[ad_1]
Those who follow the political discourse in Lebanon these days will find that history takes an important part of it, as if we were facing a process of reengineering the political consciousness of the current generation, based on the reengineering of the course of history itself, to formulate an architecture of the “past” for the future that everyone claims wants a bright future. . This is what Patriarch Bechara Boutros Al-Rai specifically did in the “active neutrality” memorandum. Al-Ra’i, who visited the enemy entity in 2014, first wanted to show that Lebanon is neutral in formation, and that withdrawal through neutrality is a symptom that will cause big problems within Lebanon that is “neutral in formation. “. The essence of this discourse implies a great concern to preserve this political formation, and to bring future solutions from within. This means, and before discussing the principle of neutrality itself, that this proposition is not a salvific and reformist proposition of conditions, as some try to deceive that. It is a proposal that aims to stabilize and consolidate the Lebanese system as it is. This is a dilemma that must be stopped to expose all this speech that calls for the advancement of Lebanon and its state, but deep down it seeks to undermine all efforts for change.
Patriarch Al-Rahi provided a reductionist historical context. In his opinion, the distinctive mark in the violation of the principle of neutrality appeared and manifested itself with the Cairo Agreement. In the context of his narration, he considered that Gamal Abdel Nasser intended to annex Lebanon to the Egyptian-Syrian unity, and this was a reason for igniting the events of 1958 in Lebanon, after violating the principle of neutrality! There is no doubt that the 1967 catastrophe cast a shadow over the entire Arab region, but the falsification of facts and the implantation of incorrect data in the conscience of a new generation is not just a sin, but a hoax, which of course has its causes.
Before taking a position on neutrality itself, it is necessary to look at some historical milestones that precede and follow the rise of the state of Lebanon, and precede and follow the civil war, and know the nature of this neutrality that the colonialist himself wanted from the beginning, as the pastor says, then turned it into the “nature entity of Lebanon.” An irreplaceable need, as he suggests.
The West paid special attention to Christians in the Middle East, especially as they were the target of many campaigns of displacement and persecution. And because they excelled in the textile trade and silk industry, they were the focus of attention and care for the French, especially as they found a gateway to the Middle East with their support. Thus, between the 1840s and 1860s, the Maronites were able to seize power from the Druze, and then seized the centers of power before France helped divide the region, according to the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”. After the agreement, the French sought to install a loyal Maronite majority in Lebanon, working in their interest with the blessing of the Maronite Patriarchate, which was the escape valve for the French colonialist to further his goal. They also sought to establish an Islamic component that is not linked to the Arab world and that is for them a front against the Arab world. This formula was clearly crystallized in 1943, when Muslims agreed to give up the idea of joining Syria, and Christians agreed to abandon the idea of French protection. Thus, neutrality seemed to be the idea of ”abandonment”, which remained a utopian idea all along, because Lebanon was not established on well-known foundations upon which states were adopted, and did not emerge as a child of a specific social contract that paves the way for the idea of abandonment. Rather, it was an entity inherited from the mandate phase. And to speak of “inheritance” means to speak of an extension in time of what is inherited, which means that the formula of renouncing the covenant has never been reflected on the ground in the absence of the attraction of Christians to the West and of the Muslims towards their Arab environment. Rather, the attraction increased after the ignition of the desire for security that was threatened by the Israeli occupation of Palestine. . When the issue is related to safety, tensions and “attractions” return to their former times. The same attractions have generated Lebanese crises that continue to multiply and will continue to multiply over time, in the light of the Lebanese entity you are my state, and in the presence of an occupied Zionist entity that works day and night, and contributes to the fragmentation of the entire region and to the prevention of the emergence of real states, without the emergence of complete national proposals according to the interest. The general public and the confrontation with the usurping entity. In fact, it worked to reinforce any proposals for incomplete confrontation, so that they could sneak through the door of the incompleteness inherent in it to invest in it and present it as a deficiency that represents a danger to the Arabs before Israel.
The neutrality project is not a salvation for Lebanon, as it is a project of salvation and perpetuation of the Lebanese authority and the damaged Lebanese entity.
In any case, the events continued … Then came the tripartite aggression against Egypt, after the nationalization of the Suez Canal. On the Lebanese front, and since 1956, President Camille Chamoun, the Christian, refused to cut diplomatic relations with Western countries attacking Egypt, and then announced his rapprochement with the pro-Western “Baghdad Pact.” This was not a neutral decision, of course, given that the concept of neutrality in international law prohibits the state from joining military alliances or establishing military bases, while Chamoun joined the Eisenhower project in 1957, which supplemented the “Baghdad Pact. “. Then there were the events of 1958 … and thus impartiality was violated, not as described by the Pastor, who repeatedly emphasized the Cairo Agreement as a reason to violate it, and therefore as a reason for the subsequent invasion. The Patriarch, journalist Nadim Qutaish, preceded him in a tweet on Twitter on the occasion of Liberation Day, in which he said: “On May 25 we must stop falsifying history. Without resistance, there would be no occupation. This is reality and not the other way around. If it weren’t for the Palestinian resistance and the historical sin called the vice Cairo Agreement, there would be no occupation, neither in 1978 nor in 1982 ». This is the logic that Patriarch Al-Ra’i said in particular, and that after this media campaign it tickles the unconscious of many of the current generation, which seems to be preparing or pretending to be an extension of the war generation. Here’s the kicker, and here’s the ruse. The need to refocus on the details of past events and the importance of inviting everyone, including media professionals and social media influencers, to have extensive knowledge of the story, before taking a quick position on any issue raised.
That Patriarch Al-Ra’i intends to take the Cairo Accord as the Faysal story and the basis for all violations of the principle of neutrality is not strange for a Maronite patriarch. The Maronite Patriarchate basically hides in its conscience what was said by the Pastor, since it arises from a cautious mentality with the Islamic tide, as well as from the victim mentality due to the fact that the displacement that followed the Christians formed a collective self that he is aware of himself as a victim. These two mindsets, when unconsciously constitute a specific identity, automatically form a reductionist, discretionary consciousness, if not a conspiracy consciousness. This awareness will depend on mechanisms that necessarily exclude or marginalize the causes before any reaction. It is a consciousness that will transform all Islamic reactions into actions, so how is it possible that the Maronites in Lebanon in particular consider that they are the founders of this country, as if their antecedents imply the Christian origin of Lebanon and therefore , the Islamic “rise” of it?
However, when talking about Israel (action) and the principle of resistance (reaction), it is important for everyone to remember that the Zionist entity is nothing more than an entity built on ideological foundations. Its ideology makes Zionist expansion in Arab countries and regions a matter of principle, not accidental, final, or instrumental. It is an objective that can be seen, in its ideological and ideological dimension, very clearly, in the letters from Ben-Gurion that he wrote to his wife, and he is carrying out his activities at all levels so that the Zionist project succeed in establishing the racist state in the land of Palestine. By the way, they are messages that were considered a record of the activity of the Zionist movement at that time. And he had written in his letter, October 5, 1937: “I have no doubt that our army will be among the best in the world, and then we will be able to install ourselves in all other countries, either by agreement with our Arab neighbors or by any medium. Others “.
It is noteworthy that in the book “The Lebanese Labyrinth” by Israeli writer Raufin Erlich, the latter provides detailed data on the relationship between the Zionist movement and the parties within the Lebanese interior, between the years 1918 and 1958, in the way that Throughout these years, Israeli ambitions and efforts to acquire land and Lebanese complicities appear. Bodies within the Lebanese state to achieve this objective. So someone talks about Abdel Nasser violating neutrality!
Lebanon’s sovereignty was violated throughout the period prior to the Cairo Agreement. But the pastor insists on presenting a story with a reductionist look that comes close to the hostile narrative. He chronicled the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, beginning in 1978, thus discarding all the written and lived history of previous Israeli attacks on Lebanon and its airport, and specifically in the south, and the murders that took place above all. .
In short: this project of neutrality, with its many names, is nothing more than a superficial and shorthand view of goodwill and an imitation of a Zionist narrative for its bad guys. It is not a salvation for Lebanon as much as it is a project of salvation and perpetuation of the Lebanese authority, and of the damaged Lebanese entity … and consequently, salvation for Israel itself, because any damage in our country is a service to the Zionist project. Neutrality is nothing more than a cunning ruse, but has become a slogan that first seduces young people who aspire to change in Lebanon, in light of the ignorance of the tools of this change, and the ease with which this means cheating by implanting false data and marketing it in a framework that does not serve them as much as the authority itself. Project neutrality is a profound power ruse and a survival ruse.
* Lebanese writer
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
