The Mar Mikhael agreement succeeded in creating an unprecedented level of integration on the popular level. (Photo: Haitham Moussawi)
When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) Michel Aoun signed the Mar Mikhael agreement in 2006, none of them likely thought that they were signing on a “merger.” It was just a “memorandum of understanding.” Naturally, their relations were bound to turn sour from time to time, even reaching what can be called disagreements.
Six years on, the Mar Mikhael agreement succeeded in creating an unprecedented level of integration on the popular level. But the time did not pass without disputes, which were usually solved under the cover of the memorandum.
But the latest disagreement is unprecedented. It generated a “deep rift” between the two sides.
This high ceiling of rhetoric – added to the FPM rushing to hold coordination meetings with other Christian parties such as the Phalanges and the Lebanese Forces (LF) – suggests some sort of a political turn.
The only channel of communications open between the two allies today is the one between Bassil and the head of Hezbollah’s Liaison and Coordination Unit Wafiq Safa. Although they spend their time blaming and sharply criticizing each other.
Hezbollah understands that the current dispute is beyond the stated issue of contract workers. In reality, it is a reflection of Aoun’s need for a victory in the year leading up to parliamentary elections.
In addition, there are also objective considerations related to the Mar Mikhael memorandum itself. Following the Doha agreement [in 2008] and FPM joining the first [Future Movement leader] Saad Hariri government, coordination between the two parties stopped at the level of “facilitating” issues on a “day to day” basis, without a strategic context.
The agreement was never evaluated for its results or its need for development or revision. “The two sides did not discuss politics.” Rather, they were drowned in the daily matters of ministries and in political bickering whose main “star” was Bassil himself. In addition to the latter having a personality that provoked many allies and foes, even inside the FPM.
Sources close to Hezbollah maintain that they acknowledge FPM’s [supportive] stand during the July 2006 aggression. “It was an expected position. Someone like [Aoun] cannot be on Israel’s side.”
But they indicate that there are people in FPM who do not understand Hezbollah’s cold mentality in dealing with events. This is in addition to not understanding the essence of Hezbollah’s dedication to stay away from anything that might ignite a Sunni-Shia strife, even it meant having to make painful concessions sometimes, and also the meaning of its strong dedication to a good relationship with parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri
The sources say that the Hezbollah clearly explained the relationship with its Shia political twin since the beginning. “It emphasized to FPM that in case of any disagreement between them and any other political position inside or outside the regime, Hezbollah will stand by them without hesitation, except if the disagreement is with the Speaker. In that case, they can only be goodwill messengers between the two sides.”
During the current dispute, the sources stress that Berri was very lenient and quite ready to solve the disagreements on the law aiming to fix the situation of contract workers. This could have been done through a new amendment to the passed law or by helping the President of the Republic return the law to parliament.
Nevertheless, some in FPM still insist on finding a solution on the basis of “as if nothing happened.” But the sources ask, “Who will benefit from breaking with an ally as important as Nabih Berri, who controls the main components of the legislature?”
Sources who know about the relationship between the two sides try to dispel the pessimistic atmosphere by saying that the dispute did not and will not lead to a separation or divorce. This was evident in Hezbollah telling many common friends that they will not accept mediation, because this means that communications are broken.
They mention that the party, especially its secretary general, has high esteem for general Aoun and his patriotic positions. The say the dispute can be solved in “a matter of minutes” in a meeting between the two men, which could happen at any moment.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Six years on, the Mar Mikhael agreement succeeded in creating an unprecedented level of integration on the popular level. But the time did not pass without disputes, which were usually solved under the cover of the memorandum.
But the latest disagreement is unprecedented. It generated a “deep rift” between the two sides.
Sources close to Hezbollah say that the indicators of discontent emerged with the high political ceiling of public statements made by FPM officials. An example was Aoun’s declaration that “we liberated Hezbollah from our burden.”
Another was FPM Minister Gebran Bassil’s assertion that there is no resistance without reform. And yet another, was the call by Ziad Abs, an FPM leading member, for “a new understanding” between the two sides.
The only channel of communications open between the two allies today is the one between Bassil and the head of Hezbollah’s Liaison and Coordination Unit Wafiq Safa. Although they spend their time blaming and sharply criticizing each other.
Hezbollah understands that the current dispute is beyond the stated issue of contract workers. In reality, it is a reflection of Aoun’s need for a victory in the year leading up to parliamentary elections.
In addition, there are also objective considerations related to the Mar Mikhael memorandum itself. Following the Doha agreement [in 2008] and FPM joining the first [Future Movement leader] Saad Hariri government, coordination between the two parties stopped at the level of “facilitating” issues on a “day to day” basis, without a strategic context.
The agreement was never evaluated for its results or its need for development or revision. “The two sides did not discuss politics.” Rather, they were drowned in the daily matters of ministries and in political bickering whose main “star” was Bassil himself. In addition to the latter having a personality that provoked many allies and foes, even inside the FPM.
Sources close to Hezbollah maintain that they acknowledge FPM’s [supportive] stand during the July 2006 aggression. “It was an expected position. Someone like [Aoun] cannot be on Israel’s side.”
But they indicate that there are people in FPM who do not understand Hezbollah’s cold mentality in dealing with events. This is in addition to not understanding the essence of Hezbollah’s dedication to stay away from anything that might ignite a Sunni-Shia strife, even it meant having to make painful concessions sometimes, and also the meaning of its strong dedication to a good relationship with parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri
The sources say that the Hezbollah clearly explained the relationship with its Shia political twin since the beginning. “It emphasized to FPM that in case of any disagreement between them and any other political position inside or outside the regime, Hezbollah will stand by them without hesitation, except if the disagreement is with the Speaker. In that case, they can only be goodwill messengers between the two sides.”
During the current dispute, the sources stress that Berri was very lenient and quite ready to solve the disagreements on the law aiming to fix the situation of contract workers. This could have been done through a new amendment to the passed law or by helping the President of the Republic return the law to parliament.
Nevertheless, some in FPM still insist on finding a solution on the basis of “as if nothing happened.” But the sources ask, “Who will benefit from breaking with an ally as important as Nabih Berri, who controls the main components of the legislature?”
Sources who know about the relationship between the two sides try to dispel the pessimistic atmosphere by saying that the dispute did not and will not lead to a separation or divorce. This was evident in Hezbollah telling many common friends that they will not accept mediation, because this means that communications are broken.
They mention that the party, especially its secretary general, has high esteem for general Aoun and his patriotic positions. The say the dispute can be solved in “a matter of minutes” in a meeting between the two men, which could happen at any moment.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment