The “Friends of Lebanon” statement angers “Hezbollah”

Hezbollah launched an attack on the statement issued by the embassies of the “Friends of Lebanon” countries, namely the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, Canada, and Japan, which stipulated that weapons must be exclusively in the hands of the state, and that it alone be the decision maker in matters of war and peace. In this regard, it called for a public commitment from all members of the House of Representatives and all parties. It also addressed the issue of the Dahr al-Baydar explosives, calling for “a quick and independent judicial process, free from any political interference, to ensure full accountability.”

A diplomatic source told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The statement aims to reaffirm our positions in support of the government’s efforts to consolidate the state’s sovereignty and the exclusivity of weapons in its hands.”

Official Lebanon did not agree with the statement, as an official Lebanese source told Asharq Al-Awsat, pointing out that “in any case, it is completely consistent with the recent positions of the Presidents of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, and the government, Nawaf Salam, related to the necessity of not involving Lebanon in the conflicts of the region, and it comes at a time when there is increasing fear of (Hezbollah) engaging in a possible future war against Iran.”

Hezbollah's position

It seemed clear that this statement aroused the ire of Hezbollah, and a member of its parliamentary bloc, MP Ali Ammar, said that the statement “expresses the height of arrogance and insolence, as it blatantly dares to interfere in the most minute details of Lebanese internal affairs, without any regard for Lebanon’s sovereignty, the independence of its judiciary, diplomatic principles, or the dignity of the Lebanese people, reaching the point of interfering in deciding their national choices and imposing political trends on them.”

Ammar stressed, in a statement, that “the Lebanese authority’s continuation of ignoring these repeated interventions and dealing with them as if they were a normal and common matter is completely rejected and condemned,” considering that “it would have been better for these countries, which falsely claim to be friendly to Lebanon and keen to support it, to come together to issue a statement rejecting the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands, and condemning the daily attacks on Lebanese sovereignty, the crimes of murder, destruction and displacement, and the continued violation of the agreements.” and international resolutions, and to call for national dialogue and understanding among the Lebanese, instead of contributing to fueling divisions, stirring up strife among them, and defending their enemies.”

A message to the Lebanese authority

Representative Dr. Michel Douaihy believes that the international statement “is directed to the Lebanese authority to take action on the issue of weapons, and to support the decisions it has taken with executive steps,” pointing out in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat that “Lebanon has not missed the train yet, and can still catch it through actual steps by the authority, and by changing its current behavior.”

Regarding the international interest in the Dahr al-Baydar explosives file, Douaihy points out that “what can be confirmed is that it is no longer possible to address an issue of this magnitude, especially after a representative from (Hezbollah) came out to adopt the explosives and demand their return, which requires that there be judicial decisions, arrests, and trials. We are not satisfied with arresting those who were transporting these explosives.”

The contradiction between the American and French positions

It was noteworthy that the statement of the five countries did not include France and Germany, which are closely following the Lebanese issue, and the director of the Middle East Institute for Strategic Affairs, Dr. Sami Nader, explained this by saying that “the countries that signed the statement are all in the orbit of the United States of America, and they are demanding practical steps regarding the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons and rejecting the saying that this might lead to a civil war, in contrast to the understanding that France was leading, in terms of that the state is unable to go further on this issue, through... The army, in the face of Hezbollah, leads to an internal explosion.”

Nader considered, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, that “American logic is completely against this trend, and believes that there is a minimum that is supposed to be done, with regard to the party’s weapons file, and that the arguments presented by the Lebanese state are no longer justified, but rather constitute a cover for (Hezbollah),” adding: “Even the French themselves have begun to retreat from their previous position under the pressure of diplomacy and are losing their presence and influence in Lebanon for the benefit of other countries.”

Despite the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Bafel Talabani, announcing its withdrawal from the regional government (northern Iraq), a leader in the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by Masoud Barzani, revealed contacts between the two parties and representatives of other political forces with the aim of reaching solutions to the current crisis.

There are political signs in the region of a return to the separation of the two administrations between the two rival parties in Kurdistan, as part of the reactions that escalated following the convening of the region’s parliament last Wednesday, for the first time since its election nearly two years ago, and it was able to elect a presidential body despite the absence of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which saw the step as unilateral and calling for rejection.

In the elections held in October 2024, the Kurdistan Democratic Party topped the results with 39 seats in the Kurdistan Regional Parliament, followed by the National Union in second place with 23 seats, before it allied with the New Generation Party, which won 15 seats, with the aim of balancing the balance in the negotiations to form the government with its historical rival.

