President Suleiman, It’s Time For You to Leave
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/president-suleiman-its-time-you-leave
Who
persuaded him that his term as president will in fact be extended, and
made him believe that he is the everlasting commander of the armed
forces? (Photo: Haitham Moussawi)
It’s hard to understand President Michel Suleiman: What is
happening to him, who is moving him, what does he think about, who is
advising him, who are his followers that supposedly listen to him – who
is he speaking to today?
Who convinced him that he was Lebanon’s number one statesman, and
that the country’s salvation was in his hands? Who told him that he had
the last word, and put it into his head that the nation anxiously awaits
his wisdom in order to continue?
Who persuaded him that his term as president will in fact be
extended, and made him believe that he is the everlasting commander of
the armed forces?
What calculations determine the steps he takes as president of the republic?
What makes his family members behave like they are superior to all
other citizens, in charitable organizations, clubs, and municipalities?
Yesterday, the president offered us yet another clever innovation ...
He
said: “The army's role would be difficult if a Lebanese party, or more,
get involved in conflicts outside our borders, which will lead to
importing external crises to the interior … it is difficult – or better
yet impossible – for the army to carry out its duties, if the duality of
weapons between legal and illegal continues … it has become incumbent
upon us to study and pass the national defense strategy in light of the
circumstances in the region, including the imminent change in the role
of the Resistance’s arms, which have breached Lebanon’s borders.”
What the president is in effect saying is that the Resistance poses a danger to the country and the security of the people.
He decided that the Resistance has overstepped its bounds by involving itself in Syria.
There is no longer any point to debating the president on this, or
any other issue, for that matter. The only logic, the only language, the
only concise expression that is of any use with him today and tomorrow
is: It’s time for you to leave your post. Get out!
Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2013-08-08 07:46.
He should be questioned why he never acted as head of the Army during
the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. He is demanding a lot from HA now,
still he was only watching while Israel was killing Lebanese in 2006
while keeping the Lebanese army in their barracks. I he consider Shia as
none Lebanese he should say it and take the consequences, and why just
before he said what he said he was in the USA for "medical treatment",
we should now whom he met with while in the USA! Way to many question
marks of him and yes, step down, you have lost your credibility far back
in time.
Submitted by mckinl (not verified) on Fri, 2013-08-02 22:01.
It would seem that the Suleiman visit to the US was about more than just a medical procedure ...
Why Did Riyadh Turn Down UN Seat?
An
aerial view shows the clock tower and the nearby district of Jabal Omar
(foreground) which is the location of the poorer district of the holy
city of Mecca, on October 16, 2013. (Photo: AFP - Fayez Noureldine)
On Friday, October 18, Saudi Arabia refused a non-permanent
seat on the UN Security Council, citing political reasons. This, mind
you, is the same kingdom that spared no effort 15 years ago to obtain
the seat. There were even rumors four years ago that Saudi sought to
“purchase” Lebanon’s Security Council seat at the time.
The stated reason for the snub, as per a statement carried by the
Saudi Press Agency, is the failure of the Security Council to carry out
its duties, for example, in reaching a just solution to the Palestinian
cause and putting an end to the Syrian regime's killing of its people.
But this was just the tip of the iceberg. The
conflicting Saudi positions reflect deep internal divisions in the
kingdom and confusion among decision-making centers in Riyadh.
Riyadh’s policies have become so erratic that Western officials,
including Jeffrey Feltman, have been slamming what they call the
“demented” kingdom.
But what Riyadh declined to say about the real reason for its rebuke
of Security Council membership, France volunteered through its UN envoy
Gerard Araud. On Friday, shortly before entering the Security Council
hall, he said that France understood the frustration of Saudi Arabia
regarding the fact that the Security Council has been unable to act for
more than two years. Araud added that the Security Council has not been
allowed to function because of repeated use of the veto power by two
specific permanent Security Council members, adding that Saudi’s
frustration reflects that of a large part of the international
community.
But in truth, perhaps for the first time in more than 10 years, there
is harmony at the Security Council, both among its members, and between
them and the UN secretary general. For instance, Resolution 2118 was
passed unanimously, calling for the destruction of Syria’s chemical
weapons.
