A “big” disagreement between Aoun and “Hezbollah” on demarcation. Will the coalition attack?

Maysam Rizk wrote in the newspaper “Al-Akhbar” under the heading “Indirect negotiations … no picture: The first” major “dispute between Aoun and Hezbollah:” One day, fourteen years ago, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah , said that “The general has a debt on his neck” that will remain until Judgment Day. That was after the July aggression, when the whole world opposed the resistance, and Aoun said: “It is a time of war and we will fight.” The party’s support for its ally often aroused the surprise of friends and opponents alike. The approval of the general was above Every consideration, and often at the expense of the satisfaction of the relatives, is the fulfillment of the “understanding” that Haret Hreik wanted to be solid, despite all internal divergences, which for the party leads the difference. But it seems difficult for Hezbollah to understand a “difference” on a strategic issue such as hostility towards Israel. It is even more difficult for him to accept that from the President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun.

The harmonious relationship that united Aoun-Nasrallah has not changed in recent years. At the height of the differences or crisis between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, the relationship did not waver. The seeds of dialogue were always growing between them, even when Minister Gebran Bassil chose to distinguish between tactical files, the ship’s helm would soon return to the mainland, also for the general’s good. When the party went to Syria, it did not request a supportive stance. Aoun secretly supported him and then spoke openly about “preventive war”. He cursed the freedom of relations with Syria, which he did not visit as president, despite his promise to do so, as well as with Iran. As for the position on the Yemen war, all these things would not have worsened the relationship between the two sides and the entrenchment of each of them in their own field was not enough to demolish the pillars of “Mar Mikhael”. But the crisis this time is different. There are, for Hezbollah, issues to which the enforcement law does not apply, nor does it hide behind the fingers. Subjects that do not need explanation of their importance for resistance. Therefore, I am proud of Haret Hreik for the President of the Republic to insist on his position regarding the composition of the negotiating delegation. For Hezbollah, the issue of indirect negotiations is an event that is strategically and temporally interconnected with what is happening in the region. Therefore, caution was required to the utmost not to be exploited by the Americans and the Israelis. The issue is closely related to the work of the resistance, which digs with a needle to fix the equations, and that has cost it blood and martyrs, and it is an issue that affects the same resistance that is being exposed today to the most severe types of siege, pressure and extortion. Michel Aoun’s position was surprising, despite the fact that Bassil has long expanded the margin of distinction in various cases: “those deported to Israel”, the amnesty law, ideological discourse and the promotion of Hezbollah’s departure from Syria. Basilio left a greater margin to the deputies of his bloc insofar as some of them chose the match between resistance and hunger, as did Ziad Aswad. But nobody expected Aoun to insist that the negotiating delegation not be limited to Lebanese army officers, after the enemy flooded his delegation with political and governmental members to give the negotiations a political character, just as nobody expected yesterday a black man would come out and ask, “What’s the problem with direct negotiations with Israel?” ? Of course, Bassil does not have authority over all the representatives of his bloc.

The party has always been reluctant to negotiate with the enemy, and at the same time affirmed that demarcation of the borders is the task of the State, however, the decision to include civilians in the Lebanese delegation is not a simple detail that can be ignored. However, Hezbollah and the Amal movement remained until hours before the first negotiation session in Naqoura, speaking with Aoun directly or via Bassil, advising him not to make this mistake to preserve the technical nature of the negotiations, but Aoun refused. So it was the declaration of dawn. There is no doubt that this step, according to Hezbollah, is a mistake, and there is no doubt that it left an imprint on the leadership of the resistance. Although Haret Hreik still confirms that this decision will not cause a rupture, and that “there is confidence in Aoun and his enthusiasm for sovereignty and economic resources”, what cannot be overlooked is that what happened is the first disagreement about a “strategic” file between the two parties.
It has become clear that Al-Ahed and the movement want to present a new image of themselves, with their tendency to increasingly distinguish themselves from Hezbollah, and achieve what they consider to be in their interest. However, Hizbullah will not announce any “break” with its ally. And he does not want to easily hit the coalition, nor is he a fan of internal disputes that cost the country more crisis.

Negotiations without image
The opening session of the negotiations on the demarcation of the maritime border between Lebanon and “Israel” was held yesterday, surrounded by extreme secrecy, and concluded approximately one hour after its launch, at the headquarters of the United Nations force. “UNIFIL” in Naqoura. The negotiations took place in the presence of the United States Under Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Schenker, who worked to lead the opening session, while his country’s former ambassador to Algeria, John Deroche, acted as a mediator. Naqoura has witnessed the strict security measures taken by the Lebanese army and “UNIFIL” forces, conducting round-the-clock patrols. ” Press here.