Al-Rahi’s Positions on Syria, Hizbullah Removed from Bishops Proclamation after Extensive Debate

A debate over Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi’s positions on Syria, Hizbullah’s arms, and Christians in the region during the Maronite bishops council meeting on Wednesday prompted the gatherers to remove these issues from their final proclamation.

The Bishops’ meeting last Wednesday was not as rosy as depicted in the press, especially the March 8 media. It was an opportunity for the bishops to give the Patriarch their opinion on his Paris declarations.

The meeting began with al-Rahi presenting a draft statement for the proclamation.

It included his position on Syria, warning that its popular movements may lead to civil and sectarian war between Sunnis and Alawites that could extend to Lebanon through an alliance between Syria’s and Lebanon’s Sunnis against the Alawites of Syria and Lebanon’s Shiites.

Such a war could reflect negatively on the Christians in Lebanon and Syria and push them to emigrate, the patriarch said.

The statement also included a warning that the international community’s goal to establish democracy in Syria may lead to the rise of extremist forces to power instead.

He also reiterated statements he made in France a few weeks ago that a solution to Hizbullah’s weapons lies in an international community pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Shebaa farms and a European-American initiative to arm the Lebanese military – two moves that would eliminate the Shiite party’s excuses to keep its arms.

Following the presentation, the bishops made their comments on al-Rahi’s remarks.

One of the patriarch’s deputies said the church cannot abandon its strategic principles for tactical and short-term considerations, and it therefore cannot take a stance based on analyses and expectations of what the demands of the Syrian people for freedom and democracy could lead to.

Such an approach may harm the essence of the teachings of the church and portray it as opposing the rights of the people in determining their fate, he added.

Furthermore, he said that such stands may justify dictatorial regimes’ oppression against their people and violation of international law.

“The church cannot support the mentality of the honorable end justifies the corrupt means,” he added.

Addressing the patriarch, he said: “You have repeatedly stated that political affairs should remain restricted to the politicians. We should commit to this in words and actions.”

A bishop then addressed al-Rahi by saying that the church had repeatedly declared that it supports peoples’ right to live in freedom and dignity.

“You had also stressed the need to limit the possession of arms to the Lebanese state, so how can we now issue stances that contradict these principles?” he asked.

“Do we tell the people that Bkirki’s principles are wrong? Do we tell them that it changes its views based on different circumstances?” he wondered.

Another bishop, who had assumed diplomatic responsibilities at Bkirki, warned of the Maronite church’s adoption of al-Rahi’s views that were listed in the draft statement.

“We cannot adopt a position that Arabs can interpret as being hostile towards Sunnis in Lebanon and the region because that will negatively impact Christian presence in the East, and Lebanon in particular,” he stressed.

“What could we have achieved if we took a position that opposes the rights of the Sunni majority in Syria that is backed by the Sunni majority in the Arab world, and Gulf region in particular?” he asked.

“How can we bear the consequences of Gulf states expelling Christian expatriates over what it interpreted as our support of the Syrian regime?” he continued.

“We should be wary of the repercussions of our positions on our sons and their economic interests,” he warned.

“Effective Christian political and national approaches should ensure that Christians are granted appropriate economic and social support,” he concluded.

A former bishop from one of the Maronite parishes then addressed the gatherers, warning them of the dangers of embroiling Lebanon in a confrontation with international decision-makers.

“The patriarch is right in expressing the concerns of Christians to influential countries, but there is a fine line between demanding that our positions be taken into consideration and getting involved in a confrontation with European and American administrations,” he noted.

“Diplomatic information indicates that ties between the Maronite church and between Paris and Washington will be witnessing tensions, which requires us to immediately maintain Christian interests in the East before the frigid relations develop into alienation,” he added.

He said: “The Vatican, France, and United States have enjoyed good ties for years now and we cannot affect these relations.”

“Our demands that Christians not pay the price of a Sunni-Shiite-Alawite conflict should not result in Christians paying the price of a lost battle between the Christians in Lebanon and the East on one side and the international community on the other ,” he cautioned.

His speech was followed by a bishop who had played a prominent role in the past few years.

He said: “Since 2000, we have issued 11 proclamations, all of which included positions on Syria and Hizbullah’s arms that completely contradict with the positions we are addressing today.”

“How can we confront our sons if we issue a new proclamation based on the new stances?” he asked.

“Do we tell them that your church was wrong for 11 years and it is now correcting these positions?” he wondered.

