروس لا في الأخلاق ولا في السياسة ولا في الاقتصاد النيوليبرالي ولا هو بحاجة لمصمّم أزياء اقتصادية، قادم من باريس، لإعادة تصميم النظام الرأسمالي اللبناني، بما يتماشى مع شروط المحافظين الجدد، وما يعنيه ذلك من إعادة إنتاج للنظام اللبناني الذي أهلك البلاد والعباد، وبشكل يجعل نتائج هذا التحرك مخيّبة لآمال الطبقات المحدودة الدخل، على المدى القصير، وسحقها نهائياً على المدى المتوسط والطويل، وذلك من خلال بيع لأصول الدولة اللبنانية، ايّ الخصخصة، وتعميق الفقر والعوز لدى قطاعات واسعة من الشعب اللبناني وتكريس نظام الاقتصاد الريعي، الذي ساد لبنان على مدى الثلاثين عاماً الماضية، ولكن بثوب جديد من تصميم مصمّم الأزياء الاقتصادية، خريج جامعة روتشيلد للتدمير المالي والاقتصادي، الرئيس الفرنسي ماكرون.

لبنان بحاجة الى رجال «تنكش» الأرض ولا تسرقها. لبنان بحاجة الى تطبيق خطة اقتصادية مقاومة كتلك التي اقترحها سماحة السيد حسن نصر الله. لبنان بحاجة الى تطبيق خطة اقتصاد مقاوم ومنتج، كالاقتصاد الإيراني والاقتصاد الكوبي، وليس لاقتصاد من هُلام وفقاعات تظهر وتندثر دون ان يشعر بها المواطن. ايّ الاقتصاد المرابي، اقتصاد أسواق البورصة وما ينتج عنها من أرباح خيالية لا يراها المواطن ولا تعود عليه إلا بالضرر والمصائب.

لن يصلح الإطار الباريسي ما هو حاصل من فساد وتدمير في لبنان، وعلى كلّ الصعد، وإنما الرجال الرجال القادرون على إنقاذ هذا البلد العظيم من كبوته، تماماً كما أنقذوه من الخطر التكفيري الإرهابي قبل سنوات وكما حرّروه من الاحتلال الصهيوني سنة ٢٠٠٠ وحموا هذا التحرير سنة ٢٠٠٦.

نحن بحاجة لهم ولأمثالهم وليس لمصمّم الأزياء ايف سان لوران…!

وهم الذين سيكملون المشوار وينقذون البلد بكلّ تأكيد.

هم يمنحون الآخرين الآن فترة سماح بانتظار ان يتبيّن الخيط الأبيض من الخيط الأسود.

والصبر مفتاح الفرج.

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on the Tenth of Muharram

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on the Tenth of Muharram
Video Here

Translated by Staff

Full speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of the tenth day of Muharram (08/30/2020)

I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.

Peace be upon you, O my master and my lord, O Aba Abdullah and upon souls that gathered in your courtyard. Peace be upon you from me forever as long as I am existent and as long as there are day and night. May Allah not decide this time of my visit to you both to be the last. Peace be upon Hussein, Ali bin Al Hussein, the children of Hussein, and the companions of Hussein.

Peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you all. May God Almighty reward you.

On the tenth day of the anniversary of the great calamity and tragedy that befell the Muslims and the nation, which we always remember, and every year on this day we offer condolences to the one who is truly consoled, to the one who cried Al-Hussein at his birth and before his martyrdom, the Messenger of Allah, the master of the messengers and the prophets, Muhammad bin Abdullah (PBUH), who was the grandfather of Al-Hussein (PBUH). To the Commander of the Faithful, Ali bin Abi Talib (PBUH); to the Mistress of the Women of the Worlds, the mother of Al-Hussein Fatima Al-Zahra (PBUH); to Imam Al-Hassan Al-Mujtaba, the oppressed martyr (PBUH); to our masters and imams; to the remnant of Allah on earth, our souls be sacrificed for him, whose cries his grandfather blood instead of tears; to all Muslims and those who love the household of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), we offer our condolences on this great day and on this painful occasion.
This year, the tenth day [of Muharram], especially for us in Lebanon, comes sadder. The squares and streets in Lebanon, which were crowded and filled with devotees and mourners during times like this, are today empty because of this epidemic that struck the world.

Every year, the scene was always strong and distinctive. It expresses the people’s loyalty, insight, awareness, passion, and love for God, the Messenger of God, and the Messenger of God’s household.

We ask God Almighty to lift this pandemic from all the peoples of the world, from us and from you, so that the we can mark the anniversary next year as it has always been marked throughout the years, God willing.

It has been customary that on the tenth day that we summarize the situation in Karbala, and then from there, we talk about our contemporary issues. Here, I will invoke two well-known positions of the Master of the martyrs, Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein (PBUH).

The first position: When falsehood, its logic, policy, and position prevail and become dominant, while the truth is lost, becomes estranged, and even condemned, every believer, honest and free people are required to take a stance of protest that may reach to martyrdom.

In this position, Al-Hussein (PBUH) said: “Can you not see that the truth is not followed, and the falsehood is not shunned?” He said this when he was explaining the reason for his departure and his journey to Karbala as well as the state of the ummah at that time.

“Can you not see that the truth is not followed, and the falsehood is not shunned? In such circumstances a believer should desire to meet Allah.” – if every person will definitely meet God Almighty, and the believer will meet God, let him meet Him while he is right, defending the truth, fighting for the truth, and being martyred for the sake of the truth.

“In such circumstances, a believer should desire to meet Allah. Surely, I regard death as nothing but an honor and life with oppressors as anything but disgrace.” – what kind of life is this when falsehood becomes the one that governs all people’s issues, large and small.

The second position: When the pretenders, dictators, thieves, invaders, and occupiers give you two options: either accept the humiliating solutions and the humiliating life or bear the war they are imposing on you and its consequences. Then, the choice in the school of Karbala is clear, decisive, and strong. 

“Beware that this illegitimate son of the illegitimate one has made me choose between the two: drawing sword and humiliation, and never to humiliation!” – why? Was it a position based on his mood? No!

“Verily, Allah disagrees to it and so do His Prophet, and the sacred laps which nursed us, the modest, and those who abhor disgrace disagree to it that we bow down to the ignoble men, and they exhort us to being killed manly in the battlefield over it.” – this is the summary of the situation on the tenth day in Karbala.

Based on these two foundations, I will delve into some of our current issues.

I have a few words or two points regarding the situation in the region. Regarding the Lebanese situation, there are a number of points. Of course, the issue regarding the southern borders with occupied Palestine, I will include it with the Lebanese situation.

First: Regarding the struggle in the region today, there are two clear scenes or positions for the struggle between right and falsehood, meaning there is no confusion between them.

The first position: Palestine is occupied. The Zionist “Israelis” have been occupying this holy land since 1948 and 1967, in addition to Syria’s occupied Golan, Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shouba Hills, and the Lebanese part of the town of al-Ghajar. There is a clear and unambiguous falsehood here – occupation, invasion, confiscation of the rights of others by force, terrorism, and massacres. There is also a clear and undisputed truth – the right of the Palestinian people to the entirety of Palestine from the sea to the river, the right of the Syrian people to the entire occupied Golan, and the right of the Lebanese people to the rest of their occupied land.

There are always those who want to impose falsehood – occupation by military force, wars, destruction, murder, assassination, displacement, economic siege and starvation. Today, in the face of this falsehood, there are those who stand by the side of truth, those who uphold the truth, and those who fight for this right and resist this occupation. They are the ones who reject this usurping entity. They include countries, peoples, and resistance movements.

Today, on the tenth of Muharram, on the day when faith is expressed firmly, we in Hezbollah and in the Islamic Resistance affirm our categorical commitment to rejecting this usurping entity and not recognizing it even if the whole world acknowledges it. We cannot recognize this apparent falsehood, this injustice, invasion, occupation, and the confiscation of lands, the people’s rights and sanctities. This is our commitment. 

We will remain beside all who fight and confront this entity that is usurping al-Quds, Palestine, the occupied Syrian Golan, and Lebanese territory still under occupation and is threatening the entire region.

The second position: The reality and fate of the peoples, governments, states, and resources not only occupied Palestine, but also the region in which we live. 

There is also a struggle between truth and falsehood. The truth is represented by the people and the governments that express the will of the people. The people in our region want to live in their countries free and dignified. They want their countries’ natural resources for them – oil, gas and water for the people; they want to make their own decisions. 

The falsehood is represented by the American hegemony and the American administration that wants to control and impose governments on peoples; to impose humiliating solutions that serve the interest of the Zionist enemy; to plunder oil and gas; and steal money directly and indirectly. The US represents this apparent falsehood, this clear falsehood.

Among the manifestations of the subjugation attempts and US hegemony on our region, peoples, and countries are the American policies towards occupied Palestine and the Palestinian people’s cause, the imposed war on Yemen six years ago (this war is primarily American with the Saudis and Emiratis being tools for fighting, spending money, buying weapons. But the real decision is an American one. Today, if the Americans want the war on Yemen to end, it will end. The Americans want this war to continue. The Saudis and the Emiratis are American tools. They carry out America’s desires and decisions.), the unjust blockade on Syria and the Caesar Act, the American occupation of a Syrian land east of the Euphrates and the direct plunder of oil fields by US companies, American support for authoritarian regimes in our region, foremost among which is the suffering of our people in Bahrain for many years, and the American impudence in dominating Iraq and plundering its resources under different pretexts.

Among the biggest manifestations of aggression, greed, and US interference in our region is the continuous aggression against Iran since the victory of the Islamic Revolution lead by His Eminence Imam Khomeini, wars, sanctions, blockades, regional and international complicity with a US administration and decision.

We are facing this conflict between the right – represented by these peoples, these governments, and the resistance movements, which we summarize as the axis of resistance – and the American falsehood that wants to dominate, control, plunder, and milk the money and good of our peoples and leave them in unemployment, ignorance, illiteracy, hunger, disease, fear, and anxiety,

On the tenth of Muharram, on the day of Karbala, from a doctrinal and religious position, we can only say that we can only be on the side of truth, on the side of the fighters for the truth and the defenders of truth in our region in the face of this American falsehood.

Contrary to the false numbers that some are spreading, we will triumph in this battle the way we triumphed in Lebanon and in Palestine during the past years; the way the steadfast and patient people in Yemen are achieving victory; the way Syria triumphed; the way Iraq achieved victory over Daesh and the takfiri terrorist organizations created by the US administration; and the way Iran was steadfast and achieved victory in its war. 

In our opinion, victory is in the future of this conflict – in first place Palestine and in its wider scope, the region. It is a matter of time. One of the important indicators of the strength of this axis is that during the past years it faced a global war in more than one country, arena, and field. Yet, it emerged victorious with its head held high. This is what will happen in the near future, God willing.

Second: The second point regarding the situation in the region. It is also my duty on the tenth of Muharram to say the truth no matter how high the prices. We condemn all attempts by any country, group, figure, class, party, and regime to recognize “Israel”, and we condemn any form of normalization with this enemy.

In this context, we reiterate our condemnation of the position of UAE officials and those who chose this option. Of course, as we said earlier, they moved from secret normalization to a public one. But look and learn a lesson, the “Israelis” did not allow some Emirati officials to save face. This showed the “Israeli” enemy’s arrogance and insolence. 

Some Emirati officials, for example, said that they took this step to prevent Netanyahu from annexing large parts of the West Bank. The “Israelis” did not even wait a few hours; Netanyahu invalidated their excuse and said the annexation is still on his government’s agenda.

He could have given them at least two to three days to pass the lie to their people, to the Arab people, and to Palestine and the Palestinian people; to sell them the lie; and make it seem like they made a great political achievement and got paid for the agreement. 

Of course, any agreement of this kind has no price, no matter how great it is. This is a betrayal. Whatever the price that they got in return, how so if there was no price? He (Netanyahu) did not allow them to save face – that is if they even had a face to show. He invalidated their claims more than once. He held a quick press conference and posted tweets on Twitter.

Moreover, the Emiratis have promoted that this agreement will open the door for the UAE, for example, to obtain F-35 aircraft and high-quality American weapons and technology. Netanyahu immediately declared that this is incorrect and not part of the deal, saying “Israel” will not accept to have the UAE acquire F-35s – knowing that Netanyahu, his masters, and his slaves are well aware that the F-35s will not be used by the UAE against the “Israeli” entity. However, “Israel” does not trust the UAE, any country in the region, or any people in the region. Its real guarantee is its strategic military superiority.

This is how the occupier deals with those who crawl towards it under the pretext of peace and normalization. They even said that we moved from the concept of ‘peace in return for the land’ to ‘peace in return for nothing,’ nothing at all except for humiliation and shame.

I mentioned previously and will repeat that what the UAE did is a free service to Trump in his worst political days. It is also a free service to Netanyahu in his worst political life. Anyway, this is a condemned position and it must be condemned. We will be asked about our condemnation of this position on Judgment Day about.

I turn to the Lebanese situation. In the Lebanese situation, we will present several points. 

1- The first point is the issue of the government. We assume and hope, God willing, that tomorrow during the parliamentary consultations, the Lebanese parliamentary blocs and deputies will be able to name a candidate who enjoys the required acceptance constitutionally to be mandated to form the new government. We pin high hopes on what will happen during these hours, which will be translated, God willing, tomorrow during the consultations.

We need a government capable of improving the economic, financial, and livelihood situation, reconstruction, and the completion of reforms. Reforms are a national demand, and they are everyone’s demand. We support going in reforms as far as possible. Of course, some hypocrites and liars in Lebanon say that Hezbollah poses as an obstacle to carrying out reforms. God willing, whether in naming the prime minister or forming a government, we will be cooperative and contribute to pulling the country out of the void that we have always rejected and warned against.

2- The second point: There are international calls from some countries in the world, both regional and domestic, to heed to the demands of the Lebanese people – the Lebanese people have demands, calling for a set of reforms: we want a government that expresses the Lebanese people’s will and represents them. 

Excellent, these are valid demands without discussion, regardless of the background from which these calls are based. But these are righteous words. Our desire in Lebanon as well as in all the region and the world, our desire is always to have a government and a state that express the desires and aspirations of our people and translate them in practical and realistic terms. But we must be clear and specific since there is a main misconception here. Someone may come from outside or from the inside and lay down or assume a group of demands, then say these are the demands of the Lebanese people. They may also assume a form of representation by themselves, then say this represents the Lebanese people.

Today, since we are talking about mains topics, I call for addressing this issue, meaning we all agree that any state, any government, any parliament, any judiciary, and any institution in our political system must heed to the demands of the Lebanese people and fulfill their hopes and aspirations. 

Regarding the Lebanese people and their aspirations and demands, it is clear who the Lebanese people are – unless we want to disagree in determining who the Lebanese people are. The Lebanese people are the Lebanese men and women in Lebanon and those abroad. There are no official statistics, but generally it is close to five million more or less between resident and expatriate. 

How do we identify and know the demands of the Lebanese people? Do we adopt the method of demonstrations as some are trying to adopt now? For example, if several hundred people took to the streets, in any area – Martyrs’ Square, anywhere in Lebanon – for one day or several days, held a sit-in, and put forward demands. Will these demands become the Lebanese people’s? If several thousand people took to the street and put forward a set of demands, are these the demands of the Lebanese people? If tens of thousands of people countered the aforementioned protests and put forward different demands, will these be expressing the aspirations of the Lebanese people? If another group of the Lebanese people were provoked, and in the face of the tens of thousands, a hundred thousand or hundreds of thousands came out, would these people be expressing the demands of the Lebanese people?

Do we use demonstrations and taking to the street as a mechanism for expressing and exploring the demands of the Lebanese people? Let us agree. If we agree on this mechanism, then we will all adopt it to express the demands and aspirations of the Lebanese people. Then the government, the state, and the international community must respect this mechanism, recognize it, defend it, and not deny it.

This is an example of a mechanism. Of course, I am not suggesting. 

Should we, for example, adopt a referendum, a popular referendum like in many democratic countries? The Lebanese always talk about Switzerland and that Lebanon is the Switzerland of the East. Well, Switzerland holds a popular referendum on main issues. 

Would you like us to adopt this mechanism and hold a referendum on the demands, aspirations, and hopes? There are people who do not accept the popular referendum and directly talk to you about the numerical majority and that it would not work in Lebanon, etc.

Would you, for example, adopt a reliable, scientific, multiple, intersecting, objective, and reliable opinion poll mechanism? Are there other mechanisms? We are ready to discuss whatever means you prefer. But this matter should be addressed in Lebanon so we all 
understand each other.

In Lebanon, we must define what our people want and what must be addressed in order to cut off the road to anyone who imposes demands and aspirations and says that they are the demands of the Lebanese people. You want to adopt the parliamentary elections, well, we made parliamentary elections based on the best possible law suitable for the Lebanese situation – the law of proportional representation. Opportunities were presented to everyone, and the current parliament won. And after a short period of time and very early on, there were calls for early parliamentary elections.