It is not the Saudis alone who feel their political role has been
diminished as a result of the Syrian conflict. The French, who thought
for a moment that Saudi Arabia would back them up at the council, just
as Saudi had backed France economically for decades, now feel the same
way.
Too Many Cooks
No one is quite sure anymore who calls the shots in Riyadh. And what
is also odd about the Saudi stunt is that Riyadh knew well the dominant
dynamic of the Security Council long before the UN General Assembly
session on Thursday, where Saudi received 167 votes for its membership,
and was chosen to serve as one of the 10 non-permanent Security Council
members for a period of two years.
In fact, it has been the norm that this seat would go to an Arab
nation, chosen on a rotational basis from Asia and North Africa. So,
what prompted Saudi’s rejection?
To understand, one perhaps has to go back to events that occurred
over the past several weeks. First, the 68th session of UN General
Assembly in late September coincided with a Russian-American accord over
the future of Syria and possibly on other matters as well.
True, what happened afterward did not go much beyond formalities. US
President Barack Obama had a much hyped phone conversation with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani. Still, these formalities had a lot of
significance. Washington now realizes that its proxies in the Middle
East no longer have the ability to settle conflicts in their – and its –
favor. Clearly, Saudi Arabia can use its assets to send car bombs,
stage terror attacks of various kinds, and recruit, fund, and deploy
fighters to Iraq and Syria, but it cannot win any wars.
The Saudis should be aware of this, but perhaps they have not yet
been able to take all these variables in, let alone analyze and
assimilate them. Nevertheless, they must have no doubt felt that they
are now out of the game – moving from the core to the periphery, and
further toward irrelevance.
The Threat From the North
A month after the September 11 attacks, Saudi Arabia identified the
threats facing the kingdom in a study presented by Prince Nayef bin
Ahmed al-Saud, a colonel in the Saudi air force. The study, published in
the US, claimed that the threats to Saudi came primarily from the
north, stating, “Looking to the Persian Gulf in the past decades, it is
clear that the source of the threat is two countries, namely, Iran and
Iraq.”
Nayef bin Ahmed also wrote that the threat stemmed from the fact that
these two countries could rival Saudi’s influence in the region. So
naturally, the threat becomes only compounded when Iran, Iraq, Syria,
and Hezbollah in Lebanon work together in one unified strategy.
The Saudi military expert did not mention Israel or Palestine at all
in his comprehensive study. They do not seem to figure in Saudi’s
calculations. The study also stressed the need to strengthen the
kingdom’s own military power, as US military bases in Saudi were opposed
by an overwhelming majority of Saudis.
US-Saudi Relations
When Saud al-Faisal came to New York last month, he found that the
Americans were preoccupied with the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed
Javad Zarif. The Saudi foreign minister, perhaps for the first time in
the history of UN General Assembly meetings, completely avoided the
media.
His meetings
with Western officials were extremely limited, and he did not make any
statements. In fact, he appeared flustered from the moment he first
entered UN headquarters, and on one occasion, his bodyguard had to prop
him up and stop him from falling.
He then left New York without delivering his speech at the General
Assembly, and did not even ask the Saudi UN envoy to deliver it on his
behalf. The whole spectacle was much more than the awkwardness that
comes with old age.
Oil: The Good Old Days Are Gone
Saudi Arabia is facing its gravest crisis, even graver than the
aftermath of September 11, when Washington saw Saudi Arabia as the
world’s number one source of terrorism. Today, the US is much less
dependent on Middle East oil than 40 years ago, when Saudi Arabia
threatened to use its oil as a political weapon.
Thanks to the shale oil and gas revolution, the US is turning from a
net importer to a net exporter of hydrocarbons. There is no longer a
need to fight for oil, while the focal point of US interests is pivoting
to the Pacific. Meanwhile, everyone wants to sell their oil.
Faisal must have felt that the US-Saudi alliance was in danger,
realizing that the master does not usually consult with its proxy about
its fate at the end of the journey. True, Israeli papers spoke about
important meetings held by Gulf powers in New York, but neither Israel
nor Saudi could conceivably succeed where the US had failed.
Political Dementia
There are now efforts underway at the UN to find a replacement for
Saudi at the Security Council. Some said that the United Arab Emirates
would be the closest to Saudi in alphabetical order among the Arab
countries in Asia. After a country is selected, there will have to be
another voting session.
