Arab Status Report - Issue № 1

الخميس 15 نوفمبر, 2018

This periodic report monitors the development of the situation in the Arab region, with a geopolitical reading and from the perspective of the "common Arab interest system" in the context of the competition of regional and international interests. In its work, the Arab Peace Initiative (Beirut Summit 2002) and the Riyadh Declaration issued by the 2007 Arab Summit are a fundamental reference in the assessment of the issues...  With a particular reference to the Lebanese situation, from the perspective of Living-together (coexistence), the Taëf Agreement and the resolutions of international legitimacy, especially the Resolution 1701.

• In this first report we try to see "where the Arab situation has reached" in general, till the date, and within the context of the conflict that has been going on in the region and on it for seven years, that is, since the spiral of armed violence. Under five main headings: Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon... In subsequent reports, we follow up on what preceded, within a periodic report. (Every two months)

 

In the general Arab scene

Mid-November 2018.

One day, Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Thaqafi addressed the people of Iraq in a threatening statement: "... By God, I will make for every one of you work in his body, to preoccupy him from what so ever!" It may be said today, by analogy, that the developments of the so-called "Arab Spring" in its violent armed phase, and the ensuing regional and international conflicts, have made every Arab country "preoccupied" with their own affairs. There is no doubt that the increasing regional and international intervention in the affairs of the Arab region, even as far as involvement on the field, both politically and militarily, has further marginalized the Arab role in determining the fate of the region. Arab joint action has declined in the framework of the League of Arab States. Valued Arab forces have also lost their historical and traditional roles, to the point that the fate of a number of Arab state entities has become more dependent on foreign understandings and priorities than on the Arab or national home decisions. Perhaps, the most prominent example in this case is the fate of Syria, which is in the hands of four non-Arab forces, namely the United States, Russia, Iran and Turkey, up to the disparity between these forces in the sphere of influence and determination (the United States rule in major issues, and "do not forget their share of the world", while others have their say in the particularities and the procedures, which can also varies among them). This is without forgetting the "permanent presence", namely, Israel.

However, this Arab scene, which is backward and pessimistic, is not doomed - despite what some think or promote - to a definite, inevitable and rapid outcome. It is the end of the "Arab Era" and the arrival of another time in our countries, whether it is Russian-Caesarean, Iranian-Persian, Turkish-Ottoman or Israeli-Talmudist...  Although "American era" is here, it is the most steadfast and least timeless among those eras. At the same time, we are seeing early aging in the "New European Era".

In parallel, there are fundamental issues that seem unprobable to be fabricated under the pressure of the reality, given their nature : the Palestinian issue appeared to be difficult for the "Deal of the century," albeit it's one of the most severe cases of siege; furthermore, the Crime of the Era in Syria is not to be circumvented, so as to allow the impunity of the criminal regime; Iraq has been fidgeting is and fiercely on the way back to its patriotism and Arab originality; Yemen can only be an Arabic gap and a key to security between the Gulf and Egypt, as well as the liquidity of international exchange and trade. Lebanon still resists changes to its nature of coexistence and its known message in the region and the world, although sometimes, it appears as a weak and isolated link... Moreover, the total resolutions of the international legitimacy related to the countries mentioned are not yet in favor of fabrication, and it does not seem possible to reach infractions on International consensus.

Therefore, we believe that the sound Arab approach (collective rather than unilateral) to deal with the existing scene is still the restoration and reform of a joint Arab system of action, based on the priority of the "common Arab interest system."...  Approach which was expressed in the last paragraph of the appeal launched by the "Riyadh Declaration" issued by the Arab Summit in March 2007:

"What our region is going through, the aggravation of a situation in which the Arab land is becoming more vulnerable, Arab energies and resources are dissipated, and Arab identity and culture are receding, requires from all of us to stand together with a sincere reflection and comprehensive view of what is at stake . All of us, leaders, officials, citizens, parents, and children, are partners in shaping our own destiny and in preserving our identity, culture, values, and rights. And our Arab nations, by joining together and promoting their common action, will be capable of achieving the security, dignity, and prosperity they deserve."