Well, what exactly do you want? My question today is to the political forces, to the religious authorities, to the judicial and media elites, and to the entire Lebanese people, a question even to the Lebanese people: What are the mechanisms that you, the Lebanese people, want to adopt in order to express your aspirations and hopes so the rulers, the ministers, the representatives, and the leaders in Lebanon as well as the countries in the world and the international community know them.

This issue needs a solution. This is not solved. No one in Lebanon, without exception, no religious authority can come out and say this is what the Lebanese people want.

How did you know? Did you conduct an opinion poll and asked the Lebanese people? Did you make a referendum? No political leader can come out and say this is the will of the Lebanese people, let alone someone who represents himself – even his wife might not believe in his political choices. 

No, not even us as a party can claim that we express the will of the entire Lebanese people even though the results of the elections and the facts state that we are the largest political party in Lebanon with more supporters than any other party or as a duo with the Amal movement, or with our other allies. We only express the will of those we represent.

Be honest and objective. This issue needs to be addressed so that we can set our country on the path towards a proper and correct cure. When the government is mentioned, who said that the Lebanese people, for example, want a neutral government, a technocratic government, a political government, or a technopolitical government? There is no solution. Yes, there is one solution – if we consider that the elections express the opinion of the Lebanese people and that the parliamentary majority, for example, is call for a certain type government, then we can say that this government is what the majority of the Lebanese people is demanding.

3- The third point: We heard a call from the French president, on his recent visit to Lebanon, for a new political era in the country. In the past few days, we heard from French official sources sharp criticism of the sectarian system in Lebanon, and that this system is no longer capable of solving Lebanon’s problems and responding to its needs. I would like to say today that we are open to any calm discussion in this field, to reach a new political era, but we have a condition – this debate and this national dialogue should take place in line with the will and consent of the various Lebanese factions. Thus, if there are people who fear that a debate will take place or fear heading towards a new political era, then we must respect these concerns.

It is good, that a hundred years after the establishment of the current Lebanese entity and the state of Greater Lebanon, for the Lebanese to sit down and discuss this matter. But I have a remark on the appearance of the suggestion and its content. This reveals a problem in the Lebanese political culture and the Lebanese political mentality. 

Let us assume that a Lebanese religious authority, a political authority, one of the three leaders, a group of MPs, or a Lebanese party called for a new political era. What would have happened in the country? They would have been accused of blasphemy, not being patriotic, agents, and someone serving a certain project. The matter will then take a sectarian dimension, etc. 

I remember a few years ago – I did not talk about a new political era; a new political era means starting from the beginning – I spoke about a founding conference to develop the Taif Agreement, to develop an existing political era. We remember at the time the reactions of some parties and authorities. Then, later I spoke and retracted it. 

The point is that this matter reveals a problem in the Lebanese political culture and mentality. When this suggestion comes from outside, from any president or another country, even if we respect his ideas and endeavors, you find the whole country silent. No one is objecting. No one was accused. The matter did not take a certain dimension. Of course, if the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Syrian president called the Lebanese to a new political era, what would have happened in the country? Some countries are classified as friends, and even those who disagree with them, the latter deals with them with respect, just as we do.

This, of course, is a problem in the Lebanese political life and mentality. Thank God, there is someone who came from somewhere in the world and the people in Lebanon did not comment negatively on what he proposed, and thus opening the door for such discussions. This debate should be opened some day.
4- The fourth point: The explosion in the port of Beirut. We emphasize the firm judicial follow-up, and we talked about this at the beginning. It should not diminish or weaken with time, and officials, especially in the judiciary, must pursue this matter without political accounts and courtesies. The blood of the martyrs, the wounded, the unknown fate of the missing people, and the suffering of people should not be lost or forgotten. We emphasize on speeding up compensation for people so that they can return to their homes. We also call on the competent authorities, specifically the Lebanese army since it is the one that carried out the technical investigation and sought the help of experts from abroad, to announce the results of the technical investigation.

Here, I am not talking about the judicial investigation – who is responsible, which director, minister, head of department. This is another matter related to the judiciary. But there should be something that has been accomplished or at being concluded. If it is accomplished, we hope it will be announced. If it’s being wrapped up, we hope that it will end and be announced.

Let the debate and fabrications in the country be resolved. We ask the technical investigation to tell us whether there were in Warehouse 12, in other hangars, or in the whole port of Beirut, missiles, weapons, or ammunition. Let it say that. Announcing this matter will end the lies and will cut off slanderous tongues, which have worked on this topic for days and are still working on it despite the clarity of the issue. But there is insistence on this matter.

Also, regarding the issue of the ammonium nitrate, because when it became known that there were no missiles, ammunition, or weapons, or any such nonsense, and since it was known who brought the ammonium nitrate, they change their story – the ammonium nitrate belongs to Hezbollah, they brought them in, the ship belongs to Hezbollah, the bank is for Hezbollah. The same lies. 

Any Lebanese or anyone from the Gulf can simply pay a foreign newspaper some money to write an article with some information. Then some Lebanese with their media outlets can quote a certain newspaper in the world and say that the ammonium nitrate was so and so. We hope the authorities concerned with the investigation, the Lebanese army in particular, resolve this issue and announce the results.

Of course, there is a second matter that will follow, and we must follow up on it. We will follow up on it. I will talk about the resistance since the president, the Free Patriotic movement, and everyone else is defending themselves. Is it reasonable, for example, that a TV station creates an atmosphere during sensitive and emotional times for days on end, convincing a stratum that this devastating and thunderous blast is caused by Hezbollah, Hezbollah’s missiles, and Hezbollah’s weapons?

If it turns out that this talk is baseless, does it mean forgive and forget? Thus, anyone can create a hateful and ugly atmosphere in the country with this level of distortion, incitement, and injustice. And it ends as if nothing happened. Aren’t there government agencies that should follow up on this matter? It just so happens that the government has resigned, but there are judicial bodies that must follow up on the matter. There are concerned parties in Lebanon that must follow up on this issue. 

It is important for people to hold these lying TV stations accountable. People should hold them accountable because people are being affected – their minds, hearts, and emotions. False convictions and positions are built on these lies. In the end, this is the fate of a country.

5- The fifth point: We have the anniversary of the second liberation in the Bekaa after the first liberation in the south in May 2000. We remember the suffering of our people in the Bekaa, especially in Baalbek-Hermel in the adjacent villages that were facing attacks by takfiri groups as well as the dangers and constant threats of storming these villages. Some suicide operations and bomb attacks took place here. There were also some explosive devices that were discovered.

We also recall these takfiri groups’ blatant aggression against the Lebanese army and the security forces; they kidnapped and killed officers and soldiers of the Lebanese army and the security forces; the humiliation they practiced via the media outlets available to them. All of this existed for years. However, the decisive response from the beginning came from the people and the resistance because the Lebanese army was committed to defense. It did not attack due to the absence of the political decision that came later during the Jaroud Operation. 

The decisive response and the last decisive battle were a new victory created by the equation: the army, the people, and the resistance. We always provide credibility for this proposition through achievements on the field. The second liberation, similar to the first, is one of the achievements on the field.

Yelling, complaining, and crying would not have liberated our barrens in the Bekaa. Our towns in the villages of Baalbek-Hermel, whose inhabitants are varied, would not have been aided because we have a sectarian composition in the country. The golden equation: the army, the people, and the resistance, is the one that protected, defended, liberated, and brought about security.

On this anniversary, as I said a few nights ago, it is our duty to thank the martyrs, the families of the martyrs, the wounded, all the fighters of the Islamic Resistance, the fighters in Hezbollah, the officers and soldiers of the Lebanese army, and the officers and soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army. I also mentioned some of the forces in the Syrian militia that fought with us in the Qalamoun region on the second side of the Jaroud.
All of them made efforts, gave blood, got wounded, and made sacrifices, and some were martyred so that we can get to where we are now. There is also the diverse popular environment that has adopted this option. 

I will simply tell you that there were people in the Jaroud that opposed their political leaderships’ choices. All the people in those villages demanded that the battle against the takfiri groups be resolved. The people did not see the militants as rebels or a reform movement. They saw them as a group of takfiri terrorist and killers.

Today, we must issue a warning again since there is a daily attempt to re-produce Daesh in Iraq. There are security operations in Syria. There is an attempt to re-produce Daesh in the east of the Euphrates, most probably in the Jazira region that leads to the al-Sokhna and Palmyra. The Syrian army and its various allies in the Jazira region are fighting these groups that are being regenerated. They are, in fact, defending the security of Syria and defending Lebanon, its borders, and hills.

Unfortunately, if one day these militants were able to reach Palmyra again, surely these barrens and these sites would be one of the places they would want to seize.

In fact, we must be aware. On the second liberation day, we must value all those who are fighting today in the Jazira region in defense of Syria, Lebanon, and the whole region.

6- The sixth point: We will follow up on all the options and proposals that we previously talked about to address the economic, financial, and life situations in Lebanon with the new government, which we hope will be formed quickly. And there are steps that have been taken regarding the agricultural-industrial jihad and popular efforts to confront any attempt to starve that we announced. There are steps that will be followed up on. We must continue this work – set programs and cooperate at the national level, government and people, because this is a great challenge facing the Lebanese people.

7- The seventh point: We have the anniversary of the kidnapping of His Eminence the leader Imam Musa Al-Sadr and his two companions and dear brothers, His Eminence Sheikh Muhammad Yaqoub and Mr. Abbas Badruddin, may God return them to their families and to their homeland safely.

This is a comprehensive national anniversary of what Imam Sayyed Musa al-Sadr represented not only at the Shiite level, but also at the national and Islamic levels. This cause belongs to all of us. 

Imam al-Sadr is the imam of the resistance. He drew for all of us a clear path and approach to the conflict with the Zionist enemy and the manner in dealing with national issues and issues of the region.

On the anniversary of his kidnapping, we affirm that we all in Hezbollah and in the Amal movement belong to this great imam, his mind, his soul, his thought, his path, and his approach. On the anniversary of his forced absence, we emphasize two things: 

The first thing is the depth of the relationship between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement – the cooperation, coordination, and integration between them. This is in our opinion and contrary to the desires of many in the country. 

Contrary to the desires of many in the country, this relationship, in our opinion, is what always achieves the most important and greatest interest of Lebanon, which is protecting Lebanon through the equation of the army, the people, and the resistance. It also serves many national interests.

Some unfortunate, sad, and painful events that take place between young people here and there, in this town or that place – thank God, some of these events take place within long intervals, not in succession – are condemned and rejected. The youth must face them consciously. 

But certainly, due to the trust and the strong and mutual relationship between the leaders of the Amal Movement and Hezbollah, we can overcome even these unfortunate events and overcome them consciously, responsibly, and firmly. We have to cut off the road to all those who hope and are betting on a strife between the brothers.

The second thing is that we in Hezbollah have always been and will always be supportive of the leadership of the Amal Movement, the Supreme Islamic Shia Council, the family of Imam Sayyed Musa al-Sadr and the families of His Eminence Sheikh Muhammad Yaqoub and Mr. Abbas Badruddin, i.e. supportive of all families, in all the steps that they have taken or might take in following up on their case. 

We are by their side and support them because they are the ones who are bearing the responsibility and took on this responsibility. And this is a very natural thing. We are by their side. We put ourselves at their disposal in all that can be asked of us in this regard.

8- The eighth point: Here I will speak clearly. I left it for the last for the “Israelis” and for the people to have a clear understanding of our position and the situation on the southern border with occupied Palestine. Several weeks ago, “Israeli” air raids on the vicinity of Damascus airport lead to the martyrdom of a number of martyrs including our brother and mujahid martyr Kamel Mohsen. We are committed to an equation, and we have always applied this equation and are keen on applying it. Our goal is not revenge in the true sense of the word. Our goal is to punish the killers and to establish the balance of deterrence for protection. This manner has been adopted since 2006.

We only issued a statement and said that martyr brother Ali Kamel Mohsen was martyred as a result of an “Israeli” raid on Damascus airport. We only said that, and we did not say anything else.

The “Israelis” on their own stood on a foot and a half. The “Israelis” know perfectly well, and this of course is one of the resistance’s achievements. The “Israelis” deal with arrogance and aggression with entire regimes and armies, but it deals with the resistance in a different way. This did not come as a result of words and speeches. This was the result of 38 years of sacrifices, jihad, perseverance, achievements, and victories, while the “Israelis” were dealt disappointments, defeats, as well as military and security failures.

On their own – to summarize the situation – stood on foot and a half along the borders from the sea to the Golan heights, not only on the Lebanese borders, but also on the Syrian border with occupied Palestine. 

The “Israelis” carried out all the measures that you know. They evacuated military sites – if you go there now, you’ll find that they’ve been evacuated. Meanwhile, there are sites that were not evacuated, but the soldiers there are in hiding. The patrols were canceled completely. Sometimes, a patrol quickly passes and exceptionally in places if they felt that there was no movement for the resistance. The “Israelis” started sending unmanned vehicles and putting dummies dressed as “Israeli” soldiers in them like last year. It is as if they are telling us to target this vehicle. Then a helicopter and an ambulance will come and put the soldiers in stretchers. By doing so, they think they fooled us. It’s like, O Hezbollah, what do you want? You want to kill a soldier, well you have. Isn’t this what they are doing? This is what the “Israelis” are doing now.

Yesterday, you saw on television how they brought a walking robot and put a dummy on it for us to assume it was a soldier and that this is an opportunity.
These measures are still in place and have been in place for weeks. This is part of the punishment. This is an army that considers itself the most powerful army in the region as opposed to the resistance in Lebanon. Yes, I tell you that it is standing on a foot and a half on all the borders. They are anxious. The measures are not only taken along the border, but also behind it – they check who enters the settlements and who leaves; checkpoints are set up; training programs are disrupted; maneuver programs are disrupted; artillery groups and troops are deployed; the Iron Dome is on high alert awaiting the resistance. The “Israelis” know that this resistance has credibility and is serious.

When something happens along the border, “they think that every shout is against them,” as we said in the statement. If they sensed a certain movement at a certain point, they begin bombing the perimeter of their posts in the Shebaa Farms, in the Manara point, i.e. facing Meiss Ej Jabal and Aitaroun, and in the western sector area.

This reflects a state of confusion, anxiety, and panic among the “Israelis”. Why would they bomb sites? They are supposed to have information and control over the information. They are supposed to be alert or have information in any case.

Today, I want to be clear about this. Up to this point, we consider everything that has happened since the martyrdom of our brother to be a part of the retribution. We are convinced of that. But I would like to be clearer for the benefit of the people in Lebanon who follow us, as well as for the “Israelis”. If we wanted to respond just in order to raise the morale or for media consumption, we would have retaliated on the first day. Let me go into details. Simply put, there are “Israeli” posts in Shebaa Farms and even along the border. as far as we are concerned, this matter is over. At one point, we used to distinguish between the Shebaa Farms and the border. The Shebaa Farms are occupied Lebanese territory, and nobody should dispute our right to resist. But when the “Israelis” attack, there is no longer a distinction between the Shebaa Farms and the international border. We concluded this matter the last time.

Quite simply, the men of the resistance could have hit a military post with a group of rockets, hitting some fortifications and some installations. Then, we could have filmed this and sent it to all media outlets. And Allah Akbar… and this would have been our response to the martyrdom of our brother. But no “Israeli” soldier would have been killed or wounded. 

It is also possible that “Israelis” might do what they did in the Shebaa Farms incident – they put the ladder for us so we can get down from the top of the tree. They can bring helicopters and stretchers and pretend to show wounded people the wat they did at the time of the Avivim barracks incident. Then everything is over.

This was not our goal. We are not looking to win points in the media or to just raise the morale. We want to set a certain equation, and today, I will be franker about this equation than any time in the past.

Let the “Israelis” understand: When you kill one of our mujahideen, we will kill someone your soldiers. That’s it. This is the equation. It is not that you kill one of us, and we bomb a post, hills, bunkers, some iron and tin installations. They have lots of money. They can replace these objects. This is not the one that will create a balance of deterrence with “Israel”.  

The “Israelis” know – this is the first time I speak bluntly – that we are not looking for success in the media or for a photo-op. They know that we are looking for an “Israeli” soldier to kill. This is why they are hiding all their soldiers. They are hiding like mice.

This is the resistance’s point of strength. This is not a point of weakness. This is not a failure. The accuracy is that the resistance is not here to spill its anger or seeking to do a consumer work. 

The resistance is serious in accomplishing this mission. The “Israelis” are hoping for anything to happen so that things return to normal in the north of occupied Palestine and their done with it. This matter is not like this to us. During the last incident a few days ago, more than one flare bomb was thrown, and phosphorous bombs set fire to places – unfortunately, shells hit some homes and an agricultural institution called “Green Without Borders” – but praise be to God, no one was injured or martyred. There were only material damages.