“Can any one of us distance himself from the previous proclamations?” he continued.

“It’s true that admitting a mistake is a virtue, but we should at first agree that we had committed an error in our previous assessments,” he stressed.

A bishop, who had assumed media responsibilities, then addressed the gatherers, revealing to them complaints that al-Rahi had surrounded himself with media officials, who labeled themselves as “the patriarch’s consultants” and who are affiliated with March 8 camp parties and movements.

These officials, he added, have claimed that they were summoned by the Maronite patriarchate to serve as media counselors.

“We all know that Walid Ghayyad is the Bkirki media official, so should we believe this group?” he asked.

“If so, I do not deny the patriarch is right to surround himself with whoever he wants, but I warn that maintaining a group of a single political view may portray the Patriarchate as a side in the political dispute,” he noted.

Al-Rahi interjected at this, explaining that this group does exist and that he had added some March 14 camp-affiliated figures to it.

“I am not the one who requested its presence, but the group did so out of its keenness to express its opinions to bishop Sayyah who accompanied it. I have received complaints about the group and have stopped meeting with them last week,” he stated.

A resigned bishop followed, criticizing the patriarch’s visit to Baalbeck, the Hermel, and South, saying that since these regions are dominated by one political camp, his visit was exploited by it in a manner that did not benefit the Maronite church.

“We should at least regain our rights in the town of Lassa and receive a pledge that Christian-owned land will not be bought out from them in the South and that the expansion of Beirut’s southern suburbs and in Baabda come to an end,” he stressed.

Addressing the patriarch, he said: “I was annoyed by your statements from the Bekaa when you said that you will emulate Imam Moussa Sadr’s positions and approach.”

The patriarch’s approach should be emulated, not the other way around, he said.

“These statements were exploited, I know you didn’t mean so, but it happened,” he added.

Meanwhile, a bishop, whose parish is located in areas that have Sunni presence, said the Sunnis were annoyed by the distinction that al-Rahi made between them and Shiite leaderships during his tours.

“MP Fouad Saniora complained that you snubbed the Hariri family invitation to Majdelyoun, while you accepted the dinner invitation of Sheikh Mohammed Yazbeck and Speaker Nabih Berri’s lunch invitation at Msayleh,” he added.

Al-Rahi responded by saying that such misunderstandings are inevitable in such circumstances.

“I was quick to rectify the situation by calling for a spiritual summit at Dar al-Fatwa, that way, I treated Sunnis and Shiites equally,” he added.

A Mount Lebanon bishop then noted Bkirki’s contradictory positions on Lebanon’s right to liberate its land.

He explained that a spiritual summit was held at Bkirki a few weeks ago during which conferees stressed the state’s authority in liberating occupied territory.

The Vice-President of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Abdul Amir Qabalan objected to it, as well as the summit’s failure to mention the Resistance, he noted.

“Why have we since altered our position and started to adopt Hizbullah’s stands towards the resistance and illegitimate arms?” asked the bishop.

“This will confuse our supporters and portray us as being susceptible to pressure,” he noted.

“This will pave the way to more pressure and force us to make more concessions over our convictions, historic positions, and Christian interests,” he warned.

Another bishop reiterated these statements, saying that late Patriarch Khreish and former Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir had, between 1975-1989 civil war, opposed sending signals that Bkirki blesses the arms that Christians had directed against Palestinians, who had then established a state within a state in Lebanon.

“How can we therefore adopt Hizbullah’s views of the arms given that they exist outside the state’s authority?” he asked.

In light of these discussions, one of the patriarch’s representatives suggested introducing fundamental amendments to al-Rahi’s draft statement.

They called for refraining from delving into the details of political positions on current developments and strictly suffice with issuing general principles.

Warnings of the eruption of civil war in Syria will be dropped, as well as those on the rise of extremists to power.

The issue of Hizbullah’s arms will be avoided and focus will be shifted to the fair implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Maronite bishops also decided to stress the importance of equality and cooperation between the people of the region, away from violence.

Furthermore, they agreed that the new phrasing of the Maronite bishops’ statement will not oppose al-Rahi’s positions, which would consequently portray the church in a negative light.

This entailed altering the statement “supporting the position of the patriarch,” to “supporting the patriarch and trusting in his leadership and wisdom.”

The amendments were taken into consideration, with the final proclamation being devoid of any of the political positions al-Rahi had issued in Paris, Baalbeck, and the South.