January 16, 2025
By Nasser Kandil
• Instead of the news being about the parliamentary consultations led by Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam to form a government, the spotlight has shifted to the boycott of these consultations by the Development and Liberation Bloc and the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc.
• Instead of asking when the government will be formed, its nature, and the content of its ministerial statement, the question now revolves around whether the duo will agree to participate. And if they don’t, how viable will this government be, and what will its image and functionality look like without their participation?
• Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam is a globally renowned figure in law and academia with an honorable record in cultural, human rights, and diplomatic arenas. He did not deserve to have his ascension to the prime ministership marred by those who claim to have acted out of love for him and belief in his suitability for this stage. Instead, they turned him into a symbol of division rather than unity. None of them, nor their backers, reached out to all stakeholders to simply state, “The name has changed, but the agreement remains”. On the contrary, they chose to act covertly, as though they were committing a disgraceful act rather than engaging in an honorable endeavor worth boasting about. Their hatred seems to have blinded their vision, leaving them to hide behind his name as a shield from which to launch insults and threats at those who are supposed to be their partners in the nation – partners essential for Salam’s government to take off on the right footing and open a new chapter in the country’s history.
• Had those invoking Salam’s name to wage their battles against the resistance truly been as strong as they claim, they would have freed him from the burden of their conflicts and fought these battles with their own means. But their weakness is evident, and they have turned national action, which requires bridge-building, into a trench for petty neighborhood skirmishes.
• Those calling for a government to implement Resolution 1559 rather than 1701 need to carefully review the ceasefire agreement and the statements made by the American and Israeli sides about its content. What happened in the Gaza agreement reaffirms that what occurred in Lebanon was an Israeli retreat from war. Implementing Resolution 1701 requires a consensus government in Lebanon, while implementing Resolution 1559 necessitates another war. As for the monopoly of weapons by the state, it is clearly contingent on proving its ability to repel aggression. So far, the application of the ceasefire agreement shows that the state is not yet capable, the international authority is unable to prevent aggression, and the defensive strategy – a national Lebanese demand – remains to be decided at a dialogue table. Whatever the Lebanese agree upon will reassure the southerners, the primary stakeholders in deterring and responding to aggression. Yet, to date, they have found no reassurance in the shadow of the occupation’s dominance and the inability of the army, UNIFIL, and the international oversight committee to restrain and deter the enemy.
• Nawaf Salam deserves to offer himself a compensation for the damage inflicted upon his image, his government, and his career by the false claims of love, care, and admiration. That compensation lies in initiating a calm dialogue with the resistance leadership, represented by the duo, to chart a roadmap for the next stage – a roadmap grounded in a government of Resolution 1701, not Resolution 1559.