This is based on what was stated in the same declaration about the meaning of Arabism: “… Arabism is not an ethnically racist concept; it is a unified cultural identity, where the Arabic language plays the role of expressing and preserving its heritage and a common cultural framework based on spiritual, moral and human values, and enriched by diversity, multiplicity, and openness to other human cultures, and keeping up the rapid scientific and technological developments”… and which requires "spreading a culture of moderation, tolerance, dialogue and openness, and rejecting all forms of terrorism and extremism, all racist tendencies and campaigns of hatred and distortion(...), and the warning of the use of pluralism and sectarianism for political purposes that aim at fragmentation of the Arab land and the division of its countries and people, and ignite destructive sedition, strife and civil conflicts”.

Palestine

In the confrontation of the " Deal of the Century ".

A few years after the cessation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, during which the American administration ceased to be a partner, or even the mediator, and with the persistence of the systematic Judaization of the Israeli government, and while the Arab interest in the Palestinian cause was greatly reduced, due the preoccupation of the countries in the region towards internal turmoil and overwhelming terrorist violence… the American administration presented "the Deal of the Century" to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The project plan was not officially and fully announced. But what leaked out, whether by declaration or by some action taken by the American side, was enough to say that it was aimed at "stripping the Palestinians of their national rights," according to a strong statement by Palestinian leadership. The project basically considers the Palestinian problem as a humanitarian-economic-security problem. Its solution lies in addressing the issues of Palestinian terrorism and economic hardship. Therefore, this vision undermines the basis of the settlement process based on the idea of "land for peace and the two-state solution," which has been in place since the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and and reinforced by the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, even though there were serious stumbling, as is it known. In other words, the American side "deals with this issue with the logic of the trade deal, while it is impossible to resolve a historic, complex, and national-religious conflict such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the logic of the trade deal. How can we expect the people to give up their dreams?! ", questions researcher and reserve general in the Israeli army, Gershon Hakohn (Randa Haider, "Bridges" October 2018).

In the US actions that accompanied the project, were the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem; the suspension of funding to UNRWA, as its role was being questioned, and its cancellation demanded; and recently, the closure of the Office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington.

Perhaps the most obvious, sensitive and practical point in this American project is the foundation of a "confederation between the West Bank and Jordan"."This proposal was personally conveyed to the Palestinian president by Jared Kouchner, the co-founder, and advisor to US President Donald Trump and his special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt”, according to President Mahmoud Abbas (Wafa News Agency and the Israeli media, 2/9/2018).

In the Gaza Strip, the project deals exclusively with economic activity (development projects, establishment of a free trade area between Gaza and Arish, etc.), as well as considering it as a separate entity from the West Bank. This last point has been effectively encouraged and inspired by Israel.

The project met total rejection from the Palestinian side, which severed the relationship with the US administration seen as an "unfair broker", but the response of President Abbas to the proposal of the Confederation was striking with strong symbolism: "I accept the Confederation, provided that it's a trilogy: Palestine - Jordan - Israel ! "The ball not only returned to the US administration and Israel, but also reiterated the notorious major response to Israeli intransigence on the two-state solution: "If you reject the two-state solution, we will have to go in the direction of a single, bi-national state!" He knows that it is impossible for Israel to accept such an alternative, just as he knows perfectly well that it is impossible for the Jordanian side to accept a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation.

Indeed, once Abbas revealed the essence of the American project, the Jordanian government hastened to declare: "Connecting Jordan to the West Bank is a confederation that is not debatable and impossible!" (Agencies 2/9/2018).

”Did the Palestinian president go too far up the tree, and thus he needs someone to bring him down?" question some observers. The answer in the circles close to the Palestinian authority agree that : "Yes, he went up far with his will and determination, and he does not need to come down, as long as there is no land to land on, a real land of negotiations, and with the terms of the two-state solution agreed!"

