“Lebanon Debate”
In light of the expected visit of French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot to Qatar on Monday, Lebanon’s files, especially the ceasefire and support for the Lebanese army, top the agenda of talks with the Qatari side, at a time when international contacts are intensifying regarding the Lebanese political and military track.
In this context, writer and political analyst Ali Hamadeh confirmed in an interview with “Lebanon Debate” that “the issue of the army is considered a fundamental issue at this stage, in light of the resurfacing of the issue of disarming Hezbollah, and it is an issue on the agenda of the Lebanese state, the international community and the Arab community. Whatever Hezbollah’s approach to this issue, this item remains constantly on the table, and it is a major item on the various national, regional and international agendas.”
He points out that “there is no retreat from the government decisions issued on August 5 and 7, as well as on March 2, and together these decisions constitute introductions and legal foundations for the path of disarming Hezbollah. Whether the party fights or does not fight, defends or does not defend, and considers itself in a position of resistance or otherwise, this remains within its own narrative, while the Lebanese state is not concerned with this narrative.”
He points out that “the main point today is to support the Lebanese army, and it is noteworthy that at the beginning of this year, a visit was made by army leaders to Paris, followed by meetings with representatives of the countries concerned with the Lebanese file within the five-member committee (France, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt), where meetings were held in Paris during the month of December to learn about the needs of the army and the necessities of developing its capabilities, enabling it to carry out the mission of spreading over the entire Lebanese territory, and extending the state’s sovereignty alone over its entire territory, Weapons were restricted to the state only, without any partner, and it was agreed that day to hold a conference in Paris on March 5, but on February 28 war broke out in the region and then the war expanded in Lebanon, which led to the conference being temporarily abandoned.”
He explains, “Today, Lebanon is returning to a negotiating track in Washington with Israel, through the American mediator, with the aim of reaching permanent agreements and understandings of a security and military nature, which contributes to addressing the existing problems between the two countries. In this context, the issue of peace or normalization does not arise. Rather, the talk is about reaching a state of stability or normal peace between two neighboring countries, even in the absence of diplomatic or normal relations between them.”
He stresses that “the primary goal is to end the war and turn the page between Lebanon and Israel, and this path practically weakens the narrative of the so-called “resistance” and “the axis of the arenas” or “the unity of the arenas.” Therefore, the continuation of Hezbollah’s weapons is unjustified. Accordingly, the path of disarming Hezbollah is put forward in an advanced manner, and it is considered that the primary gateway to this is to strengthen the Lebanese army. From here comes the return to supporting the military establishment through a conference that was previously scheduled for March 5, where France and Qatar have shown interest in this path, and Qatar recently received the army commander, and the discussion was focused on strengthening the capabilities of the military institution.”
He believes that “Qatar, as a coordinator within a group of Gulf partners, plays a role in this framework, along with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Kuwait, while Doha undertakes part of the direct coordination in the file of support for the Lebanese army, and the American role is also highlighted as the primary supporter of the Lebanese army.”
Hamadeh concludes by saying, “It is inevitable to address the issue of Hezbollah’s complete disarmament, in light of the presence of regional, international, Arab, and Lebanese consensus on this topic, in exchange for the party’s rejection of this path as an extension of Iran, which Tehran also rejects. However, there is no alternative to that, because the continuation of this weapon did not prevent Israeli attacks and did not achieve political or military goals. Rather, it reflected negatively on the reality in the south, where the escalation expanded to deep areas of the south, and therefore, the narrative “Resistance” remains, from his point of view, a fallen narrative.
