Al-Riyashi: Lebanon Has Passed the Stage of Real Danger.. Neutrality Is a Strategic Gain
Member of the “Strong Republic” bloc, MP Melhem Riachi, stated through the “Strong Republic” program on “Lebanon al-Hurr” that “normalization with Israel is unlikely in the foreseeable future. If it happens, it will not be the result of a military conflict, but rather related to coordination and agreement with Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia.” Riachi also pointed out that “normalization is not a strategic goal for Lebanon, and there is no American intention to pressure Lebanon to agree to normalize relations with Israel.”
He confirmed that “the resistance axis has collapsed throughout the region, and Lebanon has passed the stage of real danger. The foundations of the state have started to stabilize after the election of President Joseph Aoun and the formation of the government of Nawaf Salam. Therefore, there are no longer significant gaps or voids that could threaten the Lebanese entity.”
He added, “There may be security problems internally or military operations on the southern, northern, or eastern borders, but the Lebanese army is capable of fulfilling its role and duties as it should, despite its limited logistical and financial capabilities. It alone has the right to monopolize the weapon across all Lebanese territory.”
He pointed out that “the role of the party’s weapon has ended after the rapid political and regional developments that accompanied the last war. The issue now is how to extract this matter with the least possible losses while preserving dignity and face. If this weapon remains, its cost will be extremely high for Lebanon and its people.” He considered that “everything that happened recently revolved around the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which led to a complete reversal of the situation in the region, as the possibility of Iranian influence, weapons, and money reaching the region is now almost nonexistent.”
He emphasized that “the real investment should be in neutrality because it is a strategic gain for Lebanon. If the desired neutrality is achieved, then the party’s weapon would no longer have any role, and Israel would have no justification to remain in the military points it currently occupies.”
He continued: “We no longer need a defensive strategy today. The Lebanese government should establish a national security strategy. The past events have proven that any defense policy outside the scope of the state has failed and its results have been catastrophic for Lebanon and its people.”
He affirmed, “I have great confidence that President Joseph Aoun is capable of managing the country’s affairs in a manner that aligns with the goals and aspirations of the Lebanese Forces, and he is doing work consistent with Lebanon’s true sovereignty and the content of the oath speech.”
He announced that “the Taif Agreement now needs amendments, additions, and development in the texts that are currently applied according to the balance of power. Therefore, the ‘party’ recently called for its implementation. However, we cannot deny that it served peace in Lebanon for many years.”
Regarding the upcoming parliamentary elections, Riachi confirmed that they “will surprise everyone, as they will determine the size of every party or team in Lebanon.”
He concluded: “The number of Lebanese Forces’ MPs in the parliament will be greater than today, and regardless of the nature of the electoral alliances that will be formed at that time, we will remain, along with our people, the majority.”
Exclusif – « Le parti » joue encore avec le feu
Il semble que « le parti » n’ait pas tiré les leçons de la dernière guerre que le Liban a traversée. Les déclarations récentes du responsable du « parti », Nawaf Moussawi, montrent clairement que « le parti » continue de suivre la même voie qui a conduit le pays à une destruction totale dans le passé. Lors d’une de ses apparitions médiatiques, Moussawi a révélé que « le parti » conserve toujours des armes sophistiquées, et qu’il poursuit l’opération de stockage des armes et la construction de nouveaux entrepôts dans la région au sud du Litani, ce qui constitue une violation évidente des engagements internationaux du Liban, notamment des termes de l’accord de cessez-le-feu conclu après la guerre.
Ce qui est encore plus préoccupant, c’est que les déclarations de Moussawi interviennent à un moment particulièrement sensible, où il était censé que le parti reconsidère ses politiques militaires et cherche des moyens de protéger la stabilité intérieure sans recourir à l’escalade militaire. Ces déclarations révèlent l’attachement du « parti » à ses armes comme principal outil dans la gestion des conflits régionaux, ce qui place le Liban face à la possibilité de retourner à la guerre, tout en compliquant davantage la situation sécuritaire et politique du pays.
Les sources opposées au « parti », via le site électronique des Forces libanaises, estiment que l’insistance du « parti » sur la politique de stockage continu des armes et la création de nouveaux entrepôts, malgré les promesses antérieures de respecter le cessez-le-feu et de calmer la situation, rend difficile pour le gouvernement libanais et la communauté internationale d’ignorer ces pratiques. De plus, ce comportement reflète l’absence de volonté politique du « parti » de s’engager dans un processus politique visant à établir un État fort et institutionnel, et il témoigne d’une division croissante dans le paysage libanais, où le « parti » persiste à privilégier des options militaires qui plongent le pays dans un tourbillon de tensions et de chaos.
Alors que le Liban a plus que jamais besoin de stabilité politique et sécuritaire, les sources affirment que « l’attachement du parti à ses armes constitue une véritable menace pour la paix intérieure, et rend difficile la réalisation d’un consensus politique entre les différentes forces du pays. Cet attachement aux armes ramène le Liban à son point de départ, où il reste à portée des menaces extérieures et intérieures, mettant le peuple libanais dans des situations difficiles et le faisant payer le prix des politiques destructrices adoptées par le parti. »