The head of the Lebanese Forces (LF), Samir Geagea, said on Friday that “work is underway to implement the initiative launched by the LF concerning the need to deploy the army in the South.” This would make the army “the only entity, alongside the peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL), to protect the border.”
In an interview with the online media Al-Modon, Geagea pointed out that “Resolution 1701, unanimously adopted by the Lebanese government, including Hezbollah, stipulates that there should be no armed combatants or weapons outside the Lebanese army and UNIFIL”. “If Israel violates this resolution, we must implement it to guarantee our security and eliminate any justification for Israeli aggression,” he said.
“The simplest and quickest way is for the government to take the initiative and call a meeting to discuss the issue,” said Geagea. He continued, “We will wait a few days to see if this ‘miracle’ will happen.” “In the meantime, we are working with some of our allies to prepare a petition to be submitted to Parliament with a view to convening a special session,” he explained. At this session, “an extraordinary recommendation would be made to the government” concerning the deployment of the army on the southern border.
In response to a question about the possibility of obstructing this project, the FL leader said, “All we have left is the political demand, the fact of raising our voice and insisting on the need to protect Lebanon. This is a battle that is not about partisan or sectarian interests. We’re talking about the fate of Lebanon and the Lebanese.”
He added that “his initiative to withdraw Hezbollah and the fighters from the South would strengthen the chances of saving Lebanon,” in line with the advice given by all countries to “keep Lebanon out of hostilities.” He also noted that “the current struggle is between the United States and Iran.” and that there was “absolutely no justification for Lebanon, through Hezbollah, to be involved in this conflict.” “This has nothing to do with the sympathy of the Lebanese people, as a whole, for the Palestinian cause,” he added.
When asked about his position towards the displaced people of southern Lebanon, Geagea argued that the FL’s position towards Hezbollah “has nothing to do with humanitarian solidarity among the Lebanese. Shiite citizens, even those who support Hezb, are not responsible” for the current conflicts.
As for the possibility of a solution being imposed at Lebanon’s expense, he said, “It’s impossible. I base this statement on extensive contacts with Arab and Western diplomatic sources.” “Following a great crisis, a great resolution is needed,” he argued.
Geagea reported that “diplomatic circles insist on the need to find a resolution to the Palestinian question.” He reiterated, “In our view, the solution is two states. We must all work towards this and contribute to it.”
In response to criticism that Lebanon’s Christians are not playing their part in these circumstances, the FL leader argued that “the political position (of Christians) was always necessary” and that it was “present.” He countered with a series of questions, “What is the role of the 300 million Arabs? What do they do? What influence do they have? What should be the role of Lebanon’s Christians in the midst of the battles being waged by the world’s armies, where enormous strategies are being worked out at the negotiating table?”
He felt that “the repetition of this issue by a certain category of people aims to discourage Christians.”
When asked about the recent tour of political leaders by the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Gebran Bassil, Geagea described Bassil’s activity as “pointless posturing” aimed at restoring his image. In his view, Bassil was merely repeating ideas already covered by journalists in the media, whereas a politician should be “proposing solutions and practical measures as well as strategies for action.” For the FL leader, Bassil should have set aside his presidential projects and “worked instead to consolidate the role of the army,” which is the “backbone” of the country, guaranteeing “the preservation of security in these difficult circumstances.”
