The coup against the constitution required external intervention to implement it

Charles Jabbour wrote in “Call of the Nation”:

Some may say that intervention is interference, and trying to beautify it by distinguishing between positive and negative intervention is not correct, as either the Lebanese people are not limited and capable of governing themselves, or they are incapable and always in need of guardianship.

In addition to the fact that the above approach is wrong, unrealistic, and utopian, and stems from the disastrous slogan “All of them means all of them,” it serves, perhaps unintentionally, the expansionist regional projects that use Lebanon as one of their arenas. It is not permissible, in any way, to place positive external intervention in the same position as intervention. Negative externalism, that is, like someone who puts good and evil in one basket, and therefore comparison is not permissible for three basic reasons?

The first reason is failure to implement the constitution:

Would there have been a need for external intervention in the election of the President of the Republic if what the Constitution stipulates had been adhered to in terms of “the House of Representatives meeting to elect a new president at least a month before the end of his term or two months at most”? Certainly not. This text was intended for implementation, not for spectacle and “palate-making.” Any obstructive electoral maneuvers, etc., are supposed to take place within this period, which may not be exceeded in any way. If there is an amendment required to the paragraph related to the presidential elections, it is to shift the election. Within two months, it is mandatory, with penalties for deputies who lose a quorum for their representation.

If Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri had adhered to the rule he set for the last electoral session No. 13, in terms of it being an open session with successive sessions until white smoke emerges, similar to the sessions for electing popes, the president would have been elected in session No. 1 and within the constitutional deadline.

It is not possible to talk about external interference, if the resistance had committed to implementing the constitution and elected the President of the Republic within the constitutional deadline, but its prolonged coup against this constitution and its adherence to its candidate that it was unable to elect necessitated external intervention in implementation of the constitution.

The second reason is the long vacancy period:

It is necessary to remember that the reason for the existence of the “Five-Year Committee” is the presidential vacancy and to help the political forces in achieving the election of a new president. It used all possible “carrot” methods, made rounds of visits and issued statements, and its movement appeared before public opinion as being without blessing, and even harming the Its image is that Iran in Lebanon is stronger than all of them combined.

Did the positive external intervention to elect General Joseph Aoun as President of the Republic occur before the vacancy or after a long period of this vacancy? The answer is known, but what is more important is whether this intervention came to incite a confrontation candidate, or as part of the third option, which was rejected by the resistance because of its insistence on bringing in a candidate from its ranks?

Intervention is often done to favor one party over another, and this was the situation in Lebanon with the intervention of Assad and then Khamenei. Neither Riyadh nor Washington tried to benefit from the change in the strategic balance of power in the region and Lebanon at the expense of resistance to fueling a candidate from the opposing team for this resistance. They insisted on electing a candidate within the third option, and this means that what happened was not an intervention in the interest of one group against another in the style of the oppositionist approach.

The third reason: intervention can only be met with intervention:

The Assad regime would not have held the joints of the Lebanese state had it not been for the international community’s abandonment of Lebanon. Hezbollah would not have inherited from its ally Assad the keys to its control of the deep state had it not been for the failure of the international community to implement international resolutions by force, most notably Resolution 1559. It is not possible for a defenseless Lebanese party to cling to the constitution and the state. To confront a regional state such as the Assad regime and then the Khamenei regime, and it is self-evident that the international community should intervene to prevent the intervention of Assad and Khamenei. In the affairs of Lebanon, this is not an intervention, but rather an implementation of international legitimacy.

Preventing a state from interfering in the affairs of another state is not interference, and preventing coup forces against the constitution by force of illegal weapons from continuing their coup to impose their equations of “either my nominees or the vacancy” is not considered interference. Rather, it is the duty of states concerned for Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence to intervene if against those who He strengthens the muscles of Assad and Khamenei to overthrow the constitution, or against those who strengthen him with his illegal weapons to prevent the election of a president of the republic and keep… Lebanon is an open arena.

International intervention, specifically American and Saudi intervention, has been required for 34 years and not just now, and to push for the election of General Joseph Aoun. It is a sin to place coup intervention against the state and the constitution in the same status as intervention that is in the interest of the state and the constitution.

Since the mid-1960s, Lebanon has suffered from negative external interference in its affairs, and these interventions are not met with wishful thinking, but rather with a request from the international community to exercise its role in positive intervention by confronting negative interference.

Positive external intervention is a required intervention, and it should not at all be a subject of shame for some, but rather declare it openly, and give the coup forces against the constitution and others a choice between implementing the constitution, starting with surrendering their weapons and ending with adherence to the provisions of this constitution, or resorting to positive external muscles. To implement the constitution.

The situation in Lebanon will not stabilize except in one of two cases, not a third: Lebanese awareness at the level of loyalty, belonging, and interest for Lebanon only, and the second case is that the positive external stick is always present to confront expansionist external projects and protect Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.

The Lebanese people have long drank the bitter and bad due to negative external interference in their affairs. The time has come for them to drink the sweet and good with positive external interference in their affairs. The difference is between earth and heaven, that is, between interference that led and is leading to death, poverty, migration, destruction, devastation and failure, and interference that leads. To stability, prosperity and life, and Lebanon will return to the Switzerland of the East.


get mobile application