Sa’ad Al-Hariri has thrusted a part of the Lebanese people in a war against a brother country.

By Nader Ezzeddine

In the past few days, there was no surprise at the attitudes of some Arab and Foreign countries towards the riots in Syria. It was expected, upon moving into the third phase in the operation of toppling down the last Arab resisting regime, that some Arab countries would join the orchestra of the U.S.A. and demand that the Syrian regime be overthrown although the rather latest ones who have joined the U.S.A. have not formally demanded President Assad that he step down as the shareholders like the new Middle East project have done. The escalation was expected, and the party which lay down the plot never imagined that he would move into a third phase in the plot and that he would put the moderate Arab countries in an annoying position, yet he was absolutely certain that the regime would be toppled down in the first three weeks counting from the moment of unleashing ruining and horrifying.

The phase of escalation which was supposed to start by the Arabs after the blessed month of Ramadan, according to Al-Manar Channel sources, unwillingly had to launch it on the first of August different from what was stated in their agenda.

In fact, the preemptive measure taken by the Syrian regime in advance to the series produced by the West so that it would be broadcast during the Month of Ramadan in the Syrian streets has baffled the conspirators. Actually, the regime started preemptive strikes against the armed rioters in Hama, Deir Al-Zour, Homs and other cities, and against those who were supposed to loot and plunder in the streets after every sunset after every Ramadan breakfast and raise a horrifying hell at the hearts of the citizens. This measure by the regime has baffled the West and the Arabs, and it forced them to make a miscalculated move after they lost the Saudi influence in Hama and the Turkish influence in Deir Al-Zour. As a start, Riyadh inspired by an American instruction exhorted Sa'ad Al-Hariri along with the remaining Sunni followers whom he represents to stir up the fire of discord between both the Sunnis-Shiites and between the Sunnis-Alawites by provoking protestations burning the pictures of the Syrian President Assad and the Iranian flag every day. After that, there came the American-Saudi demand of Sa'ad Al-Hariri that he issue a declaration as an introduction for the Saudi position in order to tense up the sectarian nerves in both Lebanon and Syria, and here the third phase would start.

Al-Hariri Exploits a Monopoly of the War and Peace Decision

Al-Hariri issued the first disgraceful announcement decrying the "slaughter" the Syrian cities are being exposed to and requested the "moderate Arabs" to interfere, he, moreover, allowed himself to speak for all the Lebanese and said they would not be able to stand silent for long before the "bloody incidents" going on in Syria. It was by all means a declaration of war against a sister country! And it was also he who has always attacked the resistance accusing it of monopolizing the decision of "war and peace" in Lebanon, when the whole guilt of the resistance was merely defending Lebanon in the face of who was described by Al-Taif Accord as an enemy. Here we have the right to ask: Has Al-Taif Accord been turned into Al-Hariri's "doormat" and his "advocacy" simultaneously, one time he holds onto it, but he would tear it apart another time? This question has become on every Lebanese citizen's tongue, and it never emerged from the unknown but from the accord which had terminated the fifteen year civil war in Lebanon in 1989, and which was, also, drafted in the City of Al-Taif of Saudi Arabia.

In the Fourth Clause of this Accord under the title "THE LEBANESE-SYRIAN RELATIONS" the following states as such:

"Lebanon, a country of Arab affiliation and identity, is tied to all Arab States with true fraternal relations; and there exist between Lebanon and Syria distinguished relationships which draw their strength from the roots of kinship, history and common fraternal interests, which is the concept on which the coordination and cooperation between both countries are founded and will be manifested in agreements between them, in various domains, and in the manner which serves the interests of both countries within the framework of sovereignty and independence of each of them.

Based on that, and because strengthening the bases of security provides the needed atmosphere for the development of these distinguished ties, Lebanon shall under no circumstances be made a source of threat to the security of Syria, nor Syria to the security of Lebanon. Therefore, Lebanon shall not permit itself to become a passageway or a dwelling to any force, state or organization which aims to undermine its security or the security of Syria. And Syria, which is keen on preserving the security, independence and unity of Lebanon and concurrence among its people, shall not permit of any act which may threaten Lebanon's security, sovereignty and independence."

