In a remarkable political stance, House Speaker Nabih Berri summarized his position on the Washington Agreement by saying: “As if nothing had happened,” in a clear indication of his refusal to deal with the agreement as a fait accompli or an implementable path without a clear national consensus.
Berri’s position comes in light of the escalation of internal debate over the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel under American sponsorship, and the related security and political arrangements that are supposed to affect the south, the mechanism of deployment and withdrawal, and the role of the Lebanese army in the next stage.
The phrase “as if nothing had happened” carries a direct political connotation, as it reflects the Council President’s adherence to his position of rejecting any agreement that does not preserve Lebanon’s rights or transgress national constants, especially with regard to the Israeli withdrawal mechanism, guaranteeing Lebanese sovereignty, and not imposing security conditions unilaterally.
Berri previously considered, according to what was reported from him, that the framework agreement signed in Washington “will not be implemented” and that it does not preserve Lebanon’s rights, in a position that reflects the extent of the objection within Ain al-Tineh to the path that led to the agreement. He had also described the Washington negotiations statement earlier as a “hybrid and booby-trapped agreement,” against the backdrop of the provisions related to the ceasefire and the arrangements south of the Litani.
Berri’s positions go beyond the limits of fleeting political objection, as they come at a sensitive moment in which the agreement enters a stage of internal testing, between those who see it as an entry point to rearrange the security situation in the south, and those who see it as an attempt to impose new realities on Lebanon under the title of executive arrangements.
Thus, Berri’s position places the agreement in front of a fundamental political obstacle, especially since any executive path requires broad national cover and internal understanding that prevents the agreement from turning from a framework of calm into an additional factor of division within the country.
In light of the continuing ambiguity around the security attaché and implementation mechanisms, Berri’s statement appears as a clear message that, for Ain al-Tineh, the Washington agreement has not turned into a final Lebanese commitment, and that dealing with it will be based on re-discussing its content and not accepting its results.
