Public liberties in Lebanon are sacred and constitute an essential component of its identity, which if touched, the temple collapses. Therefore, it is guaranteed by the constitution and laws, and this is what distinguished Lebanon and this is what distinguishes it from its Arab surroundings. Freedom and Lebanon are inseparable, and the reason for the existence of this small country is the freedom that the patriarch said about. Christian conscience Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir “If we were given the choice between coexistence and freedom, we would choose freedom.”
Lebanon, which has enshrined this concept at home and in the periphery, is today subjected to attempts to subdue the Saudi ambassador in Lebanon, Walid Bukhari, by blocking the electronic media in Saudi Arabia that does not appeal to its own interests and not to the interests of the state he represents, and is trying to hide from his administration in the Saudi Foreign Ministry his slips The many in sowing discord between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia until it came to his “expulsion” by Arabs Al-Faour in a precedent that we have never known in the relationship between the Sunnis and the Kingdom.
Bukhari banned “Lebanon Debate” in Saudi Arabia because the website committed the major sin in criticizing the Saudi ambassador’s interference in a Lebanese matter that he has nothing to do with, which is the “Taif Agreement,” which became a constitution. Which was boycotted by the first representative of the Sunni Future Movement, and the most prominent representative of the Shiites, the “Shiite duo”, and more than half of the Christians.
In addition, the site may have angered Bukhari when he put the finger on the ambassador’s wound, which was represented by his inability to fill the Sunni vacuum of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and recruited his informants to publicly threaten us with the ban he implemented in the Kingdom.
Bukhari resented the “Lebanon Debate” because he refused to be a member of the “Embassy Press Club”, and for opening a free space for writers and journalists, who did not cover up Bukhari’s shortcomings but rather highlighted them.
It is astonishing at this diplomat who is supposed to have become an expert in Lebanese affairs. Instead of going to practice the role entrusted to him as an ambassador, he practices diplomacy in approaching matters, and respects different opinions by virtue of his work in a society addicted to freedom. Two years ago, a major openness policy began under the leadership of Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be understood how Saudi Arabia, which today has become an example to be followed in openness and progress, leaves its diplomacy in the hands of amateurs who “reflect”, incite and take revenge?