The Lebanese division over direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel has reached spiritual references. The head of the Maronite Church, Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi, announced his support for the state’s measures to implement arms exclusivity and proceed with negotiations, while the Jaafari Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Qabalan launched a major attack on the state, accusing it of colluding against southern Lebanon, besieging it, and suffocating it.
This division represents a shift in positions from political differences over the state’s procedures and negotiating path, to a division of a sectarian nature, in light of the faltering negotiations, whose eighth session in Rome was postponed until the beginning of next month, at a time when Israel continues bombings and shelling in the south.
The Shiite religious establishment (the Shiite Council) and the duo of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement have always rejected direct negotiations, but the political attack of this magnitude, launched by Qablan, is the first of its kind since the launch of the negotiations.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterates his determination to protect sovereignty, secure Israeli withdrawal, and the return of residents to the occupied areas in the south through the negotiating path. Being the only available path and alternative to war.
Aoun renewed his position on Sunday, on the anniversary of the assassination of former Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel, by saying: “We renew our pledge to work to complete the building of a strong and just state, the state that alone guarantees the independence of its decision-making, its full sovereignty over its entire territory, and the dignity of its citizens.”
In a clear position on the issue of sovereignty, Patriarch Al-Rahi stressed in his Sunday sermon that “confining weapons to the state is not the dominance of one group over another, nor is it a confrontation with a sect or group, but rather the establishment of a single national reference,” stressing that “the state cannot be upright with two decisions, and sovereignty is not complete with multiple references.”
He considered that “the state alone must be the sovereign decision-maker and responsible for protecting all its children.” Because Lebanon cannot demand that others respect its sovereignty if this sovereignty is not complete at home.”
Al-Rai adopted the Lebanese presidency’s point of view regarding preserving Lebanese sovereignty, securing Israeli withdrawal, and stopping attacks. He called for “the transition of negotiations and mediations from the communications department to actual results on the ground, foremost of which is stopping the attacks, achieving withdrawal, and establishing stability, within serious guarantees that preserve Lebanon’s rights and sovereignty and prevent the recurrence of escalation,” considering that the negotiations “should not turn into an open path without a horizon, but rather into a means that restores security and stability to the Lebanese.”
However, this position is opposed by the Jaafari Mufti Ahmed Qabalan, who launched a major attack on the state, the day after Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s visit to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon, and his pledge that the state would stand by the people of the south.
Qabalan said in a message he addressed to the Lebanese people: “It is not possible to talk about Lebanon without talking about its south, which is bleeding under the eye of the executive authority that suffocates it, besieges it, conspires against it, and deals with it as media propaganda.”
He added: “The sedition of the executive authority, which puts the country above the edge of the sword and throws away national partnership with all causes of division, incitement, and division, must be redressed.”
At this time, Israel is continuing its bombings and raids in southern Lebanon, and what is noteworthy is that it renewed its raids on the vicinity of Ali Al-Tahir Heights, which it detonated on Thursday evening with about 1,100 tons of explosives.
What is being circulated in the Israeli media about the possibility of adopting the so-called “gray line” in southern Lebanon opens a Lebanese debate that goes beyond the details of any possible change in military deployment, to the references upon which Beirut relies in approaching the borders and the Israeli presence within Lebanese territory.
Representative Muhammad Khawaja told Asharq Al-Awsat, commenting on what is being said about the “gray line,” that “any Israeli presence on one meter of Lebanese territory is practically a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreement.”
In turn, MP Melhem Khalaf told Asharq Al-Awsat that “any talk about a gray line or any new line outside internationally recognized frameworks does not have any legal effect, and cannot constitute a basis for changing borders or imposing new facts on the ground.”
In a political reading of what the proposal might mean, political science professor Dr. Imad Salama told Asharq Al-Awsat: “If what is being circulated about the ‘gray line’ is true, it is difficult to consider it merely a temporary repositioning. “The most dangerous thing is that it may lead to a long-term occupation.”
