[ad_1]
Munir Al-Rabee` wrote in Al-Modon: The era of mutual interest between Hezbollah and the Aounist movement is over. What now unites them is a kind of blaming and maintaining the alliance, nothing more. But it is an alliance that is fracturing more and more, in multiple accounts and files, that have emerged in succession since their great disagreement on the demarcation of borders and to deal with US pressure and sanctions.
The finished alliance of mutual interests
The supposed social harmony between the two parties is subject to rupture and explosion: Christians cannot continue to live under the sword of sanctions and lose their achievements in the foundations of the Lebanese system. While Hezbollah and its followers complain about the exhausting blackmail that the Aounist movement has practiced for many years.
When the Mar Mikhael Understanding was finalized in 2006, the signs of discord between Sunnis and Shiites had not yet appeared clearly throughout the region. The division was limited to Lebanon only, in one way. Hezbollah needed a Christian ally and the Aounist movement needed a supporter in order to extract gains in the power structure.
These circumstances are currently changing. His change is now evident in the different views of Hezbollah and the Aounists regarding the appointment of Saad Hariri to lead the government. In light of this development, the Aounist movement threatens its tendency to change the “stinking and rotten” constitution, or go beyond federalism, in case the expanded administrative and financial decentralization is not approved.
This is the logic used by the Aounists when they refused to consult, under the pretext of the letter, or according to what was leaked by the Republican Palace sources that Hariri would not have obtained the votes of the deputies of Mount Lebanon.
Is Aounism a Burden for an American-Shiite Agreement?
The Aounist movement and Gebran Bassil became a burden on everyone. Previously, Hezbollah needed them and gave them cover to confront Nabih Berri. Today that has completely changed. This is what the Shiite duo and Saad Hariri meet.
The most prominent signs of this are the meeting of the two parties on parliamentary consultations and the formation of the government. While there are those who believe that the characteristics of a Shiite-American agreement will emerge in Lebanon. His characteristics may seem more if Joe Biden wins the US presidential election.
On the other hand, there are Sunni Arab agreements with Israel. This requires a kind of localized meeting between Shiites and Sunnis, especially since Hariri has always considered Hezbollah’s power to have its regional coverage.
In the context of these changes, there are those who believe that the Aounist movement is losing many of its local cards, and will no longer be able to be commercialized, neither with Hezbollah after their disagreement on the border demarcation negotiations, nor with the Sunnis after his dispute with Hariri reached the stage of defiance, personal character and cancellation.
Does Aoun obey his brother-in-law and postpone consultations?
That is why Basil is committed to providing foreign credentials. Hezbollah may be willing to continue its alliance with Aoun for the remaining two years of his reign. As for after the end of the Aounist era, each incident has a modernity.
The words of a member of the Aounist bloc that he wants direct negotiations with Israel, which will set up a big problem between the Aounists and Hezbollah in the future.
If Bassil had not had the signature of the President of the Republic and his powers to determine the dates of the consultations, the consultations would not have been postponed, in search of new concessions that would bring profits to Bassil. This is in line with the rule that the Shiite duo with Hariri followed, and the pattern that Walid Jumblatt followed and achieved what he wanted.
Bassil says that he will force Hariri to make the concession he wants from him, because he is the owner of the largest parliamentary bloc, and what applies to him applies to the rest of the blocs. But Hariri insisted on his initiative and his nomination.
Here the question arises: To what extent can Aoun postpone the consultations? What will your local and regional image look like if you disable the rights as a shot in the eyes of your brother-in-law? Do you repeat your previous position years ago, when you were head of the Change and Reform Block, and say: “In the eyes of the general’s son-in-law, a government is not formed?”
And if Hariri keeps running and insists on making no concessions to Basil, it means that the pact is burning and losing more and more.
The article expresses the opinion of its author and is not necessarily the policy of the site.
[ad_2]