Is the Palestinian president betting only on Jordan's categorical rejection? In fact, there is a Saudi rejection that is no less important and decisive in this regard. According to Saudi monarch, Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the "deal of the century can not be conducted!” However, the Palestinian leadership's biggest bet is the recent high-level resistance of the Palestinian people at home, especially in the defense of the Aqsa and the Orthodox Waqf (property), in which they participated in both the Muslim and Christian communities, especially within the "1948 territories."

While Netanyahu tried to circumvent the Palestinian position, supported by Arabs and Islamists, by visiting Oman, the Palestinian response was equally clear and decisive: "The visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the Sultanate of Oman is a blow to the Arab peace initiative, based on land for peace, and then the establishment of relations between the Arab states and Israel" (Fatah movement statement 26/10/2018).

On the spot, the Omani Minister for Foreign Affairs, Yousef bin Alawi declared: "We do not have a plan, we are not middlemen". "The US role remains the main issue. We offer only convenience!" (Russia Today, 26/10/2018).

There are signs that US President Donald Trump also needs to get off the top of the tree... This is what the coming weeks will show... On the basis that "there is no alternative to peace but peace", and there is no alternative to real negotiations except real negotiations. Furthermore, the Egyptian position on the "Deal of the Century" should be Scrutinized as well.

Syria

A witness to Arab absence !

At the beginning of this report, we pointed out that the Syrian situation, in its aftermath, attests to the absence of an effective Arab role in determining the fate of Syria. Not only that, but the role of the Syrian nationals (internal) also turned into a status of eclipse and absence, both regarding the opposition or even the ruling regime itself. The latter is among the weakest players, if not the weakest, and is only used as a screen for regional power in one direction or another. And the opposition is more vulnerable and absent than ever, with its dispersion... It goes without saying that there is a high price paid by the Syrian people whether for their present or future, in what can be called the "tragedy of the century," in accordance with the new term in the market trading, and in a "Nations game"; nothing similar has ever been seen even during the Cold War. Note that, that notorious war was cold in all parts of the world, and very hot in our region!

And if the Arab side, including the Syrian internally, is in such a situation, are the non-Arab powers holding onto the Syrian scene (the United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel) to move towards a known solution? And If it was "known" - or rather, promoted - is this solution close or anywhere in sight ?

The monitoring of the Syrian political and field developments since the "fall of Aleppo" and then the entrapment of observers on the evening of the "promise to break into Idlib" by the forces of the Syrian regime and its allies until today shows that the "common image" is tyranny, and that the solutions remain "virtual" and subject to the entrenchment of each of the key players, pending a final consensus among them that has to come yet!

The main features of that shared image are:

• Despite the Russian intervention with all its military weight, and the great margin that was made available under the title of "understanding with the American side," Russian "achievements" remained within: preventing the fall of the Syrian regime, including switching to its regime's guardianship of Iranian tutelage; putting an end to any Iranian or Turkish territory expanding on the ground; presenting itself as a guarantor of Israel's security demands on the Syrian crisis.
• Iran's retention of most of the field sites and demographics overlapping with the sites of the system, and holding these sites at all costs, so as not to get out of the game. This is with operating its collocated Lebanese political and military paper.
• Turkey retained its vital territory in northern Syria, especially after the “Idleb exam”.
• Israel's acquisition of a "safe southern Syrian front," with multilateral guarantees, and the withdrawal of Iranian and Hezbollah forces from its border for as far as 80 km. While maintaining the "right" of threat and intimidation whenever and wherever it wishes. Of course, this "right" remains bound by an undisputed American will.
• The American side retained the "total authority of the movement of the scene", without the need for a direct presence on the ground except symbolically (some sites - military signs, direct relations with the Kurds of Syria), as well as the leadership of the International Alliance against Terrorism (from the air). Such a symbol is enough to draw boundaries that no party can overcome. The American side, however, deals with the Syrian situation, its mobility, and its pains, as if it were a "cloud of Harun al-Rashid": "Rain where you wish, all your territories are mine!". It may be necessary to say that the American role, as it was mentioned, makes the status of "sharing" only applicable to the other parties and within the limits of their respective roles, without excluding any of their "ambitions."… In short, the US is not eager for a share, but is a "distributor of quotas".

