في 27 نوفمبر 2024 دخل اتفاق لوقف إطلاق النار بين حزب الله اللبناني والجيش الإسرائيلي حيّز التنفيذ، وهو الاتفاق الذي هدف لتجنيب لبنان المصير الكارثي الذي أصاب غزة، التي أصبحت منطقة غير قابلة للعيش الإنساني، عبر ممارسات تجويع وتدمير ممنهج من قبل الحكومة الإسرائيلية.
لبنان دخل على خط الأزمة، عبر قرار حزب الله المتفرد لبنانياً في قرار الحرب والسلم، بالمشاركة في ما سمي وحدة الساحات، والمشاركة قوبلت برد فعل عنيف من إسرائيل بشكل غيَّر كثيراً من قواعد الاشتباك المعروفة منذ عقدين، وأدى لتصفية العديد من القيادات السياسية والعسكرية للحزب، بالإضافة لتدمير الكثير من المقدرات العسكرية لحزب الله، وامتد ذلك لتدمير العديد من منازل اللبنانيين في جنوب لبنان ومناطق أخرى في البقاع والضاحية الجنوبية.
ولذا استبشر اللبنانيون خيراً باتفاق وقف إطلاق النار، الذي تم برعاية أمريكية، وأشرف عليه المبعوث الأمريكي السابق إلى لبنان أموس هوكشتاين، وشمل 11 نقطة تهدف بشكل رئيسي لإيقاف الأعمال العسكرية بين الطرفين، واستلام الجيش مناطق جنوب نهر الليطاني على بعد 30 كيلومتراً من الحدود مع إسرائيل، والأبرز تطبيق القرار الأممي 1701 الذي لم يرَ النور منذ أن أُقر في أغسطس من العام 2006.
ومع بداية العام الجاري زادت البشائر الإيجابية من لبنان نحو الانطلاق إلى مرحلة الدولة، والحد من المحاصصة الطائفية وما يتبعها من ممارسات تهشم فرص لبنان ليكون في المكانة التي يستحقها، حيث أُعلن الرئيس جوزيف عون رئيساً للجمهورية في التاسع من يناير، ثم تبع ذلك اختيار نواف سلام رئيساً للحكومة.
لكن بقي سلاح الحزب معضلة، من ناحية أن الحزب ما زال يسكن في ذهنية ما قبل 7 أكتوبر 2023 وما لحقها من هجمات على غزة واليمن، وصولاً إلى حرب الإثني عشر يوماً بين إسرائيل وإيران، وهي سردية المقاومة بمعنى أن بقاء السلاح هو الحامي للحزب والبيئة الشعبية، في تضاد مع سردية دولة للبنانيين وجيش يحمي لبنان.
بقاء السلاح مثَّل هدية بطبيعة الحال لنتنياهو، على مستوى بقاء الجيش في التلال الخمس جنوب لبنان، وعدم الامتثال لبند الانسحاب خلال ستين يوماً من الأراضي اللبنانية كما نص اتفاق وقف إطلاق النار، ومثَّل كذلك ذريعة لإسرائيل لقصف لبنان بين الحين والآخر بذريعة ضرب سلاح الحزب.
وفي وسط هذه المراوحة ودعوات الحوار لحل موضوع السلاح، والضغط الدولي المستمر من قبل المبعوثين لحثهم على تسريع حصر السلاح بيد الدولة، أتى موقف تقدمي من زعيم الحزب التقدمي، معلناً في مؤتمر صحفي قبل أيام تسليمه أسلحة كانت بحوزة الحزب إلى إمرة الدولة، مما مثَّل ضغطاً سياسياً على كافة الأطراف اللبنانية وغير اللبنانية المسلحة لسلك نهج المختارة «مقر وليد بيك جنبلاط».
الزعيم جنبلاط قد يختلف حوله الكثيرون، لكن له دائماً مواقف تقدمية تمثل قراءات للمستقبل، وحرصاً على الدولة بشكل لا يغفل مصالح الدروز «بني معروف»، ولا يتسع المجال لسردها لكنها بدأت منذ أن وطئ جراحه وذهب للشام بعد اغتيال أبيه، مروراً بكونه رأس حربة 14 آذار وخروج الجيش السوري من لبنان بعد اغتيال الحريري، ومن مواقفه اللافتة خلال حرب تموز 2006 تجنبه لوم حزب الله خلال المعركة تماماً، ثم مناداته بعدها لحصر السلاح في الدولة.
