The Lebanese government, which willingly or unwillingly failed to defend Hezbollah’s achievements during the war with Israel last summer, has clearly shown that it is only an implementer of the plans of regional and extra-regional powers.
The Lebanese people, who won a historic victory during the 34-day battle with the Zionist regime, expected the Lebanese government to revise its policies and pave the way for the participation of all political forces.
But the fact that some political parties want to monopolize power, with the support of the government and through the interference of some foreign powers, to impose their political will on the people has intensified disputes between the supporters and opponents of the Siniora government.
The resignation of six Islamic resistance movement ministers presented a serious challenge to Siniora’s cabinet, but the so-called March 14 forces, which are in fact the political levers of regional and extra-regional powers, encouraged the government to ignore the Lebanese nation’s demands.
The efforts to reduce the power of pro-Islamic resistance President Emil Lahoud, the approval of the proposal to set up an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri without consulting Lebanese legal institutions, the efforts to drive the Islamic resistance movement out of the political arena, which is the goal of Israel and the United States, and the decision to ignore political parties’ demands for the establishment of a national unity government are some of the overt offenses of the Siniora government.
Meanwhile, some Lebanese figures who are members of the March 14 group are trying to divert attention from the charges leveled at them by attempting to cast blame on others.
These figures are accusing the Islamic resistance movement and Lahoud of pursuing Iranian and Syrian policies and obstructing efforts to establish a tribunal to investigate the assassination of Hariri while they themselves are rejecting the demand of over two million Lebanese for a national unity government.
Taking all this into consideration, Hezbollah has chosen the peaceful option of pressuring the government to respond to the national will.
This option is the only way out of the current crisis in Lebanon. If the government insists on imposing its will on the Lebanese people, it could compel the opposition to turn to more robust options.
The March 8 forces, compromised of Hezbollah and the Free National Current led by Michel Aoun, regard intensification of hostility and sectarian strife as red lines, but it seems that the March 14 elements seek to use more aggressive means to implement the plans of the West and some regional Arab countries.
Hence, the only legitimate and democratic course that will guarantee the unity and solidarity of the Lebanese nation is the resignation of the Siniora government and the establishment of a popular national unity government.
The new government must maintain the country’s independence and reject the West’s illogical conditions in order to safeguard Lebanon’s national interests and ensure that the country will be able to properly resolve the crisis.
This path can determine the framework for relations between all domestic political parties and Lebanon’s relations with other countries based on national interests and can also block the efforts of hegemonic powers that are seeking to make Lebanon’s political arena a battlefield for their own benefit.
RS/HG
END
MNA