In addition, we believe that the current and ongoing bias in Syria is not a result of the balance of power between the players being inconclusive, as much as it is caused by two main and interrelated reasons, which may have a primary role in influencing : the lack of a tendency by the US administration to resolve and the complexities of the Syrian situation as a "cornerstone" in determining the fate of the entire region. In other words, the problems of the region, from Palestine to Yemen, through Syria and Iraq, are interdependent and intertwined from a strategic perspective. This is despite the fact that the US administration, in recent years, has clearly worked to isolate the problems from one another. If this recent attempt named "Deal of the Century" regarding the Palestinian issue strongly points towards this trend, it indicates at the same time the interdependence of problems and destinies, as well as the centrality of the Palestinian cause, even in the most isolated cases!

The final image of the Syrian scene is very clear: Stephan de Mistura resigned from his mission in Syria at the end of November 2018, when the Syrian regime declined the intervention of the United Nations in appointing the new constitution drafting committee. They were requirement by some Western capitals to accomplish this task before the start of the reconstruction process, and thus convince the parties to end the conflict before the end of this year. With the resignation of de Mistura after four years in office, which did not account for much, and after the resignation of UN envoys since March 2011, respectively the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who described his mission in Syria as "an impossible mission" and the veteran Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, observers wonder today: will the newly appointed envoy (Norwegian Geir Pedersen) succeed in the place of de Mistura, where his three predecessors failed?

Perhaps the most accurate and realistic answer to this question is what the spokesman of the Syrian negotiating opposition league stated : "Changing the delegates will have little impact on the fate of the country in the absence of international will and consensus for a political roadmap." (Agencies 1 / 2018).

The "Arab State Report" asks in turn: who is responsible for the absence of international will and consensus to remove Syria from its ordeal, in light of the actual balances in Syria?

Iraq

Suspended on the “Cross” of two influences!

What Iraq has been subjected to, wars, strife and horrors, during the last decades, especially after 2003, in addition to the internal mismanagement, left nothing but the work of sabotage. Perhaps the fall of the state twice within the last 15 years (2003 under the US occupation, and 2017-2018 with "Daesh") summarizes the Iraqi situation during this period. As these wars and strife overlapped with the Iraqi-religious-sectarian-ethnic diversity, they were reflected not only in the reality of the state and its structure, but also in the society, in particular, creating a double identity crisis, the identity of the state and the identity of society. In addition, the "clash understanding" between the US occupation and Iranian influence has forced Iraq to live isolated from its Arab surroundings for years, hanging on a “Cross” of two influences!

After the recent "military" defeat of Daesh, Iraqis have found that the challenges of recovery and reconstruction extend from a life crisis, exacerbated by the persistence of corruption, chaos, and mismanagement, to a national identity crisis.

Iraq was trying to re-gather its pieces, based on one fact and three phenomena:

-The fact was the success in overcoming the crisis created by the referendum on the separation of the Kurdistan region, by retreating on the results of the referendum... The US position, not encouraging, had a decisive role with the retreatment - by some, critical in this decline. Of course, the American calculations in this regard include the hard-line Turkish position.

The three phenomena, even at their beginning, are:

