Why is the Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri the enemy of the uprising? (2)

When it is resolved for every observer of the uprising track, its slogans, and its symbols  the pivotal role of the two central media means in forming it, and the system of the considerations which controls the decision-makers, then the matter does not need a wonder whether what is going on in the uprising is spontaneously especially after determining the priorities of the political targeting and coordinating its fragments, because the two central channels have relations and considerations, so it is not easy for them to have the decision of collision with a referentiality as the position and the role of the Speaker of the Parliament, and because the demagogic slogan” All of you means all of you” allows the call for igniting the fire between the maker of the economic policies who is represented by Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri as an inheritor and an observer of the policies and responsible for them, and the Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri who is a second responsible and a godfather of the political coverage for the regime which is based on the bilateral the economy and the security. Since the abstention of imposing any pressure to control the slogans according to priorities, puts Al-Hariri at the forefront of the attackers and not the members of his Movement such as Al-Siniora or the Minister of the interior Al-Mashnouq, because each one of them has a dispute and some kind of revenge with him too, in other words; the replacement of him by them has a dual serving for his account,  it means even the refraining of the equity between Berri and Al-Hariri in receiving attacks has not occurred, so it means that there is such a decision  that prevents targeting  Al-Hariri on one hand, and on the other  Berri becomes the goal, this is contrary to the logic of considerations and the distribution of  the responsibilities, contrary to the considerations of the uprising’s interest which want to agitate a “revolution” where the concentration of the attacking will be against the policies-maker, trying to neutralize the partners even temporarily and hoping to win this battle.

Here the matter is no longer related to the personal relationships negatively or positively between the Speaker Berri and the owners of the two channels, because most likely is their neglecting or agreeing with this decision but not making it, furthermore, the international and the regional protection of the Prime Minister Al- Hariri despite the bifurcation and the interaction of the interests of the two channels prevent targeting him even if they want to make him a goal, so the search now is for another alternative “ fit body “ although the preferable goal is the General Michael Aoun but he does not fit because of his recent entry to the regime on one hand, and that his attacking will not meet the desired aims on the other hand, because the required is the search for a goal through which targeting and the insistence and the perseverance on that to that targeting will accelerate the going to chaos, which the leaders of the movement do not pay attention to it but only as an expression of igniting the revolution, because between the revolution and the strife is an inch only, it is that separating  inch between the square of Al Shuhada, and Alghamiq trench. Who remember from the generation of the seventies the zeal with which the youth of war have entered to the trenches can understand the naivety and the romantic of the engagement and the illusions of change. The talking here is about the aims that are made by the participants but without a partnership in the decision, they made it because they believe in it and because they are faithful, but having no answer about the difficult question, to where ? what is then? And because they take the initiative of asking the question which they used to hear why do the advocates of the Speaker Berri get angry, is not he a responsible too for the situation of the country, so as a result the fit body means the partner in administrating the leadership of the country and the godfather of the politics in it, and what does he have of arguments that protect a region from the sectarian regime which is unable to change, so this becomes a source for targeting without discussing the argument or disproving it. Easily the youth say that they will abolish the sectarianism but the talking about its rootedness and the source of its forces are an exaggeration that aims for protecting it, apart from this discussion which must be occurred, and instead of the conflict in the street, we have to say that the absence of the political discrimination in determining the responsibilities for some of the allies especially the Free Patriotic Movement, and some members of the left- wing which its leaders have outstanding relationships with the Speaker of the Parliament Berri has contributed in presenting him the first responsible of the regime and the full partner in its corruption in an effort to consider the differentiation easy on one hand, but the approach which combines the Speaker of the Parliament Berri with the Deputy Walid Jumblatt and Saad Al-Hariri within the reading of Berri for the equation of his political role in the major equations has facilitated passing and promoting this image, despite its being scientifically alien from the truth and practically a major adventure of the movement and maybe of the country, in addition that the partnership of Berri is a partnership in the participation rather than a partnership in the corruption if we do not to proceed in the assumptive discussions about the conditions of the individuals here and there, the partnership of Berri has been embodied through projects that have cause the development of the South areas, for example Bekaa in general and the South in particular where many people of the other areas envied them for these projects, in addition to adhering of the positions of the country according to his famous motto “if you want to abolish the sectarianism I will be its first caller, and if you want to apply it, I will never tolerate with my share”.

Nabih Berri the Speaker of the Parliament represents the popular and the political side of Hezbollah, he is the trustee negotiator in the major issues as the facts of the difficult opportunity in July war say, he is the godfather of the settlements in their time, moreover he is the maker of the parliamentary and governmental equations and the political combinations when in need. The street of Amal Movement and Hezbollah is interacted but the difference is the vicious easiness of Amal street, the easiness of its igniting and pushing but the difficulty is its controlling. The attenuation of Berri and the defaming of his prestige is affecting the defense line that can undermine successively the resistance and its leader, moreover the luring of its supporters to engage in the arenas make the luring of the supporters of the resistance easier, this is the final intention,  furthermore, the most important is that the godfather of the presidency is Nabih Berri, and after the attrition it is the time for negotiation, so he is the negotiator, as long as the bet is to omit the name of the General Michael Aoun from the list of the nominated candidates is the first negotiating goal and that the motto of “All of you means all of you “must assume it, so the negotiation about the consensual alternative is required with Berri, although he is not a judge or a consensual partner in making the agreement, but he is a party of a side of a problem  and a part of a battle, he does not accept from him his nomination or a support in order not to impose the alternative whom it can be said that he is out of the club of “ All of you” whether the candidates know or not. Till now there are two names the commander of the army as a last choice and the Minister Ziad Baroud as a first agreed name with Bkirki.

Does Amal Movement have the imitative to make a dialogue with the leaders of the parties of the Eighth of March, headed by Berri in a parallel with his heading of a dialogue in Al Najmeh Square which includes the participants in the movement, the dialogue and those who are standing in between?