In the meantime, almost everyone was shocked by the Saudi move, which
seems to have exposed the kingdom’s “political dementia,” annoying its
friends before its foes.
On Friday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that Saudi
Arabia had not yet officially notified the UN of its rejection of the
Security Council seat. Speaking to reporters in New York, he said that
replacing Saudi Arabia at the council was up to the member states.
Meanwhile, Russia blasted the Saudi move. In a statement on Friday,
the Russian Foreign Ministry said, “The kingdom's arguments arouse
bewilderment, and the criticism of the UN Security Council in the
context of the Syria conflict is particularly strange.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Comments
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2013-10-20 19:27.
Are you sure that Saud Al-Faisal had not overdosed on Viagra, so
there was insufficient blood going to his brain to be able to deliver a
speech?
Submitted by mmckinl (not verified) on Sun, 2013-10-20 12:06.
A major temper tantrum by the KSA. This follows the smaller tantrum
in the KSA failure to address the full UN Assembly ... they have always
addressed the Assembly ...
The KSA feels betrayed by all sides. They have been set aside on the Iran, Syria and Egyptian issues.
No sooner than the KSA pledged billions to the Egyptian military the military sided with Assad in Syria.
The US declared "regime change" in Iran off the table and is now proceeding to bring Iran "into the fold".
The US has declared an about face on Syria thanks to a gaffe engineered by Russia into a face saving disarming process.
Bandar couldn't buy Russia with an arms deal or promises about Sochi security and the Israelis shunned Bandar's initiative in Tel Aviv.
My suspicion is that Erdogan, tired of Brotherhood mistreatment and the threat of Islamist control will be shutting down Turkey borders for the terrorists.
Wikileaks of US State Department Hillary Clinton emails started their demise. What countries could keep secret about KSA terrorism is now public.
The question is now: What do the Saudis do about their operations in Syria and the rest of their operations throughout MENA and beyond?
And what is to become of Bandar bin Sultan? It seems his initiatives have left nothing but embarrassing and dangerous "loose ends".
The KSA feels betrayed by all sides. They have been set aside on the Iran, Syria and Egyptian issues.
No sooner than the KSA pledged billions to the Egyptian military the military sided with Assad in Syria.
The US declared "regime change" in Iran off the table and is now proceeding to bring Iran "into the fold".
The US has declared an about face on Syria thanks to a gaffe engineered by Russia into a face saving disarming process.
Bandar couldn't buy Russia with an arms deal or promises about Sochi security and the Israelis shunned Bandar's initiative in Tel Aviv.
My suspicion is that Erdogan, tired of Brotherhood mistreatment and the threat of Islamist control will be shutting down Turkey borders for the terrorists.
Wikileaks of US State Department Hillary Clinton emails started their demise. What countries could keep secret about KSA terrorism is now public.
The question is now: What do the Saudis do about their operations in Syria and the rest of their operations throughout MENA and beyond?
And what is to become of Bandar bin Sultan? It seems his initiatives have left nothing but embarrassing and dangerous "loose ends".
Submitted by Barry (not verified) on Tue, 2013-10-22 21:16.
Well put. Even the Saudis cannot get it right on these issues. They
must have felt particularly snubbed by the Egyptian generals turning to
Assad of all people. Who could have predicted that??
Anyhow, as upset as they are with the US, they cannot possibly turn their backs on Uncle Sam. They need US political and military muscle more than ever. With Turkish tempers flaring about al-Qaeda and a lack of victories in Syria, I think the Saudis will have to find new friends. I am thinking Israel, perhaps Greece (counter to Turkey), a renewed courtship of Egypt and maybe a big push to influence Jordan and/or Pakistan (more than they have now).
They still have a lot of money and a burning desire to influence the world. Realpolitik means that when you are snubbed, you find new friends.
Anyhow, as upset as they are with the US, they cannot possibly turn their backs on Uncle Sam. They need US political and military muscle more than ever. With Turkish tempers flaring about al-Qaeda and a lack of victories in Syria, I think the Saudis will have to find new friends. I am thinking Israel, perhaps Greece (counter to Turkey), a renewed courtship of Egypt and maybe a big push to influence Jordan and/or Pakistan (more than they have now).
