HEZBOLLAH has slammed the delay in forming a new government in Lebanon, as ‘sectarian incitement’.
Following a Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc meeting at the Chamber of Deputies last Wednesday, Hezbollah issued the following statement.
It reads: ‘The conferees reviewed all proposals in the context of trying to overcome the unjustified slowness of the prime minister-designate in forming a national unity government.
There was a full consensus on the importance of expediting this mission, in view of the dangers of the security repercussions moving between (Lebanese) areas and their negative effects on the commencement of the new presidential term and on political stability in the country.
Hezbollah expressed its extreme regret at the tense, sectarian rhetoric that was used by the pro-government team and it emphasised the depth of the pro-government team members’ political predicament, the collapse of their programme to take unilateral control, and to monopolise the country, to drive it into submitting to the dictates of the conspiratorial custodianships.
At the end of its meeting, the bloc issued the following statement:
1. The national unity government is the mandatory path for restoring normal political life in the country.
The responsibility of the prime minister-designate requires him to expedite forming it and to overcome what he and his team claim are complications.
The Lebanese opposition has presented a host of proposals that help in facilitating the formation of the government. The pro-government team should demonstrate a positive attitude that is required in this respect.
2. Using sectarian incitement does not serve internal stability in Lebanon. It harms the inciters themselves in a country that is governed by diversity and coexistence and whose fate and destiny hinge on national balance and accord among all its components.
3. The bloc welcomes all the efforts made by the men of religion from all sects, communities, and national organisations for the purpose of foiling the sedition, which is stirred up by the abusive ones. It calls on everybody to show wisdom, cooperate with the army to maintain civil peace, and work for maintaining contacts and positive understanding in all Lebanese areas.
4. The bloc calls for expediting the amendment of the Election Law in accordance with what was agreed on in Doha, and supports holding a legislative session soon to endorse the law.
5. The resistance, which liberated Lebanon from the Zionist occupation and which fortified Lebanon against any Israeli attack on its security and sovereignty, now constitutes a bulwark in the face of the US plans to dominate Lebanon.
That is why it is targeted by all forms and methods by the US administration, which has set the calendar of the incitement campaign and its contents for those who revolve in its orbit.
Abusing the resistance by words, war, or fatal government decisions, or by stirring up bloody and roaming seditions, is nothing but part of responding to the dictates of this administration.
Despite all this, the resistance will remain the option of honourable men, their wager, and the object of their confidence.
It is too noble to allow its sacredness to be harmed by the fabrication of the little colluding ones, who do not know any meaning of pride, dignity, sovereignty, and independence.
Because resistance is a belief, jihad, national affiliation, and religious responsibility, the authority team, and those behind it, will not be able to drag it into the actions of their militias, which only practice abuse, recklessness, domination, and cheap mercenary tactics.’
Elsewhere, in a graduation ceremony held by Sayidat Nisa al-Alamin Institute in Al-Qa’im Complex in Al-Ruways, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Shaykh Na’im Qasim said, ‘the Doha agreement closed the chapter on a tough stage and opened the way for a new stage of accord that all of us must take advantage of.’
He added: ‘After the agreement, two things happened: the security problems in various Lebanese regions and the delay in the formation of the government for various reasons.
‘If you examine the regions in which the security problems occurred, you will see that a certain political trend fabricated them, or at least was unable to control its supporters, or those who hide under its cover.
‘If we assume this trend really denounce these incidents, they should work to address them.
‘First by removing the cover from the violators and aggressors and then by leaving the security forces to play their role and the judiciary to punish the criminals who harm citizens.’
Qasim called on this trend ‘not to issue statements that twist facts, create tension, and reactivate or expand problems, and not to cover those who harmed Lebanese citizens in various regions.’
But rather than see this trend acting in such a spirit, Qasim said: ‘we hear nothing from them other than vindictive statements and successive abuses, incomprehensive sentences that have no beginnings or ends. You understand nothing other than some abusive words composed in a speech or a statement.
‘Is this the way to understand each other as Lebanese?
‘At any rate, none of these statements that launch attacks and create tension will change the facts because right is on the side of its owners; because the resistance is honourable, dignified, and respected; because the balances of power cannot be changed by this noise, and because equations cannot be changed through such fabrications.’
On the formation of the new government, the Hezbollah deputy secretary-general said: ‘This is the responsibility of the prime minister, who should present various proposals to solve the problem.’
He added: ‘Prime Minister-Designate (Fu’ad) al-Siniora presented specific proposals but has not budged from them since he presented them.
‘But the opposition, in its various groups, presented up to five different proposals to open a window for solution.
‘The response of the prime minister-designate was always rejection and adherence to a government makeup that reflects a desire not to be responsive or fair to the opposition by giving it portfolios that create natural balance among the various parties in this country.’
He added: ‘We hold the prime minister fully responsible for the delay.
‘Ultimately, he is the one who must be frank with the public, and explain the reasons behind the obstruction.
‘Why doesn’t he talk about these reasons? Why doesn’t he tell people clearly what his proposals are and what the proposals of the others are?
‘I tell you why, because he knows that the reason of the delay is his insistence on specific proposals and his refusal to change some ministries and give the opposition portfolios proportionate to its size.’
Qasim said: ‘We will act as we have always acted, with the logic of someone who does not fear justice and who remains faithful to his belief.
‘So, no matter how loud the shouts of the spiteful and tense ones, and no matter what their accusations, curses, and exposed sectarian discourse, we will respond to the sectarian incitement by strengthening Islamic unity and national unity.
‘In our language and logic we will continue to work for accord, not division. So, we will respond to their slanders by adopting a genuine position and by keeping differences within a political framework.
‘If some believe that sectarian mobilisation can help them gain a better position in the election, they are wrong, because this logic is now worn-out and can be marketed only among the nervous ones, and these are few.
‘The Lebanese people want consensus solutions and want to come out of the crisis they experienced.
‘I consider the Doha agreement as an appropriate exit for everyone, helping us move on to a new stage in the building of Lebanon and address the economic and social problems and the complications in the life of citizens – water, electricity, resources, and so on.
‘This must be our direction.’
Qasim concluded: ‘They fabricate events for which they are fully responsible, and these events will backfire because they totally conflict with what the Lebanese want.
‘We have to be patient and to endure. Everything has an end.
‘Right will be confronted with much falsehood, but without a confrontation between right and falsehood, right, in its light and greatness, would not have emerged.’
