 | Cardinal Mario Grech – One of the favourite to succeed Pope Francis
| | |  | Amb. Ammar Hijazi: "Israel is starving, killing, and displacing Palestinians, while targeting and denying access to humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives."
| | |  | “Chester Hill is home to a very diverse community, with many young families with prams, people with disabilities, carers, the elderly, women and girls.LYNDA VOLTZ MP
| | |  | Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun said the idea was a positive and innovative solution to a huge problem statewide and...
| | |  | Kuwait is keen to continue coordination and cooperation with all parties concerned with enhancing the security and stability of societies.
| | |  | SUBJECTS: Dutton’s cuts to health, education and child care.
| | |  | French Foreign Minister: "I am pleased that we can take such sanctions today against seven individuals and two entities, including Shiraz Prison."
| | |  | Cr Martin Zaiter said: “We have world of opportunity here in Parramatta, with great transport connections, award-winning facilities...
| | |  | An Open Letter to My Dear Community
| | |  | Dr Rateb Jneid, President of AFIC: “The world must recognis...It is a universal principle enshrined in international law
| | |  | President Aoun: United States and France, as guarantors of the cessation of hostilities agreement, must assume their responsibilities and compel Israel to immediately cease its attacks.
| | |  | Michel Aoun: Lebanon is being targeted for a political change by imposing the resettlement of refugees and displaced persons...
| | | |
|
|
| Geagea's suggestion... Can Hezbollah be disarmed by force?! |
** It has become clear that Israeli attacks and violations against Lebanon will not stop until disarmament is achieved. - Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea
|
Geagea's suggestion... Can Hezbollah be disarmed by force?!
11/04/2025
(See translation in Arabic section)
Sydney-Middle East Times Int'l: While the mere introduction of the idea of disarming Hezbollah on the government's agenda, after years of being a taboo, should be met with a positive response from the party's opponents, most notably Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, who has long complained about what he called the "dual arms issue" and the "confiscation of the decision on war and peace." However, Geagea did not appear satisfied with the government's performance in this regard, saying that the government's steps were not ideal, even if they were not "few." In what many interpreted as an attempt to "outbid" President Joseph Aoun, who insists on dialogue and communication as a means of resolving the disarmament issue—a sentiment he conveyed to US envoy Morgan Ortagus during her recent visit to Beirut—Geagea chose to express his absolute rejection of the idea of dialogue, describing it as a "waste of time." He argued that the decision to disarm had been taken during the previous government's tenure, immediately after it ratified the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel. Geagea did not hesitate to outline a "roadmap" for disarmament, which, to those listening, seemed merely a "procedural" matter. He considered any talk of areas south and north of the Litani a "non-existent innovation." He emphasized that the Lebanese Army is the entity that develops the national security strategy, which falls within the framework of the national defense strategy, while the role of politicians is limited to approving it through a vote within the cabinet for its implementation, according to the Lebanese Al-Nashra website. In other words, Geagea is calling for Hezbollah to be disarmed, by force if necessary, without going through dialogue. But is such a strategy actually feasible? What caveats might it entail? Why does Geagea appear on this issue to be someone who wants to stand apart from everyone else, including President Joseph Aoun? The party has not yet announced any official position on disarmament, even though Aoun's circles have confirmed that he is showing the necessary flexibility. Regarding those close to Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, the proposal he presented for disarmament does not fall under the category of outbidding the President of the Republic, and certainly does not contradict him. Rather, it stems from the commitments made by the Lebanese state under the previous government, which was classified as a "Hezbollah government." When it agreed to the ceasefire agreement with Israel, it was aware that it clearly stipulated that all weapons would be restricted to the Lebanese state. Therefore, what Geagea is proposing, according to his associates, is the implementation of this clause, which presumably gained Hezbollah's approval as soon as it agreed to the ceasefire agreement. It has become clear that Israeli attacks and violations against Lebanon will not cease until disarmament is achieved. This is what Lebanon was informed of in one way or another by US envoy Morgan Ortagus during her recent visit, where she made clear the need for Lebanon to first complete the required part of the agreement. As for Geagea's view that dialogue on this issue is a waste of time, it aligns with "Al-Hakim's" well-known position on successive dialogue sessions, which have achieved nothing practical throughout their history, even when they have reached decisions, as happened, for example, regarding the Palestinian weapons issue in Lebanon. This raises concerns that the goal of any dialogue in this sense is to further procrastinate, and perhaps dilute, until certain internal or external developments change.
However, those close to the Lebanese Forces leader reject what they describe as "malicious attempts" to suggest that he is "outbidding" the President of the Republic or scoring points at his expense. They point out that his objection is to going to a dialogue table as was previously the case, whereas what the President is currently proposing is a direct dialogue with Hezbollah to reach an understanding, perhaps on a mechanism for disposing of its weapons and allaying its concerns, if any. This is not problematic, as long as it does not lead to a postponement of implementation.
However, beyond Geagea's "firm" position on the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which also resonates with many parties, some of whom say they are "in a hurry" to complete this requirement, more so than the Israelis and Americans, without taking into account the internal considerations that are supposed to play an influential role in this context, there are those who question the extent to which this plan, or strategy, is "implementable," at a time when the party's "seriousness" regarding this issue is not yet known.
Here, those familiar with Hezbollah's rhetoric say that while the latter has shown flexibility and tact, particularly in dealing with the President of the Republic, who is handling the issue wisely and rationally, it does not believe that the "priority" today should be focused on disarmament, as long as Israeli threats and ambitions remain present. This is evidenced by the daily attacks on Lebanese territory, which it seems strange that some have begun to treat as a "routine" and not worthy of any comment. This is a real challenge for Hezbollah, but the fact that it is being raised before diplomacy succeeds in compelling Israel to withdraw from the territories it has occupied indicates a real and fundamental flaw. Based on the above, some fear that any "irrational" approach to the arms issue, as Geagea has proposed—which some interpret as "bullying" against a Lebanese component—would further complicate the situation and even lead to security clashes that no one seems to have an interest in. This remains a likely possibility, based on historical experience, even if Geagea tries to argue that it is not on the table, given that Hezbollah has never threatened civil war or anything similar. Ultimately, there is no doubt that much has changed in the approaches, to the point that even talking about Hezbollah's weapons is no longer the red line it once was, and even discussing disarming them has become a priority. But what is certain, according to those in the know, is that this deadline has not yet matured, and it will only mature through consensus. This consensus is primarily internal, but many believe it may also be external, amid bets on the US-Iranian negotiations, upon which much of the next phase will be built...
Politico, citing informed sources: Trump has set 60 days for Iran to make progress in the talks, or it could face a military response.
Politico, citing informed sources, reported that US President Donald Trump has set 60 days for Iran to make progress in the talks, or it could face a military response.
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Iran "cannot have a nuclear weapon," ahead of Saturday's talks on Tehran's nuclear program.
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: "I want Iran to be a wonderful, great, happy country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon." The US president's statement came hours before his envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Saturday for what are expected to be difficult nuclear negotiations. A report by the American news site Axios said that Trump is "willing to make concessions" to reach an agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, citing an administration official. Trump insists that Iran must quickly conclude a deal to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon or face military strikes. However, Tehran does not trust the US president, who withdrew from a previous nuclear agreement during his first term. |
|
|
|
|
|
