That is the conclusion I had reached with my comrade and companion, Dr. Mohamad Chatah, before he was assassinated. I openly expressed this “dangerous” opinion in a dialogue moderated by Marcel Ghanem on LBCI the day before my dear friend Mohamad was buried.
But what does a friendly divorce with Hezbollah mean? At the time, it became clear to Mohamad (but it had been clear to me since 2005) that being part of governments that include Hezbollah and discussing a “defense strategy” with it are of no use. Indeed, it gives the party the cover of Lebanese legitimacy for free while the party does what it wants without taking the others’ opinion into consideration, thereby pushing Lebanon in the direction of becoming a province of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
A friendly divorce with Hezbollah also implied leaving it alone responsible for its actions and launching an inclusive, peaceful and sovereignist movement that calls for liberating Lebanon from the Iranian occupation imposed through Hezbollah (though we should keep in mind that the party is an integral part of the Islamic Republic of Iran) and implementing the segments of UN Resolution 1559 regarding militias handing in their weapons.
The March 14 alliance had refused to have the United Nations implement this Resolution in 2005, arguing that this would endanger national unity and that the Lebanese would manage to achieve this themselves through calm dialogue with Hezbollah (roundtable on a defense strategy that led to the War of 2006 and Hezbollah disregarding the Baabda Declaration when it was issued on 11-6-2012).
This approach taken by March 14 spoke to its main components’ thirst for power after they had been deprived of it following the 2005 elections and the formation of the Quadripartite Agreement (Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, the Progressive Socialist Party, and the Future Movement) as well as some of those who had taken part in Qornet Shahwan.
During the eulogy he gave on the day Mohamad was buried, former Prime Minister Fouad Saniora announced that positions would change after the assassination. However, shortly before the burial and during the funeral, he warned me that my discourse was dangerous. I replied that I had been speaking what the deceased had been on the deceased’s mind and that I felt that I owed it to him to launch a new phase after his assassination.
Nevertheless, a totally opposite stance was taken by the Future Movement, appointing Tammam Salam prime minister and amazing us with its theory of managing the dispute with Hezbollah by appointing radical ministers (here I am referring to Nohad Mashnouk and Ashraf Rifi), as well as another ridiculous theory of dissociation.
This theory brought us Najib Mikati’s second government (a March 8 government) after Hezbollah and its subordinates theatrically toppled Saad Hariri’s government on January 12, 2011, and Hariri went into voluntary exile. That was a new occasion for returning to power by acquiescing to Hezbollah once again instead of learning their lesson and not making excuses about the need to follow a “realistic” policy on the party. They chose to refrain from taking a stance to save Lebanon from the worst.
Worst of all, the crumbling components of the March 14 alliance went even further, electing Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s primary Christian ally, president of the republic under the pretext that the presidential vacuum had been hurting the country. In truth, however, it was lust for power that compelled this decision. As a result, Saad Hariri formed two governments, the second of which collapsed with his decision to resign and evade responsibility on October 29, 2019, following the October 17 revolution. The weakened components of the March 14 alliance gave in to a proportional electoral law that granted Hezbollah a parliamentary majority in 2018, with Iran describing the Lebanese parliament as a parliament of resistance.
The truth is that since then, Hezbollah has controlled the country’s three constitutional institutions (presidency, parliament and the government), as well as controlling other state institutions and dominating the rotten, murderous and corrupt political class in all its components, as they are all playing under the statelet’s authoritarian rules.
It is not surprising that things have gotten so bad in Lebanon, and it is not surprising to see the Gulf states rise up against this state of affairs in Lebanon, as it undermines their strategic interests.
The solution is forming a broad, credible sovereignist alliance for peaceful change that works to save the country from Iranian occupation and the disastrous political class deeply entrenched in Lebanon’s socio-political structure, opening the door to a phase of recovery in which sovereignist youths can change Lebanon and lead it to the shores of security, stability, and sustainable prosperity.
