It is not enough for the Lebanese people to have the “Hezbollah” militia affiliated with Iran, which confiscates the official decision of the Lebanese state and controls it, and involves it in the wars of others to satisfy the interests of its regional authority, until it finds itself faced with an authority that identifies with the “party” and adopts its discourse and works to protect it in a blatant manner, and it has become The name “complicit authority” applies to it.

It is certain that this reprehensible performance aroused the anger of the majority of the people and the sovereign Lebanese parliamentary opposition, especially since this authority, represented today by the caretaker government headed by Najib Mikati and Speaker of the “House of Representatives” Nabih Berri, is behaving irresponsibly and exposing Lebanon and the interests of its people to danger as a result of yielding to “ The party” either out of fear or to satisfy its interests, and here the question arises: Did the Lebanese authority prioritize the interests of “Hezbollah” over the interests of the nation?

Lebanon is a hostage of “Hezbollah”

“Hezbollah” put Lebanon in the eye of the storm, as a result of its involvement in a proxy war for Iran in southern Lebanon, under the pretext that it was relieving pressure on the “resistance” in the Gaza Strip and supporting the Palestinian people, taking a unilateral decision to confront Israel without a Lebanese consensus on this matter, amid Serious Israeli threats regarding the necessity of implementing Resolution “1701” through peaceful and quiet means or launching a war against Lebanon to implement it by force.

In his conversation with Al-Hal Net, a former Lebanese diplomat who represented Lebanon in the United States of America pointed out that the American and European diplomatic envoys conveyed serious messages in this context, but Hezbollah is dealing with them irresponsibly, linking Lebanon’s fate to the Gaza war. On the condition that the war there stop, in order to begin negotiations on the implementation of Resolution “1701.”

Meanwhile, Israel, according to what the diplomat, Al-Hal Net, refrained from mentioning his name, threatens that time is running out, and all possibilities are possible, noting that the intensity of the confrontations between Israel and the “party” is increasing day after day, and gradually going deeper between the two sides.

The Lebanese diplomat confirms that the danger is real, for the following reasons: First, because the continuation of military confrontations between Hezbollah and the Palestinian factions fighting under its command on the one hand, and the Israeli army on the other hand, could go beyond its limits in a specific operation by this or that team. Leading to total war.

As for the second matter, because it should not be ruled out that Israel will initiate an open and comprehensive war against the “Hezbollah” with the aim of removing the danger on its borders at the same time as removing the danger from within its entity, especially after it felt an unprecedented existential danger since the establishment of the Israeli state, and at a moment of external support and alert. Internal will not be repeated.

The third reason, and here the conversation is still up to the diplomat, is that it should not be ruled out that the Iranian leadership will ask “Hezbollah” to open the confrontation with Israel wide in order to disperse the Israeli element of power and prevent it from decisively defeating “Hamas.”

The state has become a tool in the hands of Hezbollah

In the midst of these events, the head of the opposition Lebanese Forces party, Samir Geagea, proposed an initiative that could prevent a recurrence of the July 2006 war. By calling on the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, and the Prime Minister of the Lebanese Caretaker Government, Najib Mikati, to translate their words about commitment to Resolution “1701” into actions, by asking “the Lebanese army to deploy in the area of ​​​​the international forces’ operation, as well as calling on the rest of the militants, whether they are Whether Lebanese or Palestinian, to withdraw from this region.”

Lebanese political sources whispered to Al-Hal Net that the solution for Geagea is to implement Resolution 1701 and assign the army and UNIFIL – the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon – to control the southern border, so that there is an international guarantee for peace in Lebanon, so that he can then bear the responsibility. The international community has the responsibility to keep Lebanon free from war.

If Iran initiates a war, it will be in direct confrontation with the international community, and the same will be true for Israel. If Hezbollah rejects this initiative, it will bear before the Lebanese people the responsibility of destroying Lebanon as it destroyed it in 2006.

But what is happening today is that Prime Minister Mikati does not respond to Hezbollah’s request, while the issue here is beyond taking into consideration a person or a party, but is related to the security of Lebanon and the Lebanese. Will Prime Minister Mikati bear the consequences of what may happen in the country as a result of commitment to the party’s agenda that he has fulfilled? State institutions and today wants to paralyze the military establishment in accordance with this non-Lebanese agenda?

From resisting an enemy

In the view of the Lebanese journalist, Aya Owais, Mikati and Berri have become a “mailbox” for the party, receiving international envoys, receiving messages, and conveying them to the Hezbollah leadership. It is clear that Western diplomats do not care about the authority that negotiates with them, and their goal is to avoid the expansion of the war.

This made the party the only official spokesman for Lebanon, knowing that this negotiation constitutes a condemnation of “Hezbollah” and matches the sovereign opposition’s description of it that the Lebanese have nothing to do with its regional project.

From the point of view of “Owais”, this does not happen only because “Hezbollah” is strong, but because of the absence of statesmen from power. Mikati and Berri abandoned their role in the interest of the “party”, but rather dissolved the concept of the state into a statelet, while there is a need to separate the state project from the state project. The state.

