Settling the relationship with Syria is essential at the right time but the Lebanese have legitimate concerns about the mandate period

Following is the full statement:

Yesterday, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah asked the government about seeking help from international donors, and why there was no settling of the relationship with Syria.  The answer did not come from the government, but from the status quo of a country that has over the past 30 years been suffering from internal occupation by the parties in power, who looted public funds and bankrupted the state with corrupt practices.  The corrupt system that has led to the current economic collapse is responsible for seeking aid, albeit conditional aid that could impact Lebanon’s sovereignty.

The Bloc was historically, and still is at the forefront of the defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty, and always objected to the meetings of international delegates with party leaders rather than confining the meeting to government authorities.

Despite the differences in opinion with Hezbollah, the Bloc was first to object to the United States’ sanction on two then National Deputies, Mohammad Raad and Amin Sherri, on the principal that sovereignty does not distinguish one citizen from another.

Pertaining to the clear and open conditions imposed by donors: they mainly ask for Lebanon to undertake structural reforms (that will benefit the country) or those reforms will be imposed on the country.  The Bloc had issued a statement on 8/4/2020 to refuse any aid before the reforms are implemented, as giving aid without reform would be considered a conspiracy against Lebanon.

The political parties, whether in or out of the government, must denounce their sectarianism, their corruption, and their infighting before addressing donor countries or settling the relationship with Syria. As we have stated before, these political parties need to withdraw from power, and turn it over to a sovereign and independent government with legislative powers until the time of the new parliamentary elections, when those parties can then try to regain the trust of the people.

As for settling the relationship with Syria, we think it is a necessity at the right time since geography and Lebanon’s interest demand this settlement.  However, any initiative in that direction should take the following points into consideration: 

Lebanese citizens, and specifically citizens of southern Lebanon, have legitimate concerns about continuous Israeli aggression, but the majority of Lebanese also harbor legitimate concerns about the Syrian mandate period, and Syria’s constant meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs. Even Syrian President Bashar El Assad previously admitted to the mistakes his country made in Lebanon.

As for the issue of border control, it is necessary to put our own house in order before asking to coordinate with the Syrian Armed Forces. Smuggling is being allowed and the security forces are being discouraged from carrying out their duty from Hermel to Akkar, and all this within an internal cover.

A reminder is necessary at this point that the sectarian parties, who speak about sovereignty, removed the provision of the armament program for the Lebanese army from the budget, and instead assigned this task to the United States.

In conclusion, and pertaining to the conspiracy against Syria to weaken the Lebanese resistance against Israeli aggression, we reiterate that the true support of the resistance is a state of law and social justice, and most of all a state of citizenship and trust among the Lebanese, everything beyond that is just the changing interests of states. Lebanon has sacrificed thousands of martyrs to resist all types of occupation, and should not be lost through the disintegration of its society and identity because of selfish internal conflicts.