“Lebanon Debate”
The relationship between Baabda and Haret Hreik today seems to be at its most delicate stage, after the differences between the Presidency of the Republic and Hezbollah moved from the realm of political discord to something resembling a rupture at the level of direct communication. According to sources from both sides, there are no direct official meetings between the President of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, and the leadership of Hezbollah, while the ongoing negotiations, in parallel with the continued aggression against Lebanon, have contributed to expanding the area of disagreement between the two parties.
Sources familiar with the atmosphere in Baabda confirm that the relationship with Hezbollah is broken at the official level, while sources familiar with the party’s position in turn indicate the absence of direct communication with the President of the Republic, in light of the party’s objection to the path of direct negotiations and what it considers to be offering free concessions to Israel.
The dispute between Baabda and Haret Hreik is no longer merely a difference in views on the management of the stage, but rather has become linked to the essence of each party’s approach to the role of the state and the limits of sovereign decision-making. The presidency is based on the fact that the Lebanese state is the only body authorized to make sovereign decisions and negotiate on behalf of Lebanon, while Hezbollah adheres to its refusal to negotiate directly with Israel, and is pushing for indirect negotiations that, according to its vision, preserve a wider margin for the Lebanese position.
In this context, the party, according to the sources, clearly expresses its reproach against the Covenant and the government, holding them responsible for missing the opportunity for a ceasefire provided by the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, and considering that Lebanon could have benefited from this path to stop the bleeding in the south, instead of entering into a separate negotiating path undertaken by the Lebanese state.
Consequently, the official Lebanese position on the Islamabad Memorandum, according to the sources, constituted one of the most prominent points of disagreement in the approach to the Lebanese file, especially since the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding stipulated the cessation of military operations on various fronts, including Lebanon, and the guarantee of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, with the establishment of a mechanism linked to the Lebanese file to follow up on the cessation of military operations.
However, Baabda, on the other hand, is based on a basic principle, according to the sources, that any negotiation related to Lebanon must take place in the name of the Lebanese state and through its constitutional institutions, and not through regional paths that conclude understandings about the Lebanese arena without the state being a direct party to it.
Hence, the position of American envoy Tom Barrack, calling for Hezbollah’s involvement in the negotiation process, did not change the existing picture between Baabda and Haret Hreik. The presidential circles do not seem willing to enter into a public debate over this proposal, based on their firm position that the Lebanese state is negotiating in its own name, and that any Hezbollah participation cannot be based on the presence of a negotiating party parallel to the state.
On the other hand, sources familiar with the party’s atmosphere, despite their dissatisfaction with the American position and lack of confidence in it, consider that the current negotiation path is in trouble, as it cannot, in their opinion, proceed in light of the isolation of a large segment of the Lebanese from it. It believes that Barak’s words constitute, in this context, a clear expression of the impasse that the direct negotiation process has reached, after the involvement of the various concerned Lebanese parties has become something that cannot be overcome.
According to the data, no serious initiative has yet been recorded from both parties to reopen the direct communication channel, even in light of the developments and mounting American pressures. It seems that Barak’s words did not turn into an introduction to breaking through the wall of estrangement, but rather remained within the framework of a political proposal that reflects, in part, an American awareness of the necessity of dealing with the reality of Hezbollah and its influential presence in the Lebanese equation.
But for Baabda, there remains a fundamental difference between dealing with Hezbollah as a major Lebanese political party and granting it a negotiating position independent of the state. This difference constitutes one of the most prominent red lines that the presidency adheres to in its approach to this stage.
On the other hand, Hezbollah believes that the direct negotiation path in which the Lebanese state has engaged cannot be separated from the continuation of military operations, and that any negotiation must preserve the elements of Lebanese power and not turn into a path to make unilateral concessions.
Thus, the crisis between Baabda and Haret Hreik does not seem limited to who participates in the negotiation or by what mechanism this is done, but rather is related to a deeper question related to who owns the Lebanese decision and how the state exercises its sovereignty at a very sensitive stage.
But what is noteworthy is that the party deals with the presidency of the government with greater flexibility than it dealt with the first presidency, as no rupture was recorded between the two parties even in the most delicate circumstances, based on the fact that Hezbollah is part of the government through its ministers in it, which kept the channels of communication with the government palace open, in contrast to the relationship with Baabda, which today appears more complex and sensitive.
Accordingly, the current scene reflects a clear paradox: an official rupture between Baabda and Haret Hreik, in exchange for continued communication with the Grand Serail, while the negotiation file and the authority for the sovereign decision remain at the heart of the dispute between the Presidency of the Republic and Hezbollah.
