TRANSLATED: Future movement hawks (and our Beirut Exchange speakers), Alloush and Fatfat, outline core objections to Hezbollah talks
From today’s Daily Briefing (for a free trial email firstname.lastname@example.org):
On February 25, the independent, leftist As-Safir daily newspaper carried the following report by Ammar Nehmeh: “Is there an internal dispute within the Future movement on how to approach the relations with Hezbollah at this point…? There’s one certain thing about this: Some Future “hawks” oppose the rapprochement with Hezbollah in light of the party’s present course of action…
“MP Ahmad Fatfat has a lot to say in this regard. He “understands the circumstances that called for launching dialogue, which is beneficial in some instances.” He however told As-Safir that the relationship [between the Future movement and] the Party is not meant to become good especially since Fatfat suggests a difficult condition that the Party must abide by in order to restore this relationship to its former state: “[the party should] place its weapons in the framework of the Lebanese state.”
“Fatfat has a long list of reservations especially since the dialogue with Hezbollah doesn’t touch on the main controversial issues specifically the fact that the Party is fighting alongside the Syrian regime inside Syria. Former MP and the member of the Future movement’s politburo, Moustafa Alloush shares this view. He and Fatfat insist that there are no differences within the movement adding that there’s rather a margin for some members to have honest and “pragmatic” opinions.
“Alloush told As-Safir that “Nasrallah’s latest speech confirms the fact that there are no horizons for the dialogue.” Alloush rejected Nasrallah’s call to “go to Syria together” and indicated that Nasrallah has divided the region into two axes: an Iranian axis and an Israeli one. Locally, the Hezbollah leader fired the mercy bullet at the issue of the presidential elections by insisting on Micheal Aoun as the sole candidate according to Alloush who agrees with Fatfat that “the issue of the presidency is not decided by Hezbollah but rather by Iran.”
“…Fatfat and Alloush agree that, although the dialogue will not be touching on the major issues, there are some basic matters that the Party must accept. Fatfat indicated that the Future movement has made compromises without any return such as the example of the security plan in Tripoli. He also insisted that the Party must accept the Baabda declaration. Alloush insists that the Party must approve this declaration in order to achieve a main breakthrough at the dialogue. He then wonders: What about the international tribunal, which Hezbollah has already approved? Nasrallah had even announced during the 2006 dialogue hearing that he accepts this tribunal.
“In conclusion, Alloush believes that “Nasrallah considers Lebanon as a detail in its major battle outside Lebanon. Are we idiots to believe that Hezbollah has changed?” Fatfat shares this pessimism and says that “following 2006, Hezbollah turned from a Resistance movement into a militia. Then, following 2012, the Party changed into an occupation force in the region thus strongly violating the Lebanese laws…””