On Thursday evening, the head of the “Union,” Bafel Talabani, announced that “they do not recognize the parliament session and are withdrawing from the government,” while the “Kurdistan Democratic Party” confirmed, after it was held, that “it does not represent a victory for one party or a defeat for another, but rather it is a victory for the people of Kurdistan as a whole,” as he put it.

The parties of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the New Generation Movement, the Islamic Union, the National Position Movement, and the Kurdistan Justice Group had previously confirmed their non-participation in the session.

In a televised speech, Talabani hinted at the formation of a separate administration in Sulaymaniyah, saying: If they appoint a prime minister, we will appoint a prime minister here. If they choose a minister, we will choose a minister here. Adding: “They started this matter... and I will end it.”

The head of the Democratic Party, Masoud Barzani, sent a message after the parliament session was held, calling on “the political parties that did not participate in the resumption of parliament to join its work and participate in its upcoming sessions, and to work jointly in order to serve the people of Kurdistan, support the political process, and contribute to the completion of its subsequent steps.”

Local media quoted Vala Farid, the new president of the Kurdistan Parliament, as saying, “Reactivating the council is a necessary step to protect the constitutional entity of the Kurdistan region, and it is not directed against any force or political party.”

The union leaves government offices

But the Union is proceeding with its withdrawal decision announced by Talabani. Party leader Mahmoud Khoshnaw told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The first step will be for the party’s representatives to withdraw from their government offices on the first working day of this week, Sunday.”

Khoshnaw spoke about what he described as the “negative repercussions” of the parliament’s outcomes, which he believed would “give justifications for external forces to intervene,” stressing that “(the Union) may move toward greater steps that may lead to the possibility of administrative independence for Sulaymaniyah from Erbil.”

On the other hand, the Kurdistan Democratic Party does not believe that holding a parliament session entails a violation. The leader of the party, Dajwar Faiq, said, “The Kurdistan Parliament held its first session two years after the elections were held, in the presence of 52 deputies from multiple blocs, parties, and components. This ensures the quorum required to hold the session.”

Faiq explained in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, “The Democratic Party, as the biggest winner in the elections, wanted effective participation from the National Union and other parties, and waited nearly two years to convince everyone to participate, but the National Union and other forces did not participate despite holding many meetings and negotiations with them.”

Faiq confirmed that “the next session of Parliament will be held next Monday in order to elect the legal committee and open the door for candidacy for the position of president of the region.”

Quorum race

Apparently, the silent dispute between the two parties throughout the past period revolved around who would first obtain a quorum to hold the session. The leader of the National Union, Mahmoud Khoshnaw, believes that his party was able to take the same step and gather the required quorum from its allies to hold the session, but it did not seek this step. Because, as he says, “he wanted everyone to participate and reach a solution through negotiation.”

Khoshnaw continued, “The Kurdistan region is not managed by the equation of seats only, but by principles and seats together, which say that all influential forces that express the people of Kurdistan must participate in governance.”

But Djawar Faiq confirmed that the National Union had been trying for two years to reach a quorum with the New Generation Party to hold a session and form a government, but his attempts were not successful. He said: “If they had the ability to complete a quorum, they would not hesitate to hold the session and form the government by removing the (Democratic Party).”

The "Union" and "New Generation" alliance, which have 38 seats out of the 100 seats that make up the Kurdistan Regional Parliament, demanded half of the government formation, which is rejected by the "Democrat", which says that the seats of other parties will tip in its favor. However, it does not mind the participation of its historical rival in forming the government in a fair and balanced manner.

However, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party called for “parties that wish to participate in the government according to the number of seats, legal and electoral entitlements, and to participate in writing the government programme,” while parties that do not wish to participate can choose the opposition, but they must attend parliamentary sessions, otherwise what is the meaning of their participation in the elections from the beginning?

Repeated Israeli bombings in villages in southern Lebanon raise questions about the objectives of targeting areas that had previously been subjected to widespread destruction, especially in Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Qantara, and the vicinity of Kafr Tibnit. The continuation of demolitions coincides with a military escalation that includes ground raids and incursions.

Friday's bombings affect additional towns

On Friday, the south witnessed a series of Israeli bombings, including the town of Al-Tiri in the Bint Jbeil district, and the outskirts of Beit Yahoun towards Kunine, in addition to a violent bombing in Zawtar Al-Sharqiya in the Nabatieh district, the repercussions of which resonated in large areas, and a bombing operation in Al-Qantara coincided with a sweep with machine guns towards the town.

