Articles

Rather than becoming an occasion to open a serious debate on the foundations of the judicial system, justice, and punishment in Lebanon, the political and legal discussion around the proposed general amnesty law has turned into a sectarian and confessional contest, entirely removed from the basic principles underpinning the anticipated legislation, namely achieving justice, redressing the wrongs suffered by detainees who have been denied for years their natural right to timely trials, and addressing, of course, the issue of prison overcrowding, which violates the bare minimum of human rights even in the case of a prisoner or a pre-trial detainee, thereby contradicting the very reformative idea of detention and converting prisons into spaces that entrench criminality and abuse.

Wednesday, May 27 ended with two developments that offer little cause for optimism: during an expanded meeting of his ministerial team, President Donald Trump emphasized that he "is not satisfied with what Iran is proposing" for the memorandum of understanding currently being negotiated between the two countries; at the same time, the Israeli military was recording a "first" by asking residents Wednesday evening to evacuate "all of South Lebanon" and retreat "north of the Zahrani River", a few kilometers south of Sidon! The overall political climate began to turn red in the middle of the day following reports from Iran's official television regarding the content of the draft memorandum being discussed between American and Iranian negotiators, through Pakistani mediators. Iranian television, widely picked up by the media, thus reported having obtained "a draft of an initial unofficial framework agreement for a protocol agreement with the United States".

A widespread view in Lebanon holds that the Lebanese quarrel with Hezbollah stems from its doctrine and its adherence to the wilayat al-faqih as theorised by Khomeini. But the question deserves to be framed differently: does the problem truly lie in the doctrine itself, whether one agrees with it or rejects it, or rather in the imposition of that doctrine and the practices it entails upon society as a whole and upon the State? We have no right whatsoever to object to what others believe, nor to contest their full right to embrace whatever ideas and convictions they choose, whatever these may be. Any individual or community is free to forge its own intellectual and spiritual vision of the world, whether religious or political. This falls within the domain of freedom of conscience, a freedom enshrined in the Lebanese Constitution, one that is not, in its very essence, open to debate, nor should it be.

Fourteen years already. Fourteen years have passed since Nassir al-Assaad’s departure, and yet my brother’s memory remains intact in the hearts of all those who knew him, loved him, esteemed him, or simply crossed his path on the road toward a Lebanon he dreamed of as free, sovereign, and dignified. Nassir belonged to that generation of men who sought neither the spotlight nor honours. He believed deeply in just causes without ever seeking any personal gain from them. A discreet but determined artisan of the Cedar Revolution of 2005, alongside Samir, Fares, Elias and Samir, but also Walid, Gebran and others, he had understood early on that Lebanon could not survive without freedom, without pluralism, and without a State.

In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats to “crush Hezbollah” and expand his military operation into Lebanon, the country has been swept into a fresh spiral of violence that reignited fears of a return to open confrontation. Those fears are all the more well-founded given that the Israeli army has begun extending the so-called security zone it controls in southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Israeli leader – who has secured American approval for a large-scale operation against Hezbollah – reaffirmed on Tuesday that he had no intention of “taking his foot off the accelerator,” stating that his army is intensifying its operations in Lebanon and “securing strategic positions.” The prime minister also pointed to a “national effort aimed at countering the threat of Hezbollah’s explosive drones.”

There has been much talk, of late, about the necessity of changing the system of the Lebanese formula, described as a “crisis-generator”, and some speak lightly of an “other” Lebanon at a moment of extreme complexity through which the region is passing. Some have held, since 1989, that the Taif Accord is an accord of “necessity” — meaning that it “does not please us”, but necessity has its own imperatives: – the necessity of putting an end to the war, – the necessity of moving from war to peace, – the necessity of ridding oneself of an internal adversary, – the necessity of holding fast to this accord in the face of Hezbollah's weapons.