They still have a lot of money and a burning desire to influence the world. Realpolitik means that when you are snubbed, you find new friends.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2013-10-20 07:55.
Saudi talk of double standard is pure arrogance, and jealousness to
the core, they want to see Iran nemesis Saddam brought back from the
dead again to gas Kurds and the Iranians, they want Usama back to bomb
the Americans and black Africans, they want to sow rebellion in Syria,
they want to enslave the Egyptians through their proxy Generals, and
then all that in the name of Allah, then only they will accept the UN
seat.
Submitted by frank solan (not verified) on Sat, 2013-10-19 21:52.
These Saudis don't want the spotlight on their own human rights violations.
Saudi Price for Peace: A Lebanese Government of Our Choice
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/saudi-price-peace-lebanese-government-our-choice
Riyadh
hopes to form a government that would ultimately pressure Hezbollah to
pull its forces out of Syria, which is currently the monarchy’s
overwhelming priority. (Photo: Reuters - Hussam Shebaro)
Saudi Arabia may reluctantly consent to supporting the Geneva
II conference on Syria in November – but at a cost: Riyadh wants to
impose a Lebanese government of its own liking in order to get Hezbollah
out of Syria.
The UN’s special Syria envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is still waiting to
get an appointment with the Saudis as he makes the rounds in the region
to prepare for the Geneva II talks. Visiting Saudi Arabia is critical
for the envoy’s mission to succeed. Brahimi knows that without Riyadh’s
support, the peace conference is unlikely to make much headway.
Brahimi may be reassured that the United States and Russia have gone
so far as to set a date for the talks, but the man who has a long
history of dealing with complicated negotiations is pragmatic enough to
know that the cooperation of regional powers like Iran and Saudi are
critical to achieve the task at hand.
With
Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt softening their stance toward the Syrian
regime, the UN envoy is trying to lay the groundwork for the Geneva
talks by focusing on three levels. On the international level, he has
been given the blessing of the two main world powers – the US and
Russia. On the regional level, Iran has welcomed his efforts, with Saudi
still holding out. And finally, on the internal Syrian front, he has
mended fences somewhat with the regime, as he tries to cobble together a
credible delegation that would represent the opposition.
Brahimi realizes that the warring sides may push for an escalation in
order to gain territory or score a victory in advance of Geneva II. In
particular, the opposition’s American and Saudi backers want to put a
stop to the regime’s recent gains on many fronts by focusing their
forces on the capital. Riyadh, for example, has been reinforcing its
militias’ presence in the western suburbs of Damascus as well as the
mountains that run along the northern border of Lebanon.
Washington says it is doing all it can to convince the Syrian
opposition and its regional supporters to back Geneva II, trying to find
a way to offer the Saudis – who feel that they have the most to lose
from entering negotiations with the Bashar al-Assad regime – something
in return for their participation in the peace conference. Many
indicators suggest that Riyadh wants to be rewarded in Lebanon, in the
form of imposing a government of their choosing.
That’s why we are hearing talk in Lebanese political circles,
particularly among those under Saudi influence, that a government will
finally see the light of day before Lebanon’s Independence Day on
November 22. Riyadh hopes to form a government that would ultimately
pressure Hezbollah to pull its forces out of Syria, which is currently
the monarchy’s overwhelming priority.
But the Saudis are unaware of the risks involved in such a venture.
They may realize that all sides to the Syrian conflict are moving in the
direction of a political resolution and compromise, but they are also
aware that the concessions being asked of them are greater that those
demanded of any other party to the crisis. The problem is that their
March 14 allies in Lebanon are in such a weakened state, that a
sectarian cataclysm may be necessary to reverse their losses and allow
them to carry out their Saudi mission.
Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Comments
Submitted by mmckinl (not verified) on Tue, 2013-10-22 21:59.
Riyadh can hope all it wants. The powers that be in Lebanon are not
suicidal however. Should there be a "sectarian cataclysm" it would be
March 14 that would be decimated, and they know it.
Submitted by chrisrushlau (not verified) on Tue, 2013-10-22 20:42.