We did not engage in gun battle because, honestly, this is what the “Israelis” wanted – they attacked our front and we retaliated. They burned some trees, and we did the same thing. And that’s it. 

We feel that this wastes the blood of our martyr and the equation of deterrence. What the “Israelis” did a few days ago as well as a few weeks ago when a missile mistakenly hit a house in al-Habbariya are all recorded in the account. Settling this is coming. We consider this a categorical and decisive decision. It is only a matter of time and place. We are not in a hurry or wrecking our nerves – is it going to be today or tomorrow? 

We do not consider it a weakness if the response was late because we could not find a target that would achieve the objective. In the end, how long will you stay in your burrows? How long? A week, two weeks, a month, two months, three months? Regardless of the duration, time is not a pressing matter to us. No one is pressing us with time either. 

Eventually, you will go out on the road and we will meet you. We will set this equation. All the threats by Netanyahu, Gantz, and the Chief of Staff Kochavi will not prevent us from setting the achievement that was enshrined by the blood of thousands of martyrs.

9- The last point: Just a few words regarding the coronavirus. The number in Lebanon is spiking, unfortunately. Every day, the number is going above 650 cases. The decision to close is not being implemented. Of course, there is a resigned government whose circumstances are difficult. Even if a new government is formed, I do not know to what extent we will be able to handle this matter.

On the other hand, closing is difficult. Shop owners, restaurant owners, and hoteliers are protesting. People need to go to work. Thus, there is a method which is adopted today in the world, but it requires commitment. It does not require closure, and people can go to work and making a living. 

There are two words circulating in the whole world: social distancing. Can we abide by social distancing or not? Can we commit to wearing masks or not? 

Hence, social distancing and wearing a mask. One of the knowledgeable doctors says: the mask, the mask, and the mask. In any case, the results of the vaccine have not appeared so far, and this situation may continue for months and years. So, what do we do? Today, hospitals, directors, and officials in Lebanon say that we no longer have the capacity to receive patients, and the number of deaths is increasing every day. Do we need a calamity to happen in order for people to wake up? Why isn’t there commitment? Can’t we get married without a wedding part? Yes, we can. 

Can we console each other over the phone and on social media? Yes, we can. The dearest thing to us this year was the month of Ramadan, and we were committed [to the measures]. Marking the nights of Ashura was the dearest thing to us, and we were committed. Can we commit to the measures during other occasions? In our behavior and our life? We can do that. Today, this is a very great responsibility, I repeat and say that has to do with religion, the Hereafter, and the question on the Day of Resurrection. This is a religious duty. It is not a desirable act and leaving it is undesirable. This is a religious duty that means neglecting it is a sin, for which a person will be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection. This is speaking from a religious standpoint. If we want to speak from a humanitarian and moral standpoint as well as from our responsibility towards our families and others around us, we must resolve this issue. So, what can we do?

Should we, for example, beg you, plead with you, kiss your hands? O people, for your safety, for the safety of the country, and for the safety of all residents of this country. There should be a different sense of responsibility.

Since we are talking about the tenth day, I would like to conclude by talking about Hussein (PBUH). We were hurt that this year we did not have the chance to attend mourning ceremonies. From now, we must commit to the coronaviruss measures to get rid of this pandemic in Lebanon so that we can take part in mourning ceremonies next year. 

If there was still a pandemic, our performance to commit to the measures would make controlling it easier. What is the gateway by which we can use to tell people: O our family, our loved ones, and our people, please abide by social distancing, the mask, and disinfecting? 

I ask God Almighty to keep everyone in good health.

In conclusion, on Ashura, on the tenth day, we renew our commitment and pledge to our imam by continuing this path. We will keep telling him no matter how long “Labaik ya Hussein! [I am here, O Hussein!].”

No matter how great the sacrifices are, “Labaik ya Hussein!” With our blood, our tears, our remains, our cries, our patience, our grievances, our estrangement, our hopes and our pain, our cry will remain “Labaik ya Hussein!”

No Yazid in this world could cut us of from Hussein, from the truth for which Hussein was martyred, and from attending jihad arenas for the sake of the truth that Hussain called us to stand for. No one will ever be able to. We will remain Hussainis and people of Karbala and Ashura. We will carry this thought, this culture, this loyalty and sincerity, and this constant willingness to sacrifice souls, money, children, and dear ones for the sake of the truth that we believe in.

Peace be upon you, O my master and my lord, O Aba Abdullah and upon souls that gathered in your courtyard. Peace be upon you from me forever as long as I am existent and as long as there are day and night. May Allah not decide this time of my visit to you both to be the last. Peace be upon Hussein, Ali bin Al Hussein, the children of Hussein, and the companions of Hussein.

Peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you all. May God Almighty bless you, better your consolation, and reward you.
 

Analyst expects Hezbollah to play a constructive role in Gov. formation

By Mohammad Mazhari

September 5, 2020 – 23:16

TEHRAN – Ghassan Javad, a Lebanese analyst, expects Hezbollah to contribute constructively information of a new government in Lebanon based on “the resistance’s understanding of the Lebanese reality and necessity of Lebanese consensus.”

On the role of Hezbollah in the next Lebanese government, French President Emmanuel Macron has said that Hezbollah is a political group that has the right to be in power.

Contrary to all comments that say Hezbollah should be eliminated from the Lebanese decision-making process, the French think that the party has a meaningful social base in Lebanon.

The French push for a systematic involvement of Hezbollah in Lebanese institutions, believing that it will be in the interest of the country and other groups.

The Lebanese analyst tells the Tehran Times that Hezbollah will be a participant in the next government and will help prepare the conditions to form a national unity government.

“Of course, Hezbollah will have a constructive role in the process of forming a new government in Lebanon, based on the resistance’s understanding of the Lebanese reality and necessity of Lebanese consensus,” Javad points out.

After naming the Lebanese prime minister on August 31, Macron said in Beirut that the Lebanese political groups had pledged to form a new government headed by Mustafa Adib within 15 days.

He warned about the consequences of a failure by the Lebanese parties to fulfill what they had pledged by the end of October.

Javad underlines that it was clear that there was a great French effort to form a national unity government or national consensus government.

“This government is a salvation government, and its mission is to unify the Lebanese to contain the economic, social, financial, and political crises that we are living in,” Javad remarks.

Macron added in a press conference that he had contacted his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and international leaders to discuss ways of helping Lebanon, explaining that he felt these leaders had a will to allow Lebanon to follow its path.

In fact, Macron’s domain of activities has been very wide, starting from Iran, which was flexible in response to efforts to form a new government, and Hezbollah, which responded positively to what the French president has proposed and its willingness to cooperate based on a set of considerations.

On the other hand, some Lebanese observers believe that the French try to exploit the shock caused by the Beirut blast and take the initiative when the Americans are busy with their elections.

Javad confirms that there was a French pressure on the Lebanese factions to form a government of national unity, or at the very least, a government supported by a vast majority of political groups.

 According to Lebanese media outlets, there was a meeting between the Lebanese political blocs to reach a consensus about the next prime minister, and this matter was evident

during the visit of the French leader to Lebanon.

“In his meetings with the Lebanese politicians and officials, Macron insisted on French interests and concerns in Lebanon, pointing to French-Iranian and French-American convergence there,” the Lebanese analyst says.

Javad notes that “apparently there is no objection by the United States and regional countries to the French role on the basis of consensus at this difficult historical phase.”

Responding to a question about the possibility of a fundamental change in Lebanon’s political structure, the Lebanese analyst believes that “we need a completely new political structure, but there will be a transitional phase and preparation for the parliamentary elections.”

 “Afterwards, it is possible to talk about a move towards a new political system and a new political formula. Currently, we are in a transitional phase, and of course, Lebanon needs an internal and external consensus in order to move towards political stability,” according to Javad.

RELATED NEWS

هكذا حمت كفتون لبنان

التعليق السياسي

أحد أمراء داعش خالد التلاوي وفقاً للتحقيقات الأمنية خطّط وأشرف على تنفيذ جريمة كفتون، وشهداء كفتون هم الذين كانوا قرابين لبنان لكشف المخطط الأبعد مدى من حدود كفتون والكورة.

بعد هذه الحقائق وفي مقدّمتها ما كشفته التحقيقات عن مخطط أمني يستهدف الجيش اللبناني والاستقرار في البلاد، بات مطلب أهالي كفتون والكورة بإحالة ملف قضية الجريمة الإرهابية التي استهدفتهم على المجلس العدلي مطلباً وطنياً جامعاً يرتبط بحماية الشعب اللبناني من شبكة إجرامية إرهابية تشكل خطراً على الأمن الوطني.

ظهور الشبكة الإرهابية ورأسها المدبّر يستدعي الانتباه للمخاطر التي تستهدف الأمن الوطني، خصوصاً من خلال الثغرات التي يحاول الإرهاب التسلل من خلالها سواء تمثلت بالفراغات في انتشار القوى الأمنيّة وخصوصاً ما أظهرته التحقيقات من معلومات عن دور للشبكة في محاولة التلاعب بمسار التظاهرات الاحتجاجية والتسلل بين صفوف المتظاهرين لافتعال صدامات مع الجيش اللبناني والقوى الأمنيّة.

يبقى السقف السياسي المانع للفراغ والفوضى الذي يمثله تشكيل حكومة تقطع طريق الفتن وتحمي السلم الأهلي والاستقرار الخطوة الأولى الأهم، لكن المسارين الأمني والقضائي يشكلان أهمية لا تقل عن أهمية المسار السياسيّ.

اليوم يمكن لأهالي الكورة وكفتون خصوصاً وبصورة أخص أسر الشهداء أن يقولوا بكل ثقة أن دماءهم حمت لبنان.

شبكة «داعشيّة» بقيادة خالد التلاوي ‏وراء جريمة كفتون… اندسّت أيضاً ‏بين المتظاهرين /‏ غموض حول أزمة وزارة المالية… ‏ومشاورات العطلة ترسم صورة ‏الحكومة الجديدة/ ‏ قائد سريّة الحرس الحكوميّ وراء إلغاء زيارة ‏دياب للمرفأ… وصوان سيستمع لقهوجي؟/‏

كتب المحرّر السياسيّ

تعلّق اللبنانيون بمتابعة أخبار النبض الذي تم الإعلان عن وجوده تحت الأنقاض التي خلّفها تفجير مرفأ بيروت، وكشفته البعثة التشيلية التي تعاون الدفاع المدني والجيش اللبناني في أعمال البحث والتنقيب، ورغم تضاؤل الأمل بخبر مفرح عن ناجين من الكارثة بعد شهر من التفجير، بقيت المحاولات الأخيرة صباح اليوم مصدر رجاء، لكن ما كشفته التحقيقات الأمنية والقضائية في جريمة كفتون التي هزّت الكورة ولبنان قبل عشرة أيام، شغل الاهتمام الشعبي والسياسي بعدما ظهرت تفاصيل الشبكة الإرهابيّة التي يتزعمها خالد التلاوي والتي وقفت وراء الجريمة، بصفتها شبكة منظمة تعمل لحساب تنظيم داعش، وتنفذ عملياتها ضمن مخطط تخريبي من ضمن أهدافه استهداف الجيش اللبناني، وقد قام أفرادها بالمشاركة في التظاهرات الاحتجاجية لافتعال مواجهات بين المتظاهرين والقوى الأمنية، وفقاً لاعترافاتهم أمام المحققين.

في الشق القضائي والأمني لا يزال التحقيق في تفجير المرفأ في دائرة الاهتمام الأولى، مع بدء استدعاء الوزراء مطلع الأسبوع بعدما كشفت شهادة رئيس حكومة تصريف الأعمال حسان دياب أن قائد سرية الحرس الحكوميّ كان وراء إلغاء زيارته للمرفأ، بعد إجراء اتصالات سيعمل المحقق فادي صوان على تبيان أطرافها والبحث بخلفيّاتهم، بينما أثيرت تساؤلات حول موقف قائد الجيش السابق جان قهوجي برفض القيام بوضع اليد على كميات نترات الأمونيوم ونصيحته ببيعها لمعمل الذخائر، وما يمكن أن يفيد التحقيق من الاستماع إليه، في ظل التساؤل عما إذا كان سيتمّ الاستماع إليه من المحقق فادي صوان، لاستكمال الصورة التي ترسمها سنوات إقامة النترات في المرفأ وإجراء العروض العسكرية في عيد الاستقلال على مقربة منها، من دون أن يحرّك العارفون بوجودها ساكناً.

حكومياً تبدو الصورة مشوّشة حول ماهية العلاقة بين الرئاستين الأولى والثانية، في ظل تسريبات تنسب لقصر بعبدا مواقف تثير حفيظة عين التينة، كمثل اعتبار ربط إسناد وزارة المالية لوزير شيعي ضمن معادلة التوقيع الثالث، بدعة لا تستند إلى أساس مسند في اتفاق الطائف، والقول إن السلوك الخاطئ لا ينشئ عرفاً، وبالتوازي ما ينقل عن التيار الوطني الحر من طرح للمداورة بين الوزارات، بما بدا سعياً لتوزير ماروني في وزارة المالية قيل إنه المدير العام السابق المستقيل آلان بيفاني، وتبع ذلك تقرير إعلامي منسوب لمصادر قريبة من بعبدا يتهم وزير المال غازي وزني بإطلاع رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون على نص لعقد التحقيق المالي الجنائي مغاير لنص العقد الذي قام بتوقيعه، وتوقعت مصادر متابعة للاتصالات الخاصة بتشكيل الحكومة أن يتمّ تزخيم التشاور الهادئ خلال عطلة الأسبوع لتجاوز أي عقد سيترتب عليها تأخير تشكيل الحكومة، وربما تعقيد مهمة الرئيس المكلف في ظل تساؤلات عن مبرر هذه التعقيدات في ظل ضغط الحاجة لتسريع تأليف الحكومة، والشروع في تنفيذ الالتزامات التي تعهد الجميع بالتعاون لتسهيل السير بها، وقالت المصادر إن شكل الحكومة سيتبلور بوضوح مطلع الأسبوع ومعه فرص تسريع تشكيلها، بعدما بات واضحاً أن لا أسماء لوزراء الحكومات السابقة بين صفوف الوزراء الجدد، وأن لا نواب في صفوف الحكومة الجديدة، وبقي عدد الوزراء وتوازنات الحقائب سياسياً وطائفياً في حال أخذ ورد وموضوع تجاذب.

مشاورات في الكواليس

وفيما انتقلت مشاورات تأليف الحكومة بين الرئيس المكلف مصطفى أديب والقوى السياسية والنيابية الى الكواليس حرصاً على نجاح تشكيل حكومة جديدة بعيداً عن الأضواء الإعلامية والتجاذبات والخلافات السياسية التقليدية، بقي تفجير مرفأ بيروت وتداعياته مسيطراً على المشهد الداخلي لا سيما لجهة الحقائق والمعلومات التي تكشف فصولها كل يوم التحقيقات القضائية والأمنية، وإن لجهة استمرار أعمال البحث عن مفقودين في مناطق سكنية قريبة من الانفجار مع تضارب المعلومات حول احتمال وجود أحياء تحت ركام أحد المنازل المدمّرة في منطقة مار مخايل، اضافة الى أعمال اغاثة المتضررين وتأمين المساعدات وترميم المنازل قبل حلول فصل الشتاء وموسم المدارس.

وإذ لم تتضح الصورة الحكوميّة ولم يسجل يوم امس، جديداً يذكر على صعيد التأليف، ولم ترصد أي حركة علنية للرئيس المكلف باتجاه القوى السياسية، أفيد عن لقاء حصل بين الرئيس المكلف والمعاون السياسي لرئيس مجلس النواب النائب علي حسن خليل والمعاون السياسي للأمين العام لحزب الله الحاج حسين الخليل أمس الأول.

وتمّ البحث خلال اللقاء بشكل وحجم الحكومة بين خيارين: حكومة مصغرة مؤلفة من 14 وزيراً يؤيدها الرئيس المكلف وبين حكومة موسعة ما بين 20 و24 وزيراً يؤيدها رئيس الجمهورية العماد ميشال عون والتيار الوطني الحر. فيما لم يُحسم موقف الكتل النيابية الأخرى من هذا الأمر لا سيما ثنائي أمل وحزب الله اللذين يفضلان حكومة موسّعة بحسب مصادر «البناء»، فيما لم يُحدّد الرئيس سعد الحريري موقفه بعد.

وبحسب المعلومات، فإن المشاورات أحرزت تقدماً على صعيد حسم مبادئ أساسية كفصل النيابة عن الوزارة واختيار وجوهاً وزارية جديدة.

