The formation of a Lebanese government has been postponed another week. Various parties that had been eagerly awaiting a breakthrough are growing increasingly concerned.
There were several indications suggesting that Lebanon would imminently exit the long tunnel of its crisis. This optimism emerged after the presidential vacuum was filled with the election of the army commander, General Joseph Aoun, and his candid and clearly defined inaugural address. However, it has begun to dissipate as signs that "the status quo would be maintained" began to appear during the government formation process.
This sentiment was affirmed by the demands of parliamentary blocs, first and foremost the "Shiite duo" of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, which insists on two demands: first, naming the finance minister, and second, including a clause that legitimizes the role of "the resistance" - Hezbollah - in the new government’s statement.
The presidential inauguration speech had firmly committed to sovereignty and the state’s exclusive right to bear arms. Despite attempts to obstruct the designation of the sovereigntist’ candidate Judge Dr. Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister, he was eventually appointed.
However, the process that followed did not progress as had been hoped. The obstruction has been driven by the duo's insistence on its demands, which are grounded in the claim that demanding they relinquish their "political rights" is an attempt to exploit the prevailing climate in Lebanon and the region following the Gaza war, the Israeli war on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the subsequent collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.
It is well known that the narratives of Hamas and Hezbollah - to say nothing about their regional patron, Iran - claim that the Resistance Axis was “victorious” despite the immense suffering in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as the strategic blow to the "Axis." Those claiming these "victories" and promoting this delusion assume that no patriotic and sincere Arab could rejoice at their brethren’s defeat at the hands of the enemy.
Thus, gloating or exploiting the catastrophe is untenable.
However, true brotherhood, as well as our mutual interests and shared goals, requires honesty without blame and advice without arrogance. Despite being overwhelmed by feelings of pain, I gloat nor feel vindicated. Nonetheless, I sincerely urge our brothers in Hamas and Hezbollah to show some humility and abandon their denial of reality.
Simply put, we are all in the same boat. We face the same shared existential threats in a world that is changing at an astonishing pace.
Amid the ongoing crises that threaten to stall Lebanon's path to becoming a free, sovereign, and independent nation, I would like to say the following with regard to Hezbollah:
Any fair-minded person familiar with Lebanon's history would acknowledge the profound injustices suffered by the Lebanese Shiite community. Indeed, the Shiites in Lebanon were marginalized for centuries, starting in the late Abbasid period. This injustice continued and aggravated under the Ayyubids, Mamluks and Ottomans.
Even after the end of World War I in 1920, when Ottoman rule in the Near East, including Lebanon, was brought to an end, the French Mandate perpetuated the marginalization of the Shiite community in "Greater Lebanon." Moreover, the Shiite feudal class also fueled the marginalization of Shiite peasant communities in southern Lebanon, the clannish nature of the Bekaa Valley left most of the Shiites there marginalized both socially and geographically.
The Shiites of the South would go on to suffer more than any other Lebanese community following the 1969 Cairo Agreement that granted Palestinian guerilla forces the freedom to operate in the South.
Thus, when the "Shiites of 1920 Lebanon" demand "compensation" of their fellow Lebanese for their prolonged marginalization and deprivation, they are right to do so!
When they demand that the state recognize their historical role and presence in the national curriculum, they are absolutely correct.
However, the problem is that since the 1990 Taif Agreement - and even earlier, with the growing hegemony of the Syrian regime over Lebanon after emboldened by the Khomeinist Revolution in Iran - Lebanese Shiites have been given everything they had been denied in both the distant and recent past. As of 2003, they have been the primary religious-sectarian player in the country.
Currently in Lebanon, only the Shiite community is represented in parliament by two parties - one religious and the other sectarian - that have a strategic alliance and form a single sectarian bloc. It is the only bloc that enjoys the privilege of bearing arms, which has been a cornerstone of its dominance over its community. At the same time, the Shiite community shares power and positions with other sects.
Today, the legislative authority is allocated to Shiites (the Speaker of Parliament). Nevertheless, the Shiite duo insists on monopolizing the ministry of finance, whose signature is required to authorize government spending, alongside the President of the Republic (a Maronite Christian) and the Prime Minister (a Sunni Muslim). This grants the Shiite community alone decisive influence in both the executive (the President and Prime Minister) and legislative (the Speaker of Parliament) branches.
They are also the only armed sect - the only ones to bear arms that are not controlled by the state, if not outright illegitimate. Through this arsenal, Hezbollah has established a "state within the state."
Accordingly, it must be said that nations cannot be built on injustice, and marginalization cannot be remedied by another form of marginalization. Common threats cannot be addressed by a society divided against itself, where some permit themselves to do what they deny others.
Protecting all components of the nation is the responsibility of the entire nation. That can only happen with the framework of a unified nation-state.
