It was stated in “Central”:
After all the security incidents that Lebanon witnessed that almost led to internal strife and brought it back to civil war, political observers reminded the importance of returning to the table of national dialogue as the only rational framework to prevent strife and fortify civil peace, pointing out that dialogue is necessary to enhance the chances of helping Lebanon from donor countries and institutions. Finance, which calls for maintaining stability and missing the opportunity for the enemies of the state and preventing it from being drawn into a conflict of axes at a time when the region is witnessing a dialogue between the Iranians and the Saudis for a settlement.
The circles stop at the words of Representative Gibran Bassil in his appearance on Saturday on the occasion of the anniversary of October 13, especially when he said, “We called for a defensive strategy that preserves Lebanon and the elements of its deterrent force against Israel’s ambitions. We are with the decision of war and peace in the hands of the state without losing our sacred right to self-defense for the benefit of The enemy. We are in favor of neutralizing Lebanon from any conflict that has nothing to do with it or has an interest in it.” And other components of March 8, and that Bassil, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, ignored mentioning the Baabda Declaration aimed at the neutralization of Lebanon, an international document in the final statements of the Arab summits and Western meetings in which Lebanon participated. The circles asked: “Why did President Michel Aoun not initiate a defense strategy upon his arrival in Baabda, when he announced its status more than once? Isn’t it time for neutrality and a return to dialogue?”
Well-informed political sources confirmed to Al Markaziya the necessity and inevitability of a return to dialogue, and continued: “But what is happening in Lebanon, makes us, before discussing the project of neutrality and holding the dialogue table, think about the impossibility of living in a country with a central system. Living in Greater Lebanon with its centralized system has become impossible. It has become necessary for us to think of an alternative constitutional system, not only an alternative to Taif, but also an alternative to the whole formula that we are living in since 1920 through 1943 until today, because recent developments, although not new, have witnessed similar events in Lebanon over the years in its history. The talk, but her return confirms that we are still at point zero, we are still in 1958, 1969 and 1975, nothing has changed, and it turns out that coexistence under a centralized system is “not regulated”, and this leads us to the necessity of calling first of all for an international conference, because some of us sit down With some, it has become impossible without a judge, especially after what happened and the speech of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah yesterday. The sources believed that “the international conference will help Lebanon and will present the form of the constitution, impartiality and ensuring the safety of this small state made up of conflicting components with each other.”
The sources concluded: How are we going to hold a dialogue with someone who says that 100,000 fighters were present in the face of the Lebanese? The hall cannot accommodate a hundred thousand fighters, this needs fighting fronts. The evidence is that no dialogue table has succeeded since 1975 until today in the presence of arms, be it the Palestinian, Syrian, leftist, right-wing, Lebanese Front, Forces, or Hezbollah arms. No dialogue succeeds with a weapon with a party.