Presidency: Baabda Declaration Does not Deal with Resistance Arms
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربيةAn agreement reached among the country's rival leaders last year to steer Lebanon clear of the region's crises did not deal with the resistance's arms but should have paved way for the discussion of the national defense strategy, said a Baabda Palace statement on Thursday.
The rival leaders from the March 8 and March 14 alliances affirmed on June 11, 2012 commitment to the Taef Accord and agreed to keep Lebanon away from the policy of regional and international conflicts to spare it the negative repercussions of the regional crises.
Their agreement became known as the Baabda Declaration, which Thursday's presidential statement said was affirmed by three consecutive sessions.
“The Baabda Declaration did not include any text on the resistance and its arms and did not suggest ways to benefit from the resistance's capabilities,” said the statement read by Retired Brig. Gen. Bassam Yehia, the coordinator of the national dialogue committee.
“Such concepts came as part of the president's proposal of his vision on the defense strategy during a national dialogue session on Sept. 20, 2012,” he said.
During that session, the rival leaders considered the document “a mean to pave way for the agreement on the national defense strategy,” he said.
The statement said the declaration is closely linked to the national dialogue in addition to being officially adopted by the U.N. and Arab League.
The document forms a “unifying political framework” to exert efforts to defend the nation's sovereignty and draws a path to benefit from the country's capabilities to confront Israel, it added.
The explanatory statement came after both the March 8 and 14 alliances made different interpretations of the document.
Thank you God, thank you! Finally, the clarification came out to put an end to rumors and speculations. Charbel said it, Al Rahi said it, and now the Presidency is saying it. The Islamic Iranian Resistance arms are beyond any discussions since they are constitutionally legal. Just as the USA has the FBI or National Guard, we have the resistance; part and parcel of the military institution. We can discuss everything @ the national dialogue table, from oil to tabouleh, but we will never ever ever discuss the resistance arms. Had it not been for the resistance arms, the USA would be now bombing Syria, Lebanon, and killing all Christians in Rabyeh and Metn. We would be on ships going to Europe as slaves to work as illegals cleaning the white man home.
@Roaring-FlameThrower I don't think anyone is debating the resistance's arms. People are debating under whose authority these arms should lie. It should be under the authority of the state, not under the authority of a particular party or sect. The example you give is actually not relevant: In the US, the FBI is under the authority of the state. Not under the command of the republicans or democrats or protestants or blacks.
hezbollah does not care about lebanese laws or constitution, they only care about their survival and mafiosi business....
Hezbolla weapons are controlled by the state but run independently.But the state cannot admit this simply because it will tie hezbollah and the army together. To tie the army into the equation means israel will want to attack it. The point is to protect the army