حجم الحكومة

ولفتت مصادر نيابية لـ»البناء» الى أن «مشاورات التأليف لم تصل بعد الى توزيع الحقائب وإسقاط الأسماء»، مشيرة الى أن النقاش يتركز حالياً على حجم الحكومة وشكلها ونوعية الوزراء الذين سيتمّ اختيارهم لتحمل هذه المسؤولية الكبيرة والاستثنائية»، وأكدت المصادر أن الحكومة ستولد في وقت قريب ولن تتكرر تجارب تأليف الحكومات السابقة التي كانت تأخذ وقتاً طويلاً، فطريقة التأليف والمنهجية المعتمدة الآن ستكون مختلفة في ظل الدفع الفرنسي وإعلان مختلف الكتل النيابية استعدادها لتسهيل التأليف». وتوقعت المصادر أن تتضح صورة الحكومة المقبلة مطلع الأسبوع المقبل، كما لفتت الى أن «الحكومة الحالية بعكس الحكومات السابقة ستستطيع إحداث خرق في جدار الأزمات الصلب، لأنها تمتلك مقومات الإقلاع والانطلاق نحو الإصلاح والنهوض الاقتصادي والمالي انطلاقاً من المبادرة الفرنسية وورقة العمل التي ستتحول الى برنامج لعمل الحكومة»، موضحة أن «الأوراق التي قدمها بعض الأحزاب السياسية في لقاء قصر الصنوبر مع الرئيس الفرنسي امانويل ماكرون تتضمن الكثير من بنود الإصلاحات الواردة في الورقة الفرنسية لا سيما إصلاح قطاع الكهرباء والتدقيق الجنائي وإصلاح القطاع المصرفي ومكافحة الفساد».

المداورة وحقيبة المال

وفي حين لفتت مصادر كتلة التنمية والتحرير لـ»البناء» بأن لا مصلحة بإثارة عقد وإشكاليات كمسألة وزارة المالية للتشويش على عملية التأليف، دعت إلى التركيز على حجم الحكومة ونوعيّة وزرائها ومدى الانسجام بينهم لتكون حكومة فاعلة ومنتجة وقادرة على القيام بالمهمة الوطنية التي تنتظرها يصرّ التيار الوطني الحر بحسب ما أكدت مصادر نيابية في التيار لـ»البناء» على مسألة المداورة في توزيع الحقائب لا سيما الأساسيّة والسياديّة بما يشمل وزارة المال بشكل أساسي، مؤكدة أن كلام رئيس التيار النائب جبران باسيل عن المداورة خلال استشارات التأليف جدية وليست مناورة، مضيفة أن التزام الكتل النيابية مسألة المداورة يحدّد مدى جديتها للتسهيل من عدمها، لافتة الى أن «التيار مستعدّ للتنازل عن أي حقيبة مقابل تنازل الآخرين أيضاً عن التوزيع التقليدي للحقائب»، ولفتت المصادر الى أن «التيار يدعم خيار الحكومة الموسعة وأن ينال كل وزير حقيبة واحدة».

تحقيقات المرفأ

على صعيد آخر، واصل قاضي التحقيق العدلي في قضية تفجير مرفأ بيروت فادي صوان استجوابه لكبار المسؤولين على أن يبدأ التحقيق مع عدد من الوزراء السابقين لا سيما الأشغال والداخلية والعدل مطلع الأسبوع المقبل. وبحسب المعلومات فقد سأل صوان رئيس حكومة تصريف الأعمال حسان دياب خلال الاستماع الى شهادته أمس الأول، عن سبب عدم القيام بالزيارة التي كان ينوي القيام بها الى العنبر رقم 12 وكان قد أبلغ رئيس جهاز أمن الدولة اللواء طوني صليبا بذلك، خاصة أن اللواء صليبا نزل الى المرفأ وانتظره في ذلك النهار. فكان جواب دياب أن «ضابطاً يعمل معه في السراي الحكومي كان قد نزل قبل يوم واحد الى المرفأ وكشف على المواد التي في العنبر رقم 12 وقال له إنها أسمدة، فقال له إن لا داعي للنزول». وخُتمت الافادة بأن «دياب كان قد وضع الموضوع على جدول أعمال المجلس الأعلى للدفاع ثم سحبها بعدما اعتبرها أنها أسمدة، فطلب من الأمين العام للمجلس الأعلى للدفاع اللواء محمود الأسمر أن يسحبها عن جدول اعمال المجلس الاعلى للدفاع».

وأفادت مصادر مطلعة على التحقيق أن «القاضي صوان بصدد استدعاء قائد سرية الحرس الحكومي الرائد محمد عبدالله، وذلك بعد أن أفاد الرئيس دياب خلال الاستماع اليه من قبل المحقق العدلي، أن عبدالله نصحه بعدم زيارة المرفأ لكون العنبر 12 يضم سماداً زراعياً وليس مواد شديدة الخطورة». وتابعت المصادر أن «التحقيقات مع عبدالله وداتا الاتصالات العائدة له ستكشف الكثير، وبخاصة الجهات التي استشارها وتواصل معها وسخفت خطورة نيترات الامونيوم لتبيان دوافعها وأهدافها وراء ذلك».

وبحسب ما يقول خبراء لـ»البناء» فإن التحقيقات التي أجرتها الأجهزة الأمنيّة والقضائيّة حتى الساعة تعزّز فرضية أن يكون تفجير المرفأ عملاً مدبّراً قام به تنظيم إرهابي أو عملاء إسرائيليون في لبنان من خلال تفخيخ العنبر رقم 12 بمواد متفجرة وتفجيرها عن بُعد لا سيما أن التحقيقات كشفت عن ارتباط أحد العمال الذين شاركوا في تلحيم وصيانة باب العنبر بتنظيم داعش الإرهابي، مع عدم استبعاد فرضية التفجير العَرَضي نتيجة حريق نشب في مستودع المفرقعات النارية كانت مخزنة قرب العنبر التي تتخزن فيه حاويات نيترات الأمونيوم. علماً بحسب الخبراء أن الأجهزة الأمنية فككت خلايا إرهابية عدة قبل وبعد انفجار المرفأ لا سيما خلية كفتون التي ترجح المعلومات بأنها كانت تحضر لعملية إرهابية كبيرة ربما تشبه تفجير مرفأ بيروت.

وفي هذا السياق، كشفت مصادر قناة المنار أن مرتكبي جريمة كفتون هم أفراد في خلية داعشية أميرها اللبناني خالد التلاوي.

وتساءلت مصادر عن اقتصار التحقيقات على رئيس ووزراء حكومة تصريف الأعمال والمسؤولين الأمنيين الحاليين من دون رؤساء الحكومات السابقين وكبار الضباط الأمنيين والعسكريين السابقين لا سيما الذين كانوا في سدة المسؤولية منذ العام 2013 حينما دخلت الباخرة المحملة بنيترات الأمونيوم الى مرفأ بيروت وحينما تمّ احتجازها وإفراغ محتوياتها وتخزينها في العنبر رقم 12 وحتى تفجيرها! ودعا رئيس حزب التوحيد الوزير السابق وئام وهاب الى استدعاء قائد الجيش السابق العماد جان قهوجي ومدير مكتبه العميد محمد الحسيني ومسؤول مخابرات بيروت السابق العميد جورج خميس للتحقيق معهم بقضية تفجير المرفأ.

البحث عن أحياء

ولليوم الثاني على التوالي، استمرت أعمال البحث عن جثة وشخص على قيد الحياة تحت أنقاض مبنى في مار مخايل. وأصّر الفريق التشيلي الذي يقوم بعمليات البحث عن المفقودين بمساندة الدفاع المدني اللبناني، على وجود شخص تحت الركام على قيد الحياة، وهذا ما تؤكده آلة «السكانر» التي يستعملها الفريق، والتي بيّنت وجود نبض شخص أو صوت تنفس بالإضافة إلى الكلبة المدربة «فلاش» التي رصدت مكان وجود المفقودين.

وتوقف الفريق التشيلي عن العمل عند العاشرة من مساء أمس، بعدما عمل بشكل متواصل لمدة 48 ساعة على أن يستأنف عمليات البحث صباح اليوم.

وأشار المسؤول عن فريق الإنقاذ التشيلي الى أننا «لا نستطيع التأكيد حتى اللحظة إن كان هناك ناجون أم لا والنفس الذي رصدناه في البداية كان بطيئاً وعلى عمق ثلاثة أمتار وكان علينا فتح ثلاث قنوات للتوصل إلى هذا العمق»، وأكد أن الفريق سيعلن وجود أحد في الداخل عندما يحصل على دليل»، وأشار إلى أنه لا يمكن إعطاء النتيجة قبل فتح ممرّات وسنستمرّ في العمل حتى نصل الى النتيجة».

وكان لافتاً تسليط الأضواء الإعلامية على الفريق التشيلي في عمليات البحث فيما تم تغييب جهود وعمل عناصر الدفاع المدني الذين لم تتوقف فرقهم عن إزالة ركام المنازل المتضررة وأعمال الاغاثة والبحث عن جثث تحت الأنقاض! كما كان لافتاً غياب الدولة وأجهزتها ومؤسساتها عن أعمال البحث وإزالة الركام لا سيما شركات المقاولات التي استفادت من تلزيمات الدولة على مر العقود السابقة بمليارات الدولارات بتغطية من جهات سياسية معروفة.

هل يُرفَع الدعم؟

وفيما لم يستفق اللبنانيون من هول زلزال مرفأ بيروت ولا يزالون يستذكرون اللحظات المؤلمة بعد شهر على التفجير، وقبيل أن يلملم المواطنون المدمرة منازلهم جراحهم ويستعيدون حياتهم الطبيعية، عاد شبح الجوع ليؤرق بال المواطنين في ظل ما نُقل عن حاكم مصرف لبنان توجّه المصرف لرفع الدعم عن السلع والمواد الغذائيّة الأساسيّة خلال ثلاثة أشهر، كي لا ينفد الاحتياط الإلزامي من العملة الأجنبيّة، وما سيترتب عن ذلك من ارتفاع هائل بالأسعار الى جانب ارتفاع قياسي بسعر صرف الدولار المتوقع أن يصل الى 15 ألف ليرة للدولار الواحد سيدفع ثمنه المواطنون لا سيما من الطبقة الوسطى والفقيرة.

وأكد عضو نقابة أصحاب المحطات في لبنان جورج البراكس في حديث إذاعي أنّ «حاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة أبلغ الحكومة أن الكتلة النقدية لم تعد تكفي والمركزي بوارد رفع الدعم عن المحروقات، لأن الحاكم اكد عدم المساس بالاحتياطي الإلزامي». وأوضح البراكس أنّ «هناك مشكلة تقنية في المحروقات ولها حلول ولا أزمة بنزين أو مازوت وانما نحن متخوفون من ازمة محروقات خلال 3 أشهر، محذراً من أنّ سعر صفيحة البنزين قد يصل إلى 65 الف ليرة طبعاً حسب سعر برميل النفط وسعر الدولار في السوق السوداء، وهذا الرقم هو حسابي وقد يصل سعر التنكة إلى أكثر من 100 الف بعد رفع الدعم».

في المقابل أوضحت مصادر مصرفية لـ»البناء» أنه «لم يصدر عن مصرف لبنان أي تصريح أو بيان رسمي عن رفع الدعم». لكن وكالة «رويترز» نقلت عن مصدر مجهول في مصرف لبنان قوله إن «الاحتياطي بالعملات الأجنبية يكفي لاستمرار الدعم لثلاثة أشهر». ولفتت الى أن «مصرف لبنان يدعم استيراد المشتقات النفطية والقمح والأدوية والمعدات الطبية كما يزود الصرافين من الفئة الأولى بالعملات الصعبة. كل هذا قبل اعلان الحكومة المستقيلة عن دعم استيراد 200 سلعة استهلاكية اساسية ومواد اولية للصناعة والزراعة، ما أدى الى تراجع احتياطي مصرف لبنان بالعملات الأجنبية. وأضف الى ذلك أن «السياحة مشلولة بسبب جائحة كورونا، والاستثمارات المباشرة الأجنبية شبه منعدمة، مع توقف تدفق الودائع فيما تحويلات المغتربين لا تخضع للاحتياطي الإلزامي لمصرف لبنان، والى جانب إعلان الحكومة التعثر عن تسديد سندات اليوروبوند أدى الى توقف تدفق الاموال المرتبطة باليوروبوند وأي رؤوس اموال من مصادر رسمية». لذلك وبحسب كبير المستشارين في بنك بيبلوس د. نسيب غبريل «تراجع احتياطي مصرف لبنان 8 مليارات دولار في الأشهر الثمانية الاولى من السنة الحالية». وتضيف المصادر أن «وزارة الاقتصاد لم تحدد ثمن دعم السلة الغذائية أو مدة هذا الدعم».

وفيما نقل وفد اتحاد العمالي العام عن الحاكم سلامة أن مصرف لبنان وبموازاة رفع الدعم سيعتزم إصدار بطاقات تموين لا سيما لأصحاب المداخيل المتدنية والفقراء، لم يؤكد مصرف لبنان هذا الأمر.

وفي سياق ذلك، استبعد غبريل لـ»البناء» أن يُرفع الدعم دفعة واحدة عن السلع الأساسية والمحروقات والأدوية، مضيفاً: «بل ربما يكون تدريجياً وليس على كل السلع». لكن المهم بحسب غبريل أن «العبء بكامله يقع على عاتق مصرف لبنان في ظل غياب أي رؤية اقتصادية وإجراءات لتتكامل مع عمل مصرف لبنان وتخفف من الاعتماد على الاحتياطي الذي يحتفظ به». وأوضح غبريل أن «مؤشر الاسعار الاستهلاكية ارتفع 112 في المئة في تموز هذا العام نسبة الى شهر تموز من السنة الماضية. وفي غياب الاصلاحات واتفاق تمويلي مع صندوق النقد الدولي، فالمؤشر مرشح للاستمرار بالارتفاع في حال تم رفع الدعم على بعض السلع».

و«في غياب الاصلاحات واتفاق تمويلي مع صندوق النقد الدولي، فالمؤشر مرشح للاستمرار بالارتفاع في حال تم رفع الدعم على بعض السلع. وهذا يتوقف على استمرار الدعم ام تراجعه، وعلى مدى اعتماد المستوردين على السوق السوداء للدولار للحصول على العملات الأجنبية».

Beirut Port Blast Latest Toll: 190 Killed and $15 Billion in Material Losses

Beirut Port Disaster Situation Report 30 August 2020 - Lebanese Government

September 5, 2020 Arabi Souri

The latest official update available on the losses of the catastrophe of the Beirut Port explosion last month reveals more shocking figures exceeding the worst estimates reached before.

The losses include a heavy toll of deaths and triple the first estimate in material losses which was by itself overwhelming for the small country Lebanon, already marred with decades of corruption and numerous wars waged against it by Israel, terrorists, feudal warlords, and the lengthy civil war they never recovered from its consequences, in addition to the latest COVID 19 consequences.

The Lebanese governmental weekly report issued on 30 August 2020 titled ‘Beirut Port Disaster Situation Report’ (full pdf report here) counted the following in losses:

• 190 martyrs, 43 of them were Syrians.
• More than 6,500 injured.
• 3 are still missing.
• 300,000 homeless.
• More than 50,000 houses impacted.
• 9 major hospitals affected, of which one is completely non-functioning.
• 49 healthcare centers affected, of which 8 are completely non-functioning.
• 178 public and private schools are damaged.
• 99 public building assessed, of which 2% completely damaged and 18% highly
damaged.
• 235 lots in the affected areas need structural strengthening.
• 113 lots need evacuation.
• 52 lots need isolation.
• 70 heritages buildings required immediate intervention.
• 329 different entities (national, international) are currently active stakeholders
in the Beirut response area.
The report concluded that US$ 15 billion are the cost of direct damages.

Beirut Port Explosion - انفجار مرفأ بيروت
Beirut Port Explosion – 04 August 2020

It’s noticeable that the United States of America, the main actor in all tragedies Lebanon went through and still going through, is bragging about the aid it provided to the country and putting further conditions to deliver that aid has only offered $17 million humanitarian aid. That’s a tiny percentage compared with any other country that offered and already delivered aid to Lebanon.

Furthermore, and to reveal the evil mentality of the US officials, which they do not hide anyway, a top US official visiting Lebanon stated that the tiny aid his country will offer will go through NGOs only bypassing the Lebanese government. NGOs, non-governmental organizations, that were created, trained, groomed, and polished by US federal agencies working as a front for the CIA and the Pentagon, agencies as NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and USAID (United States Agency for International Development), bright names for malign practices, such agencies behind the miserable suffering of human beings around the world wherever the USA force exported its ‘values’ to.

Amb. Jaafari Slams Liars at UN Meeting: SAMS Illegals Embedded with Terrorists

https://www.syrianews.cc/amb-jaafari-slams-liars-un-meeting-sams-illegals-embedded-terrorists/embed/#?secret=LPgygZ3lA6

It’s the remarks conveyed by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker to his beloved NGO members in Lebanon during his current visit that triggered us to write about the report and compare with the response of the US officials and how they tend to abuse human suffering to further their political agendas, which are always against the interests of the people affected and not at all in the interests of the US citizens, in general, and individually.

