Dialogue on weapons is a coup against the constitution

Saeed Malik wrote in “Call of the homeland”: When we say that Lebanon is of complete sovereignty, it means that Lebanon is the one who monopolizes the inventory of the tools of power, in order to be able to take its functions in preserving security and protecting the country and the citizen.

The merely stipulates that the constitution stipulates that Lebanon is a sovereign state, meaning that the legitimate forces in the state are the ones who have an inventory of the validity of carrying weapons without other parties.
From here the National Accord Document came, as well as the discourse of the division and the ministerial statement that unanimously agreed on the inevitability of collecting weapons and restricting it in the hands of the Lebanese state.
Last Sunday, the follow -up circles were surprised by the speech of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, which called for dialogue regarding weapons, and with regard to the development of a defensive strategy that protects the country according to his description …
Consequently, the call to dialogue regarding weapons is considered a coup against the constitution, the embodiment of the provisions of the first article of it, and to strike the concept of national sovereignty.
National sovereignty is considered one of the non -discussion or dialogue. There is no state without sovereignty, nor sovereignty without monopolizing weapons in its hands.
It confirms that President Berri’s call for dialogue regarding weapons is not straightforward. Where it was required for the president to adhere to government decisions, the National Accord Document, the discourse of the division and the ministerial statement.
The state does not arise without sovereignty, and sovereignty is considered one of the Muslim women. And the monopoly of weapons is one of its most important manifestations. And the demand for dialogue on the mandates is rejected.
Brigadier General Nizar Abdel -Qader wrote in “Major General”: President Nabih Berri’s speech came on the 47th anniversary of the absence of Imam Musa al -Sadr and his two companions in disappointment with the hopes of the Lebanese and the expectations of external powers, as he preferred to preserve his position in the Shiite duo as a basic part of the authority’s entity.
In his speech, President Berri presented a vision that combines an exclusive weapon decision taken in the cabinet and research in the national security strategy, and what means referring the issue to a national dialogue and thus paralyzing the mechanism of the cabinet decision in its next session after the army leadership submitted its implementation plans, according to a time calendar, which achieves the will of the executive authority and enjoys consent and Arab and international support and achieve the hopes of the Lebanese.
In his speech, President Berri ignored his responsibility as President of the Parliament and the duties that consequently to direct the executive authority, monitor it and correct its mistakes, preferring to stay in his political and sectarian position as head of the Amal movement and as a basic party in the Shiite duo. He rushed to say that President Berri also ignored all the changes that occurred on the regional and internal scenes. The Middle East is no longer the same as it was in 1983 and 1984. All internal equations have changed, as have changed the balance of regional and international powers, and they relax their results and their weights on the Lebanese internal conditions and on Lebanon’s relations with its neighbor Syria and Israel.