November 29, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• There are those who attempt to portray the extension of the Army Commander’s term and the setting of a date for the presidential election as American demands or conditions tied to the ceasefire agreement. However, the proposal to extend the Army Commander’s term predates the ceasefire agreement, as was the case last year. Meanwhile, the call for a session to elect a president is part of a prior commitment made by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri in his initiative two months ago, which outlined a sequence starting with a ceasefire, followed by the election of a consensus president. In contrast, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had earlier advocated for the election of a president before any ceasefire.
• Others spread rumors about secret clauses in the agreement, such as the claim that an American officer would oversee Beirut Airport. This assertion is false, offensive, and degrading unless there were a clear governmental decision to seek international expertise, for instance. A television network even speculated about a secret interpretation of the ceasefire agreement, alleging that the occupation would remain until the dismantling of the resistance’s infrastructure not only south of the Litani River but across all of Lebanon. These claims go so far as to justify Israeli assaults on southern villagers, accusing Speaker Berri of concealing the truth of the agreement from both the Lebanese public and southerners in particular.
• Speaker Berri approached the negotiations with one priority: preserving national sovereignty. His unwavering focus was to prevent the inclusion of any overt or covert clause granting authority to anyone other than the Lebanese Army. Just as he did during the negotiations following the 2006 war, he thwarted attempts to assign UNIFIL a separate role that would supersede the Army’s authority. Now, he once more succeeded in ensuring that UNIFIL remains a supporting force, with the Lebanese Army solely responsible for security south of the Litani.
Berri also resisted efforts to create a committee involving non-Lebanese actors to oversee this security, ensuring it remained merely a body for filing complaints. Moreover, he firmly rejected the so-called “freedom of movement” for the occupying army, which was ultimately replaced by the mutual right to self-defense, governed by international law. The outcome was clear: the Army is the cornerstone, the authority, and the guardian.
• The Army declared that the occupation has violated the agreement, this underscores that the agreement does not grant the occupation the right to remain until conditions related to the resistance’s arms are met. Even U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein articulated a more grounded perspective than the claims of the Lebanese media, linking the occupation’s withdrawal to the readiness of the Lebanese Army – not to conditions regarding the resistance’s arms.
• The resistance, for its part, has stepped back to allow the Army to fulfill its role in protecting citizens and national security, demonstrating its commitment to making the agreement work. However, should the occupation persist in its transgressions, the resistance will not remain idle.