Based on this Clause, sources close to the Syrian authorities are questioning the extent of Al-Hariri's actual realization of the snare he has put himself into; those sources declared to Al-Manar Website an extreme annoyance resulting from Al-Hariri's violation of Taif Accord and his declaration of an open war by one party against the Syrian regime. They also say that President Assad " is not going to forgive anyone, and that from today on, he is not going to welcome people like Al-Hariri at Al-Muhajerin Palace especially after his recent positions, and after the Lebanese Army Intelligence uncovering of networks smuggling weaponry from Tripoli to the plunderers in Syria.

Merhej: Al-Hariri is overturning against his positions in line with some Arabs

In his turn, former MP Bsharah Merhej in his statement to Al-Manar Channel said," Al-Hariri has pulled back from his positions he had declared in the previous period and is overturning against them; his new position is homogeneous with some Arab and international parties which intend to reduce Syria's role in the region and to disengage Syria's alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran on the one hand and with the resistance forces in the region on the other hand." Merhej considered that "such a biased position is a violation for the tradition followed by all Lebanese former prime ministers in regard to the way they deal with other states and in their non-biased position for one axis against another, then how such a violation could be committed against a sister state?" Merhej proceeds saying that, "The traditional national Lebanese mission is to invite the Syrians for a dialogue and to play a positive role in this direction; also, an endeavor to resolve the conflict and help in protecting the Syrian stability is an obligation stated in our National Reconciliation Charter which dictates on us to be on the best terms with Syria and never to allow Lebanon to be a gateway for conspiracies against it."

What Follows the Saudi King's Statement is Unlike What Preceded it!

After Sa'ad Al-Hariri has initiated for a series of coming confrontations, the Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdel A'ziz came out with a speech that some people described as historical and decisive, and it was considered by Al-Hariri in his second disgraceful announcement a turn in the course of the developments in Syria! However, the truth is that Sa'ad Eddin Al-Hariri has misjudged the evaluation according to the circle close to the regime in Syria. Those sources assured us that "the Saudi King's speech which was meant to be a formal introduction for the third phase was never and is not going to be a turn in the course of the incidents, it would rather be a drastic change in the Syrian regime vision in what concerns future relations with countries the regime used to consider them sister countries in addition to the influence upon Lebanon that may ensue in particular." The same source notes that the withdrawal of the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain for "consultations" is not going to be absolutely overlooked generously; also, Al-Assad regime is indignant at the King's role being played as a key for the Arabs' attack against Syria especially after the The Arabian Gulf Council statement which obviously appeared that it had already been coordinated in advance before it was released in addition to the withdrawal of the ambassadors after the speech by Abdullah Bin Abdel Aziz."

In this context, former minister and former MP Bsharah Merhej considers that "It is the right of the Arab countries to announce their opinions, and we can realize their request for reformation had they been democratic countries and had they been applying the principles of freedom of thought and expression themselves in their countries. But for such countries to request Syria to apply what they in principle do not apply does project to us a big question mark about their intentions." Merhej comments on the position of Turkey by saying, "After the honorable positions taken by Turkey towards the aggression against Gaza, we see it today falling under heavy pressures coming from the West that make it change its current policies towards Syria. However, we assure that it is in the interest of Turkey to set up the best relations with Syria, and if Turkey is actually so keen, the path to reformation can never be laid through sieging, blockade and sanctions but rather through continuing dialogue, especially that Syria and President Assad are determined on proceeding in the course of reformation."       

Upon the third phase reaching the executive section which is expected by observers to be the last one, if it does not produce a regional war, Sa'ad Al-Hariri has thrusted a part of the Lebanese people in a war against a brother country; he did not only exploit a monopoly of the war and peace decision but he also breached the Taif Accord dragging in some people to confrontations that are not going to turn out well. Thus, Al-Hariri group's position has changed into supporting "the Syrian citizen" after he had disrespectfully considered him as a cake vendor. All of this is but for the sake of kings who never provide the simplest rights for a dignified living in their own countries, but they rather rule with no constitutions and with no parliaments; they even prohibit free press, freedom of expression, and even prohibit women from driving cars! Kings who militarily marched forcibly into a country to slaughter 80% of its people for their mere peaceful asking for reformation that could do them justice! Hence, they confiscated mosques and destroyed them over the heads of those inside, they disgraced and killed women, children and reverend sheikhs who were geared with nothing in the confrontation but with their voices screaming due to excessive injustice; however, unfortunately, their voices could not go beyond the boundaries of Riyadh.