The Aounist Movement 15 years after the understanding with Hezbollah: We have not managed to build the state

Beirut – “Al-Quds Al-Arabi”: The 15th anniversary of the signing of the Mar Mikhael Understanding between the head of the Free Patriotic Movement at that time, General Michel Aoun and the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was the occasion for various readings on this understanding and the extent of its importance to Lebanon and its stability or the extent to which it was established to destabilize the idea of ​​the State, its dissolution and control of its decision.

It should be noted that the Political Council of the Free Patriotic Movement saw in the anniversary of the signing of the understanding “an occasion to examine this understanding”, considering that “Lebanon saved the evils of sedition and division and protected it from external aggressions, deterring Israel and repelling terrorism, but did not succeed in the project of building the state and the rule of law.

He stressed: “Developing this understanding to open up new horizons and hopes for the Lebanese is a condition for its viability, as it is no longer necessary if those committed to it are unsuccessful in the battle for state building and the honorable Lebanese victory over the alliance of the corrupt, which destroys any resistance or struggle. “

It is not the first time that the movement speaks of the failure of understanding in the project of construction of the State, rather, the head of the movement, Gebran Bassil, spoke of the matter about two years ago. Apart from this idea, despite its importance, the movement saw no other damage to Mar Mikhael’s understanding, such as releasing the hand of Hezbollah. Rather, some of the supporters of the Aounist movement went far in praising this understanding, which stood at a time when all understandings and alliances fell apart except him. And of what they wrote, “15 years, which is the focus of national life, in support or opposition, and a date of encounter and peace. There is no memory of separation and war and the celebration of a document that is renewed and new old concepts.

On the other hand, the former leaders of the movement criticized the document of understanding, and the political writer Elias Zoghbi considered, “15 years ago, that movement did not realize that the failure in the understanding of Mar Mikhael is the liberation of weapons. of Hezbollah, and the seriousness of what Article 10 stipulates (protecting Lebanon and bearing arms is a sacred means of Sharifa) and Uthman’s shirt is not state-building. He asked: “Has it not been confirmed after those responsible for the movement and its time that there will be neither establishment nor construction of a state that will dominate its decision and sovereignty by a militia? Isn’t a decade and a half enough to preach? When will they leave the darkness of wandering, wandering and the tunnel of deception? “

The head of the Movement for Change, Elie Mahfoud Al-Tayyar, recalled his book on Hezbollah, which states: After the Israeli withdrawal, the legitimacy of its armed action diminished, it created a crisis at the national and international level, putting Lebanon in the face of of international law, threatens national unity. Their weapons are what the problem of their armed presence poses.

Criticism from Lebanese Forces officials was no less severe, as MP Imad Wakim described the February 6 agreement as “a sinister understanding and an alliance of interests with weapons and intimidation.” He said: “No one believes that Hezbollah’s strength is the result of its weapons, but rather the cover of the Aounist movement, especially that it is Christian.”

Armed forces activist Pierre Nassar saw the opposite results of the understanding and said: “You understood the Lebanese resistance and the result was the Iranian possession of Lebanon. You made a deal with the weapons and bypassed the hostages. You covered the murders, you understood the construction of a state, then you ruled us with the corruption of the country. “

In front of civil society activist Sarah Assaf, he summed up the bottom line of understanding by saying: “The current took the presidency and the party took the republic.”