Exclusive – Jabbour: No Meeting with “The Party” Before Handing Over Its Weapons
Source: Lebanese Forces Website Team
Recently, a new narrative has been circulating in the political arena, calling for extending a hand to “the party,” especially after the recent war and the catastrophic outcomes it faced. However, following Sheikh Naim Qassem’s speech at the funeral ceremony and his emphasis on building the state, calls have increased to meet the party halfway, attempting to promote a policy of dialogue and cooperation with it.
Although the idea of extending a hand for dialogue and understanding is not inherently rejected, the difference between talking about state-building and actually implementing it is crucial. Discussions about building a state become meaningless when the party continues to cling to its weapons and the so-called resistance it advocates. How can there be talk of building a state that includes all its citizens while the party insists on maintaining a parallel armed force? This issue remains central to any conversation about establishing a true state, as a nation cannot unite under the principle of illegal arms that threaten the state’s authority, security, and stability.
The head of the Media and Communication Department of the Lebanese Forces, Charles Jabbour, stated in an interview with the Lebanese Forces website that all calls to meet “the party” halfway are misplaced, if not outright deceptive, or stem from good intentions that fail to grasp what is truly at stake or required.
Jabbour adds: “What is needed is a different equation, not meeting the party halfway. That is a flawed approach. What is required is for all political parties to unite under the umbrella of the state and the constitution, based on the principle of one state and one legitimate armed force that holds the authority over war and peace. As for the idea that we should meet the party halfway, we must ask—on what basis? The party still speaks of what it calls resistance, it has yet to acknowledge its defeat or the end of its armed project, and it insists on continuing this project. Therefore, any meeting should only take place under the authority of the state and the constitution, beginning with dismantling the party’s military structure and its explicit acknowledgment of the end of its armed agenda. Until then, there is no meeting, and nothing to discuss.”