The investigations in the port explosion continue with more than two dozen officials are being questioned, most of them are detained, and the main guidelines in the investigations so far imply that there was no areal bombing that triggered the explosion and that a small portion of the 2750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate only exploded, not the full quantity, yet the explosion is categorized as the fourth largest explosion mankind has witnessed around the globe. The quantity that did not contribute to the blast has either been spoiled due to the longevity of storage unprofessionally and other quantities were stolen, or leaked, from the port and given to terrorist groups operating mainly in Syria, and to a lesser extent in Lebanon, hence the non-stop cries of former Lebanese officials calling for an international investigation in the explosion to help them cover their traces.

Forty-Three Syrians Killed in the Beirut Port Explosion

“MISSING WORD” [*See Definition] from Iran to Lebanon to the US

September 04, 2020

by Mansoureh Tajik for the Saker Blog

The scale and complexity of plots against masses of ordinary people, select prominent individuals, and nations have grown so vast that existing words and expressions fail to adequately define and explain them. The word “conspiracy” is bandied about quite a lot, to the point that it feels inadequate, to frame some major and critical events by distinctly different groups of people with diverse backgrounds. Some, for instance, use the term to genuinely warn about intricate and multi-layered schemes that would ultimately result in severe harms to individuals and/or collective masses. Others use it disparagingly to delegitimize discordant statements and expressions that are nonetheless rooted in very legitimate concerns. There are also some who invent stories at an industrial and massive scale in order to deliberately drown signals of truly malevolent plots in deafening noises of colorful parodies.

It is not the aim of this essay to review and evaluate the roster of major nominees to which the term conspiracy has been applied. Nor is it about the people who invoke the term under given pretexts. Rather, I intend to use the standard definition of the word “conspiracy” in this essay to get us closer to disentangling and defining something analogous, a similar process. It is a process that is far more systematically applied, organically managed, and exceedingly convoluted. It is a method that is also much more sinister and one for which we will hopefully have a clearly defined description by the end of the essay but will not have any precise term that could neatly bundle all components together to offer us lexical conveniences.

Others have put much greater efforts into subjects far less serious. Douglas Adams and John Lloyd, for instance, spent good bit of their precious time writing a book of humor, “The Meaning of Liff,” in which they collected “hundreds of common experiences, feelings, situations and even objects which we all know and recognize, but for which no words exist” and joined them in a linguistic matrimony with hundreds of spare words that “spend their time doing nothing but loafing about in signposts pointing at places.” Their mission, as they figured, was “to get these words down off the signposts and into the mouths of babes and sucklings and so on, where they can start earning their keep in everyday conversation and make a more positive contribution to society.”[1]

The world may very well be littered with free-loading words which do not earn their keeps. I do not wish to assume a responsibility as a word sheriff. However, there are indeed some very seriously detrimental mechanisms and organic plots that are concocted by a few to wreak havoc with the existence and meaningful quality of life of many. Such mechanisms and plots, I think, are in dire need of being correctly explained in details and subsequently named. It is not because I consider naming as “an evolutionary necessity fundamental to our ability to distinguish predator from prey” as C. Chang would state,[2] but because naming is the most basic first step in recognizing and dealing with complex problems we are facing today that require much deeper awareness of our own potential roles in them than we are willing to admit.

Onward. Let us first begin with a standard definition of conspiracy. Online Cambridge dictionary defines conspiracy as “a secret agreement made between two or more people or groups to do something bad or illegal that will harm someone else.” The same entry expands the concept and defines a related phrase “Conspiracy of Silence” as “a general agreement to keep silent about a subject for the purpose of keeping it secret.”[3]

Fair enough. But what if there is a secret or a not-so-secret agreement made between two or more people to enlist and coordinate the activities of diverse groups of people and individuals who would each carry out, in disparate cells and compartments, isolated yet inter-linked tasks the sum total of which executes a plan that has as its main goal very serious harms to others or even to the enlisted participants themselves? What would be an appropriate and befitting term for this phenomenon? Furthermore, what if components of that vicious plan are also built upon identified and existing vulnerabilities and routine shortcomings of persons, places, and infrastructures in a given society? What would be the one word that could converge all those pieces and meanings into one distinct and logical bundle of letters?

In this article, I will discuss three specific real life examples of our contemporary societies to help detangle and shed light on individual segments of the above paragraph-long definition for which we do not have any, but would like to have, suitable words.

Example from Iran: Plans to Assassinate Iranian Nuclear Scientists

In a span of less than two years (2009-2011), six prominent Iranian scientists in nuclear physics were assassinated under multiple coordinated planning and executions courtesy of the intelligence agencies of the US, Israel, and the UK, and with immense intelligence help from an “independent” body, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Martyr Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan, Martyr Masood Alimuhammadi, Martyr Reza Ghashghaifard, Martyr Darius Rezainejad, and Martyr Majid Shahriyari were all killed. Freidoon Abbasi Davani and his wife, who was in the car with him at the time of explosion, were critically injured but survived the assassination.

The role of the countries and international bodies named above has been discussed at length by many writers and thinkers in the Western press and media. I do not wish to review their assertions or belabor any of their points here. I am going to briefly point to the role some individuals inside Iran played in these plots since that is actually one of the key points of our topic here.

In Iran, about 53 people were arrested and questioned in connection with those assassinations. The trials for 40 of the accused began in May, 2013.[4] Details about the investigations and the trials were never made public so that the general public could have a full and exact picture of what happened. In cases related to security, intelligence, and counter-intelligence issues, I do not believe there should be a full and detailed disclosure of any sort any way. However, bits and pieces of information from true and false confession interviews that made it through, although not satisfactory, revealed niches that were quite sobering and startling both to the general public and to some of the accused individuals themselves.

Excluding two to three people among the arrested who had direct roles in the killings, most others who had participated in performing apparently innocuous, but still unlawful, tasks did not know they were actually taking part in plans that would ultimately result in killing their own nuclear scientists and damaging their own social wellbeing. Some individuals, for example, had agreed to receive compensation in exchange for keeping a log of the frequency and exact times of targeted individuals’ whereabouts, schedules, their comings and goings for any reason to and from their offices. Apparently they had no knowledge or did not think such information could and would be used in any significantly harmful way. Their task was unlawful, unethical, and against the policy of the places in which they worked.

In addition, security breaches and infiltration by shady characters into the investigations within the Ministry of Information, among other vulnerabilities, led to the slithering away of some key culprits. Had it not been for a serendipitous detection by the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard and an early intervention by the office of the Supreme Leader in the interrogation process, perhaps more damaging events and more killings would have occurred. Several of the people arrested were later freed and compensated a total amount of 4 billion Toman in 2013 for psychological, economic, and reputation damages, according to a statement made by the current Information Minister, Seyyed Mahmoud Alawi, during a closed-session in Majlis last September.[5]

Examining and reviewing the information from multitude of formal and informal sources over the last several years, I was not able to conclude that majority of those who had been arrested and investigated were innocent because most of them had done, albeit unknowingly, one to several unlawful and unethical deeds the sum total of which helped execute successful plans (plotted and coordinated by outsiders) to kill five Iranian nuclear scientists, to seriously injure one, and to cause severe security damages in other areas. I think and I hope that most of them, had they not acted out of carelessness, mindlessness, greed, or whatever other reason, they might not have become pons in a web of deception. God Knows. I, therefore, included this example here not for its importance with from legal, judicial, or intelligence aspects but as it relates to overall structures, components, and inter-linkages of the plots and the role the “insiders” blindly played in the process.

“It is not like you are imagining that the conspiracies against this country are due to delusions and hallucinations. No. This is a fact. Things are being conspired from all directions. It is possible that someone from inside the country moves in the same direction as these plots without knowing at all. To realize this, too, requires sagacity and perceptivity. Some do not possess this perceptivity. We have had experiences with some of them. They don’t know to whose tune they are dancing. But this does not change the facts. Whether they perceive or they do not perceive; whether they know or they do not know. These conspired plots exist. Nevertheless, this country, this system not only does it not crumble or weaken but its scientific institutions, its progressive societies—consisting of this youth who is you— is visibly more forward-looking and advanced today than ten years ago. What does this mean? It means legitimacy and truthfulness. It means authenticity. It means having roots and being original.[6] –Ayatullah Khamenei

Example from Lebanon: Planned “Accidents” in Beirut Port

In the major explosion at Beirut Port on August 4th nearly 200 people died and more than 6,500 people were seriously injured. A few are still missing. Damages to the infrastructure, the economy, and socio-physical fabric of day-to-day living of the ordinary people were enormous. The society as a whole was critically shaken. On Sunday, Sayyed Hasan Nasrullah, as parts of his speech delivered by on the occasion of Ashura, spoke about the incident and emphasized that:

“We ask the Lebanese Military to release the results from a series of technical investigations they have conducted in relation to the explosion disaster in Beirut Port. It is clear that releasing of the results and revealing the outcome of the investigation regarding that event will dismantle all sorts of allegations [against Hizbullah]. Therefore, it is necessary for the outcome of investigation to be announced to the public.”

“Once again, we also insist on a judicial investigation of the Beirut explosion disaster through the judiciary system itself and we believe the judicial bodies must, without considerations and calculations and with seriousness and decisiveness, proceed with its various dimensions and punish the guilty agents.”[7]

This disastrous occurrence would have made for an apt case example for this essay had the results of the investigation been made public already. It was brought about by multi-layer longitudinal plan built upon identified vulnerabilities and routine shortcomings of persons, places, and infrastructures in Lebanon. For the purpose of this essay though, no formal public announcement to which one could refer has been made. Therefore, I would defer dissecting it as an example .

Example from the US: Planned Dismantling of the Police

Articles, films, and other media items abound about the state and the role of the US Police, both as causes and as effects, in the current riots in the United States. It feels more like watching re-runs, or remaking, or sequels to some particularly violent shows every 10 to 20 years. Each new series is getting more violent, more graphic, and more spectacular than the previous ones.

Those interested in sensational aspects of these events, they could just follow the mainstream media presentations and/or some “independent” news blogs and media outlets. There are garden varieties befitting of most tastes. Those interested in a more analytical and academic aspects of the events, Perspective on Policing, published by the National Institute of Justice and US Department of Justice reports feature interesting articles. “The Evolving Strategy of Policing” by Kelling & Moore,[8] “Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of Strategic Change”[9] by Kelling & Wycoff, and “The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View”[10] by Williams & Murphy are dated but informative, still relevant, and interesting examples.

For the purpose of this essay though, and to elucidate additional segments of the paragraph-long definition for which we have no words, I will briefly examine dimensions of these events that are not sufficiently discussed either in the sensational news or in the academic and analytical articles named above.

Getting help from the familiar health field, I would like to draw a (simplified) parallel between the structure and function of the police in a society and those of the immune system in a human body. Although the role our immune system plays in fighting invading foreign bodies is often highlighted, its most significant and critical role revolves around identifying, isolating, and destroying and/or repairing, and disposing of body’s own rogue and abnormal cells, cells that acquired genetic aberrations during division, toxic accumulations in tissues, organs, joints, and so on. Majority of these functions happen when we are sleeping at night (granted we have not eaten up to our throat before going to bed), or when the body is in a fasting state (which for many, it has become “almost never”. Losing one’s appetite when ill is a healing mechanism.

In cases of autoimmune disorders like allergies, lupus, Grave’s, Hashimoto, Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc., however, the immune system loses the ability to adequately distinguish the healthy and normal cells from the unhealthy and abnormal cells. This dysfunction manifests itself in different ways. For instance, the immune system cells begin to indiscriminately attack various cells in different organs and places in the body, including the healthy cells. They could also become jittery and over-react and make mess of things. [Just an important side note: the immune system is quite capable of gaining back its ability to distinguish and act properly.]

So, let us suppose similar things happen with the policing system in a society. That is, let us consider that the police system in a society loses the ability to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly. Or that it over-reacts due to having been chronically badly trained, or chronically over stimulated, or chronically under nourished, or many other reasons that weaken this system. An abstract from more than thirty years ago (1988):

“Some people consider police services as inappropriate for privatization, arguing that such services are public goods that only government can practically provide. The work of E. S. Savas and others, however, has persuasively demonstrated that many government services are not public goods or, at least, not pure public goods. Police services, in fact, have been successfully financed, through user fees, and delivered, via contracting, by the private sector. Moreover, there are some surprising examples of fully privatized police services, both financed and delivered privately. The major barriers to police privatization include tradition and attitudes, concern about control and accountability, union opposition, legal restrictions, and the difficulty of encouraging all beneficiaries to finance these services voluntarily, or privately. All of these barriers can be surmounted under certain circumstances. There are even signs that the privatization of police services, especially some milder forms of privatization, is gradually taking place.”[11]

So in fact, in a very systematic and step-by step manner all the above-mentioned chronic factors have occurred in a sustained and deliberate ways for decades. But why would anyone, in his rightful, truthful, and just mind, want to deliberately weaken the immune systems of persons or the police systems of societies?

I cannot think of even one good reason for these to come from a rightful, truthful, and just mind. I can think of many reasons for these to ooze out of an otherwise mind. When the immunity of a human body or the police system of a society is dismantled, then their functions could be, for example, outsourced to pharmaceutical profiteers and private security firms. Replacing immunity and security apparatuses are profitable to a few at the expense of many.

I wonder, in the case of the police, do all those who are demanding to dismantle police departments in their local communities, or anywhere else for that matter, know that they, in their own isolated corners, are performing inter-linked tasks the sum total of which executes a plan, agreed upon decades ago by a crooked few, ta plan that has as its main goal very serious harms to the masses of ordinary people, including the enlisted participants themselves? In a society that its most vulnerable is not protected, no one is protected.

To UnConclude: Would it not be nice to have just one word that says all that?

*<em> “MISSING WORD”</em>noun

a secret or a not-so-secret agreement made between two or more people to enlist and coordinate activities of diverse groups of people and individuals who would each carry out, in disparate cells and compartments, isolated yet inter-linked tasks the sum total of which executes a plan that has as its main goal very serious harms to others or to the enlisted participants themselves.

a secret or a not-so-secret agreement made between two or more people about a plan the components of which are built upon identified vulnerabilities and routine shortcomings of persons, places, and infrastructures in a given society and to the detriment of that society and its members:

  • He was not aware that he was part of a <em> “MISSING WORD”</em> to dismantle the police.
  • Their ignorance and mindless participation helped the enemies of their nation to further their <em> “MISSING WORD”</em> to kill the scientists.

References

[1] Adams D & Lloyd J (1983). “The Meaning of Liff.” Published by Pan Books Ltd. Faber & Faber Limited, London, England. ISBN 0330281216.

[2] Chang CR & Bassman R (2019). “Psychiatric Diagnosis and the Power of Names.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, doi:10.1177/0022167819852786.

[3] Cambridge Dictionary, “Meaning of Conspiracy in English” Accessed online at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy

[4] Tasnim News (2013). “From the trials of the accused in the terror of nuclear scientists to the accusations towards the candidates in the election.” TasnimNews, Khordad 6, 1392 @ 17:34. News Code: 64764.

[5] Tasnim News (2019). “Four Billion was paid to those accused in nuclear scientists’ assassinations after a not-guilty verdict.” TasnimNews, Shahrivar 12, 1398 @ 20:24. News Code: 2089952.

[6] An excerpt from Ayatullah Khameni speech to during a visit by the scientific and academic elites on Aban, 6, 1388 [Oct. 28, 2009]. Available online at: https://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=8292

[7] Hussain Abadian R (2020). “Karbala was the scene of the battle of Truth against Falsehood; Today, the US is the epitome of falsehood.” Mehr News Agency, Shahrivar 8, 1399 @ 13:06. News Code: 5011311

[8] Kelling GL & Moore ML (1988). “The Evolving Strategy of Policing.” Perspective on Policing, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. No. 4, November 1988, Pages 1-15.

[9] Kelling GL & Wycoff MA (2002). “Evolving Strategy of Policing: Case Studies of Strategic Change.” US DOJ Report on a Federally-funded grant, Award Number: 95-IJ-CX-0059. Doc. No. 198029, December 2002.

[10] Williams H & Murphy PV (1990). “The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View.” Perspective on Policing, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. No. 13, January 1990, Pages 1-15.

