Lebanese criticism of Hezbollah's position on arms monopoly

A Lebanese ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the country is facing a historic moment that requires Hezbollah to unite politically under the umbrella of the three presidents: Joseph Aoun, Nabih Berri, and Nawaf Salam. They are awaiting a response from Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and the US president’s special envoy to Syria, to their response to the ideas he put forward to help Lebanon establish an implementation mechanism for the ceasefire agreement with Israel. Barrack should do so instead of standing out from them by issuing positions that do not serve the unity of the Lebanese position and provide pretexts for Israel to continue its attacks.

The source noted that Hezbollah has committed a series of unnecessary blunders since the three presidents, Barak, submitted their responses to his ideas. The source noted that former minister Mahmoud Qamati, a member of the party's political council, said that Hezbollah has rebuilt its military capabilities. He argued that this provides a pretext for local and international parties to demand the party's disarmament and allows Israel to exploit the party to continue its aggression under the pretext that it is preventing it from reconstructing its military infrastructure.

The ministerial source asked: Where does the party's interest lie behind what Qamati said? Was he compelled to obfuscate the three presidents' responses to Barak's ideas? The presidents' responses included their commitment to the exclusive possession of weapons by the state, and their demand that Washington provide guarantees, starting with the establishment of a ceasefire, in exchange for their willingness to discuss everything contained in the agreement drawn up by the United States, in partnership with France. Lebanon, unlike Israel, has adhered to this agreement.

The source also asked: "Does Qamati's statement contribute to strengthening the Lebanese position, or does it provide Israel with a pretext to continue its attacks? How will the three presidents respond to his statement, given that he had previously threatened to cut off anyone who reached for Hezbollah's weapons?"

Weapon exclusivity

The ministerial source questioned the timing chosen by Qamati, who said the party had begun to regain its military capabilities. The party's deputy official for the Bekaa region, Sheikh Faisal Shukr, followed suit with a harsher stance, which amounted to a direct threat to "take the lives" of those demanding the party's disarmament. The source asked: Doesn't this constitute a circumvention of the three presidents' support for arms exclusivity, in compliance with their oath of office and the ministerial statement of Nawaf Salam's government, in which the party is represented by two ministers who have never previously expressed reservations about arms exclusivity?

He pointed out that the statements made by Qamati and Shukr do not serve the party's readiness, through its Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, to engage in political action that includes political and partisan forces at odds with it, and through this, it hopes to normalize its relationship, even from a position of disagreement.

Berri is uncomfortable with Hezbollah's threats.

The source emphasized that the party has no interest in separating itself from its ally, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who, according to prominent parliamentary sources, was uneasy about the threat issued by Sheikh Shukr, nor about the developments in the south, with the UNIFIL forces being blocked from conducting patrols without Lebanese army escort.

Speaker Berri, reading the same book as President of the Republic General Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in their unified response to Barak, is aware of the magnitude of the dangers facing the country. He insists on not entering into a dispute with Hezbollah so that he can support it in engaging in the state project based on its commitment to the exclusivity of arms, in exchange for providing American guarantees to compel Israel to cease fire and withdraw from southern Lebanon in stages, in implementation of Resolution 1701, according to the same sources.

The sources added that Berri's insistence on surrounding Hezbollah and not leaving it alone requires the latter to reduce the level of tension that controls his political discourse. It also requires him to stand behind the state in its diplomatic option to liberate the south, instead of preempting the parliamentary session designated to discuss the government and hold it accountable for its actions since its formation by offering a series of "free services" - in the political sense of the word - to his opponents, which would constitute rich material for them to corner him.

Party involvement in discussions

In this context, the ministerial source believed that Hezbollah had participated in preparing the three presidents' response by communicating with Berri and keeping up with the discussions that took place within the committee formed to prepare the Lebanese response. He said that the party has no interest in buying time and threatening, from time to time, that its patience and readiness to respond to Israeli violations are running out, as long as its leadership is still in the process of reorganizing its internal affairs and assessing the reasons that led to Israel's assassination of its most prominent political and military leaders.

The source emphasized that time is not in the interest of either Lebanon or Hezbollah, which is supposed to abandon its stubbornness, taking into account the transformations witnessed in the region and Lebanon, which were behind the shift in the balance of power with the decline of the influence of the axis of resistance and Iran's forced withdrawal in defense of the regime. He said that Hezbollah has no choice but to join the state project, pointing out, at the same time, that Barak, by warning Lebanon that failure to act in a timely manner would return it to "the Levant," intended to pressure the government and urge it to resolve its position by unanimously supporting the monopoly of arms, as this is a mandatory path to its salvation. He argued that time is not in its interest, and that the opportunity available to it to extricate the country from the crisis is not open. Therefore, it is necessary to stop taking Hezbollah into account instead of being subject to the interests of the majority of the Lebanese, who hold it responsible for the destruction that befell Lebanon by its unilateral support for Gaza without referring to the state, which is the authority that decides peace and war.