As the United States and Arabs are trying to convince Lebanon on the importance of state - and not Hezbollah – control over weapons and without imposing sanctions, the party continues to procrastinate with flimsy excuses, despite the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel.
In contrast, the new Syria is trying to lift the sanctions originally imposed on the fallen regime that committed crimes against Syrians for fourteen years. It is calling on the international community to cooperate in revealing the chemical weapons of Assad’s regime, without anyone heeding in Washington.
The paradox is that Lebanon, despite all the support it receives, remains stuck in Hezbollah’s maneuvering. The party claims it is ready to hand over its arms if Israel withdraws from several points in Lebanese territories. But this is hard to believe due to the party’s lies and the government's claim that disarmament requires a national dialogue.
We all know that the idea of national dialogue has been around for years without any tangible results. It is always followed by more crises, not to mention that the concept of dialogue in Lebanon is merely a way to escape solutions.
However, in the new Syria, which has existed for less than five months since Assad’s fall, a constitutional declaration has been issued, and a government has been formed, despite the ongoing unjustified sanctions and the blatant internal and external sabotage efforts.
On top of all this, the new Syria continues to suffer while trying to open up to its surroundings and the international community. It faces incitement from certain so-called “elites” in Lebanon and Iraq under the pretense of protecting minorities, with some in the West, especially in Washington, echoing the same rhetoric.
I say “rhetoric” because, despite the overwhelming dominance of Hezbollah’s weapons, the West continues to court Lebanon, sending delegation after delegation. In Iraq, there are around 50,000 Iran-backed fighters, yet the relationship remains normal with no talk of minorities or majorities, just like in Lebanon.
But Syria faces one obstacle after another. For example, Hezbollah says handing over its arms hinges on Israeli withdrawal, while Syria says it is exhausted and wants no wars. Yet Israeli attacks on Syria continue without any international stance.
Syria is being asked to remove foreigners from key positions, especially fighters, which is a demand of the Syrians themselves, but in Lebanon, support continues without anyone confirming that institutions are truly under state control and not secretly under Hezbollah, or its shadow operatives.
Is this an incitement against Lebanon? Absolutely not. It is rather a question: why are we wasting time trying to convince a side that refuses to acknowledge the changing realities, while ignoring another that is striving for change, seeking to bring back its displaced citizens, who were victims of Assad’s and Hezbollah’s crimes - backed by Iran- and whose stability could be key to undermining the Iranian project?
Why are we ignoring Syria that says, “I’m exhausted by war; I want peace and stability,” and dismissing a Syrian leadership that tells you it has changed and is seeking reform? And here, the issue should not be judged by words but by actions.
Why is someone who wants to build a state being ignored, while a sectarian quota system, one that only brought misfortune to Iraq and Lebanon, is being imposed on him? And why engage with those who still believe they can outrun reality?
Another question: what kind of model is really being pursued for the region after the so-called “arm-breaking” strategy?
Is there an answer?!