[11] Fixler PE & Poole Jr. RW (1988). “Can Police Services Be Privatized?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 498; The Private Security Industry: Issues and Trends (July 1988), Pages 108-118, Sage Publications, Inc., DOI: 10.2307/1045386

ماكرون الإقليميّ تغيير سايكس بيكو وليس حدودها

ناصر قنديل

ثوابت يجب عدم نسيانها وأوهام ممنوع السماح بمرورها وتغلغلها في نفوس الناس وعقولهم في النظر للحركة الفرنسيّة التي يقودها الرئيس امانويل ماكرون، حيث يتمّ تمرير كل شيء تحت ضغط الكارثة التي يعيشها اللبنانيون، أولها التوهّم أن فرنسا أم حنون جاءت لتساعد وتسهم في رفع المعاناة عن كاهل اللبنانيين، وثانيها أن إدراك أن السياسة باعتبارها لغة مصالح لا يعني الرفض المطلق لسياسات الآخرين ومصالحهم إذا لم تتعارض مع سياساتنا ومصالحنا، وثالثها أن ما لا يتعارض مع سياساتنا ومصالحنا ويؤسس لنقاط تقاطع لا تجوز إدارته بتساهل واسترخاء لأن المصالح تتراكم وتتغيّر والأطماع لا يردعها إلا حضور الحذر واستحضار القدرة وتحصين القوة. والمشهد اللبناني المقزّز في درجة التهافت أمام الرئيس الفرنسي، وتغيّر المواقف وتبدل الثوابت وتقديم أوراق الاعتماد، أظهر خصال انحطاط ليست حكراً على ما يحلو للبعض وصفه بطبقة سياسية فاسدة، فقد نخر سوس التهافت والانحطاط، صفوف الذين سمّوا أنفسهم ثواراً، والذين قدّموا أنفسهم بدائل، والنخب والكتاب والفنانين، ومن له مصلحة ومن ليس له مصلحة، إلا قلة رفيعة الشأن كبيرة النفس شامخة الأنف، لا عارضت علناً وقدمت الولاء سراً، ولا قاطعت، ولا سوّقت، ولا تهافتت، حالها كحال فيروز التي بقيت تشبه أرز لبنان يحتاجها ماكرون ولا تحتاجه، وتقاطع المصالح يعني لها النديّة، وليس الذل والاسترهان، ولا الزحف والبكاء، والبكاء السياسي والإعلامي، ليس بكاء وجع الناس المفهوم، وبقيت هذه القلة تحفظ سرّ المقام والدور والمسؤوليّة، فشارك بعضها بجدية ومسؤولية واحترام وندية، ولكنه لم يمنع نفسه من متعة التفرج على “الزحفطة” السياسية والإعلامية والاقتصادية و”الثورية” و”المدنية” وغير المدنية”، ولم يكن بعضها موجوداً فتابع عن بُعد وهو يجمع السخرية والألم من درجة هبوط وانحطاط مشهد، هو بالنهاية مشهد وطن لا يفرح محبّوه برؤيته على هذه الحال.

توضح زيارة امانويل ماكرون للعراق وتصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركية مايك بومبيو، أن الحركة الفرنسيّة محميّة أميركياً، ولا تحظى فقط بالتغطية، بل هي جزء من سياسة أميركية بالوكالة، حيث تحتفظ واشنطن بالخطاب الدعائي ضد إيران والمقاومة، وتتولى فرنسا تبريد جبهات المشرق الملتهبة، بينما تتفرّغ واشنطن لتزخيم حفلات التطبيع العربي “الإسرائيلي” في الخليج، فماكرون المتحمّس لمرفأ بيروت بدا متحمساً لمشروع مترو بغداد، بينما كان الأردن والعراق ومصر يبشرون بمشروع “الشام الجديد” الذي يلاقي نتائج التطبيع الإماراتيّ الإسرائيليّ، بربط العراق عبر الأردن الذي يقيم معاهدة سلام مع كيان الاحتلال، بمرفأ حيفا، أسوة بالإمارات، في زمن خروج مرفأ بيروت من الخدمة، ولا يُخفى أن المشروع الذي قام أصلاً وفقاً لدراسة للبنك الدولي على ضم سورية ولبنان وفلسطين على المشروع قد اعتبر تركيا جزءاً منه، وقد أسقطت سورية ولبنان وفلسطين، واستبعدت تركيا حكماً، وفي زمن التغوّل التركي ورعاية أنقرة للإرهاب وتطبيعها مع الكيان لا اسف على الاستبعاد، وبمثل ما رحبت بالشام الجديد واشنطن وتل أبيب، هرول الرئيس الفرنسي مرحباً باستبعاد تركيا، على قاعدة تناغم مصري فرنسي سيظهر أكثر وأكثر، من ليبيا إلى لبنان، وصولاً للعراق، بحيث تقوم فرنسا بالإمساك بلبنان عن السقوط و”خربطة الحسابات” بانتظار، تبلور المشروع الذي يريد ضم سورية ولبنان معاً في فترة لاحقة، بعد إضعاف قدرتهما التفاوضيّة وعزلهما عن العراق، والمقصود بالقدرة التفاوضيّة حكماً قوى المقاومة وتهديدها لأمن الكيان، وهذا هو معنى التذكير الأميركي بأن المشكلة هي في حزب الله وصواريخه الدقيقة، كما يؤكد بومبيو.

لا مشكلة لدى قوى المقاومة بالمرحلة الانتقالية التي يتمّ خلالها انتشال لبنان من قعر السقوط، ليس حباً ولا منّة ولا مكرمة من أحد، بل خشية انفجار كبير يحول التهديد الإفتراضي للكيان إلى تهديد واقعي، ويأتي بالصين على سكة حديد بغداد دمشق بيروت، هي السكة التي يريدها ماكرون لفرنسا، لكن بعد التفاوض، بحيث تحفظ حدود سايكس بيكو، لكن يتغيّر مضمون التفويض بنقل الوكالة في حوض المتوسط إلى فرنسا، التي منعت من العراق والأردن قبل قرن، لحساب بريطانيا، المتفرّجة اليوم إلى حين. وهذا يكفي للقول إنه بعد فشل الرهان “الإسرائيلي” على نظرية معركة بين حربين كادت تفجّر حرباً، جاءت فرنسا بمشروع تسوية بين حربين، عساها تجعل الحرب الثانية اقتصادية، هدفها إبعاد الصين عن المتوسط، وإبعاد صواريخ المقاومة الدقيقة عن رقبة الإسرائيليين، والمقاومة المدركة للتحديات والاستحقاقات، تعرف ما بين أيديها كما تتقن ذكاء التوقيت.

لا شام جديد بدون الشام الأصلي والقديم، حقيقة يجب أن ينتبه لها ماكرون قبل أن يرتكب الأخطاء القاتلة، فلا ينسى أن التذاكي لا يحل المشكلات الأصلية، وأن روسيا لا تكتفي بالكلمات طويلاً، وأن بريطانيا لا تطيل النوم بعد الظهر.

The process for naming Mostafa Adib as PM carries great weight: Lebanese analyst

By Mohamamd mazhari

September 1, 2020 – 23:58

TEHRAN – Faysal Abdelsater, a Lebanese analyst, is of the opinion that the steps for naming Mostafa Adib as a man who will head the Lebanese government carries an important message as “it has the endorsement of considerable majority in the Lebanese parliament.”

On August 31, the Future Movement, Hezbollah, Amal Movement, and the Free Patriotic Movement, as well as Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, all agreed to name Mustafa Adib as the next prime minister of Lebanon, succeeding Hassan Diab. 

Adib, the former Lebanese ambassador to Germany, holds a doctorate in political science, and he worked as director of the office of former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati.

Adib, who was tasked on Monday to form a new government, is an unknown figure among the Lebanese, facing an almost impossible task of bringing about political change and making urgent reforms to save the country from an unprecedented crisis.

Abdelsater tells the Tehran Times that even though the prime-minister designate enjoys a strong support by the political factions in the parliament, “we are not going through a structural or fundamental change in Lebanese politics.” 

This is the text of the interview:

Q: What are the latest developments regarding the naming of a new prime minister in Lebanon?

A: Of course, the Lebanese were able to conduct binding parliamentary consultations that were held in Baabda Palace ( the official residence of the president of Lebanon), and the legislators from rival blocs proposed the name of the person they wanted to head the upcoming Lebanese government in order to send it to President Michel Aoun. 

Therefore, the prime minister-designate, Ambassador Dr. Mustafa Adib, won ninety votes out of 128 votes in the Parliament, while just a few voices went to the former Lebanese ambassador to the United Nations, Nawaf Salam, who was named by the Lebanese Forces bloc headed by Samir Geagea. 

In any case, this result carry important implications as it has the endorsement of a considerable majority in the Lebanese Parliament. According to the prime minister-designate, what is important now is that things should be translated into action and not remain just as promises.

The Lebanese are eager to get out of the problems that they are facing at all levels, especially in the economic and financial ones.

Q: Do you see a strong consensus between Lebanon’s main political currents on naming the next head of government?

A: Of course, this consensus would not have been possible, and the result would not have emerged today if there were not proactive consultations and initiatives undertaken by French President Emmanuel Macron. 

According to some reports, Macron established a series of contacts, perhaps with certain countries in the European Union and even Iran. So, this designation did not come out of anywhere but rather was the result of France’s open consultations and collaborations with the Lebanese parties.

Q: Don’t you think that the next government will be like the Hassan Diab government, who resigned after the Beirut blast on August 4?

A: No. The situation seems different because the former Prime Minister Hassan Diab did not enjoy Sunni support for his government, as Lebanese Sunni leaders such as Saad Hariri and the rest of the other figures who have the popular weight in the Sunni community did not support Hassan Diab. 

Therefore, the matter is different here because the size of the consensus that Ambassador Dr. Mustafa Adib could gain must be translated into the cooperation and support of all parties. They should not be satisfied with naming the prime minister without addressing his chances of forming the government as soon as possible. The government must be consistent and able to provide the required solutions to contain the harsh conditions the Lebanese people are experiencing.

Q: Could you talk more about the French role in naming Mustafa Adib?

A: According to my information, France had a pivotal role in naming Adib, and it was the one who chose this name and recommended it to the Lebanese parties to be studied in Parliament. This is the joint cooperation that took place as a result of the French initiative after President Macron’s visit to Lebanon following the August 4 explosion in Beirut port.

Q: Is it acceptable for another country to get involved in naming the prime minister of Lebanon?

A: Unfortunately, our experiences have shown that small countries like Lebanon are forming their governments, and choosing their prime ministers are subject to well-known foreign interference. Throughout the Syrian presence in Lebanon, Syria had the final say. Before that, Egypt had a role in this regard, then Saudi Arabia began to intervene in Lebanon, and also Iran is a key player in the Lebanese political scene. 

Altogether, the issue is not about who moves and takes the initiative, and perhaps this matter is not acceptable to some countries, but people have become accustomed to it in Lebanon. I do not think that it makes a problem as long as the issue remains in a Lebanese framework.

Q: What are the repercussions and implications of the Beirut blast for Lebanon’s political future?

A:The Beirut port explosion on August 4 may have been a disaster that no one expected in Lebanon, and until now, investigations have not produced anything about this issue.

The constant propaganda by some Lebanese and Arab media outlets still wants to convey this idea that this explosion would not have happened if there were no missiles and weapons of Hezbollah inside the port, and this is what the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has repeatedly denied. But, some mercenaries in the media insist on such lies.

Of course, the great disaster that occurred in Beirut port requires concerted efforts at all levels to restore the confidence and vitality of the country, and this also needs international and regional support from all countries that want to stand by Lebanon.

 So far, we have only seen food aid and some medical aid, but this is not enough to change the catastrophic reality in Lebanon. What is required is transparent international support at financial level and reconstruction in the affected areas. 

The most important demands are to stop the U.S. sanctions that have been harmful to many sectors inside Lebanon. This process affects the nature of economic trends at the political level in Lebanon; therefore, this is completely unacceptable.

Q: Do you expect fundamental changes in Lebanon’s political structure?

A: I do not think that this is the time when we talk about such a matter, especially since the people have been greatly affected by the Coronavirus pandemic, and there are great disputes that prevented forming a consensus of visions in Lebanon, but there are still attempts to have some reforms if they are suggested through the framework of the constitution. Disseminating slogans and making speeches may not be helpful at this time.

 Therefore, we are not going through a structural or fundamental change in Lebanese politics. Rather, we are facing a different scene and perhaps certain changes, but there will be no essential change in the foreseeable future.

RELATED NEWS

Free word | Beirut Developments: Galloway |

فرنسا ولبنان: وهمُ الدور ووهمُ الحليف

الأخبار 

ابراهيم الأمين 

خونة وعملاء… وإرهابيون أيضاً! – ابراهيم الأمين – الأخبار – Beirut ...

الإثنين 24 آب 2020

مع القرار 1559، انتقلت فرنسا كلّياً إلى الضفة الإميركية. أطلقت الرصاص على قدميها في سوريا ولبنان، بعدما انتهى دورها في فلسطين على صراخ فقط. ومنذ ذاك دخل النفوذ الفرنسي في لبنان والمنطقة مرحلة التراجع الهائل.

التحاق باريس بالسياسة الأميركية لم يقتصر على السلطات، بل شمل أساساً القوى الاقتصادية وكبريات الشركات التي تسعى لنيل حصص في الأسواق العالمية برضى أميركي. كما انتقلت المحاباة إلى قطاع الدبلوماسية والعلاقات العامّة والإعلام. وصار نادراً أن تسمع في فرنسا الأصوات النقدية للسياسات العدوانية التي تقودها أميركا وتشارك فيها أوروبا.

في لبنان، آخر المسارح التي يمكن لباريس الحضور فيها في المنطقة، صار الفرنسيون بلا حول ولا قوة. لا يوجد اليوم، في هذا البلد، من يمكنهم الاتّكال عليه كقوة حاسمة ووازنة. وحتى القوى التقليدية في 14 آذار تهتمّ، فعلياً، بالرضى الأميركي. وحده سعد الحريري بات مضطراً للخيار الفرنسي، بعدما تفاقمت مشكلته مع راعيه الأساسي، السعودية، وانزياح واشنطن إلى رؤية الرياض في لبنان. ما وفّرته فرنسا للحريري لا يتعدّى كونه نوعاً من الحصانة، لكنها غير كافية لضمان وجوده في السلطة. إذ أنها لا تملك قدرة على منافسة التأثير الأميركي – السعودي على سمير جعجع ووليد جنبلاط والكنيسة المارونية لتؤمّن تحالفاً يُبقي الحريري في السلطة. أما اقتصادياً، فلم تقدّم ما يشير إلى استعدادها لشراء النفوذ من لبنان. فحتى مدارس الليسيه الفرنسية باتت مشكلة حقيقية لروّادها بسبب التراجع في كلّ مستوياتها الإدارية وأفضليتها المالية، والشركات الفرنسية في لبنان ليست في رأس اهتمام أحد فعلياً. الدعم الفرنسي للبنان صار من الماضي. ولا يمكن لأي حكومة الاتّكال على دعم كهذا يتجاوز إطار مؤتمرات جلب مزيد من الديون.
مع اندلاع أحداث 17 تشرين الماضي، حاول الفرنسيون الدخول مجدّداً على الساحة. لكنهم عادوا مجدّداً للاستماع إلى نخب لبنانية قدّمت من الأفكار ما أثار حتى حفيظة الأجهزة الفرنسية الفاعلة. كل الدعم الذي حاولوا تقديمه لبقاء سعد الحريري في الحكم، لم يتجاوز الدعم الذي وفّره له حزب الله. والصلات الجانبية التي تربطهم بناشطين في الحراك الشعبي ليست كافية للبناء عليها. وعندما تشكلت حكومة حسان دياب. تصرفت باريس، شأنها شأن واشنطن وبقية عواصم العالم: بلامبالاة وانتظار. لكنها عادت وأقرّت بأن وضعية دياب ليست بالهشاشة التي تحدّث عنها خصومه. وحضر إلى بيروت مسؤولون فرنسيون أمكن لهم الاطلاع، مباشرة أو من خلال شركة «لازار» الاستشارية، على «فظائع الوضع المالي والنقدي»، حتى بات المسؤولون الفرنسيون عن الملف الاقتصادي يشهرون انتقاداتهم لحاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة ولأركان القطاع المصرفي إلى جانب نقدهم المتواصل للطبقة السياسية.

