عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Sanctions on Bassil Mark Shift in Christian Political Scene in Lebanon

FPM leader MP Gebran Bassil. (AP)
FPM leader MP Gebran Bassil. (AP)
TT
TT

Sanctions on Bassil Mark Shift in Christian Political Scene in Lebanon

FPM leader MP Gebran Bassil. (AP)
FPM leader MP Gebran Bassil. (AP)

The United States’ sanctions against leader of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) MP Gebran Bassil mark a turning point in the Christian political scene in Lebanon.

The FPM boasts the largest parliamentary bloc, but the sanctions are set to undermine this power after Bassil was accused of corruption. The sanctions will likely bring to halt the forward momentum the FPM has enjoyed in recent years, creating a shift in Christian power in the country.

Bassil is President Michel Aoun’s son-in-law and a former minister of energy and foreign affairs.

Rivals of the FPM have alleged that ever since Aoun came to office in 2016, the share of the movement – which he founded – in ministries and in the public sector has doubled. This has allowed the FPM to enter the so-called “deep state” in Lebanon.

It has appointed its supporters in state positions, never denying that the country’s system allows this form of clientelism and division of quotas.

The October 17, 2019 popular protests, whom Bassil was a virulent target of their chants, rose up against such corrupt practices.

Openly, Christian forces dismissed the sanctions and attempted to separate them from internal Lebanese affairs. The FPM rivals, however, believe that the first immediate repercussions of the sanctions will see the movement “loosening its grip” on Christian quotas.

Secretary of the Lebanese Forces’ Strong Republic bloc Fadi Karam said the impact of the US move will not only have an immediate impact on Bassil’s authority within the state, but on his political future.

It will also impact the role of the current authority, which is dominated by the FPM and its allies.

The sanctions may pave the way for the collapse of this ruling authority, including the FPM, which agreed to several settlements in order to secure cover for illegal dealings, corruption and clientelism in appointments, Karam told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The use of state institutions for personal gain can no longer continue, he said.

“The October 17 revolution, our opposition to this authority and the foreign sanctions will act as a unified front that can confront” the illegal practices, he remarked.

Observers believe the sanctions, by reining in Bassil, have restored some form of balance in the Christian political scene.

“The Christians are now against the ruling authority, which Bassil is a part of,” said Karam, adding that the LF now enjoys the greatest support among Christians.

“We are not seeking to be part of this authority, which we believe is already a failure,” he said.

In contrast to the LF, political researcher, Dr. Toufic al-Hindi, believed that Bassil made gains by choosing to keep his alliance with Hezbollah when asked by the Americans to choose between their incentives and the party.

“Bassil elected to remain with a strong ally in Lebanon and this will reap him major benefits, especially since Hezbollah only has this one Christian ally, which happens to have the parliamentary majority at the moment,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“The party derives its power from its possession of weapons. This in turn allowed it to impose its authority over the state. It has managed to maintain this power even during US President Donald Trump’s tenure,” remarked Hindi, who is a former member of the LF and an opponent of Bassil.

Contrary to expectations, Hindi said that Bassil has not lost his chances of becoming president. This issue, however, is linked to international developments.

He lamented the state of “decay” in Lebanon amid the “weak Christian front”, saying this has left the country with no choice but to be placed under “international tutelage.”

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

After Pressing an Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire, the Biden Administration Shifts Its Message

An Israeli mobile artillery unit fires a shell from northern Israel towards Lebanon, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024. (AP)
An Israeli mobile artillery unit fires a shell from northern Israel towards Lebanon, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024. (AP)
TT
TT

After Pressing an Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire, the Biden Administration Shifts Its Message

An Israeli mobile artillery unit fires a shell from northern Israel towards Lebanon, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024. (AP)
An Israeli mobile artillery unit fires a shell from northern Israel towards Lebanon, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024. (AP)

The Biden administration says there is a significant difference between Israeli actions that have expanded its war against the Iranian-backed armed groups Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran’s retaliatory missile attack against Israel, which it condemned as escalatory.

In carefully calibrated remarks, officials across the administration are defending the surge in attacks by Israel against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, while still pressing for peace and vowing retribution after Iran fired about 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on Tuesday.

President Joe Biden praised the US and Israel militaries for defeating the barrage and warned, “Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully supportive of Israel.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the Iranian missile attack “totally unacceptable, and the entire world should condemn it.”

There was little criticism that Israel may have provoked Iran's assault. "Obviously, this is a significant escalation by Iran,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

Just a week after calling urgently for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah to avoid the possibility of all-out war in the Middle East, the administration has shifted its message as Israel presses ahead with ground incursions in Lebanon following a massive airstrike Friday in Beirut that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Abbas Nilforushan.

US officials stress that they have repeatedly come out in support of Israel’s right to defend itself and that any change in their language only reflects evolving conditions on the ground. And, officials say the administration’s goal — a ceasefire — has remained constant.

The US has been quick to praise and defend Israel for a series of recent strikes killing Hezbollah leaders. In contrast to its repeated criticism of Israel's war in Gaza that has killed civilians, the US has taken a different tack on strikes that targeted Nasrallah and others but also may have killed innocent people.

At the Pentagon, Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder made it clear that while the US is still “laser focused” on preventing a wider conflict in the Middle East, he carved out broad leeway for Israel to keep going after Hezbollah to protect itself.

“We understand and support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah,” Ryder said. “We understand that part of that is dismantling some of the attack infrastructure that Hezbollah has built along the border.”

He said the US is going to consult with Israel as it conducts limited operations against Hezbollah positions along the border “that can be used to threaten Israeli citizens.” The goal, he said, is to allow citizens on both sides of the border to return to their homes.

Part of the ongoing discussions that the US will have with Israel, Ryder said, will focus on making sure there’s an understanding about potential “mission creep” that could lead to tensions to escalate even further.

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Tuesday that Israel’s targeting of senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders as well as its initiation of ground incursions into Lebanon are justified because they were done in self-defense.

“If you look at the actions that they have taken, they were bringing terrorists to justice, terrorists who have launched attacks on Israeli civilians,” Miller said.

By contrast, he said that Iran’s response was dangerous and escalatory because it was done in support of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are US-designated terrorist organizations that Iran funds and supports.

“What you saw (was) Iran launching a state-on-state attack to protect and defend the terrorist groups that it built, nurtured and controlled,” Miller said. “So there is a difference between the actions.”

The full-throated defense of Israel, however, may come with risks. So far, there is little evidence that the Biden administration's push for a ceasefire and warnings of broadening the conflict have had much impact on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In commentary Monday, Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that US influence on Netanyahu seems to be waning and that he “seems to have blown by US cautions about starting a regional war.”

The White House must “worry that a sustained inability to make diplomatic progress weakens US influence in the Middle East and around the world,” Alterman said, adding that “Netanyahu’s assurance that the United States will stand by Israel in any circumstance emboldens Israel to take more risks than it otherwise would.”