The artillery shelling targeted Al-Qantara, Wadi Al-Saluki, Baraashit, Wadi Zebqin, and Al-Mansouri, while the outskirts of Mifdoun were bombed shortly after midnight.

Israeli vehicles had retreated from the vicinity of Zawtar al-Gharbiya to Zawtar al-Sharqiya, after advancing towards it at night, while an incursion was recorded on the outskirts of Baraashit following shelling and sweeping with machine guns.

This escalation was preceded, on Thursday, by raids on Kafr Tibnit and the outskirts of Baraashit and Wadi Saluki. There were also reports of the launching of 3 Israeli missiles that did not explode in the central sector on Wednesday, and of another missile that did not explode in Kafr Tibnit, without the availability of technical information specifying the reasons for the failure to explode.

Security zone and staged bombings

Researcher in security and defense affairs, Dr. Riyad Kahwaji, said that “the Israeli army’s continued bombing of partially destroyed villages and towns in southern Lebanon is linked to Israel’s attempt to establish a security zone under its control, to which it does not intend to allow residents to return during the coming period,” noting that “the destruction operations are taking place gradually, according to a work program implemented by Israeli military engineering teams, which explains the movement of bombings from one town to another, even after periods of relative calm have passed.”

Qahwaji explained, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, that “the continuation of bombing and bombing operations is linked to more than one factor, including the Israeli forces continuing to find tunnels that previously existed, and not necessarily newly constructed tunnels,” pointing out that “the Israeli army is still publishing pictures and video clips of tunnels it finds; “This indicates the continuation of search and detection operations, and constitutes one of the reasons for the continuation of military operations in the southern regions.”

In his reading of the possibility that the repeated bombings were a prelude to new ground incursions, Kahwaji stressed that “the war on the southern Lebanon front has not actually ended, despite the ceasefire and the reduction in the level of military operations,” explaining that “American intervention at the level of the American president contributed to reducing the pace of Israeli military operations, but it did not lead to an end to the confrontation.”

He pointed out that “Israeli data indicate a high possibility of resuming ground operations, with the possibility of expanding areas of Israeli control in southern Lebanon,” considering that “this possibility will remain in place as long as an agreement is not reached to end the ongoing confrontation.” Hence, the continuation of the bombings comes in the context of a military situation in which the possibilities of escalation are still open.

Qahwaji stressed that “the bombing operations carried out by the Israeli army in villages under its control are linked to the presence of a clearly defined security zone, to which it does not intend to allow the return of residents before a period of time has passed,” explaining that “the destruction of these villages cannot be accomplished all at once, or in one day, given the size of the areas and the large number of towns that the Israeli forces have controlled.”

He concluded that “the varying timing of bombings between villages does not necessarily mean making new military decisions every time, but is also related to the time that engineering teams need to carry out destruction operations in areas under Israeli control.”

Wiping out villages and complicating return

In turn, retired Brigadier General Bassam Yassin believed that “the repeated bombing operations carried out by the Israeli army in the villages of southern Lebanon, including areas that were previously subjected to widespread destruction, aim to almost completely wipe out these villages and make the return of their residents to them extremely difficult, almost impossible, even if the military operations end and new security arrangements are reached.”

Yassin explained, in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, commenting on the continued Israeli bombings in the towns of Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Qantara, the vicinity of Kafr Tibnit and other southern regions, that “the main goal of repeatedly targeting the destroyed villages is to complete their survey and remove what remains of the necessities of life in them, so that the return of the people to them becomes practically impossible in light of the extent of the destruction and the absence of the economic capabilities necessary for reconstruction.”

He stressed that “there is not yet conclusive data that confirms whether Israel intends to remain permanently in the areas it controls,” but he saw that “what it is doing on the ground suggests that it is working to create a reality that is difficult to change, such that the natural return of residents to their villages becomes very complicated, even if its goal is not to keep these areas permanently.”

He added, “This destruction constitutes a long-term punishment for the southern villages and their residents, because its repercussions do not end with the end of the military operations, but rather continue for many years due to the loss of homes, lands, and necessities of life, and the inability to rebuild.”

Military targets for destruction

In his reading of the military dimensions of these operations, Yassin saw that “the repeated bombings are also related to the possibility of the Israeli military presence continuing for a long period, or preparing for a field reality that allows the Israeli forces freedom of movement and control over the areas in which they are deployed.”

He explained that “removing buildings and facilities and what remains of urban communities also aims to prevent the use of these sites to hide or move secretly by armed groups in any future confrontation,” noting that “Israel is working to remove everything that could provide cover for fighters, or allow them to approach the positions of its forces or carry out operations from these areas.”