The position of Representative Ghassan Hasbani, in which he expressed his refusal to establish a center to shelter the displaced within the borders of the Beirut port, redirected attention towards a clear conflict in dealing with this issue. We previously witnessed a phase characterized by calm and attempts to downplay the importance of the project, followed by another phase that witnessed an escalation in the intensity of objection after the issue became public.
While Hasbani reiterated his rejection of the project, warning of its negative effects on the functioning of the port and the safety of operations, and warning of the danger of interference with truck routes and the container terminal, information is emerging that confirms that this issue did not come suddenly, but rather was known and circulated in the relevant circles before it turned into a topic of public discussion.
Hasbani explained in his statement that establishing a shelter center in this area “negatively affects the movement of the port.” He also pointed out that the site “is not environmentally or health-wise to be a residential area,” warning of random population growth around the port, and the security and logistical problems that may follow at the eastern entrance to the capital.
But this strong speech today raises logical questions: Where was this rejection before the matter was revealed? Why were these concerns not raised at the time, despite their seriousness?
The shift from silence to escalation, after the issue became known to everyone, reflects a political method that relies on keeping up with public opinion instead of taking the initiative, which increases the criticism directed at the duality of positions between managing files in secret, and raising one’s voice after they are exposed.
In the end, the dispute is not limited to the Karantina camp project itself, but extends to the way it is dealt with politically, as the facts show a clear difference between the public statements and what happened behind the scenes.
