The party faces efforts to withdraw its weapon with an advertising campaign and a political escalation

Caroline Akoum wrote in Asharq Al -Awsat:

In the midst of the Lebanese and international efforts made to restrict arms in the hands of the Lebanese state and implement the decision «1701», the positions and campaigns that Hezbollah officials are launched to confute with this path, which was evident in which the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who at the same time adhere to the dialogue to reach an internal understanding away from any internal clashes.

It was remarkable in the last days the positions issued by party officials, which came after the President of the Republic announced that he was seeking to be in 2025 years to restrict arms in the hands of the state, with his assertion that “the communication exists between the presidency and the party, and the translation is apparent on the ground, and that he agreed with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on all issues, especially inventory of arms in the hands of the state.”

After the Vice -President of the Political Council of Hezbollah, Mahmoud Qamati, threatened to cut every hand that extends to the “weapon of the resistance”, after which he returns and explains that “the target of his words are the ones who wage on the campaigns and demand the removal of his weapon.” And the incitement, “considering that” talking only about the defense strategy is after Israel’s withdrawal and stopping its attacks, and the strategy begins to arm the army. “

And he went to the “resistance” audience, saying: “All you hear (Hubrat) is not affected by it. There is no power that can disarm, ”adding:“ Trust (Hezbollah) and its leadership, as you were trusting the tolerance of the martyr (former Secretary -General Hassan Nasrallah). ”

Likewise, MP Hassan Fadlallah launched an attack on the Lebanese state, considering that “the enemy benefits from the weakness of the state and its impotence and its lack of full responsibilities in facing the attacks.”

Fadlallah linked the dialogue on the “defensive strategy” to “stopping attacks, liberating the land, liberating the prisoners and reconstruction, and when these files are accomplished, and when the state undertakes its full responsibilities in these files, and when the blood of our people does not return permissible, our land is occupied, nor our homes are destroyed; We come to discuss other issues, including the defense strategy. ”

While MP Fadlallah spoke about “a psychological warfare on the resistance and its environment by broadcasting unfounded news”, it was remarkable the advertising campaign carried out by “Hezbollah” by publishing posters bearing the slogan: “Your weapon is your horse … if you make it a good”, in a clear indication of his adherence to his weapon, and he also raised a poster for the image of the former media official in Hezbollah, Muhammad Afif, who wrote: (Hezbollah) Dies. ”

But these messages that party officials send through the media, all of which revolve in the astronomy of the party’s weapon and the defense strategy, Lebanese ministerial sources see that they are “directed to the party’s environment more than to the Lebanese state and the international community after everyone is convinced that the decision has been taken, and the path of inventory of weapons has begun”, putting what happens in the field of “local consumption in preparation for the party’s environment that occurs, Inside we are present, “describing the positions as” unrealistic. ” She tells Al -Sharq Al -Awsat: “No Lebanese official said that disarmament will be by force. Rather, the President of the Republic, as well as the government and its president, emphasize dialogue for the exclusive weapon and defense strategy, while stressing the preservation of civil peace away from any Saddam of a sectarian nature, which is also focused on international communications.”

The sources recall what they are considered to be “the constants that were clear in the speech of the President of the Republic, and in the ministerial statement approved by (Hezbollah) and its parliamentary bloc and its ministers in the government that took the confidence of Parliament on the basis of which”, adding: “And the ceasefire agreement approved by (Hezbollah) and the parliament speaker was also reached in the previous government that (Hezbollah) was also participating.”

In the same context, political analyst Ali Al -Amin speaks, saying that “the positions of some Hezbollah officials on the issue of handing over his weapons to the Lebanese state reflect a immediate confusion within the party’s leadership structure on the one hand, and an attempt to raise the negotiating ceiling, whether from Iran with Washington, or from the party (Hezbollah) with the official Lebanese authority.” He adds to Asharq Al -Awsat: “Some media campaigns and attitudes issued by some party officials come to reflect this image more than it expresses a decisive position towards an exclusive issue of weapons in the hands of the state.” He explained: “The party in its Lebanese leadership and its Iranian reference is aware that avoiding the solution of the illegal weapon issue is not possible after all the results and repercussions caused by (the war of support), in addition to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, with almost unanimity Lebanese on an exclusive demand for weapons in the hands of the state. And if we add the continued Israeli aggression against Lebanon without any response from (Hezbollah) or any ability to respond, it is confirmed that the party is in a situation that does not allow it to guide all these developments that did not exist before the war.

From here, Al -Amin says: “It remains that the only job that allows the unveiling weapon to remain in Israel is the inner position; That is, engaging in an internal war, which is not available, as long as the regional and international sponsorship of Lebanon exists, which has contributed strongly to rearranging the constitutional institutions, and pushing for financial and urgent reforms »; Therefore, he considers that «confusion and not absorbing the ongoing transformations is the weighted expression of the positions and campaigns issued by the party, and it is essentially an internal partisan state rather than a conflict between the party and from outside it.