It was stated in “Central”:
In the celebration of the declaration of the state of Greater Lebanon at the Pine Palace in 1920, General Gouraud wrote a will stating: “Greater Lebanon was formed for the benefit of all and was not composed to be against anyone.” He addressed the Lebanese, saying: “The union is the source of your strength. Beware of ethnic and sectarian rivalries.” Guru’s will remained ink on paper, and everything that was written and written today on the centenary of Greater Lebanon falls under a set of titles and fateful questions: Which country did we build and which society did we raise? What did we do with Greater Lebanon and what remained of it after the rule was transferred from the hands of statesmen to the state of some men, and has Greater Lebanon become a memory and history, or is it a reality, a challenge, and a responsibility that must be preserved and handed over to future generations?
Diplomatic sources speak with grief and sadness about this “Greater Lebanon”, which has transformed from an arena of dialogue and convergence into a poor, isolated, rogue country, and has become closer to a beggar state on the sidewalk of the international community waiting for its turn to obtain aid that saves the remaining components of Greater Lebanon. Is there anyone who stands and strikes with his stick to restore the greater Lebanon entity?
The coordinator of the Rally for Sovereignty, Nofal Daou, does not deny “the magnitude of the existential risks that Lebanon is exposed to, and it is exposed to more in light of the pressures imposed on it. But it does not constitute a precedent in its history since the establishment of Greater Lebanon. In 1975, it was proposed to transform Lebanon into an alternative state for the Palestinians. We overcame it due to the resistance of its sons, and later there were attempts to become a “Syrian governorate”…we also overcame it. Today there is the Iranian occupation, which exposes Lebanon’s entity to existential risks and will face existential resistance to overcome it.”
With the admission of far and near, allies and opponents, “Lebanon is not a thousand good.” Daou points out via the central: “It is true that Lebanon is not a good country, but it is not hopeless. This stage may be more dangerous than the occupations that preceded it, but matters are related to regional and international conditions in addition to internal considerations. Just as the Lebanese took back their decision from the Syrians and the Palestinians, and they resisted the occupation by all means. And the means, they will be able today to recover their decision from the Iranian occupier, but the path is long.”
As well as the powerful political forces and the people burdened with crises, Dhao relies on Bkerke’s role in restoring the Lebanese entity and says, “There are many stages in history in which Bkerke’s role emerged. In the years 1920 and 1943, and the period between the September 2000 appeal and the Syrians’ departure from Lebanon in April 2005. Today, Bkerke is back. To play the role of protector and defender of the Lebanese entity, after feeling the failure of politicians and the arrival of some of them to the stage of complicity and dependence. From that, Bkirki took the initiative, and the statement of the Maronite bishops on September 1 indicates directions that they will adopt in the near future.
On the other hand, he pointed out that the means that Bkerke will adopt are limited to the extent of the risks that threaten the entity and said, “Until this moment, Bkirki is still the voice of conscience, and it adopts a method of warning and drawing attention. But no one is betting that it will continue to do so, and at any moment it can play A direct role on the basis of “entity” and not quotas, assuming that this role you will play will be in the name of all the Lebanese, whoever wants it and whoever refuses.
Popularly, Daw considered that resistance to the Iranian occupation does not necessarily have to be military or violent, but rather through rejection and expression of it by various means, and it may range between political, intellectual, economic, cultural or social confrontation. and the foundations on which it was built, and I hope that we will not reach the stage of violent resistance. It is true that the people are suffering under a crisis of poverty and hunger, which is a precedent in its history.”
Daou concludes: “What Hezbollah is doing in Syria, Yemen and Iraq places Lebanon as a rogue and beggary state on the sidewalk of the international community, and here the resistance may be more difficult, but it gives an opposite reaction. Let everyone know that starving the Lebanese will lead to an explosion of unprecedented resistance because The Lebanese have not and will not be satisfied with a life of humiliation. Even the immigration factor will rebound positively on the inside because it will contribute to strengthening the elements of Lebanese economic resilience and influencing the regional and international decision to remove the weight of the Iranian occupation.”