صحيح أن الفرنسيين أبدوا، في مرحلة معيّنة، تفهّماً لرؤية أميركية يقودها فريق جديد في وزارة الخارجية، تدعو إلى تغيير الطبقة السياسية في لبنان. لكن للفرنسيين تصورهم عن البديل. وقد عُقدت اجتماعات في باريس، أبرزها مع جماعات تُشرف عليها الاستخبارات الخارجية الفرنسية، انتهت إلى أنه يمكن العمل مع شخصيات جديدة، بينها من صاروا نواباً في البرلمان. وعلى خطّ موازٍ، سعت باريس إلى بناء علاقة خاصة مع حزب الله. خطّ بارد تقوده السفارة، وخطّ ساخن تقوده الاستخبارات. لكنّ البحث المركزي في هذا الجانب لا يتصل فقط بالوضع الداخلي، لأن فرنسا تعرف أن بطاقة الدخول إلى نادي المؤثّرين تحتاج إلى موافقة أميركية، وهي موافقة رهن بتلبية مطالب إسرائيل. لذلك تولّت باريس مهمّة نقل الرسائل التحذيريّة حول القوة الصاروخية للمقاومة. وصار الموفدون الفرنسيون خبراء في نوعية الصواريخ وطبيعة الأجهزة التي تحوّل الصواريخ الغبية إلى دقيقة. وفيما يقوم رجال فرنسا في القوات الدولية العاملة في الجنوب بدور الشرطي الحارس لمصالح إسرائيل، يسعى رجالها في بيروت للدخول إلى قلب المؤسسة العسكرية، وسط ممانعة كبيرة من قيادة الجيش التي تفضّل التعامل مع الأميركيين. وعندما يُسأل قائد الجيش العماد جوزيف عون عن سبب برودة العلاقة مع باريس يقول: «صراحة، لا نملك مالاً لشراء أسلحة وعتاد. وأميركا الوحيدة التي تقدّم لنا الدعم مجاناً». لكن المحيطين بقائد الجيش يضيفون: وما عسى أن تقدمه فرنسا في مجال التسليح الفعلي للجيش؟

المراوحة التي جعلت الموقف الفرنسي باهتاً، لم يكن ممكناً خرقها إلا عبر بوابات جديدة. فجاء التفجير الكبير في المرفأ. يوم 4 آب، صُدم العالم بالصور الآتية من بيروت، ولا شكّ في أن العالم أظهر تعاطفاً إنسانياً حقيقياً مع اللبنانيين. لكن الرئيس الفرنسي ايمانويل ماكرون تصرّف بطريقة مختلفة. قفز من كرسيه صارخاً: لنتحرّك!

تعتقد فرنسا أنها الجهة العالمية الوحيدة القادرة على الدخول إلى مكاتب جميع اللبنانيين وخصوصاً حزب الله


تصرف ماكرون على أن الكارثة مناسبة للقيام بأمور كثيرة. أولها، استغلال حاجة لبنان للدعم السريع لمخاطبة كل شركائه الغربيين بأن لا بد من التحرك فوراً. لكنّه سارع إلى إبلاغ الأميركيين بأنها فرصة لإعادة صياغة الموقف. نُقل الكثير من الكلام عن أن فرنسا استغلّت ما حصل لتقول للأميركيين: ها نحن نقف على الرصيف متفرجين، وأنتم تديرون حرب العقوبات، لكن الصراخ الآتي من بيروت ليس من عند حزب الله وأنصاره أو بيئته، بل من حلفائنا والبيئة الأقرب إلينا. يومها قيل أيضاً إن الأميركيين بدوا محرَجين إزاء المشهد المهول الوارد من بيروت. وافقوا على قيام ماكرون بمبادرة، لكنهم لم يعطوه التفويض المطلق، ولم يمارسوا أي ضغط حقيقي على بقية اللاعبين للسير في التصوّر الفرنسي الجديد.

تعتقد فرنسا أنها الجهة العالمية الوحيدة القادرة على الدخول إلى مكاتب جميع اللبنانيين، وخصوصاً حزب الله. تصرف ماكرون على خلفية أن بمقدوره انتزاع تفويض أميركي يتيح له التفاوض مع الحزب على الملفات اللبنانية الداخلية، لكن في إطار يتيح له الانتقال لاحقاً إلى الملفات التي تهمّ أميركا وإسرائيل والسعودية. حتى التظاهرة المذلّة التي نُظّمت لاستقباله في بيروت تحوّلت إلى مشكلة. إذ جرّه منظّمو الاستقبال إلى فخ الموقف الغبي برفض التعاون مع الدولة عندما أعلن أن المساعدات ستصل مباشرة إلى الناس وليس عبر المؤسسات الرسمية. لكن بالنسبة إلى جوهر الأزمة، اضطر إلى قول ما يجب قوله. لأن هاجسه السياسي منحصر في كيفية التوصّل إلى تسوية مع الطرف الأكثر فعالية في البلاد، أي مع حزب الله. وعندما وصل إلى بيروت، كانت بين يديه تقارير عن التواصل المعلن أو غير المعلن، الدبلوماسي والسياسي والأمني، الذي تجريه حكومته مع حزب الله، بما في ذلك ما جرى يوم حضر وزير الخارجية إلى بيروت. وكان ترتيب جدول أعمال ماكرون يتضمّن فرصة لبحث خاص مع حزب الله قام على فكرة وحيدة: نعرف من أنتم ونعرف حجمكم، ونعرف دوركم هنا وخارج لبنان، ونريد صراحة تعاوناً وتنسيقاً معكم للتوصّل إلى علاج لمشكلات كبيرة ليس أبرزها تشكيل الحكومة الجديدة.

طبعاً، لم يقفل حزب الله الباب، وهو أصلاً لم يقفله يوماً في وجه فرنسا، لكن الحزب ليس من النوع الذي يسيل لعابه لمجرّد أن باريس قرّرت التحاور معه. صحيح أنه لا يتجاهل موقعها ودورها، لكنه يعرف أنها ليست صاحبة القرار. لذلك سيترك الحزب للجانب الفرنسي القيام بكلّ جولاته وصولاته في لبنان وخارجه ثم العودة إليه لبحث أكثر تفصيلاً.
لكنّ مشكلة أخرى تنتظر فرنسا، خصوصاً أن قوى بارزة من وليد جنبلاط وسمير جعجع إلى آل الجميل وكتلة كبيرة من «أبناء لبنان الكبير»، لم يبدوا ارتياحاً إلى طريقة الإدارة الفرنسية للاتصالات. بعضهم خاب أمله عندما قال له ماكرون إن الحل يكون بإعادة تشكيل حكومة يدعمها الجميع، وبعضهم اعتقد أن فرنسا أتت لتدير انقلاباً. لكن ما قد يصدم هذه المجموعات أكثر، هو أن ماكرون كان وقحاً مع قادتهم، لأنه يتصرف معهم على أساس أنهم «الأبناء الأصليون للاستعمار الفرنسي». عملياً، يذهب ماكرون ليفاوض حزب الله معتبراً أن هذه القوى «مضمونة» في جيبه. لكن ما حصل بعد مغادرة الرئيس الفرنسي أن انتفاضة قامت بها هذه الجماعات، بدعم مباشر من السعودية ومن خلفها الولايات المتحدة، وصولاً إلى موقفهم الرافض اليوم لفكرة الحكومة الجامعة، لأنهم يعتبرون أن خيار ماكرون سيعيد الحياة إلى التسوية التي رافقت وصول العماد ميشال عون إلى قصر بعبدا.

مشكلة فرنسا ستتفاقم أكثر إذا لم تغيّر سلوكها، وأداء طاقمها الذي يخدم في لبنان دبلوماسياً وأمنياً وثقافياً واقتصادياً وإعلامياً. لا يزال كل من يتناوب من الفرنسيين على هذه المناصب، يلتقي بالمجموعات اللبنانية نفسها، ويسمع المقاربات نفسها، ويعيش على أوهام هذه المجموعات التي تعتقد أننا ما زلنا في عقد الستينات. أضف إلى ذلك، ما تظهره الاتصالات الجانبية عن أن فرنسا لا تفكر بأيّ دعم خاص للبنان. إذ ترفض الإفراج عن قرش واحد من خزائنها لدعم غير مشروط أو مشروط للبنان، بل لا تزال على الطريق نفسه الذي شقه رفيق الحريري وجاك شيراك، والذي يقود إلى ديون إضافية. وجلّ ما تهتم به، اليوم، هو السيطرة على مرافق رئيسية في لبنان تحت ذريعة إعادة إعمارها أو تشغيلها، من المطار وكهرباء لبنان وإدارة المياه والنفايات وصولاً إلى المرفأ الذي يُظهر الفرنسيون خشية حقيقية من تسلل الصين أو تركيا أو قطر لإدارة عملية إعادة إعماره وتطويره وتشغيله..

ليس معلوماً إن كان بمقدور ماكرون ومساعديه استغلال الوقت القصير لمغادرة المربع الذي يعيشون فيه، وإدراك حقائق لبنان الجديدة، وعسى أن يكون واعياً إلى أن الإشارة الأساسية للتغير، تنطلق من قيامه، فوراً، بإخلاء سبيل الرهينة اللبناني جورج ابراهيم عبدالله قبل الأول من أيلول، وأن يعمد إلى إعداد خطاب لمناسبة مئوية لبنانه الكبير، يعتذر فيه عن احتلال بلاده للبنان سنوات طويلة، ويعتذر من الأجيال الجديدة على ما قام ويقوم به ورثة استعماره من هذا النظام الطائفي البغيض. غير ذلك، لن يجد بعد انفجار المرفأ سوى العودة للتجول في شارع وحيد، يمتد من المتحف حتى مفترق السوديكو، حيث بقايا الإمبراطورية الفرنسية في لبنان، بينما تواصل استخباراته لملمة أوراقها المبعثرة في شارع الجميزة!

لا مخرج من حال الاستعصاء إلا بمؤتمر تأسيسي

د. عصام نعمان

بقلم / د. عصام نعمان | سما برس

أزمة لبنان المزمنة باتت في حال استعصاء. فهي تعيد إنتاج نفسها على مرّ الزمن بأشكال وألوان مختلفة. ما ان يفرغ الشركاء في المنظومة الحاكمة من مواجهة تحدٍّ حتى ينبري لهم آخر. غير انّ أصعب التحديات ذلك الذي يصنعه أحد الشركاء لإضعاف زملائه. هو الأصعب لأنّ أهل الدار أدرى بخفاياها.

أهل الدار هم الشركاء الأقوى في المنظومة الحاكمة. ما ان هنأوا أنفسهم بإخفاق معارضيهم من أصدقاء الغرب في استغلال الانفجار الهيروشيماوي في مرفأ بيروت لتحميلهم وحدهم مسؤولية الكارثة وصولاً الى إجلائهم عن سدة السلطة حتى وجدوا أنفسهم على خلاف مع شركائهم بشأن ما يقتضي عمله بعد الكارثة.

الخلاف بين الشركاء ليس على مسألة بقائهم في السلطة بل على كيفية تسويق ذلك بين اللبنانيين الذين يضعون جميع أهل السلطة في سلّة واحدة باستثناء حزب الله بما هو حزب المقاومة. حتى حزب الله لا يسلم من النقد لسكوته على تجاوزات بعض حلفائه.

اللبنانيون الساخطون، وهم الغالبية، اندفعوا إلى الشوارع والساحات منادين بضرورة إقصاء أهل النظام الفاسد. ظاهر الحال انّ موازين القوى لا تسمح، بعدُ، بذلك. من هنا ينهض سؤال: ما العمل الآن؟

إذا كان إسقاط النظام الطوائفي الفاسد وأهله مطلوب ومشروع فإنّ تحقيقه متعذر في الحاضر والمستقبل المنظور. لذا فإنّ المسار الفاعل والأمن يتمثّل بتأجيج الانتفاضة الشعبية ضدّ أهل النظام الفاسدين لإكراههم على التسليم بأنّ نظامهم تآكل وانهار وأنهم عاجزون عن تعويمه وإصلاحه، وأنه يجدر بهم عدم المكابرة والإقرار تالياً بالواقع والقبول بتقصير زمن المحنة.

أما أهل الإنتفاضة فإنهم مطالَبون بالتعقّل إذ لا جدوى من طرح شعاراتٍ غير واقعية وغير قادرين على تحقيقها. لذا يقتضي ان يُقرنوا حملتهم ضدّ النظام الطوائفي الفاسد بطرح طريق لتغييره سلماً وتدريجاً لأنّ استخدام العنف بدعوى تسريع الإصلاح في مجتمع تعدّدي، كحال لبنان، يؤدي الى إندلاع حرب أهلية. أليس هذا ما حدث سنة 1975 وتحوّل الى حرب أهلية استمرّت حتى سنة 1990؟

يطرح بعض أهل القرار المستنيرين فكرة المؤتمر التأسيسي كمخرج من حال الاستعصاء وطريق لتحقيق التغيير والإصلاح سلمياً. هذه الفكرة سيف ذو حدّين. فهي جيدة من حيث اعتماد الحوار طريقاً للتوافق الوطني والإصلاح الديمقراطي، لكنها ملغومة من حيث هي وسيلة بأيدي أهل النظام الطوائفي الفاسد للتحكّم بتسمية أعضاءٍ للمؤتمر التأسيسي من بطانتهم وحواشيهم بقصد أن تأتي توصياته خادمةً لمصالحهم. أليس هذا ما انتهت اليه تجارب طاولات الحوار في القصور والسرايات؟

نعم، المؤتمر التأسيسي هو المخرج الأمثل من حال الإستعصاء التي تراوح فيها أزمة لبنان المزمنة. غير انّ نجاحه مشروط بكيفية تأليفه. وعلى هذا الصعيد، فإنّ الديمقراطية هي بالتأكيد البوابة والطريق. كيف؟

يتحدث بعض أهل القرار في هذه الآونة عن ضرورة تأليف حكومة وطنية جامعة من سياسيين واختصاصيين مستقلين تكون بمثابة قاطرة للإنقاذ وطليعة كاشفة لطريق التغيير والإصلاح. حسناً، في مقدور مثل هذه الحكومة، في مرحلة انتقالية، القيام بالمبادرات والإجراءات الآتية:

(أ) مبادرة رئيس حكومة الإنقاذ بالتعاون مع مجموعة من أهل الاختصاص في صفوف القوى الوطنية والتقدمية وتنظيمات المجتمع المدني المستقلة والوازنة الى الاجتماع للتوافق، في مهلة شهر واحد، على مشروع قانون للانتخابات يراعي أحكام الدستور، لا سيما المادة 22 (مجلس نواب على أساس وطني لاطائفي ومجلس شيوخ لتمثيل الطوائف) والمادة 27 («عضو مجلس النواب يمثل الأمة جمعاء» ما يستوجب الدائرة الوطنية الواحدة) والمادة 95 («إلغاء الطائفية السياسية وفق خطة مرحلية») وخفض سن الإقتراع الى الثامنة عشرة تجاوباً مع الإصلاحات المنصوص عليها في وثيقة الوفاق الوطني (الطائف) وغيرها من المبادرات الإصلاحية.

(ب) إعلان مشروع قانون الانتخابات الديمقراطي المتوافَق عليه وإحالته على كلٍّ من مجلس الوزراء، ومجلس النواب، وقوى الانتفاضة الشعبية ليُصار إلى إقراره في مجلس النواب في مهلةٍ أقصاها شهر واحد، وإذا امتنع المجلس او أخفق في ذلك لأيّ سبب كان، يُصار الى تبنّيه من قِبَل قوى الانتفاضة الشعبية المعبّأة والمستعدة لإطلاق وتفعيل ضغوط شعبية عارمة على الحكومة بغية طرحه بمرسوم جمهوري على استفتاء شعبي عام لإقراره وبالتالي لاعتماده وتنفيذ أحكامه عملاً بنظرية الظروف الإستثنائية التي تستوجب تدبيراً استثنائياً في حال نشوء ظرف استثنائي، وهو حال البلاد قبل كارثة 4 آب وبعدها.

(جـ) إجراء انتخابات عامة وفق مشروع قانون الانتخابات آنف الذكر بغية توليد أول مجلس نواب يؤمّن صحة التمثيل الشعبي وعدالته، فيشكّل بحدّ ذاته مؤتمراً تأسيسياً لإعادة بناء لبنان دولةً ووطناً.

هل كثير على القوى الوطنية والتقدمية، كما على المستنيرين من أهل القرار، اعتماد هذا النهج الديمقراطي خلال مرحلةٍ انتقالية للوصول الى المؤتمر التأسيسي كمخرج آمن من حال الاستعصاء التي تأسر البلاد والعباد؟

وزير سابق

Special Tribunal for Lebanon failed to provide evidence for its claims: Lebanese analyst

By Mohammad Mazhari

August 22, 2020 – 0:2

From the first day of the Hariri assassination, the March 14 alliance sought to exploit the incident, through a political accusation against Syria at the beginning and Hezbollah lately.

TEHRAN – After 15 years of work, on August 19, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon handed down its verdict on the Hariri assassination charges. 

The judgment was initially scheduled to be delivered in May but was delayed twice—first due to the coronavirus pandemic and second as a gesture of solidarity for the victims of the massive explosion in Beirut on August 5, which devastated the city.

In this regard, Maher al-Khatib, a Lebanese writer, tells the Tehran Times that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has politicized Rafic Harir’s assassination case. “The court failed to provide evidence for its claims,” he argues. “It failed to provide evidence for its claims.”

Following is the full text of the interview:

Q: What is your comment on the verdict issued by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon?

A: It is not possible to understand the verdict of the International Tribunal for Lebanon, without returning to the full path that it went through over the past years and before that the process that the international investigation commissions have gone through.

The two paths showed the fact that the court was highly politicized, and the verdict of the hearing session confirmed this.

For the most part, it presented just a political analysis of the process of the Lebanese events before 2005.

