- Home
- War in the Middle East
- Hochstein and the Opposition, an Encounter Far from Ordinary
- 06
- Mar
- 2024
Hochstein and the Opposition, an Encounter Far from Ordinary
modified on 11 Apr. 2024 à 15:53 Read : 6 minute(s) A A A
The visit of US envoy Amos Hochstein to Lebanon on Monday, his third since the onset of the Gaza war on October 7, has sparked widespread debate over both its timing and the topics discussed during his meetings with Lebanese officials. The standout element of this visit is his highly symbolic meeting with opposition MPs, at the Parliament.
During his two previous visits to Lebanon in November 2023 and January 2024, US envoy Amos Hochstein held discussions primarily with caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, House Speaker, Nabih Berri, Army Commander-in-Chief, General Joseph Aoun, and Deputy Parliament Speaker, Elias Bou Saab. Why did he opt this time to broaden his consultations to include former Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, and opposition MPs?
Before flying to Israel, where he continued his contacts on Tuesday with the aim of halting hostilities in southern Lebanon, Hochstein met with MPs Michel Moawad, Samy Gemayel, Georges Adwan, Elias Hankach, and Georges Okaiss at the Parliament on Monday evening. According to the parliamentarians, the envoy sought alternative perspectives other than those provided by Lebanese officials, especially considering that the most appropriate solution for restoring calm on the southern front has yet to be determined. Nonetheless, several ideas are currently under consideration.
“Foreign envoy cannot rely solely on one viewpoint, especially when addressing the destiny of an entire population and a matter of war and peace,” said Elias Hankach (Kataeb-Metn) to This is Beirut. According to him, the representatives of the opposition do not want war, and “the opposition represents 70% of the Lebanese population.”
MP Michel Moawad (Renewal Parliamentary Bloc-Zgharta) echoed a similar sentiment: “As part of the opposition, we consider this meeting crucial. During Hochstein's previous visits, he only engaged with officials sharing the same viewpoint, which, however, lack constitutional legitimacy.” He further explained, “These officials have effectively decided to delegate the country's sovereignty, including decisions on war and peace, to Hezbollah. Moreover, their viewpoint does not represent that of the Lebanese majority. Opinion polls reveal that three-quarters of Lebanese are opposed to Lebanon becoming entangled in a war that is not its own. Besides, they represent a parliamentary minority. When considering the official stances of blocs unwilling to be pulled into war, they comprise two-thirds of Parliament. Lebanon is being held hostage.”
The US envoy was thus presented with a different version of Lebanese politics, one that does not “delegate the Lebanese sovereignty,” as stated by Moawad. This is especially noteworthy considering, as highlighted by Hankach, that the opposition had previously visited multiple capitals to convey its viewpoint.
The Content of the Meetings
Apparently, Hochstein did not present any new proposals to his interlocutors. The discussions revolved around the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and Washington's pursuit of de-escalation in the south, alongside the presidential dossier. Hankach commented, “For us, Resolution 1701 embodies a comprehensive package. The international community cannot selectively favor Israel's interests, such as ensuring that Israeli settlers return home exclusively.”
He asserts that the opposition’s priority is “to establish a ceasefire, halt Israeli aggression and violations of Lebanese territory, and deploy the army along the borders, with international support.”
The importance of this package lies in its capacity to allow the Lebanese State to restore its constitutional role. In this context, Moawad reminds This is Beirut that after the conclusion of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the international community swiftly lost interest in Lebanon upon cessation of hostilities. The failure to implement Resolution 1701 has enabled Hezbollah to tighten its grip over the State, which has been the primary reason for the country’s isolation and the collapse of its institutions.” It also led to a gradual escalation on both sides of the border, that ended by an eruption on October 8,” he explains. “Therefore, we emphasize the importance of ensuring that the envisaged solution for the south is not merely a shaky compromise but rather a sustainable one, achieved through a serious and global implementation of Resolution 1701,” continues the Zgharta MP.
