The “current” and “forces” contacts do not establish a bilateral rapprochement

Caroline Akoum wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat:

The two Christian political rivals, the “Lebanese Forces” party and the “Free Patriotic Movement,” are meeting at the current stage, in the context of two frameworks, namely the Presidency of the Republic and the “Bkerke Meetings,” without this meaning that contacts between them will necessarily lead to a bilateral agreement for reasons related to the difference. In approaching major issues between them.

A member of the “Al-Tayyar” bloc, MP Charbel Maroun, was quoted as saying in a radio interview that “there are under-the-table contacts” between them, which he denied to Asharq Al-Awsat, speaking about “declared and unannounced contacts,” linking their results to the course of the meetings and what goes on during them. Meanwhile, the media and communication official in the “Forces” Party, Charles Jabour, believes that it is not possible to talk about a bilateral rapprochement, but rather a rapprochement, if it happens, between the “current” and the opposition, and not just between the “current” and the “forces.”

On the other hand, he refuses to talk about “under-the-table communications,” describing this expression as “booby, rejected, and incorrect.”

Maroun told Asharq Al-Awsat: “Communication exists constantly between the two parties, as with most parliamentary blocs, and this is not a secret to anyone, and we always seek to extend a hand and dialogue. Not out of begging. But to bring points of view closer together.”

In response to the “Forces’” condition for rapprochement with the opposition, which they set by demanding that “the Movement” disarm Hezbollah, Maroun says: “Whoever wants dialogue does not set conditions, but rather assumes that the dialogue will begin, and in light of its path the results will be determined.” Either things remain as they are or an understanding is reached that is entirely linked to what will take place in this dialogue.”

For his part, Jabour explained to Asharq Al-Awsat: “The meeting between the two parties today is based on two lines without a third, which is the intersection within the opposition over the nomination of former Minister Jihad Azour and the coordination committee that is far from the limelight in preparation for a national document in the Maronite Patriarchate that reflects the position of the Lebanese and their will to establish a state.” In fact, there are no weapons outside the Lebanese state.”

He points out that “the second intersection was embodied through the opposition agreement, and not a bilateral agreement, on the nomination of former Minister Jihad Azour,” stressing that “the intersection must serve the national and presidential public interest to be translated presidentially and nationally, and if (the movement) reaches the acknowledgment that The party is the cause of the main crisis in Lebanon, and addressing the crisis begins by handing over weapons. This is a good thing, and then it will have moved to an understanding with the opposition and not just with (the forces).”

Knowing that the two parties had concluded an agreement in 2016, which was called the “Maarab Agreement,” which then led to the election of Michel Aoun as President of the Republic, but the accumulated disagreements over several issues, especially the “current” alliance with “Hezbollah,” led to its complete overthrow. ultimate.

At this stage, meetings will be held in Bkerke, bringing together representatives of Christian leaders and parties, in a “national initiative” as a first stage, after which the dialogue will expand to include all spiritual leaders, Lebanese political authorities, and living societal forces as a second stage, as the Maronite Patriarchate announced.

While stressing that “Christian-Christian dialogue is necessary,” Representative Charbel Maroun had said in a radio interview that “there are communications between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces on several issues, and the meeting in Bkerke put all the issues on the table.” .

He said, “The document that will be issued from the meetings in Bkerke will be a national document that reflects the conditions of this country and the protection of its people,” stressing that it “does not aim at sectarian division in the country, but rather at consensus among all Lebanese parties.”

Waiting for the outcome of the meetings in Kirke, which did not succeed in bringing together the Christian leaders but were limited to their representatives, some of whom are from the ranks of representatives and others in the capacity of advisors, this initiative is receiving a response from several parties, not just Christians, especially in light of the blockage of the horizon of presidential eligibility and the failure of all attempts. And the initiatives to create a breach so far.

In this context, the representative of the “Progressive Socialist” Party, Bilal Abdullah, welcomed the meeting with Bkerke, “who is keen on the survival of Lebanon and the protection of its people,” supporting “the efforts that aim to get Lebanon out of the political and living impasse,” hoping that “it will expand and take on a greater national character.” .

He stressed that “the serious conversation required is not to disrupt the election sessions and to expedite the end of the presidential vacancy,” pointing out that “communication between the Democratic Meeting Bloc and all the blocs is ongoing in the hope of completing this entitlement.”