The Saudi King is determined to be as "bewildering" as he can? If he
disturbs the "house of cards" that is Lebanon's small-c constitution
(the Taef Accord distribution of parliamentery seats in defiance of
demographics), there seem, as people might say of the related
Palestinian problem, two possible solutions. Either you kill all the
discriminated-against minority--but Noam Chomsky says Lebanese Shias by
themselves are the majority!--, or you give them equal rights.
This discussion helps me to see the King in a new, clearer light: he is the biggest, and the oldest, of the Lebanese warlords. A Lebanese warlord is an Arab who offers to rent to NATO the services of a few thousand or few million Arabs in exchange for NATO's non-interference in his commercial activities. General al Sisi is the newest Lebanese warlord, raising the question again whether the Lebanese warlord form of government can pass on to the next generation.
This discussion helps me to see the King in a new, clearer light: he is the biggest, and the oldest, of the Lebanese warlords. A Lebanese warlord is an Arab who offers to rent to NATO the services of a few thousand or few million Arabs in exchange for NATO's non-interference in his commercial activities. General al Sisi is the newest Lebanese warlord, raising the question again whether the Lebanese warlord form of government can pass on to the next generation.
Michel Suleiman, I Implore You … Just Leave
Lebanese President Michel Sleiman gestures as he arrives on September 7, 2013 in Nice. (Photo: AFP - Valery Hache).
What does Michel Suleiman expect?
To thank him, for example? To hold a million-person march to the
presidential palace to implore him to remain president until judgment
day? To hold up banners and giant pictures of him, the ruler of the
Arabian Peninsula, or the racist who became France's president? To kneel
on the ground in gratitude to this handout?
What are you doing, Suleiman? Were you saying yesterday, "Baabda is now Saudi?"
Are you now the spokesperson of a summit which brings together the two biggest enemies of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq?
Do you believe you succeeded, when everyone else failed, to convince
Saudi and France to provide finances and weapons for the army to
confront aggressors against the country's sovereignty and the dignity of
its people?
Do you believe, and do you want us to believe, that the Saudi-French
charity organization just realized the Lebanese army's need for support
and arms to maintain Lebanon's independence?
Do you believe the Saudis will fund a deal, aiming to confront the
same terrorists, to whom they provide intellectual, military, financial,
and media support?
How is it possible that Francois Hollande's France – which hates
Arabs and Muslims, except its own – acts as an unreliable errand boy for
the United States, and is responsible for supporting many terrorist
activities in Syria, while its embassy in Lebanon is used for
disgraceful acts against humanity and sends its spies everywhere, aiming
to sabotage everything, really wants Lebanon's army to have the
readiness to eliminate these elements on the borders and inside the
country?
Do
you want us, o great president, to believe that the king saw a vision
in his dreams and woke up demanding his assistants to ask about
Lebanon's military needs, then asked from the Frenchman begging at its
door to increase the size of the "delivery" and take Lebanon into
consideration in the prospective arms deal between Saudi and France,
which is intended to strengthen cooperation against their common enemy,
from Iran to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon? Is he doing this because Saad
Hariri has been sleeping at the doorstep of his bedroom ever since he
left Beirut, pleading and praying that the king would give this handout?
As the saying goes, shouldn't those who are leaving try to increase their good deeds?
Of course, you are acting as if you will stay in your position. In
fact, you are acting like this to remain in this position. What is
certain is that you are saying you are ready to do anything, including
speaking in the name of the Servant of the Two Holy Sites and his
Zionist friend Hollande, just to remain in your place. But what is more
certain is your knowledge that you will be asked to do many things,
before Abdullah and Holland officially demand the Lebanese give you a
new term or maybe keep you forever.
Do you deny trying to sell Hezbollah that you are ready to reach a
compromise with the government, if they agreed to extend your term,
inventing a boogeyman, called "Saudi anger," if the situation in Lebanon
does not go the way they want? And now you want to convince us that
pandering to the Saudis is a prerequisite to maintain Lebanon's
stability?
What are you doing, "beloved leader”?
Are you happy to cooperate with the ruler of the peninsula, who has
no concern for the lives of tens of thousands of Syrians killed by its
money, weapons, and terrorists, and who donated money stolen from his
people, a third of whom live in poverty? Or are you content with
Hollande, the American puppet, who forbade the French parliament from
meeting to discuss the aggression on Syria, telling his people to wait
for the US Congress to decide?