According to his colleague from Metn, the opposition supports the Palestinians and their cause in Gaza, but rejects the idea of Lebanon’s destiny being militarily tied to that of the Palestinian enclave. “Lebanon cannot afford to continually plunge into wars, with an insurmountable cost for all Lebanese people, especially that these wars are driven by regional influences on our territory,” adds Moawad.
However, according to knowledgeable sources, Hochstein, while aligned with the opposition, finds himself in a deadlock. He is particularly pondering whether to prioritize an immediate cessation of hostilities or to wait for a more sustainable solution. This is the first solution that appears to be a promising path towards resolution, whereas the opposition has a less favorable track record with formulas that involve a “we will address the rest later.”
The Presidential Election
Concerning the presidential election’s dossier, opposition MPs clarified their viewpoint to the US envoy. They emphasized that “any internal deadline must be dissociated from the events occurring in southern Lebanon,” stated Elias Hankach. “There is dissociation between the war and the presidential election. We do not accept intertwining the two. The election of a president is a decision of Lebanese sovereignty.” We only seek the Quintet’s support (France, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt) to compel the concerned parties to respect the Constitution,” asserts Michel Moawad, referring to the Amal-Hezbollah tandem that obstructs the presidential election to prod the opposition into a dialogue that will lead toward the selection of a compromise candidate.
According to Hankach, Hochstein did not bring any presidential initiative and is not in conflict with the French initiative aimed at resolving the deadlock.
All members of the opposition agree that the only way to elect a president is for the 128 MPs to convene in Parliament and proceed with the vote. However, this process is being blocked by only one party, the Shiite tandem.
“We are also open to what the Quintet calls 'the third way'—a candidate other than the opposition's choice, Jihad Azour, and the tandem's one, Sleiman Frangieh. However, for this option to be viable, Hezbollah must renounce its candidate. Hezbollah is aware that it cannot democratically secure either a majority or a two-third quorum for him. Therefore, its formal attachment to this candidate is a tactic to obstruct the presidential election and link the dossiers, a stance we oppose,” emphasizes Moawad. He further adds, “The opposition will not tolerate Lebanon being treated as a mere bargaining chip in a compromise over the war in the south, a war that has already incurred a two-billion-dollar cost for the Lebanese people. The opposition adamantly rejects the notion of tying any constitutional deadlines, (particularly the presidential election), to the imperative of implementing Resolution 1701,” strongly emphasizes the Zgharta MP.
During his two previous visits to Lebanon in November 2023 and January 2024, US envoy Amos Hochstein held discussions primarily with caretaker Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, House Speaker, Nabih Berri, Army Commander-in-Chief, General Joseph Aoun, and Deputy Parliament Speaker, Elias Bou Saab. Why did he opt this time to broaden his consultations to include former Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, and opposition MPs?
Before flying to Israel, where he continued his contacts on Tuesday with the aim of halting hostilities in southern Lebanon, Hochstein met with MPs Michel Moawad, Samy Gemayel, Georges Adwan, Elias Hankach, and Georges Okaiss at the Parliament on Monday evening. According to the parliamentarians, the envoy sought alternative perspectives other than those provided by Lebanese officials, especially considering that the most appropriate solution for restoring calm on the southern front has yet to be determined. Nonetheless, several ideas are currently under consideration.
“Foreign envoy cannot rely solely on one viewpoint, especially when addressing the destiny of an entire population and a matter of war and peace,” said Elias Hankach (Kataeb-Metn) to This is Beirut. According to him, the representatives of the opposition do not want war, and “the opposition represents 70% of the Lebanese population.”
MP Michel Moawad (Renewal Parliamentary Bloc-Zgharta) echoed a similar sentiment: “As part of the opposition, we consider this meeting crucial. During Hochstein's previous visits, he only engaged with officials sharing the same viewpoint, which, however, lack constitutional legitimacy.” He further explained, “These officials have effectively decided to delegate the country's sovereignty, including decisions on war and peace, to Hezbollah. Moreover, their viewpoint does not represent that of the Lebanese majority. Opinion polls reveal that three-quarters of Lebanese are opposed to Lebanon becoming entangled in a war that is not its own. Besides, they represent a parliamentary minority. When considering the official stances of blocs unwilling to be pulled into war, they comprise two-thirds of Parliament. Lebanon is being held hostage.”
