November 26, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• The natural question when considering whether to engage in any discussion is curiosity. Curiosity, in itself, is not reprehensible – sometimes it is a scientific curiosity, or an exercise of intellectual rights that may be closer to indulgence for those unaffiliated with causes, principles, and objectives. For those who hold a cause, a principle, and a goal, however, the measure is the benefit versus the harm. Upon closer examination, we will realise that entering such discussions brings no benefit and only harm, as the discussion revolves around the substance of a hypothetical agreement that no one knows the details of with certainty.
• What is being circulated are leaks intended to control the discussion and its direction. Thus, participating in a discussion about an agreement amounts to engaging in speculative assumptions, which is unhelpful if the aim is to correct, warn, or advise, as such goals are contingent upon discussing a genuine, original text – which is unavailable.
The harm, however, is certain, as the focal point of the debate will be: Does this agreement signify an abandonment of Gaza, or is it a coordination with its resistance, founded on a shared understanding of the conditions necessary to secure victory for the resistance on one battlefront as a precursor to triumph on another? The louder voices are likely to accuse the resistance in Lebanon of betrayal, fostering divisions among the unified supporters of the resistance axis, splitting them across its arenas amidst tensions and schemes that once again flirt with the dangerous fault lines of sectarian strife. Notably, those who cast doubt on the resistance in Lebanon are often the same who have offered nothing to Gaza but are not above exploiting its suffering as a means to undermine the resistance.
• Participating in this discussion comes with a leaked text containing a clause that stipulates a 60-day period for the withdrawal of occupation forces beyond the Blue Line. This same timeframe applies to the withdrawal of organised resistance units and their heavy weaponry north of the Litani River. Yet, the fate of disputed areas such as the Shebaa Farms remains unclear, even though they are explicitly addressed in Resolution 1701, which is supposedly the sole reference for this agreement. Resolution 1701 clearly calls for the immediate withdrawal of occupation forces beyond the Blue Line. When the withdrawal is instead given a 60-day timeframe, can the resistance accept the occupation’s continued presence on its land without engaging in combat?
Furthermore, what happens to the displaced people? When will they be allowed to return? Will they remain barred from returning until the withdrawal period ends, or will those wishing to visit their villages and inspect their homes after the cessation of hostilities also be prevented? How does this align with the principle of sovereignty?
Resolution 1701 also mentions the establishment of a weapons-free zone south of the Litani River in subsequent clauses, but only after the cessation of hostilities, which includes the occupation’s withdrawal beyond the Blue Line and the cessation of air and maritime violations as hostile acts. The clause about creating this zone south of the Litani is explicitly linked to the parallel and simultaneous resolution of disputed areas, including the Shebaa Farms, adhering to the principle that ending the occupation eliminates the justification for the resistance’s deployment as an organised force. The 60-day timeframe for both the resistance and the occupation undermines Resolution 1701 and the balances it was built upon. We do not know if the leak is accurate, nor do we know how the Lebanese negotiator, who managed the 1701 negotiations and contributed to drafting or amending its terms to preserve Lebanese sovereignty, dealt with these issues – issues he had already encountered under even more difficult governmental and military circumstances during the 1701 negotiations.
• Our trust in the Lebanese negotiator, Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, is absolute and beyond reproach. We are equally confident that the resistance has consulted with Speaker Berri on every detail and that they are unified in their choices and decisions. For this reason, we will not engage in discussions based on the assumption of an imminent agreement. Once an agreement is finalized and announced, we will certainly discuss it – and if we identify any shortcomings, we will point them out with full honesty and clarity!