All Hollande knows is how to kill – in Libya, the rest of Africa, and
in Syria – ever since he replaced a president, who people now wish had
remained.
Let us say it as it is, or as it should be.
In
your last visit to Riyadh, the one giving the handout told you that the
army's duty is to fight Hezbollah – disarm them and prevent them from
going to Syria. He told you this is the precondition for supporting the
army.
In your last visit to France, Hollande told you that the Lebanese
army could be included in a major deal between his country and the
Saudis. However, you – Michel Suleiman – had to show signs to reassure
Saudi Arabia about the future of its people in Lebanon, raise your voice
against Hezbollah, and ensure that the weapons will not be used out of
place.
Could you explain where it should be used? This is, unless, you
believe you could unload some of the anger on the bodies of the
residents of another camp in Lebanon, after the massacre of Nahr
al-Bared?
On top of all of this, do you think these weapons will not fall into
the hands of certain sides, which are ready or being readied to confront
the resistance? Or are you going to agree to a proposal by March 14 to
give some of those weapons to the Internal Security Forces?
There is nothing left to tell you directly, after you thanked the
Saudis as one of its subjects. Go now. Leave the palace and presidency.
By God, a void in Baabda is more effective than you remaining there. May He preserve your honor, but just go away.
Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.
Comments
Submitted by Marquis de Sade (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 13:10.
I mean who could possibly see the Saudi-French military deal as
anything but support for a nation's armed forces as it competes with a
foreign-funded, religious-based, heavy-handed, self-righteous,
sectarian, murderous militia like Hezboallah whose agenda in no
way represents the will of the people of Lebanon?
way represents the will of the people of Lebanon?
Submitted by Clarisseau (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 03:36.
*Was this written by a 15 year old?*
Certainly not...but surely the first comment was ;)
Certainly not...but surely the first comment was ;)
Submitted by Joey Ayoub (not verified) on Mon, 2013-12-30 17:50.
Was this written by a 15 year old?
Submitted by Marquis de Sade (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 12:32.
No it was written by a propagandist pretending to be a journalist.
Submitted by Marquis de Sade (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 12:23.
Well it certainly wasn't written by a journalist. What does Ibrahim
al-Amin expect? That anyone would take seriously what this puppet
propagandist writes. How is it possible that Ibrahim al-Amin's Hezbollah
– which hates Arabs and Muslims, except its own – acts as an unreliable
errand boy for Syria and Iran, and is responsible for supporting many
terrorist activities in Syria against fellow Muslims and Lebanese,
really wants Hezbollah's army to do what it deems necessary on the
borders and inside the country (and liberate Palestine)? By God, a void
in alakhbar is more effective than you remaining there with your claims
of moral superiority, total propaganda and support for "resistance" .
There is nothing left to tell you directly, after you blamed the Saudis,
the Zionists and the West for Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into a war.
And now you want to convince us that pandering to the Iranians and
Syrians is a prerequisite to maintain Lebanon's stability? Hezbollah an
it's foreign-funded militia will never liberate an inch of Palestine and
only brings misery to the good people of the great country of Lebanon.
Go now. Leave the rag you call a newspaper and the pretense that you are
a journalist .You have no honor, so just go away.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 02:53.
If it was that would make you about 5 years old, maybe 6 if you were really smart, but not more.
Lebanon’s $3 Billion Price Tag
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/lebanon%E2%80%99s-3-billion-price-tag
The
president’s allies were taken off guard by Suleiman’s declaration,
especially since he had spoken to some figures during Shatah’s funeral
service that he was planning to “declare an initiative that could change
the face of Lebanon.(Photo: Marwan Bu-Haydar).
In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz and France’s
Francois Hollande – who also met Saad Hariri in Riyadh – agreed on a
“royal grant” worth $3 billion paid directly to France, in return for
French weapons and hardware to be delivered to the Lebanese army. But
one condition for this grant is forming a cabinet in Lebanon, from which
Hezbollah would be excluded.
