Representative Major General Jamil Al-Sayyid opened a new political confrontation with the official process of the framework agreement, relying on an article by the Presidential Advisor, Jean Aziz, to raise a series of questions about the feasibility of the agreement and the mechanism of its management, leading to the request of the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, to review it and call for a comprehensive national dialogue.
In his post on the “X” platform, Al-Sayed referred to an English-language article published by Aziz at a think tank affiliated with New York University under the title: “Do not let the peace agreement in Lebanon prove that Hezbollah was right.” He pointed out that the title carries an implicit message to the American side demanding “serious gains” for Lebanon against Israel, to prevent the party from investing politically in any possible failure on the path.
Al-Sayed believed that the article included points that were “worthy of attention,” most notably what he described as an implicit criticism of the results of the framework agreement that linked the Israeli withdrawal to a test of confrontation between the Lebanese army and the resistance, citing what recently happened in the town of Deir Mimas. It also stopped at Aziz’s acknowledgment of Hezbollah’s rootedness in its military, ideological, developmental, and pastoral environment in the absence of the state, and his conclusion of the impossibility of reducing the party’s cause merely by disarming it, or making it a precondition for the deployment of the army, the return of the displaced, and the launch of the reconstruction workshop.
Al-Sayyed criticized Aziz’s refusal, according to his reading, for putting Lebanon and its army before renewed tests with every stage of Israeli withdrawal, so that Lebanon is required to prove its worth in confronting the resistance in exchange for every partial withdrawal step.
In his political context, Al-Sayyed attacked the timing of presenting these ideas, questioning the reasons for their absence from the pre-negotiations and signing stages, and considering that Lebanon has become, as he put it, “begging” for American and international assistance to remedy the repercussions of the agreement.
Al-Sayyid renewed his criticism of the constitutional mechanism through which the agreement was concluded, noting that it was concluded in isolation from the constitution and the principles of parliamentary oversight, and recalling his previous positions that warned of the failure of the entire process, the last of which was his warning under the dome of Parliament against not presenting the agreement to the Parliament and its violation of constitutional constants.
Al-Sayyed concluded by considering what was proposed by the Presidential Advisor to be “an implicit admission of the Lebanese mistake,” ruling out that Washington’s request for assistance would be of any benefit in correcting the course, given that this intersects with American neglect related to the ongoing wars in the region.
Al-Sayyid concluded by warning of the country sliding into “popular chaos” in light of the worsening living crises and the rise in fees and taxes, directing a direct call to the President of the Republic to reconsider the current path and launch a comprehensive and frank national dialogue to correct the accumulated mistakes.