1. The tendency to absorb the "popular crowd" (Hashd Eshaaby) whose radical Shiite and slippery character, through the codification of its presence within the state, in parallel with the strengthening of the army and police, is on the way to "dispense with its services" as a tool and platform for Iranian influence, especially after the emergence of strong signs of its political ability (the elections), security (on the ground) and economically (companies and commercial deals) and popular. The Supreme Shiite reference (Mr. Ali al-Sistani) had an encouraging role in this direction, especially that the "crowd" was based on the appeal of the reference at moment of the fall of the Iraqi army against "Daesh".
2. The popular demonstrations in Basra, which exceeded political and extreme sectarian divisions on the ground, had expressed at times a great dissatisfaction with the Iranian influence, which put the interest of Iraq at the very bottom of priorities. Observers saw in those demonstrations a civil movement based on the map of internal balances that should not be neglected in the coming days. In this context, observers have noted the strong effectiveness of active civic groups, including secular, leftist and religious groups, all in harmony with the direction of the Shiite authority. In addition, the popular mobilization and demand for putting an end to corruption at the state level may be added at times to the demands of Muqtada al-Sadr.
3. The last phenomenon is that of the disintegration of the Shiite political fanaticism that ruled Iraq for years, led by the "Daawa" Party. This was manifested through political shifts in the Shiite framework, and intersecting with other non-Shiite forces, which created a new mix of papers appeared with Assigning a liberal figure to form a new ministry, this figure being Adel Abdul Mahdi, whom is known to be at calculated distances from the three main powers: The United States, Iran and the Shiite reference in Najaf.

As Iraq was trying to re-gather its pieces recently, on the basis of the above facts and phenomena, and during the formation of the government, came the maturity of the implementation of US sanctions against Iran, in the first week of November. That stalled the creation of the government, due to intense Iranian pressure, only five days after the announcement of the start of sanctions. Observers have noticed the timing of the Iranian disruption in both Iraq and Lebanon, with mainly one pretext. So there is no doubt that disabling formation of the two governments goes beyond domestic considerations and directly correlate with the US sanctions… What else could it be when we see Iran use the "hold on to the decisions of four Arab capitals - Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut, and Sanaa," in what its leaders repeatedly boast about?!?

How long will this finger-biting process last?

The coming days and weeks are likely to provide some indicators, although we do not expect a clear and explicit answer, the answer will probably be confusing! The sanctions did not close all doors to Iran, despite its antithetical tone in an “American Cowboy” style. Iran, as we observe and believe, is trying to lure Western interventions to circumvent the sanctions, exploiting the existence of "hostages" in its hands, and by eliciting a talk with the American "breadwinner", as long as Mr. Trump has made it clear that the alternative nuclear agreement from the previous one would be a new agreement that considers Iran's influence in the region, as well as its ballistic missiles.

What is important to us, the Iraqis or the Lebanese is not for the finger-biting between the American and the Iranians to land on our hands only!... The Americans have in their reach the "cloud of Rachid", and the Iranian s have the hostages!... And what matters to us is that the plane does not explode with the abducted onboard! ... Can passengers behave, by being a third party that has its own agenda, or is identification with one party or the other the only option?

Yemen

Not happy at all!

Since early 2015, the conflict in Yemen has worsened when the “Houthis” took control of vast areas of the West and forced President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to flee to Saudi Arabia. So they turned to the Gulf initiative to resolve the Yemeni crisis at the time, and the outputs of the national dialogue, allied with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, will turn on them later. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and seven other countries have been concerned about the rise of the pro-Iranian “Houthis” who are fighting a war on its behalf. They have engaged in a coordinated military assault to restore the legitimate government of the country. The Saudi-led Arab alliance has received logistical support from the United States, Britain, and France.

Despite the return of the legitimate government, it has not been able to control the entire country, and the “Houthis” have continued to control large areas, including Sana'a, with strong and explicit Iranian support. Thus, the "Desert Storm" has been going on as "restoring hope" for four years until now, without resolving the conflict, despite the unequal front, in the size of the military force, nor the departure of Ali Abdullah Saleh from the “Houthis”, or the issuance of Security Council resolution 2216 in favor of legitimacy!