The US envoy was thus presented with a different version of Lebanese politics, one that does not “delegate the Lebanese sovereignty,” as stated by Moawad. This is especially noteworthy considering, as highlighted by Hankach, that the opposition had previously visited multiple capitals to convey its viewpoint.
The Content of the Meetings
Apparently, Hochstein did not present any new proposals to his interlocutors. The discussions revolved around the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and Washington's pursuit of de-escalation in the south, alongside the presidential dossier. Hankach commented, “For us, Resolution 1701 embodies a comprehensive package. The international community cannot selectively favor Israel's interests, such as ensuring that Israeli settlers return home exclusively.”
He asserts that the opposition’s priority is “to establish a ceasefire, halt Israeli aggression and violations of Lebanese territory, and deploy the army along the borders, with international support.”
The importance of this package lies in its capacity to allow the Lebanese State to restore its constitutional role. In this context, Moawad reminds This is Beirut that after the conclusion of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the international community swiftly lost interest in Lebanon upon cessation of hostilities. The failure to implement Resolution 1701 has enabled Hezbollah to tighten its grip over the State, which has been the primary reason for the country’s isolation and the collapse of its institutions.” It also led to a gradual escalation on both sides of the border, that ended by an eruption on October 8,” he explains. “Therefore, we emphasize the importance of ensuring that the envisaged solution for the south is not merely a shaky compromise but rather a sustainable one, achieved through a serious and global implementation of Resolution 1701,” continues the Zgharta MP.
According to his colleague from Metn, the opposition supports the Palestinians and their cause in Gaza, but rejects the idea of Lebanon’s destiny being militarily tied to that of the Palestinian enclave. “Lebanon cannot afford to continually plunge into wars, with an insurmountable cost for all Lebanese people, especially that these wars are driven by regional influences on our territory,” adds Moawad.
However, according to knowledgeable sources, Hochstein, while aligned with the opposition, finds himself in a deadlock. He is particularly pondering whether to prioritize an immediate cessation of hostilities or to wait for a more sustainable solution. This is the first solution that appears to be a promising path towards resolution, whereas the opposition has a less favorable track record with formulas that involve a “we will address the rest later.”
The Presidential Election
Concerning the presidential election’s dossier, opposition MPs clarified their viewpoint to the US envoy. They emphasized that “any internal deadline must be dissociated from the events occurring in southern Lebanon,” stated Elias Hankach. “There is dissociation between the war and the presidential election. We do not accept intertwining the two. The election of a president is a decision of Lebanese sovereignty.” We only seek the Quintet’s support (France, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt) to compel the concerned parties to respect the Constitution,” asserts Michel Moawad, referring to the Amal-Hezbollah tandem that obstructs the presidential election to prod the opposition into a dialogue that will lead toward the selection of a compromise candidate.
According to Hankach, Hochstein did not bring any presidential initiative and is not in conflict with the French initiative aimed at resolving the deadlock.
All members of the opposition agree that the only way to elect a president is for the 128 MPs to convene in Parliament and proceed with the vote. However, this process is being blocked by only one party, the Shiite tandem.
“We are also open to what the Quintet calls 'the third way'—a candidate other than the opposition's choice, Jihad Azour, and the tandem's one, Sleiman Frangieh. However, for this option to be viable, Hezbollah must renounce its candidate. Hezbollah is aware that it cannot democratically secure either a majority or a two-third quorum for him. Therefore, its formal attachment to this candidate is a tactic to obstruct the presidential election and link the dossiers, a stance we oppose,” emphasizes Moawad. He further adds, “The opposition will not tolerate Lebanon being treated as a mere bargaining chip in a compromise over the war in the south, a war that has already incurred a two-billion-dollar cost for the Lebanese people. The opposition adamantly rejects the notion of tying any constitutional deadlines, (particularly the presidential election), to the imperative of implementing Resolution 1701,” strongly emphasizes the Zgharta MP.
Read more
Comments