[ad_1]
Nadim Qutaish wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat:
My enthusiasm is little for the word “historic” when describing the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, which was announced by the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri. He himself preached to us that the agreement, as a guiding roadmap, took a decade to reach. About him, the Secretary of State of the United States, Mike Pompeo, said that it was the result of three years of intense discussions.
The framework agreement is likely to be the beginning of a strategic turning point in Lebanese-Israeli relations and put the two countries on the path to peace, without which no real practical expedient will stand in the way. It may be that the beginning of a new era for Lebanon is the practical link between the hadith and the Western in it and between the hadith and the Western in Israel, rather than linking it to the ideological mold that comes from the worn books of the resurrection or the myths of the legal guardianship.
What prevents this is that Nabih Berri, and even proving otherwise, is charged by Hezbollah with the task of tactically using a strategic expedient, which is the future and the shape of Lebanese-Israeli relations … and this is the most dangerous that a politician can offer. Tactical management of strategic issues.
My entry for reading is simple. The Shiite decision is Hezbollah’s decision. And Hezbollah’s decision, on a comprehensive and strategic record, is Iran’s decision. Has Iran decided to close the “tent of resistance”, even partially in southern Lebanon … I don’t think the time has come to make that decision, as the missiles of its militias in Iraq tell us about the embassy of United States.
There is no doubt that there is something new in the language. There is something new in the perception of the problem and its possible solutions in terms of interests and pragmatism. Berri easily read the text of the agreement between “the governments of Lebanon and Israel” and wished “everyone” success!
But the new is one thing, the historical is another. And even the new here, in some of them, is personifying a novelty.
One of the most famous images from Berri’s press conference is his image carrying a glass of water to the crowd of journalists in the room: “I am not asking for an extra glass for Lebanon’s rights, and I will not give up a glass of their rights, “he said.
He takes over Nabih, the patriot and politician of Lebanese speech. “Hezbollah” takes over the conflict and ideology. Berri does not want a glass of water more than its fair share, while Hezbollah wants the river, the sea and what is in between …
Hassan Nasrallah will break our heads by wiping Israel out of existence and expelling the United States from the region, and Nabih Berri confirms that Lebanon asked him to step up his presence as a mediator and facilitator to demarcate maritime borders.
Anyone who listens carefully to the statement knows that the American presence is much more than a partner … The sixth article of the agreement speaks of an American administration of the negotiations, and an American commitment to conclude them successfully, and as soon as possible!
However, nothing is historical in all of this so far. The new is insignificant.
The truth of the matter is that the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations have not stopped since the “July war” of 2006, and perhaps since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. These negotiations have reduced the points of contention along the Line Blue drawn by the United Nations after the withdrawal, from more than 13 points to three. Serious points.
I think there were three reasons that led Nabih Berri to appear before journalists to announce the framework agreement.
1- Sanctions: The President of Parliament deliberately expressed that the date of the agreement dates back to July 9, that is, before the issuance of sanctions against his political assistant, the representative and minister Ali Hassan Khalil, and these are the most important that affect the immediate surroundings of Berri.
The dates here lose their importance and the sequence of events has no special meaning. Sanctions are a comprehensive American strategy, conducted with great perseverance and careful correction. Which makes separating it from the Lebanese decision to reach a framework agreement a matter of naivety.
In depth, Nabih Berri is betting on neutralizing himself and his family from the sanctions that are now on the doorstep, just as Hezbollah is betting on a maneuver that will stay with the Shiites about who can communicate with the world, whether it is call today Nabih Berri or any other name tomorrow, and saying it won’t take the whole stage. The Shiite politician with the crime of “Hezbollah” has benefits for the international community …
2 – Isolation: Hezbollah knows it is alone. The picture has changed in the country since the August 4 explosion in the port. More changes since the fall of the French initiative, as a result of Hezbollah’s insistence on emptying the initiative of its content by ministering to whoever it calls a party and insisting on the financial portfolio as part of its participation. All accusing fingers point to the responsibility of squandering the last chance to save Lebanon. Since the outbreak of the revolution on October 17, 2019, the withdrawal of attacking Hezbollah has been spared the total attack against the entire political class, which means in terms of an unfair distribution of responsibilities for the Lebanese tragedy. The responsibility for the disaster fell back on him. This time, he returned while his most prominent Christian ally, President Michel Aoun, was reading another book and another dictionary.
There is nothing left for “Hezbollah” except Israel to float through, not to fight him this time, but rather as a way to extend the ropes of dialogue and understanding with him and vent the terrifying atmosphere of the repeated mysterious explosions, and Netanyahu’s statements about the prices Lebanon can pay without a fight. (The port scene) and the dissemination of weapons caches among civilians.
3- Prosperity: Hezbollah, through the language of Nabih Berri, is trying to tell the Lebanese:
I am your chance to get out of the tunnel of economic collapse. With my understanding at sea and on land with Israel, I will unleash my oil and gas reserves. The French “Total” will start digging after a long hesitation and retreat … My gun has given back to those who stole from them. I am not responsible for the economic collapse. It is not my political ambitions that aborted the last chance to rescue through the French initiative, nor is my weapon responsible. My gun gave you a second chance at the same time the first chance fell …
The party knows the magnitude of the general collapse in the country and the double collapse in its environment, as a result of the faltering national economy and the faltering parallel economy.
Three reasons intersected with an American electoral moment, namely, President Donald Trump’s desire to expand the dynamics of peace in the region and the inclusion of the serious ones (UAE and Bahrain) with fragility (a framework agreement with Lebanon).
A Lebanese-Israeli peace is possible, but the only logical option between two countries that have a lot to build on for a different future for the region. However, to indicate the seriousness of any arrangement between them before peace, it is not enough to demarcate the maritime borders and address the land points in dispute. Two things are required.
1- Revive the armistice agreement between Lebanon and Israel signed in 1949 and re-adopt it in the first government session.
2- The demarcation and completion of the Shebaa Farms as a pretext for the persistence of the weapons of the Hezbollah militia, as has been the case since 2000.
Any “normalization” that does not block the pretexts against the weapons of the “Hezbollah” militia is the exchange of malicious services between Israel and “Hezbollah”.
[ad_2]
