The efforts deployed by Hezbollah to neutralize the vast parliamentary rally around the candidacy of former minister Jihad Azour, against its own candidate for the presidency of the Republic, Sleiman FrangiƩ, reveals the nervousness of the pro-Iranian formation.
Unable to democratically block the election of Jihad Azour, who could come close to, or even meet, the constitutionally-required 65 votes in the first round of Wednesday’s parliamentary elections, representatives of the pro-Iranian presidential party resorted to an early smear campaign.
Through a press release issued on Sunday, Hezbollah’s unofficial spokesmanĀ the Jaafari Mufti Ahmad KabalanĀ brought out the heavy artillery, expressing demagogic remarks and stating that the formation to which he is close “will not allow Tel Aviv to control the presidency of the Republic in Lebanon.”
Cheikh Kabalan was thus directly responding to MP Marwan HamadĆ© (Joumblattās parliamentary bloc), without naming him. Mr. HamadĆ© had asserted on Saturday that the parliamentary coalition in favor of electing Mr. Azour “will not allow the return of Bashar el-Assad to Baabda,” in reference to Mr. FrangiĆ©’s friendship with the Syrian president. He also stressed that the latter’s election was out of the question.
Hezbollah is unable to ensure the election of its candidate in a Parliament in which it no longer holds a majority with its allies, especially since the FPM, its Christian ally, joined the opposition. As a result, Hezbollah resorted to tactics of demagogic popular mobilization based on empty slogans, which reinforces divisions within the country.
The Mufti, who considers “today’s presidential election to be of unprecedented gravity,” imposed bans and defined a series of red lines which, in his words, “will never be crossed,” presenting each one in a paragraph, in an obvious attempt to make the announcement more solemn.
Sheikh Kabalan highlighted that āthe election of an unconstitutional Ā president is unacceptable,ā and exposed what he called “the detrimental effects of American intervention,” categorically “prohibiting the presence of an American-stamped president.ā
The mufti stated that “the matters at hand are serious and historical. Firstly, the issue of the President of the Republic is significant, dangerous, and related to Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
“Second, defending Lebanon’s political independence is equivalent to defending its existence,” affirmed Qabalan, drawing attention to a “dubious alignment of contradictory political forces,” which he perceived as “an unconstitutional and perilous path for Lebanon.”
“Three: The American intervention (in the choice of Jihad Azour) is clear, which means that a president with the American seal of approval is forbidden. Four: Those who led the February 6 uprising (Amal against the army in 1984) and orchestrated the downfall of May 17 (between Lebanon and IsraĆ«l in 1983) would face opposition not only in Parliament but also in the colored version of events,” he added.
To conclude, Sheikh Kabalan firmly stated that Lebanon “would not permit Tel Aviv, or any external entity, to regain control of the Lebanese presidency, condemning such an action as a treacherous betrayal of the resistance.”