The court reached certain conclusions underlining that Hezbollah and the Syrian state had an interest in the assassination of Hariri.

However, the court failed to provide evidence for its claims.

Consequently, what the court reached, in the end, maybe aimed at defending its objectivity, while it presented what was previously known but in a softer way.

Q: Given Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s statements, what will be the response of Hezbollah to the court’s ruling?

A: A few years ago, Hezbollah announced that it was dealing with the International Tribunal on the basis that it did not exist, after it was turned into a political tool in the hands of the United States of America and Israel, in addition to other international and regional powers.

 Therefore, it will not have any reaction to the verdict issued by the court; however, its silence is an affirmation of its previous position on it, which means that it does not recognize the court and its verdict.

Q: How did the March 14 alliance has tried to use the International Tribunal to undermine Hezbollah’s status in Lebanon during the past years?

A: From the first day of the Hariri assassination, the March 14 alliance sought to exploit the incident, through a political accusation against Syria at the beginning and Hezbollah lately.

Accordingly, many considered that the court had become a tool consumed by this alliance to the maximum extent, the aim of which was to blockade Damascus and later to surround Hezbollah inside Lebanon.

Despite the content of the verdict issued by the international court, there are those within the March 14 alliance which sought to go far in interpreting it, by emphasizing that it deals with Hezbollah as a political organization, which is identical to the positions issued by some regional and international parties.

Q: In light of the international tribunal’s statement, do you expect an internationalization of the Beirut blast?

After the verdict issued by the International Tribunal, many political forces and features affiliated with the March 14 alliance considered that it has proved that the court was not politicized, on the basis that they did not incriminate all the individuals mentioned in the prosecution.

So, they tried to use it as a justification to support their call for the internationalization of the investigation on the Beirut blast.

On the other hand, the March 8 alliance saw that the verdict issued by the court, regardless of being politicized or not, indicates that the Lebanese judicial organs can reach better results and faster.

They insist on refusal to go to the internationalization of cases in Lebanon.

Based on Lebanon’s current political balances today, which are different from the conditions of Hariri ‘s assassination in 2005, I rule out the option of internationalizing investigations on the Beirut port explosion. 

However, Lebanon is ready to use international expertise, including French and American.

The Nuclear Signatures of the Beirut Blast

By David Macilwain

Source

Beirut blast cloud with disc 7eb6a

Amongst the plethora of theories on the cause of the Beirut explosion of August 4th, and justifiable suspicions that it was not entirely an accident, one theory was quickly ruled out. Thanks to the unusual mushroom-shaped appearance of the blast wave that preceded the explosion of a warehouse full of Ammonium Nitrate, many observers immediately thought of the “iconic” Bikini Atoll nuclear tests, and wondered if one of the usual suspects had tried out a new weapon.

The timing was odd too – two days before the 75th anniversary of the flattening of Hiroshima by an American nuclear bomb. As the dazed citizens of Beirut saw what had happened to their city, images of the blast and its devastating result appeared in news bulletins around the world alongside those of Hiroshima, with the surviving walls of the grain silo at “ground zero” reminiscent of Hiroshima’s still standing clock tower.

More pointedly, the explosion came just before the final release of the UN Investigative Tribunal’s report into the 2005 Hariri bombing. Despite immediate accusations against Hezbollah for storing weapons at the port from people desperate to shift the blame, it soon became clear that the port area was under control of Hezbollah’s chief opponents allied to Saad Hariri. Given what we know about the Rafiq Hariri bombing – as comprehensively analysed by Jeremy Salt – this is a detail to keep in mind.

As details began to emerge about the storage of 2,750 tonnes of “Nitropril” at the port, and the strange way it came to be there, the wrath of Beirut’s suffering citizens turned toward the government, and the perceived corruption that had allowed this explosive time bomb to sit there so close to the heart of the city for seven years. Speculation on the cause of the blast wave that did most of the damage was mostly limited – in the mainstream media at least – to how the Nitropril had come to be ignited. Despite lingering suspicions and speculation in independent media on “cui bono”, fuelled by apparent celebration in some quarters, a tragic accident combined with incompetence and corruption seemed most likely.

Until now that is – for this observer. Ironically it is two “pro-Israel” articles that have led to my own observations and investigation of the possibility that something else detonated in Warehouse 12 which caused the blast wave, and whose presence was overlooked in the shock of the moment and in the various videos of the incredible explosion.

The first of these from Richard Silverstein, claimed that Israel had bombed Beirut, targeting a Hezbollah weapons store, and setting alight the Nitropril unintentionally. This story was rapidly dismissed for obvious reasons, but was headed by a photograph showing the white mushroom cloud expanding around a red-brown exploding column.

But it also shows something quite strange – a white disc near ground level, oddly reminiscent of something we have all seen, both in classic space movies and in real-life. Although the sci-fi movie versions are only loosely based on astronomical phenomena, and called “the Praxis Effect” on that basis, the phenomenon of a disc-shaped shock wave is associated with some nuclear explosions. The most famous of these was the “Baker” test at Bikini Atoll in 1946, which can be seen in this video clip – and a hundred others – as well as in this still shot.

Baker nuclear test 81dc3

Viewing the video from which the frame illustrating Silverstein’s article came (also seen here) shows a chilling similarity to that shock wave from the Baker test, though it has significant differences which need interpretation by an independent expert – if such a person can be found! The Baker test was detonated underwater, ejecting two million tonnes of seawater up through a flotilla of abandoned ships. While the familiar mushroom cloud formed above the surface it was the expanding shock wave beneath that caused the white disc in the surface waters.

The expanding disc seen in the Beirut blast is however not just some optical phenomenon, apparently advancing ahead of the mushroom-shaped cloud above and about 20 or 30 metres from ground level. At the end of the DW news video the disc spreads over a ship in the harbour, reminding one further of the Baker test. A wave of turbulence can also be seen following behind the disc edge, before the blast wave reaches the camera. I have extracted frames from the video for the sequence of shots below.

Beirut blast sequence fac75

A fair bit has been written about the explosive behaviour of Ammonium Nitrate, questioning everything from the quantity needed to cause such a blast, its ability to create such a percussive explosion, and even claims the explosion was of other materials altogether. One such claim has been made by an Italian explosives expert of repute, who rightly observes that such a quantity of Nitropril could not be made to explode in one short blast, but the article then goes on to claim Iranian weapons containing lithium were responsible. The Lebanese website’s reference to Al Arabiya, and claims the port was completely controlled by Hezbollah make nonsense of the Italian’s expert opinion.

Of far more interest however is the view of numbers of scientists quoted by Business Insider, who agree the Beirut blast could not have been nuclear, based on its lack of some signature features. In particular the failure to see a blinding flash of light from a nuclear detonation confirms their opinion, and might have confirmed mine had it not been for one frame in another video shown on the Global News channel. The same sequence showing the fire before the detonation and the blast following it, is repeated several times with a slowed version at the end.

This slow sequence shows quite clearly a blinding flash visible in just one frame before a fireball forms, followed by the mushroom cloud blast wave. Four frames are illustrated in the image below, up to the point where the blast cloud is just starting.

AN blast sequence Beirut f4610

We are left to speculate on what sort of explosive or weapon created this blast, remembering that it was reportedly heard as far away as Cyprus, and felt like an earthquake in the region. Interestingly also it left behind a sizeable crater well below sea level, as visible now in shots from the air.  But one thing seems certain – that Hezbollah had neither the means nor motive to place a tactical nuclear device in the heart of Beirut. Nor would Hezbollah ever stoop to commit such an act of treachery even if it had the means and motive, nor even against its mortal enemies.

Draw your own conclusions.

Postscript:

Given the contentious nature of these claims, it’s important to make as much as possible of the observed phenomena – which in the absence of credible and impartial investigation is all we have to go on. The “investigation” now to be conducted by the FBI can only be expected to further obscure the truth, if that truth implicates Israel and exonerates Hezbollah.

Shortly after writing this article, I realised that I had made an error in interpreting the expanding white disc seen in the first video sequence, seeing it as a blast wave in the air some metres above the surface. On locating film of the Baker nuclear test, I was surprised to find that the similar white disc following the detonation was actually on the ocean surface, and caused by the shock wave beneath, and so could not say this feature was another “signature” of a nuclear explosion present in the Beirut blast.

Wrong conclusion! Further close observation of the Beirut “crack” reveals that it is in fact an identical phenomenon to that at Bikini Atoll, and is a surface disturbance in the water in the port. This is confirmed when the disc is seen to reach the ship at the end of the video clip as the disc passes beneath it. I had also wrongly assumed that the white disc was only visible over the harbour because the view was obstructed in the foreground.

Whether such a shock wave could have resulted from the explosion of 2700 tonnes of Ammonium Nitrate is “unclear” – though seems improbable. Where the shock wave appears in the water it had to already pass through the ground beneath the grain silos, yet appears very similar to the nuclear bomb-induced “crack”. Most notably, people in Beirut well beyond the range of the aerial blast wave described feeling an earthquake, and this may well have been responsible for much of the structural damage to buildings. The blast was indeed recorded up to 1000 kms away by seismic monitors, as discussed here. Whether this blast had a “nuclear signature” they aren’t saying.

Sheikh Qassem: All Accusations against Hezbollah of Beirut Port Blast Proved False, Resistance Power Can Never Be Undermined

August 21, 2020

Capture
Click for Video

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed Friday that all the accusations made by some political parties against the party of being behind Beirut port blast proved to be futile, adding that all that propaganda failed to undermine the Resistance power.

Delivering a speech during Hezbollah televised ceremony to mark the second Ashura Night, Sheikh Qassem said that all the claims that Hezbollah had stored munitions in the port warehouses, possessed the big amounts of ammonium nitrate which exploded, or knew about their presence before the blast were refuted.

“Some political parties set a hypothesis based on accusing Hezbollah of being behind Beirut blast and started searching for pieces of evidence to prove it.”

Hezbollah will not resort to fabricating slanders in face of the opponents’ lies, according to Sheikh Qassem who urged the Resistance supporters to stick to patience in face of their provocations.

Sheikh Qassem stressed that Hezbollah will not be affected by that propaganda, confirming that the Resistance military units will always be ready to confront the Zionist aggression and liberate the Israeli-held territories.

Sheikh Qassem also underscored that Hezbollah supports creating a new government that is capable of rebuilding Beirut, carrying out the needed reforms and having a wide popular representation.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

من يرد اعتبار سورية وحلفائها عن سنوات الاتهام السياسي باغتيال الحريري

سعد الله الخليل

خمسة عشر عاماً قضتها المحكمة الدولية الخاصة بلبنان بالبحث عن الجناة الحقيقيين والمنفذين لاغتيال رئيس حكومة لبنان الأسبق رفيق الحريري، لتصدر بعد مئات جلسات الاستماع وآلاف العيّنات والمعلومات حكمها بطي صفحة الاتهام السياسي لسورية وحزب الله بالقضية، وإعلان أن لا أدلة على التورط بالجريمة.

ومع خلوّ قرار المحكمة التي فاقت تكلفتها المليار دولار من أيّ جديد في ما يتعلق بمنفذي الجريمة، فإنّ الثابت الوحيد فيها براءة سورية وحلفائها كحقيقة لم تعد قابلة للجدال.

بعد خمسة عشر عاماً من التحقيقات و3000 صفحة تضمّنها الحكم في قضية اغتيال الحريري، ودعم دولي غربي وأممي كان ينتظر اللحظة السانحة لضرب سورية وحلفائها، لم تثبت المحكمة تورط سورية وحزب الله في جريمة ليس حباً بهما بطبيعة الحال، وبما أنهما أول المتضرّرين منها لا بدّ من فتح الأبواب واسعة، أمام إدانة كلّ من اتهم سورية وحلفاءها بالجريمة، لردّ الاعتبار لهم أولاً، ولكشف من استفاد من الاتهام ثانياً للتغطية عن الجناة الحقيقين، خاصة أنّ بيان المحكمة أكد أنّ الادّعاء قدّم أدلة وافية عن الاتصالات التي استخدمت باغتيال الحريري، وبيانات الاتصالات قادت إلى كشف الخلية، وأنّ متابعة المتهمين لتنقلات الحريري تؤكد الترصد وليس الصدفة في التفجير، ولو تضمّنت هذه الأدلة ما يدين سورية وحلفاءها، فمن البديهي أنّ المحكمة لم تكن لتوفرها للنيل من سورية.

من سيعيد الاعتبار لسورية وحلفائها بعد سنوات التضليل والاتهام السياسي الكاذب، الذي بنى عليها المحقق الألماني ديتليف ميليس تقريره الشهير والذي أشار فيه صراحة إلى تورّط مسؤولين سوريين ولبنانيين، ومن سيعوّض الضباط الأربعة عن سنوات السجن بشبهة التآمر لارتكاب جريمة القتل، دون تهمة من السلطات اللبنانية لمدة أربع سنوات، لتفرج عنهم المحكمة الخاصة عام 2009، نظراً للتناقضات في أقوال الشهود الرئيسيين وعدم وجود أدلة مؤيدة لدعم هذه الأقوال.

بعد صدور الحكم بقضية اغتيال العصر لم يعد يكفي الاعتذار لسورية وحلفائها، عن سنوات الاتهام السياسي من الأطراف اللبنانية التي شكلت بعد الاغتيال تيار 14 آذار، وبالرغم من إجماع هذه القوى على معاداة سورية ومحور المقاومة، لم ينفعها الإتجار بدم الحريري في الحفاظ على وحدة كيانه السياسي، فسرعان ما فرط عقد التحالف المبني على كره سورية… أطراف عليها اليوم الكشف عن حقيقة اتهامها دمشق، ودورها في الحرب على سورية خلال السنوات العشر الماضية، بدءاً من تشكيل الأرضية المناسبة لشيطنة سورية حول العالم، قبل الدخول في العمق السوري وإشعال فتيل الاحداث بدءاً من 2011، وصولاً إلى قضية السفينة «إم في روسوس» وتخزين شحنة النيترات التي تحملها في مرفأ بيروت لأكثر من ست سنوات، والتي هرّب جزء منها للمجموعات الإرهابية المسلحة في سورية، مروراً بمئات الأدلة على تورّط الأطراف المطالبة بالحقيقة بسفك الدم السوري بالدعم والتسليح على الأرض، وفي المحافل الدولية، وهل يُقبل الاعتذار من تلك الأطراف وهي التي أعلنت قبل سنوات عن تجهيز الزنزانات، ونصب المشانق لقيادات سورية وحزب الله تحت شعار الحقيقة؟

اليوم مطلوب من سورية وحلفائها السعي أكثر من أيّ وقت مضى للكشف عن الحقائق الكاملة، احتراماً لكلّ من تعرّض للترهيب والتنكيل والطرد من العمل وصولاً للضرب والقتل، دون وجهة حق من السوريين واللبنانيين على يد فريق الرابع عشر من آذار.

اليوم، وبعد أن أعلن وريث دم رفيق الحريري نجله سعد الحريري رئيس حكومة لبنان الأسبق قبوله بحكم المحكمة، يمضي خطوة إلى الأمام في مساره السياسي، بين المضيّ بمواجهة سورية وحزب الله بمطالبته بتطبيق قرار المحكمة، والإصرار على تبني الحزب المطلوبين وبين الاستفادة من الفرصة التاريخية بالعودة للتفاوض مع حزب الله دون أيّ حرج بعد صدور حكم المحكمة والقبول به.

بغضّ النظر عن سلوك الحريري في الداخل اللبناني ثمة ما يهمّ السوريين أن تكشف حقائق بُنيت عليها فرضيات إتهام سورية، بدءاً من مصير من اعتبرته المحكمة الشاهد الملك محمد زهير الصديق، والذي وُضع منذ خريف 2005 في عهدة المخابرات الفرنسية، التي تولّت حماية الفيلا المقيم فيها على ضفاف السين، ثم اختفى فجأة عام 2008 وسط صمت السلطات الفرنسية الموكل إليها حمايته، ما يشير إلى سعي الحريري وباريس لإخفاء الصدّيق وإبقاء مصيره مجهولاً، كمصير هسام هسام الذي أعلنت مجموعة تقول إنها تنتمي إلى «الجيش السوري الحر» القبض عليه في دمشق، حيث ظهر في تسجيل مصور يؤكد امتلاكه لمعلومات لم تكشف من قبل عن الجريمة، حينها اعتبرت المجموعة الإرهابية القبض على هسام هدية «ثوار سورية» للحريري، فأين أصبحت الهدية وما هي المعلومات الثمينة التي يحملها؟ والتي كتمها الحريري عن المحكمة، وعلى ما يبدو أنّ إخفاء الشهود الزور جزء من طمس معالم الاتهام السياسي لسورية وحلفائها، في محكمة كلّ ما توصلت إليه مجهول، ما يؤكد أنّ الحقيقة الدامغة في مقتل الحريري تخفيها المحكمة خلف ما هو مجهول في قراراتها.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: