[ad_1]
3 hours ago
Perhaps French President Emmanuel Macron’s feeling that he was the betrayed was behind his accusation by the Lebanese political class of committing “collective treason” when Mustafa Adib’s efforts to form the government were thwarted, thus abandoning a leaf. French route that these politicians had promised Macron during his second visit to Beirut. It is clear that the Elysee did not advance this initiative, during two successive visits, in terms of strengthening the historical relations between France and Lebanon, but also because improving Macron’s popularity in France was an objective directly related to his obtaining exceptional popularity. among the Lebanese, and therefore success or failure was laying the reputation of the president. In Game.
It is also clear that the hardening of Macron’s attack on Hezbollah in particular was the result of disappointment, as well as a sense of betrayal, as the French president ventured during his two visits to Beirut to grapple with the party’s political face in terms of his parliamentary bloc, apparently betting on the promises made by the party representative in the meetings. Pine Palace. Macron forgot that the center of Hezbollah’s decision is not in Beirut but in Tehran, and that the political, security, military and financial equations of the party’s existence do not serve his agendas in the Lebanese arena in the first place. As long as Iran continues to engage in a comprehensive confrontation with the current US administration, the obstruction in Lebanon is part of the regional combat game with Washington, and Tehran will not calm its intensity in a desire for solidarity with the Lebanese people and their miseries.
Macron also forgets that the overwhelming majority of Lebanese politicians are linked to external Arab and regional parties, and so it was not surprising that the French president criticized a French ally, such as Saad Hariri, in the context of the latter’s inclusion. of a sectarian element in the efforts to form a government, as if Macron ignored the nature of Hariri’s external ties and that he personally intervened with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, to end his detention in Riyadh . While the French president denied using Iranian mediation to pressure Hezbollah to facilitate the formation of the government, all indications pointed to the Iranian and Saudi workers being at the center of Mustafa Adeeb’s failure and his apology for the eventual formation. .
However, the most important core of intractability does not lie, of course, in Paris, or in any regional or international capital, in the importance of Lebanon’s external ties. Rather, it stands at the heart of a corrupt political class insofar as it is powerless and brief as it is willing to betray the hopes of the Lebanese people or face their pain, even after a great catastrophe, such as the explosion of the Beirut port, culminating in a series of tragedies of corruption, high prices, a decline in the national currency, a decline in services, poor living conditions and the absence of the state.
Macron was not wrong when he expressed his sense of shame towards these politicians, nor was he wrong, of course, in declaring France’s continued solidarity with the Lebanese and keeping the French roadmap on the table, but perhaps his inherent and persistent mistake. it is to give the Lebanese political class an additional opportunity to form a government of salvation powers, as if the lessons failed. Mustafa Adeeb and Hassan Diab before him are not enough to judge the maximum that these political leaders can offer, corrupt, failures and accomplices in the transformation of Lebanon into a state of irreversible and permanent collapse.
