The government’s plan: to protect the party or make it hostage

George Solag wrote in the newspaper “Al-Gomhoria”: The deal has spoken to Lebanon an internal strife, but it suspended the state’s decision on the thread of American-Iranian negotiations and the balances of Israel. ” What happened in the Lebanese government session on the fifth of September was not just a passing meeting, not even a traditional sovereign decision. What happened is the result of a delicate deal that was woven with secret threads between the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun and the Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, its first and last goal: preventing the transfer of the dispute with Israel to an internal sedition between the army and “Hizbah”, or to the Saddam of Ahli that Lebanon does not have the luxury of its possibility. This deal brought the party and the government out of their two migrations, and put everyone in front of a new equation: an existing decision in form … and commented practically. The army’s plan to translate the government’s decision to limit weapons with its hand alone was attracted to the withdrawal of Israel from the south, without any time period. In a clearer phrase, the implementation is postponed to another notice. The army adhered to the decision, but under the roof of a non -collision with Hizbullah, in the absence of a balance in number and equipment, and in the absence of guarantees with a simultaneous withdrawal from the Israeli side. The party came out comfortably from the session. He did not reject the legitimacy of the government, but he practically suspended any implementation that affects his weapon. The deal allowed him to say that it is part of the internal understanding, without making real concessions. The result: the weapon remained where it is, suspended on an external condition that is difficult to investigate. The Lebanese deal has spoken the country, an internal sedition, and the decision has been kept, but in essence, it deported it to an unnecessary period. This means that Lebanon has entered into a strategic suspension stage: the decision exists, the implementation is postponed, the future depends on what will happen between Washington and Tehran, and what Israel will decide on the borders. The most dangerous question remains: Does this path “Hizban” pushes later, and under the pressure of international and regional balances, to hand over its weapon voluntarily within a major settlement that preserves the unity of the state? Or does it leave the field open to Israel to impose a solution by force, when you see that the time has come?