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman took it upon himself to announce
the grant and to begin implementing Saudi’s conditions. A few weeks ago,
Suleiman informed Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri and MP
Walid Jumblatt, as well as Hezbollah, of his intention to form a
“neutral government” without consulting anyone over the names of the
ministers, based on a 14-minister lineup that Premier-designate Tammam
Salam would submit to the president later. Suleiman even set a date for
the stunt: after he returns from his New Year’s Eve holiday in Budapest,
before 7 January 2014.
The March 8 forces, together with MP Jumblatt, tried to
dissuade Suleiman and Salam from their plan, but the president would not
budge, implying that there was no going back. This was the case even
before the assassination of former Minister Mohammed Shatah, and things
did not change after.
While some expected Suleiman to reconsider his decision following
last Friday’s assassination, March 14 doubled down, rushing to demand to
return to power without partnership with Hezbollah.
This should be seen as a follow-up to what happened after the
assassination of Maj. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan, and the Saudi message
carried by then-Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary General Abdul-Latif
al-Zayani to Suleiman: Hezbollah has to choose between continuing to
fight in Syria or being part of the government. Shortly after that, the
government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati collapsed.
Following Shatah’s assassination, March 14’s demands went on to
explicitly require isolating Hezbollah from power, and boycotting any
dialogue with the Resistance Party. Commenting on the Saudi grant, Samir
Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces, said quite clearly, “Political
power is the basis, and it is our demand without which nothing, not even
financial grants, would do us any good.”
Similarly, Future Movement officials and other March 14 figures said
they wanted a government without Hezbollah. Leading sources in this
political camp told Al-Akhbar, “We have notified President
Suleiman that any negotiations regarding a partnership government
involving the other side is out of question. We asked him to do what he
sees fit because the ball is in his court.”
But Jumblatt opposes such a move. According to sources close to the
Druze leader, he conveyed to both Suleiman and Salam a clear position:
“This step resembles the decisions made on May 5 under the government of
Fouad Siniora in 2008, which led to the May 7 incidents. Today, the
country needs a national unity government to defuse strife in the
street.” Accordingly, Jumblatt has told Speaker Berri that he would not
give a vote of confidence to any government that the speaker and
Hezbollah do not endorse.
For their part, March 8 forces have kept quiet about what they plan
to do in response to what they call a “de facto government under the
guise of neutrality.” Some extremists in this camp warned that such a
government would be barred from ruling, even if that meant storming the
Grand Serail – the seat of the Lebanese government.
They said, “What stopped us in 2006 from storming the Serail where
Siniora was present was a phone conversation between Ali Larijani and
Bandar bin Sultan, who mediated among Lebanese political rivals and drew
red lines for the protests. Today, the lines of communication are
broken, and no one will prevent us from defending our rights.”
The sources continued, “Bandar’s plan at the moment is to form a de
facto government to draw Hezbollah into the street, under the illusion
that this would force Hezbollah to withdraw from Syria to meet
challenges in Lebanon. What they don’t know is that Hezbollah has
prepared to face all security contingencies on more than one front, to
defend the Resistance.”
The rest of the March 8 forces refuse to disclose details about their
response to a de facto government. Instead, prominent March 8 sources
only shared with Al-Akhbar what they said was “a characterization
of reality as it stands.” In their view, “the decision to form a de
facto government is part of the war Saudi Arabia is waging in the
region, from Syria and Iraq, to Lebanon and Bahrain.”
The March 8 sources added,
“Bandar bin Sultan is still betting on a change on the Syrian
battlefield, moving toward Moscow, which has snubbed him, and moving in
Bahrain, Iraq, and Lebanon to improve his position in Syria. What Saudi
wants is to form a de facto government before Geneva II, for a marginal
goal, namely, to have the Lebanese delegation at the conference be part
of the delegations putting pressure on the official Syrian delegation.
At home in Lebanon, forming a government like this means adding another
nail to the coffin of the Taif Accord, the first nail having been the
March 14 exclusive administration under Siniora’s first cabinet.”
The sources then said, “If Saad Hariri’s government was unable to
rule, and Mikati’s government could barely issue routine decisions, how
can Suleiman, Salam, and March 14 expect a government opposed by more
than half of the Lebanese people to rule? How do they expect to get a
vote of confidence?”