This long debate was raised by the observers, as well as many questions about the problems that have emerged successively, with some rather prominent ones:

• The state of attrition faced by Saudi Arabia and the UAE mainly during that period, recalling the experience of Egyptian attrition in Yemen during the “Nasiriyah” period;
• Has the international situation changed, moving from "supporting and facilitating the process of encircling the “Houthi” coup and Iranian penetration" to obstructing that process, especially since the performance of the international envoys was closer to the "mediation" between legitimacy and coup, rather than to ensure the implementation of an explicit decision in favor of legitimacy 2216 ?
• And with the continuation of the aspiration and hit-and-run operations, a Western media and diplomatic focus has emerged, including American, on the catastrophic scale of the destruction caused by the military coalition raids, especially at the level of civilian installations and civilian personnel. Furthermore, there was a kind of disregard for the crimes of the “Houthis” on the ground, from assassinations and liquidations in their areas of control to the closure of schools and the recruitment of children!... It is worth noting that the leadership of the coalition admitted some errors and abuses, while no other confession came from the other side!
• This is in addition to other questions and facts that all come together to indicate that Iran has managed to make Yemen a paper and a platform, among other papers and platforms in the region, to address the United States and the West in general with regard to its regional ambitions, especially in the context of the "global war" in the Arab region since 2011! On the other hand, the facts and the same questions point to the retreat of the "Arab Promise" promised by the "Decisive Storm" four years ago!
• However, our recent observation does not mean that the features of the picture are complete or close to completion. A major and dominant feature is the following: Although international management has largely succeeded in isolating conflict issues and countries from each other (each country has enough), the administration has been reluctant to resolve issues where it was possible locally (Yemen is an example, and Libya is the most tragic example). On the other hand, it has not resorted to a comprehensive treatment and solution, either due to the impossibility of it, or, most likely, due to its unwillingness to do so (the "deal of the century” regarding Palestine is - as we have seen - a comprehensive address, but by local treatment and the smuggling and defalcation method!). Between the reluctance to resolve issues on one hand and the impossibility of a comprehensive solution or lack of desire on the other hand, what is clear is the process of exhausting the entire Arab region and depletion!... This process will not stop or be modified unless the Arab initiative comes with an Arab agenda.

Returning to the Yemeni situation, observers noted that "after the silence of the US administration for months on what was happening in Yemen, the diplomatic circles were surprised by the appearance of the American defense and foreign ministers, and the calls on parties of the conflict to an urgent cease-fire and go to peace talks within thirty days in Sweden, under the supervision of UN Special Envoy Martin Griffith, and to find a solution! " (BBC Arabic News, October 31, 2018). "The United States and Britain have never formally demanded a ceasefire through the United Nations... but it seems to have changed now," the BBC's diplomatic correspondent said.

What has changed? This question may partly be answered, and from a Western point of view, what accompanied the US call as reports inform that "the Saudi-led coalition forces may have committed war crimes in Yemen, and humanitarian organizations say that the partial siege imposed on the country led to 14 million Yemenis stand on the verge of famine. "In addition, statements of UN spokespersons show: "An imminent famine threatens half of Yemen's population!... The United Nations is losing its battle against famine in Yemen!" (BBC-N.M.). On the other hand, the mission of Physicians for Human Rights Without limit "working in Yemen issued a detailed report in which it said that "talk of famine in Yemen is authoritarian, and what exists does not apply to the standards of famine by approved scientific standards. "(Al-Arabiya TV, 12/11/2018).

What changed from a political point of view? In answering this question, US officials and diplomatic sources familiar with the killing of Saudi media Jamal al-Khashoggi, confirmed that Washington was "exploiting" Riyadh's position on this issue in favor of the two components of the Qatari-Gulf crisis and the cessation of the war in Yemen... The officials pointed out that a solution in these two files will not happen fast, but the US administration hopes to develop significantly on the two fronts by the end of this year. This can be seen through the recent official calls for a solution in the two cases "(CNN, 1 / 11/2018).

In the Iranian reaction, "some diplomats pointed out that Tehran will not be happy to withdraw from Yemen; it is unclear whether it is ready to respond to the United States, while the latter re-impose sanctions on the Iranian economy after the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement", (BBC Arabic, N.M.).

In the Saudi reaction, the second week of November witnessed a strong escalation by the Arab coalition in an attempt to resolve the situation in Hodeidah and its port, in parallel with the Yemeni government's legitimate progress in the area.

