Lebanon needs anti-hatred body more than anti-corruption body

21 Oct 2021

By Sejean Azzi

@AzziSejean

(See Translation in Arabic Section)

A country with a civil war at its door is not a viable country. A people in which every generation is subjected to the temptation of blood must search for another destiny. A society that goes against the movement of progress and history is pronounced by the present and the future.

A centralised system that periodically produces turmoil is not an appropriate system. A state that does not protect its people is a failed state; pluralism that lacks a parallel civilization and a culture of peace is a source of seasonal fighting. Components that are not in solidarity with each other do not respect the axioms of feeling with the other partner.

The events of October 14, the speech of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and the ambiguous, volatile and slanderous positions that followed, awakened these old/new facts, and confirmed, once again, the impossibility of survival in the shadow of a centralised state.

I never imagined that Sayyed Nasrallah would threaten Lebanese Christians with the same hostile logic that threatens Israel. He threatens Israel with 100,000 missiles and Christians with 100,000 fighters. The problem is the unification of the land and its divided people; the tragedy is the division of the national land due to the division of the people for non-national reasons.

Instead of the progress in time being a progress in the consolidation of the state of Lebanon, the last one. Instead of adversity being an example, sealing our wars with red wax, it remained open and we mastered its reproduction. Strange is this country, which was born for the word and does not resort only to weapons, and it was established for harmony, and it became a well of grudges. We need an anti-hatred body more than an anti-corruption body.

New crises are not a solution to crises, fighting is not a solution to conflicts, patience is not a solution to chronic disparity, flight forward is not a solution to problems, threats are not a solution among the people of the country, and compromises of submission are not settlements... A little political audacity gives us a lot of patriotic comfort. In constitutional law, there are 100,000 constitutional formulas that will replace 100,000 fighters. But if some justify themselves by controlling all of Lebanon, our answer is resistance, not division. If, like us, he aspires to modernize the system, our answer is a demilitarized dialogue. Equality in negotiation between the sons of the homeland is the basis for success. All dialogue tables held under the shadow of arms have failed since 1975 until today, whether the weapons were Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian or Israeli. Dialogue in the shadow of arms is surrender, and its result is victorious and defeated. We are neither conquered nor of the submissive race.

We are the sons of a historical resistance for a free, pluralistic and democratic Lebanon. And because we are children of resistance, we know the meaning of life and the pain of death, and we seek peace and brotherhood. Therefore, building a modern and peaceful state was the project of Christians since they assumed a political role in this East. They bet on the state at the time of the Islamic caliphate, even though it considered them “dhimmis,” and in the time of the Emirate of Mountain despite their “second” role, and in the Mutasarrifiya system with their advanced role, and in the era of Greater Lebanon with their leading role. We do not like wars for the strong, and we do not fear them for the weak, because our ambition is peace with others, and because the element of our immunity is the same in our strength and weakness, which is faith in God, Lebanon and man.

Hence, we advise those who want change and control by military force not to take the path of fighting, for fighting between the Lebanese was never in the interest of the combatants, nor did the results of wars always reflect the balance of power. Except for the will of steadfastness and resistance, red lines, drawn up in advance or later for all our wars, prevented a final resolution and led to Arab, regional, international or international military intervention. Except for the will of steadfastness and resistance, red lines, drawn up in advance or later for all our wars, prevented a final resolution and led to Arab, regional, international or internationalist military intervention.

The fighting of the Druze and the Christians in 1860 allowed the French military entry. The 1958 revolution opened the way for the Marines to land on the shores of Lebanon. The two-year war of 1975/1976 brought the coming of Syrian and Arab forces. The Palestinian military action in southern Lebanon resulted in the invasion of Israel and the arrival of international forces in 1978. The resistance of the Lebanese forces, the Syrians and the Palestinians, between 1978 and 1982 led to the Israeli invasion. The Israeli invasion of 1982 immediately brought multinational forces into Beirut. The 2006 war brought in the international forces with enhanced powers and in additional numbers through Resolution 1701, which halted the Israeli advance against Hezbollah. The Israeli invasion of 1982 immediately brought multinational forces into Beirut. The 2006 war brought in the international forces with enhanced powers and in additional numbers through Resolution 1701, which halted the Israeli advance against Hezbollah.

Today, if one of the Lebanese parties thinks that the arena is left to them because Lebanon is litigated and legitimized, and it does not fall within the priorities of the major friendly countries, he will be surprised by the return of international attention to him as soon as there are confrontations, especially the Iranians, if they are part of the ordinary military project in Lebanon. Therefore, in a positive spirit, we call on Hezbollah not to commit any adventure, especially since the events of October 14 showed that its strength in southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen is not spent in Lebanon. Hezbollah's weapons are not according to Lebanon's standards, and Lebanon is not based on Hezbollah's project. Lebanon, according to the Lebanese, who made this country a land of violence, creativity and brotherhood.

Let's meet, all of us, in a state free of grudges, modern, peaceful and united within its sovereignty, independence and impartiality. Let's take refuge in legitimacy away from the language of weapons. Lebanon has a surplus of violence; it does not need more of it, and a surplus of foreign interventions that does not need additional occupations.

Violence was, and still is, synonymous with destruction, not victory.