The Christian movement … a lost compass amid differences!

The Christian movement lives in Lebanon at the moment of unprecedented political loss, as it finds itself besieged between contradictory options that do not allow him to luxury of clear lineup. The Christian powers that have long presented themselves spear on the confrontation with Hizbullah, today seem unable to take a decisive position between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, after the dispute between them flared up against the background of the scene of the rock of the Raouche, which revealed the depth of the rift in the state institutions.
Against the background of the lighting of the Rawsha Rock with pictures of leaders from “Hizbullah”, the dispute between Presidents Nawaf Salam and Joseph Aoun exploded, as Salam read a direct challenge in the step that necessitated a political escalation and strict measures, while Aoun preferred to adopt a different approach, in which he stressed the priority of civil peace and to fortify the role of security institutions from any targeting. This contrast was not a passing detail, but rather clearly showed the distance between two opposing approaches: an approach that tends to the open confrontation with the “party”, and another approach that seeks to keep the internal balance existing, even at the expense of raising the political ceiling. And between these two options, the Christian forces found themselves in the heart of a real dilemma, as they realize that joining a peace speech means practically entering into a confrontation with the presidency and what it represents a Christian, while the bias towards Aoun’s position that places it in the field Unrelevable in one speech. On the one hand, it is not possible to tend to be from peace, as his escalating speech towards the “Hezbollah” weapon expresses the mood that these forces fueled in their political and media discourse for years, and any retreat from it will be understood as a concession or weakness in a moment of confrontation. On the other hand, she cannot go with him until the end, because that means entering into a direct confrontation with the President of the Republic, with the Christian cover that still is still a significant balance factor. Between these two rituals, the dilemma of the Christian powers was exposed as it is: it does not have the ability to go with peace in his open battle, and she does not have the audacity to keep up with the president in his cautious speech, so its political presence appeared to be suspended between a speech that he cannot fully embrace and a choice that you cannot disavow it publicly. The confrontation with “Hizbullah”, but the dilemma it faces today lies in how to manage this speech at the media level, linking the explosive discounts between Presidents Aoun and Salam, which I put in an unfamiliar site. Peace goes to the extreme of raising the ceiling and confronting the “party” unabated, while Aoun offers a different approach that tries to adhere to the margin of internal stability. Consequently, the Christian powers may find themselves, with the exacerbation of the dispute between the two parties, without a clear compass, swinging between a extremist discourse that raises the ceiling and the inability to turn it into a coherent political act, while its positions remain embarrassed, which may be reflected directly on its media and political performance. Not in the relationship with the presidency exclusively, but in the inability to formulate a clear strategic line that keeps pace with major transformations. Between the flow of peace and the accounts of President Aoun, the Christian forces live in a deep loss that will pay for their political and popular balance, unless they can resolve their choice and clearly locate their location in this open confrontation.