Deputy Speaker Farid Makari on Friday told NOW Lebanon that the situation in North Lebanon [the clashes started again in Bab al Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen in spite of the ceasefire agreement] had gone "back to ground zero,” and that without a solution to Hizballah's arms, there would be no elections in 2009.
Information Minister Tarek Mitri sees three options for the opposition on Hizballah's weapons clause.
The first one, Mitri said, would include "the state's right to liberate its territories." The second option was the adoption of Lebanese President Michel Sleiman's inaugural speech, and the third was postponing the discussion until the national roundtable dialogue.
In an interview with Naharnet, MP Samir Franjieh said that through Tripoli clashes, Hizallah is trying to “abolish” the political concept of the Doha Accord and preempt any discussion of its weapons.
Would elections be feasible if we have an armed faction? Weapons eliminate the principle of majority.
In the year 2005 the March 14 won majority of parliamentary seats in the elections. The result was practically eliminated by the use of force. Having armed factions (running for elections) would limit freedom of voters.
It is yesterday's news what Hizballah understands by solution. Status quo. More than that, taking in consideration that Hizballah continues to get weapons, that its army has grown, the trainings are ongoing, and by being politically engaged in both the Parliament and the Government, the party is to a certain extent, the de facto ruler. Hizballah learned from Hamas mistake. They are not ready, yet, [or willing, for that matter, since they’d have to deal with all state's problems] to take over, but the insidious, constant attack on the state institutions and on the very concept of a state is extremely troubling. Then again, after May events anything and everything is possible when it comes to the Party of God.
