– Walid Khoury
In light of the extremely complex Lebanese situation, the speech of the head of the Marada Movement, Suleiman Franjieh, came as a different vision, carrying within it a realistic view of politics, and deep concern for the future of a country that once again faces imminent danger.
What Franjieh stated in his interview with colleague Imad Marmel in “Al-Jumhuriya” is not just a passing political position, but rather an attempt to redirect the course in a time of loss, especially with regard to four main points that deserve scrutiny:
First: a clear warning against slipping into internal strife. In a country that suffered from the scourge of civil wars and is still paying the price for them today, this warning was not just a detail, because Franjieh realizes that the danger is no longer limited to the borders, but also lies at home, where a sharp word or inflammatory speech can ignite the fuse of something more dangerous than missiles.
Second: approach peace with realistic logic. At a time when some voices were rising calling for a rapid move towards settlements or agreements, his position was clear about the need to follow the example of the Arab countries, as Lebanon cannot precede its Arab surroundings in the peace process with Israel, linking Lebanon to its Arab depth, refusing to be the weaker party that rushes towards a free peace without guarantees, or to be dragged into settlements that might strip it of its strength.
Third: The call for dialogue, which represents the only way to salvation. In the face of all this escalation, Franjieh saw that dialogue was the best solution to address controversial issues, most notably the issue of weapons, because he knew full well that any attempt to impose solutions by force would only lead to an internal explosion. Therefore, there is a need for national consensus and confidence-building, because Lebanon, by its nature, can only be governed by consensus and protected only by partnership.
Fourth: An advanced position characterized by boldness and wisdom. Franjieh did not go along with the prevailing Christian mood, nor did he coordinate behind populism. Rather, he adhered to resistance in the face of occupation, and at the same time called for confining weapons to a capable state. The head of the Marada Movement balanced national constants with the requirements of reality at a moment of tension, reflecting a different vision worth thinking about.
However, it seems that some people were upset by the audacity of this position, so they quickly cut parts of his speech and extracted certain headlines from him to direct arrows of criticism at him, ignoring the entire context of the conversation. This is an inherent problem in Lebanese political life, where any position becomes an object of contention, rather than being considered part of a broader national debate.
At a time when the voice of incitement and betrayal is rising, Franjieh’s voice seemed closer to a cry of fear for the homeland. Lebanon today needs not only positions, but this type of vision that seeks to unite and not divide, to warn rather than incite, and to open the door to dialogue instead of closing it.
It may be legitimate to disagree with him, but ignoring or distorting what he said represents an additional loss in a country that can no longer bear any more losses.
