08/06/2009 ...And on Monday, official results came in: The March 14 bloc has won general elections, yet the map of the representation of opposition ‘heavy weights’ has not changed. Hezbollah has kept its 11 MPs and General Michel Aoun now has a larger bloc: 26 MPs including 25 Christians. The 2005 elections gave Aoun a 22 member bloc including MP Michel Murr who later pulled out of the Change and Reform camp.
 
Surprisingly, the New York Times reflected Washington’s “biggest disappointment” at the outcome of elections. ”Though the Hezbollah-led challengers appeared to lose, Hezbollah itself — a Shiite political, social and military organization that is officially regarded by the United States and Israel as a terrorist group — will continue to be one of Lebanon’s most powerful political forces. The biggest disappointment may well have been Michel Aoun, a retired general who appeared to preserve his bloc of seats but left the Christian constituency divided,” the New York Times said.
 
Aoun now has the largest Christian bloc in parliament and therefore he’s established as the leader of the Christian community in Lebanon.
 
What’s to be disappointed about?
 
Lebanon is likely to slide again into a political crisis over the formation of the next government, similar to the one that battered the country for the last four years. The new government should rule the country based on a policy statement that would set its fixed standards and govern its conduct for the next four years. It goes without saying that the most complicated issues on the statement will be the legitimacy of the resistance and its weapons on the one hand and the settlement of Palestinian refugees.
 
Hezbollah, which stands firmly with the right of return of Palestinian refugees, has warned that the next government must vow not to touch the arms of the resistance, period. On the other hand, Hezbollah’s ally, Aoun, who continues to lead the Christian majority in Lebanon with more impetus, is a fierce opponent to any project aimed at settling Palestinians in Lebanon.
 
Back to Obama’s speech in Cairo
“The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt,” US President Barack Obama said in his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, only three days before general elections in Lebanon.
It was not very clear why Obama had mentioned the two Christian minorities.
 
Obama’s speech coincided with high-level US “diplomatic” activity towards Lebanon on the eve of elections. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made her visit followed a month later by a visit of a high ranking official, a US Vice President to be precise. Despite refuting allegations of interfering in Lebanese elections and domestic affairs, Clinton and Joe Biden held lengthy meetings with March 14 poles.
The message was that Washington was willing to deal with any government that the new majority in parliament will form, although a government formed by a March 14 majority will make things much easier for Washington.
 
Three days after Obama’s speech in Cairo and hours before polling stations were to be opened, Assistant US Secretary of State Jeffery Feltman decided to remind Maronite Christians in Lebanon about Obama’s remarks, which were still dubious.
"..One of your politicians (Michel Aoun) is proposing that Christians shouldn't depend on the United States. I hope the Lebanese had accurately listened to the president's [Barack Obama] speech that specifically pointed to the widest Christian religious minority in Lebanon, the Maronites. The president spoke about the need for respecting all peoples in the region including minorities…I hope the Lebanese would ask themselves: do we want to be on the side of the international community and close to the stances that president Obama made? I hope they would say yes."
 
This insistence on reassuring the Maronites in particular and Christians outside General Aoun’s flock is definitely questionable.
 
The Mideast Crisis solution relied on elections outcome
A solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the region will be Washington’s magic key that will open the doors wide into new relations in the region, mainly with Iran and Syria.
 
On the one hand, the US is pressing Israel to adopt a two-state solution in occupied Palestine and to halt settlement expansion. On the other hand, Israel is concerned about an independent Palestinian state that will become the homeland of millions of Palestinians in exodus. The issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees must be solved urgently and perhaps at any price.
 
In his speech in Cairo, Obama did not announce a new roadmap for “peace” as expected and did not address the refugees’ issue.  
 
Article two of Phase three of the roadmap stipulates that: “Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel - Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.”
The just, fair and realistic solution to the refugees issue is an elastic sentence.
Settling Palestinians in hosting countries is the most likely, if not sole solution.
 
In Washington’s calculations, the pro-western March 14 camp - that was assured by Obama, Biden, Clinton and Feltman that settling Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will not harm them - should have emerged as the bloc that comprises the majority of Lebanese Christians. But not to the US’s expectations, General Aoun’s Christian base grew wider, and ultimately any project to settle the Palestinians in Lebanon will face strong resistance by the majority of the Christians - not the “reassured Christians”. This same Christian majority has been skeptical about the Maronite Church’s stance Sunday, when Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir declared Lebanon an “entity in peril”, contrary to the electoral law that bans making such direct statement to induce voters on Election Day. Sfeir’s stance that functioned as a lever to the alliance, prompted March 14 ministers to interfere with the Elections’ Supervision Committee to clear the Patriarch’s comment for publication.
 
Even key Arab players in the region want a permanent end to the refugees’ issue.
 
According to the Saudi daily “Al-Hayat”, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has urged U.S. President Barack Obama to “impose a solution on the festering Arab-Israeli conflict if necessary,” a Saudi newspaper said on Sunday.
 
Saudi Arabia, the backer of MP Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, was the driving force behind an Arab peace initiative first put forward by Arab states in 2002 offering Israel recognition in return for withdrawal from Arab land captured in 1967 and a Palestinian state. Israel reacted saying a return of Palestinian refugees to areas “now inside Israel” would destroy the Jewish character of the state. Saudi Arabia believes the “collapse of Middle East peacemaking” has given Iran a chance to expand its regional influence through groups such as Hamas in occupied Palestine, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon.
 
The project to settle Palestinian refugees in Lebanon would surely mean that the country would transform into a confederation; the kind of state some key poles in the March 14 alliance, namely Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea, have been envisioning.
 
True, the project to build the fair, capable, strong and incorrupt state of Lebanon was temporarily postponed, but there is no doubt that, in parallel, the project to transform the country into a confederation where Palestinians, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and minorities would live in ghettos has permanently failed.
 
 
 
All rights reserved