The sources raised more questions: “Can this government implement the
decisions it makes? Do they not know that a government that has no vote
of confidence is not entitled to take over the jurisdictions of the
president in the event of a vacuum in his post?”
The sources concluded: “Where are they taking the country to? So far,
our camp is still committed to peaceful confrontation. But they have
given us only two examples: the assault on Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani at the Khashogji Mosque, and the slogan ‘Viva the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.’”
The slogan in question was uttered by President Suleiman, in the
speech he made after a press conference scheduled earlier by the Baabda
Palace was canceled. At almost the same time, clashes were taking place
at Beirut’s Khashogji Mosque, amid fears of further deterioration of the
situation, suggesting to some that Suleiman could have been in the
process of putting forward a salvation initiative.
Instead, the president’s allies were taken off guard by Suleiman’s
declaration, especially since he had spoken to some figures during
Shatah’s funeral service that he was planning to “declare an initiative
that could change the face of Lebanon.” But rather than doing that,
Suleiman focused all his speech on announcing the Saudi grant, which was
restricted to procuring French equipment for the Lebanese army, even as
the majority of the latter’s hardware has been US-made since President
Amin Gemayel’s tenure.
(Al-Akhbar)
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Comments
Submitted by Marquis de Sade (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 13:06.
I mean who could possibly see the Saudi-French military deal as
anything but support for a nation's armed forces as it competes with a
foreign-funded, religious-based, heavy-handed, self-righteous,
sectarian, murderous militia like Hezboallah whose agenda in now way
represents the will of the people of Lebanon?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 13:50.
These so called murderous Hezbullah u mention r the only ones doing
anything for democracy, for Lebanon, for Syria and for the Middleast.
They are the ones who are countering Al Qaeda takfiri, Salafi wahabi
terrorists backed by zionists, Yahudi Arabia and the demonic western
worlds agenda. Maybe marquis de Sade would prefer Al Qaeda as u r
obviously a supporter of them. Maybe u would feel differently when they
start bombing u and people and places of interest to u. Or have u been
paid off too? Selling your soul to the Devil.
Submitted by Rowan Berkeley (not verified) on Tue, 2013-12-31 05:50.
This is the sort of story that al-Akhbar could have been created to
publicise. It will be hard to get the MSM (mainstream media, in the
western sense) to report it objectively. They will try to obscure the
nature of the deal, the squalor and anti-democratic nature of it, in
every way they can think of.
Submitted by Christopher Rushlau (not verified) on Mon, 2013-12-30 20:31.
I have now read most of this essay and it has overturned my
stereotype of Lebanese, except Hezbullah, as a bunch of brown-nosers.
I just cannot understand how Lebanese explain the exclusion of Shias from civil status to themselves. I mean, the practical effect of the Taef Accord as it relates to Parliamentary elections is that it excludes Shias from power. Noam Chomsky says that if Lebanon had a democracy, Hezbullah would be the government, which he said would be a bad thing--so maybe we can take his judgement about demographics seriously.
How do Lebaneses justify to themselves this horrible sham of democracy? Are they just in love with Paris fashions?
You're right, I should specify which Lebanese I mean. Why don't Shias get mad, take the fight to the oppressor?
Why don't Christians put their faith in a God of justice, a lord of mercy?
What game are the Sunnis playing?
I just cannot understand how Lebanese explain the exclusion of Shias from civil status to themselves. I mean, the practical effect of the Taef Accord as it relates to Parliamentary elections is that it excludes Shias from power. Noam Chomsky says that if Lebanon had a democracy, Hezbullah would be the government, which he said would be a bad thing--so maybe we can take his judgement about demographics seriously.
How do Lebaneses justify to themselves this horrible sham of democracy? Are they just in love with Paris fashions?
You're right, I should specify which Lebanese I mean. Why don't Shias get mad, take the fight to the oppressor?
Why don't Christians put their faith in a God of justice, a lord of mercy?
What game are the Sunnis playing?
Submitted by Christopher Rushlau (not verified) on Mon, 2013-12-30 20:26.
That will barely cover the costs of the strategic beret innovations
covered in the Five Year Bottom-Up Qualitative Review just concluded in
Geneva and Paris. Those innovations, mind you, are just the design, not
the implementation, of the new beret echelons.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar