December 05, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• Lebanese people were pleased to learn that a prominent Lebanese figure like businessman and politician Massad Boulos, who ran for Lebanon’s parliamentary elections in 2009, has been appointed as a senior advisor on the Arab region and the Middle East in the team of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. Particularly noteworthy is that Boulos is not merely an American of Lebanese descent detached from Lebanon’s reality; rather, he is someone deeply familiar with Lebanon’s circumstances, having lived through many of its details. He speaks Arabic fluently and maintains connections with numerous Lebanese figures.
• Some politicians see Boulos’s new role as an opportunity to strengthen ties with him, hoping this might bolster their own political ambitions or enhance their party’s standing and vision within Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, the average Lebanese citizen, with no personal political aspirations, hopes that Boulos’s appointment will ensure that Lebanon’s interests as a state and a homeland are properly represented. At the same time, they understand that, as a presidential advisor, Boulos is bound to align with and represent Trump’s policies, which inherently prioritise American interests – and, often, Israel’s – over those of any Arab country.
• Yesterday, Mr. Boulos drew attention to the fact that the ceasefire agreement includes a call to disarm the resistance not only south of the Litani River but also in the north. While it is understood that both the agreement and Resolution 1701 stipulate that no weapons should exist in Lebanon outside the state’s institutions, and while Resolution 1559 was referenced for this purpose, it is crucial to highlight that this issue is tied to Lebanon’s sovereignty, which is safeguarded by its national army. Moreover, references to Resolution 1559 have always been accompanied by an emphasis on the Taif Agreement.
• The call to disband militias and withdraw their weapons originally stems from the Taif Agreement, but the agreement also upholds the right to liberate occupied land by all available means. This aligns with the UN Charter, which affirms the right of people to armed resistance when states are unable to repel aggression or end occupation. The Taif Agreement also underscores the importance of Resolution 425, which demanded the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Lebanese territories. Furthermore, Resolution 1701 calls for resolving the dispute over the Shebaa Farms as part of achieving this objective. Thus, the debate over the resistance’s weapons cannot be separated from the broader context of reclaiming occupied territories and addressing the persistent threat posed by an aggressor that the U.S. considers a “special ally” However, this ally has repeatedly shown its capacity for unchecked aggression against its neighbors.
-As a Lebanese citizen and senior advisor to the U.S. President, it is reasonable to ask Mr. Boulos: If the goal is for all weapons in Lebanon to be under the control of the Lebanese Army, will the Trump administration ensure the army is equipped adequately to reassure Lebanese citizens that they will not be vulnerable to Israeli aggression? For instance, would the U.S. supply the Lebanese Army with Patriot missile batteries or permit it to acquire equivalent weaponry from other sources if the U.S. is unwilling to provide such arms? Or is the objective not just disarming the resistance but disarming Lebanon entirely, thereby granting Israel free rein to violate our airspace, land, and waters – occupying, killing, and destroying as it pleases, potentially leading to settlement projects?
Perhaps Mr. Boulos could reflect on the concerns of the Lebanese people, as articulated by the renowned Lebanese intellectual, statesman, and visionary Dr. Charles Malik, who described Israel as an existential threat to Lebanon, driven by boundless ambitions for its water, wealth, and land.
