2024-05-06 04:07:30
In the theory of putting on or taking off the abaya, two basic conditions must be met in its motives. The first is that it comes as a thank you at the end of a journey or for achieving a victory. the “Arab Bisht” that the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, wore for the Argentine player Lionel Messi during the conclusion of the Qatar 2022 World Cup. As for the second, it is prepared as a verb to pass from a step. to another. There are many political examples here. Martyr Rafik Hariri dedicated one of them when he gave the key to Beirut to the late Ghazi Kanaan, while the other was modeled by Walid Jumblatt, when he took off the robe he wore to the time of the revolution. Syrian presence and moved in 2005 wearing another dress.
In the case of Samir Geagea today, Ambassador Walid Bukhari may have dressed him in an embroidered Saudi robe of the luxurious “bisht” type, as compensation for the “bisht” he lost due to the loss of “American sponsorship”, or it may be a testimony of gratitude for what he brought for a decade in the service of Saudi politics or an announcement of tribute on the occasion of the completion of a step. It may be a sort of retirement, or perhaps compensation for what he missed. Elsewhere, some might read the abaya as compensation for someone else’s loss, or as Americans virtually “wrapped” it around themselves and perhaps wore it for someone else. other.
All of the above may be true or “inexact”, but what is correct remains that Geagea, with everything in him, moved to another stage, the omens of which he reads in two significant events which constituted a model to follow. followed in the hunt for the image of the “Lebanese Forces”: the incident of the assassination of Pascal Suleiman and the 1701 conference in Maarab, and by extension, the fall of the project of “leading the opposition”.
In practice, Geagea has recently gone through episodes that have had a negative political impact on him.
In the case of the assassination of Pascal Suleiman, Al-Hakim planned to carry out a project on the back of a victim and transform the area stretching from the coast of Byblos to the Upper Jurd and what lies beyond proximity. , in a special operations zone in which the “Forces” were going to show their capabilities, and it is a continuation of the wall inaugurated in the Nahr al-Kalb tunnel in 2013. 2019. Unless Geagea was helped by its reading different from that of American.
Apparently, the Americans do not want Jbeil to be a place to play roles with a security dimension, for the simple reason that, for them, it represents a vital and security depth and has bases which are the subject of great attention and which are similar. to those in which the “Awkar Embassy” receives. So what applies to an ocean, a plain, a coast or a mountain adjacent to the site of the largest American embassy in the world applies to him: “Playing is prohibited.”
Moreover, the Americans do not find any justification for now raising the issue of displaced Syrians in Lebanon, and for reactivating the theory of “return” on the side of a team which is supposed to be a reality within the framework of their strategy, so that the Americans are today using this card to put pressure on Damascus. As a result, Geagea’s interests did not overlap with those of the Americans.
What gives clear indications is the speed with which the US ambassador reacted, in light of the Suleiman murder incident, to “arrest Geagea”. I asked him to calm down, to remove his “group” from the streets, to respect the army’s investigations and not to attack them. Instead, the army moved onto the ground, asking Geagea to do the same. With a clear breath, Al-Hakim understood that America’s priority belonged to the army and that Al-Yarzeh needed to “plump” and was eligible for the harvest, so he decided to withdraw with minimal losses.
At another point, he decided to make up for what had happened. Perhaps he did not understand that the Americans, however despicable they may be politically, were not interested during this period in the shocks to which the Lebanese internal situation was exposed. He also failed to understand, for example, that Lisa Johnson’s move suggested that the Democratic administration was interested in electing a president in Lebanon before Donald Trump’s eventual arrival in the White House. He ignored all this and took the decision to invite the “opposition” in Maarab to prepare a strategy to confront Hezbollah! He planned to lead the opposition and fell, this time in a double blow, American-Saudi, although outside the coordination between the two camps, each with its own desires and interests.
In justifying this part, imagine that the Shiite opposition, for example, rooted in Maarab and which finds a godfather in Geagea, and which includes personalities who live off the contributions of NGOs and American agencies, wakes up from the coma where Israel does not is more of a country. enemy, and therefore suddenly and independently decided to boycott the appeal of Geagea, which practically represents the interior, this is one of the reasons for its existence, without any American influence! Who believes in this “previous” thing, just like someone who believes that Walid Jumblatt, Sami Gemayel, Fares Saeed, Michel Moawad, Elias Bou Saab, Mark Daou, Michel Douaihy and others are not part of the Americans in Lebanon, or as someone who believes that Fouad Siniora, Ahmed Fatfat, Bilal Al-Hashimi, representatives of “moderation” and others are not part of Saudi Arabia!
When the US damage to Geagea’s policies is being discussed, why is the Saudi damage to the man himself not being discussed?
Before that, it is useful to highlight the different performances of the Saudi group in general. Who would have thought that former minister Wiam Wahhab would be able to deal with Saudi Arabia and its prince, without a single official, ally or beneficiary coming to comment, respond or condemn, contrary to a rule established at the time of the war. against George Qordahi, as if we were facing another Saudi Arabia?
Some might say that this result is a natural evocation of the Saudi transition from one policy to another. The same transition that sowed confusion at Ma’rab led it to failed experiments, and before that to a serious financial crisis, to the point where it was no longer able to provide contributions for the wounded. of war of its members. One of the results was also a decline in financial contributions (Maarab’s source of life, which was never exploited by the people). The last of the group was the newspaper “Nidaa al-Watan”, which constituted Maarab’s “political shock force”. out of service, even partially.
On the political side, the Saudi assessment was that “Maarab’s protest adventure” under the name “1701 for the Defense of Lebanon” was not at the right time and place, as long as the Saudi political assessment (which Geagea knows well) is political sabotage. as long as possible while waiting for a certain transformation, and this is not the time to create political fronts. At one point, the American rejection of Geagea’s methods intersected with a Saudi analysis based on the “futility of inciting the opposition” in a Lebanese moment whose political character is “wasting time” where the game becomes “big » while awaiting developments.
1714972000
#Geageas #Saudi #Bisht