“Lebanon Debate”
In direct follow-up to the developments witnessed around the Palace of Justice in Beirut, and in light of the escalating tensions and internal division, a large security deployment was recorded coinciding with calls for corresponding protest movements, which reinforced fears that the situation would slide towards further tension.
In this context, information from “Lebanon Debate” reported that the security forces, from the Lebanese Army and Army Intelligence, in addition to the Information and State Security Division, imposed strict measures around the Palace of Justice, in anticipation of any popular gatherings, especially after the calls that spread through social media.
What was striking was the statement of the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities, which confirmed that the parties organizing these demonstrations or vigils had not applied for a license in accordance with the legal procedures of the Beirut Governorate, which prompted the Ministry to prevent any gatherings in the place, in a step described as aiming to contain any potential tension.
According to the data, there were calls for two opposite movements: the first supportive of Hezbollah’s policy and rejecting what was considered a mockery of Sheikh Naim Qassem, and the second supportive of the “LBCI” channel and rejecting any insult directed at Patriarch Al-Rahi. However, private sources told RED TV that representatives from the Hezbollah bloc contacted the organizers of the movement, asking them to postpone it, and this request was responded to, especially after the Interior Ministry’s decision was issued.
In this context, the data confirm that no popular gatherings will be recorded in the vicinity of the Palace of Justice, whether by Hezbollah or any other party, while the security measures taken remain of a precautionary nature, in light of the sensitivity of the stage.
On the legal level, lawyer Sharif Al-Husseini, one of the plaintiffs in the discriminatory lawsuit before the Public Prosecution against the management of the “LBCI” channel, explained in an interview with “RED TV” that the lawsuit is based on accusations of inciting sectarian strife and disrupting civil peace, in addition to violating applicable laws.
He stressed that the issue “is not related to a specific person, but rather to a religious symbolism that has a wide audience in Lebanon and abroad,” stressing that freedom of media and expression remains a basic value, but it “stands at the limits of respect for religious beliefs and symbols,” warning that any irresponsible media treatment may reflect negatively on internal stability.
On the other hand, human rights activist and lawyer Kamel Safa stressed, in an interview with “RED TV,” that the current circumstance does not tolerate any escalation, considering that calls for demonstrations by two opposing parties “constitute a serious danger at this sensitive stage.”
Safa said that Lebanon was standing on the verge of dangerous tension, and it was necessary for all parties to exercise the highest levels of responsibility and avoid any steps that might push towards division, noting that “putting the Lebanese people in front of opposing options may reproduce scenes from the civil war.”
He concluded by affirming that a large segment of the Lebanese reject this sharp alignment and adhere to preserving civil peace, calling for the adoption of an inclusive discourse that reduces tension instead of inflaming it, at a time when internal stability remains an urgent national priority.