وقبل يومين كان لافتاً كيف تناولت الأخبار «صحيفة حزب الله» دعوة جنبلاط، بعنوان أسباب درزية لقرار جنبلاط تسليم السلاح، في محاولة خلق حبكة حول صراع درزي، لا تنقصه بهارات وئام وهاب بالاعتراض على تسليم السلاح، لكن الأبرز تجنب الإجابة على ما هي رؤية حزب الله لتسليم سلاحه والإيمان بمنطق الدولة.
ولم يخلُ التحليل إن جازت تسميته بذلك من لغة خشبية، تنسج اتهاماً لجنبلاط حول لقائه توماس باراك مبعوث أمريكا إلى سوريا، وكان القراء لا يرون حماس تتفاوض مع أمريكا والحوثي، وحتى إيران يصلون لاتفاقات مع أمريكا.
وحين خاض حزب الله معركته مع إسرائيل سماها «أولي البأس»، ويبدو أن هذا يختصر المشهد اللبناني، في صراع بين «أولي البأس» و«أولي الحكمة».
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
On November 27, 2024, a ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and the Israeli army came into effect. This agreement aimed to spare Lebanon the catastrophic fate that befell Gaza, which has become an unlivable area due to systematic starvation and destruction by the Israeli government.
Lebanon entered the fray of the crisis through Hezbollah's unilateral decision regarding war and peace, participating in what was termed the "unity of fronts." This participation was met with a violent reaction from Israel, significantly altering the rules of engagement that had been in place for two decades, leading to the elimination of many political and military leaders of the party, as well as the destruction of much of Hezbollah's military capabilities. This also extended to the destruction of many homes of Lebanese people in southern Lebanon and other areas in the Bekaa and the southern suburbs.
Therefore, the Lebanese were optimistic about the ceasefire agreement, which was sponsored by the United States and overseen by the former U.S. envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein. It included 11 points primarily aimed at halting military operations between the two parties, allowing the army to take control of areas south of the Litani River, 30 kilometers from the border with Israel, and most notably implementing UN Resolution 1701, which had not seen the light of day since it was adopted in August 2006.
With the beginning of this year, positive signs increased from Lebanon towards moving into a state phase and limiting sectarian quotas, along with the practices that hinder Lebanon's chances of being in the position it deserves. President Joseph Aoun was announced as the President of the Republic on January 9, followed by the selection of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister.
However, the party's weaponry remained a dilemma, as the party still dwells in the mentality of the period before October 7, 2023, and the subsequent attacks on Gaza and Yemen, culminating in the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. This narrative of resistance implies that the existence of arms is the protector of the party and the popular environment, in contrast to the narrative of a state for the Lebanese and an army that protects Lebanon.
The continued existence of arms naturally represented a gift to Netanyahu, in terms of the army's presence in the five hills of southern Lebanon and the non-compliance with the withdrawal clause within sixty days from Lebanese territories as stipulated in the ceasefire agreement. It also provided Israel with a pretext to bomb Lebanon from time to time under the guise of targeting the party's weapons.
Amid this stagnation and calls for dialogue to resolve the issue of arms, and the ongoing international pressure from envoys urging them to expedite the restriction of arms to the state, a progressive stance emerged from the leader of the Progressive Party, who announced in a press conference a few days ago the transfer of weapons held by the party to the authority of the state. This represented political pressure on all armed Lebanese and non-Lebanese parties to adopt the approach of "Maqam Walid Beyk Jumblatt."
Leader Jumblatt may be a subject of disagreement for many, but he has always taken progressive stances that represent visions for the future, ensuring the state's interests without neglecting the interests of the Druze "Bani Ma'ruf." There isn't enough space to recount them, but they began when he stepped on his wounds and went to Damascus after his father's assassination, continuing through being the spearhead of March 14 and the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon after Hariri's assassination, and one of his notable stances during the July 2006 war was his avoidance of blaming Hezbollah during the battle entirely, followed by his call to restrict arms to the state.