Owais added in her interview with Al-Hal Net that legitimacy should not be transformed into the official spokesman for illegality, and the great deterioration that befell Lebanon was caused by the cancerous infiltration of the statelet project into the body of the state, which must stop its expansion starting with the presidential elections on the basis of “what the state is “For the state, and what is for the state is for the state,” waiting for the moment and opportunity in which the state disappears for the benefit of the state that is sovereign over its land and borders.

Recently, the Lebanese people were astonished by a series of positions taken by Lebanese officials in full complicity with Hezbollah, contrary to the will of the Lebanese people, who reject illegal weapons and implicate Lebanon in wars. This is what Mikati did in mid-January of last year, by launching a strange position in which he decided to go to war. Clearly and officially for the “party,” or in terms of its complete and consistent adoption of the “party’s” position by linking the cessation of the war in Lebanon to the cessation of the war in Gaza.

Mikati justified in his position the involvement of “Hezbollah” in the war, while forgetting that “Hezbollah” has absolutely no right to implicate Lebanon and the Lebanese in this war and any war, and distancing itself from Lebanon must constitute a fixed approach and policy that cannot be changed or violated by the caretaker government, and that Lebanon’s involvement in the war is a decision taken by the state, not “resistance,” and with his position, Mikati clearly and completely adopted the position of the “resistance” axis, which abolished the role of the state in favor of the role of the statelet.

The shadow that dominates Lebanon

It seems that the members of Mikati’s government have now reached a consensus on this position. A few days ago, Foreign Minister Abdullah Bu Habib issued a statement. If the person who was informed of it had not been able to read the identity of the person who made it, he would have considered that the speaker was the Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem.

The Foreign Minister affirmed that “there will be no agreement to return the party beyond the Litani River, because that will lead to a renewal of the war,” and he stressed in a television interview that “we will only accept a complete solution to all border issues with Israel,” and he considered that “the army “The Lebanese do not have sufficient capacity to deploy on the border,” and he pointed out that “there is a problem that the army suffers from, which is the lack of equipment and supplies.”

Minister Bou Habib, with this statement, violated Lebanese and international legitimacy. He simply threatened war if they insisted on returning “Hezbollah” beyond the Litani, while the “party” itself approved Resolution “1701,” starting with its Secretary-General and ending with its minister in the government, and the terms of this. The decision is clear that there are no weapons outside Lebanese and international legality south of the Litani.

What the Lebanese people no longer want to hear at all is the “resistance” argument that Minister Bou Habib adopted literally, that the army does not have the ability or weapons, and what the Foreign Minister did not say is that when the Lebanese army turns into the Chinese army, we think about abandoning the “Islamic resistance.”

The Lebanese lawyer, Muhammad Kanaan, stressed in his interview with Al-Hal Net that it is no longer permissible or even acceptable for this type of stance to be issued by official websites, especially after the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation dropped the theories of “the balance of terror, weaker than a spider’s web, And the unity of the arenas, and the strength of the peoples of the region in their resistance), while events showed that these resistances brought nothing but misery, devastation, death and destruction to these peoples.

Lebanese raise their voice

Lebanon, in the view of those who spoke to Al-Hal Net, needs a president different from those of Mikati and Berri, who are identified with Hezbollah. Therefore, the opposition is waging a battle to elect a sovereign president, knowing that it knows that it cannot prevent Lebanon from being involved in the war, because the decision to go to war Sources by force of arms.

However, if Hezbollah obstructs his election, this president can raise his voice in international and Arab forums, saying that official Lebanon is against the war, and with the implementation of international resolutions, and with the deployment of the army on the border, and condemning those who plunge the country into war for regional calculations at the expense of the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah does not want this type of president. It fights its arrival and seeks a president who covers his weapons and praises the so-called “resistance.” Similar to the Syrian intervention, which needed a trilogy of “legitimate, necessary, and temporary,” the “resistance” needs a trilogy of “army, people, and resistance,” whether Declared or implied.

“Hezbollah” wants a president of the republic and, by extension, an executive authority that either believes in his plan, or contracts with him on interests, or submits to him in order not to raise a voice in rejection of his weapons, and most importantly, not to adhere to pivotal milestones such as July 2006 in implementing the constitution and international resolutions and rejecting illegal weapons.

Therefore, there is the utmost importance to produce a political equation, starting with the presidency of a republic that adheres to the weapons of legitimacy, deploying the army on the borders, and rejecting illegal weapons. This confrontation will rage after the end of the Gaza war between the “resistance” that wants an authority to cover its illegal weapons, and the opposition that wants a Lebanese authority that monopolizes it alone. Weapon.

If the illegal disarmament is not in the hands of the Lebanese who do not want their country to slide into civil war, then it is in their hands to refuse to coexist with “resistance” that has led the country to two wars, failure, collapse and disasters, and thus either produce a Lebanese authority that refuses to partner with the fait accompli, and refuses to exchange interests with this The status quo, and refuses to submit to the status quo, or there has become an urgent need for a new structure; Because the experience of the past 18 years is sufficient and sufficient, and it is no longer acceptable to extend it out of compassion for the country and its people.