In the Qatari reaction, we noticed the recent "financial process" towards Hamas, in conjunction with the new chapter of the "Hamas-Netanyahu war" in Gaza !

Lebanon

The challenge of self-distancing... Not every time!

We have noticed in the third section of this report (Iraq: Suspended on the “Cross” of two influences!) The Iranian impasse coincided with the formation of a new government in both Iraq and Lebanon with the start of the new US sanctions. The hypothesis of the causal link between sanctions and disruption is reinforced by the fact that the latter came at the moment of maturity of the ministerial reshuffle, here and there, to present it to the parliamentary confidence, and after overcoming internal obstacles with compromises and assumptions, whether ordinary or exceptional.

In Lebanon specifically, the timing of the suspension was "surprising" for the main stakeholders: the president and the prime minister-designate. The president of the republic was unable to hide his surprise and resentment at a press conference marking the second anniversary of his term. He went as far as to accuse the obstructionist Hezbollah of attempting to abort the "covenant" - term of the president, in the Lebanese term - while the president expected to begin his term seriously with this government. It was aggravated by the fact that the abortion of the formation of the government, accidental or deliberate, was brought by his first ally, the great credit of his ascension to the presidency, which imposed the vacancy of the post for more than two years "for the eye of the general", in exchange for providing the "general coverage" of the great Christian coverage for Hezbollah after the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005, following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

 Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri was surprised in turn because he was reassured by his partner, the president, of the compromises that preceded the maturity of the formation, and in the framework of the "total settlement" that brought the two presidents together in 2016 and then renewed after the crisis of the so-called "detention in the country of the Hijaz." In addition, the two presidents denied that there was a knot in the original called "the representation of Hezbollah's allies of the Sunnis in the future government" - the declared pretext for disabling - declaring that the pretext is "a rabbit brought out from his pocket at the last minute!".

The Lebanese held their breaths on November 10, with Hassan Nasrallah's speech. Saad Hariri's position also created concerns after his return from Paris three days later, declaring: "I have done what I have to do with the specifications of the national reconciliation government and in accordance with all the parliamentary blocs concerned. Saad Hariri is not to submit to the conditions of "Hezbollah"! By doing so, he left the matter - in one way or another - in the custody of the President of the Republic.

In the ascendancy of the two men, each to the top of his tree, Nasrallah's statement was that he did what is required by the duty of loyalty to his allies and that he leaves the matter for what they agree with the President-designate, in a direct dialogue... It was remarkable that Hariri insisted that the government crisis should have nothing to do with foreign influences!

We believe that these two points are related to the possibility of finding a way out, the Lebanese way, and given the reality of the situation: for Hezbollah, it has come clear, in no uncertain terms, that their position was surprising to the broad Christian base loyal to President Aoun. Moreover, the voices of warning by an economic-social disaster came from inside and outside that if the obstruction continues, every hour that goes in this direction; it is the responsibility of Hezbollah!

On the other hand, it seems clear that Saad Hariri is still betting on the possibility of "self-distancing" in the Lebanese situation, based on the Lebanese composition, which naturally involves opposition, but rather impediments, to the monopolization projects. Hariri makes all his concessions - with and before this last crisis - as "sacrifices required to save the state." But Hariri's sacrifices have a red line, if he is overcome, it becomes a suicide... This is not allowed by the Sunni case.

Therefore, reliance is on an outlet invented by the President of the Republic according to his constitutional position, and from his "strength gained by his balanced position between Hariri and Nasrallah," as some suggest. We also believe that the President of the Republic is forced to make an extraordinary effort in this regard because all his reign depends on his success or failure in this task.

In addition to the current government crisis, the Lebanese situation remains hostage to the dramatic decline in the recent parliamentary elections, which have stripped Lebanon from its image of coexistence to that of sectarian housing and the dominance of sectarian parties; this implies the possibility of the fall of the “Lebanese formula”, by force, or indeed - according to the philosophical expression -… and this is the greatest challenge!