Two days ago, it was striking how the news "Hezbollah's newspaper" addressed Jumblatt's call, titled "Druze Reasons for Jumblatt's Decision to Surrender Arms," in an attempt to create a narrative around a Druze conflict, which was not lacking the spices of Wiam Wahhab's objection to the surrender of arms. However, the most notable aspect was the avoidance of answering what Hezbollah's vision is for surrendering its weapons and believing in the logic of the state.
Analysis, if it can be called that, was not devoid of wooden language, weaving accusations against Jumblatt regarding his meeting with Thomas Barak, the U.S. envoy to Syria, while readers did not see Hamas negotiating with America, the Houthis, or even Iran reaching agreements with America.
When Hezbollah fought its battle with Israel, it called it "the first of the brave," and it seems that this encapsulates the Lebanese scene, in a struggle between "the first of the brave" and "the first of wisdom."
Lebanon entered the fray of the crisis through Hezbollah's unilateral decision regarding war and peace, participating in what was termed the "unity of fronts." This participation was met with a violent reaction from Israel, significantly altering the rules of engagement that had been in place for two decades, leading to the elimination of many political and military leaders of the party, as well as the destruction of much of Hezbollah's military capabilities. This also extended to the destruction of many homes of Lebanese people in southern Lebanon and other areas in the Bekaa and the southern suburbs.
Therefore, the Lebanese were optimistic about the ceasefire agreement, which was sponsored by the United States and overseen by the former U.S. envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein. It included 11 points primarily aimed at halting military operations between the two parties, allowing the army to take control of areas south of the Litani River, 30 kilometers from the border with Israel, and most notably implementing UN Resolution 1701, which had not seen the light of day since it was adopted in August 2006.
With the beginning of this year, positive signs increased from Lebanon towards moving into a state phase and limiting sectarian quotas, along with the practices that hinder Lebanon's chances of being in the position it deserves. President Joseph Aoun was announced as the President of the Republic on January 9, followed by the selection of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister.
However, the party's weaponry remained a dilemma, as the party still dwells in the mentality of the period before October 7, 2023, and the subsequent attacks on Gaza and Yemen, culminating in the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. This narrative of resistance implies that the existence of arms is the protector of the party and the popular environment, in contrast to the narrative of a state for the Lebanese and an army that protects Lebanon.
The continued existence of arms naturally represented a gift to Netanyahu, in terms of the army's presence in the five hills of southern Lebanon and the non-compliance with the withdrawal clause within sixty days from Lebanese territories as stipulated in the ceasefire agreement. It also provided Israel with a pretext to bomb Lebanon from time to time under the guise of targeting the party's weapons.
Amid this stagnation and calls for dialogue to resolve the issue of arms, and the ongoing international pressure from envoys urging them to expedite the restriction of arms to the state, a progressive stance emerged from the leader of the Progressive Party, who announced in a press conference a few days ago the transfer of weapons held by the party to the authority of the state. This represented political pressure on all armed Lebanese and non-Lebanese parties to adopt the approach of "Maqam Walid Beyk Jumblatt."
Leader Jumblatt may be a subject of disagreement for many, but he has always taken progressive stances that represent visions for the future, ensuring the state's interests without neglecting the interests of the Druze "Bani Ma'ruf." There isn't enough space to recount them, but they began when he stepped on his wounds and went to Damascus after his father's assassination, continuing through being the spearhead of March 14 and the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon after Hariri's assassination, and one of his notable stances during the July 2006 war was his avoidance of blaming Hezbollah during the battle entirely, followed by his call to restrict arms to the state.
Two days ago, it was striking how the news "Hezbollah's newspaper" addressed Jumblatt's call, titled "Druze Reasons for Jumblatt's Decision to Surrender Arms," in an attempt to create a narrative around a Druze conflict, which was not lacking the spices of Wiam Wahhab's objection to the surrender of arms. However, the most notable aspect was the avoidance of answering what Hezbollah's vision is for surrendering its weapons and believing in the logic of the state.
Analysis, if it can be called that, was not devoid of wooden language, weaving accusations against Jumblatt regarding his meeting with Thomas Barak, the U.S. envoy to Syria, while readers did not see Hamas negotiating with America, the Houthis, or even Iran reaching agreements with America.
When Hezbollah fought its battle with Israel, it called it "the first of the brave," and it seems that this encapsulates the Lebanese scene, in a struggle between "the first of the brave" and "the first of wisdom."
