Daoud Rimal – Kuwaiti News
In a Lebanese moment surrounded by risks, the debate between the first and second presidencies emerged as a striking internal headline. However, a deeper reading of the course of events suggests that what happened is no more than a circumstantial discrepancy imposed by the nature of the stage and the complexities of the files at hand, especially those related to the path of direct negotiations with Israel, amid increasing international pressure to redraw the rules of engagement in the south.
A senior political source told Al-Anbaa that “what happened does not reflect a structural shift in the relationship between the two signatories, but rather falls within the framework of a difference in approaches to managing a delicate stage, as the channels of communication between the President of the Republic and the Speaker of Parliament are still open at the highest levels and will not be interrupted under any circumstances, because the challenges facing Lebanon far exceed any internal discrepancies, no matter how high their ceiling is in the media or politics.”
The source continued: “This debate comes at a time when Lebanon is facing accumulated pressures related to the southern border issue and the continuation of Israeli attacks, in addition to persistent international efforts to push Beirut towards engaging in a negotiating path under American sponsorship, a path that is still surrounded by many ambiguities related to its timing, conditions and guarantees.
In this context, the official positions, despite their varying tone, appear to be governed by one national ceiling based on linking any negotiating progress to a complete cessation of Israeli military operations, ensuring that the negotiations are not turned into a cover for continued field pressures.
The source pointed out that “the problem does not lie in the principle of negotiation itself, as much as it is related to the management of this sensitive file internally, where sovereign considerations overlap with political calculations, in addition to concerns related to how to interpret any negotiating step at home and abroad. This explains the difference in approach to some details, without this meaning that there is an actual difference in the final goals.”
The source pointed out that “what is said about the lack of coordination between the presidencies does not accurately reflect reality, as communications exist continuously, even out of the limelight, and the nature of the stage sometimes imposes discrepancies in expression rather than in substance, especially in light of the escalation of media pressure and the attempts of some to exploit any difference to create a rift in the internal political structure.”
The source explained that “Lebanon is trying to benefit from the international momentum supporting the path of calm, especially in light of the inclusion of the Lebanese file among the priorities of the American administration, in addition to European and Arab support for the negotiation option as an entry point to ending the escalation. However, this path remains fraught with challenges, especially with the continued Israeli violations, which puts the Lebanese state before a delicate equation based on achieving a balance between engaging in diplomatic efforts and preserving its sovereign principles.
The source stressed that “the priority at this stage is not to score political points, but rather to stabilize stability and prevent a slide towards a broader confrontation, and any internal discrepancy must be read within this framework, and previous experiences have proven that major crises push the political forces in Lebanon to reposition themselves under the umbrella of the national interest, which is what is expected to be repeated in the current stage.”
The source believed that “the recent debate, on its own, will not leave a long-term impact on the relationship between the two presidencies, in light of a common awareness that Lebanon is facing fateful challenges that require the highest levels of coordination, and that any break in communication will automatically translate into a weakness in the national position in the face of external challenges, which is something that no party has the luxury to bear at this stage.”
