… “Your problem is that you stipulate that the candidate for the presidency be corrupt, or that he become corrupt. You used to see in Michel Aoun the example of integrity and effectiveness, but he had to extend his hand to all the stained hands, so that if he entered the door of the palace, he would plunge into quotas, with its political and sectarian sides, which is the height of political clientelism.
These are the words of a former Saudi ambassador in Beirut. He added, “When Ambassador Walid Al-Bukhari announced that the kingdom would not veto any of the candidates, you went too far in interpretation, in the manner of some jurists, to wash the hands, past, or present, of so-and-so, who may be part of the system that wreaked havoc in the country over the past three years. Decades, and it is ready to proceed with that for three centuries if you remain in the current situation, and you are the ones who need tremendous efforts for salvation.
He takes on “people of interpretation, interpretation, and diligence, reading with one eye. They did not link the statement about the Levito with the other statement in which the ambassador saw that the first task of the future president is to fight corruption, without being a man of challenge. Do you want clearer words than that?… »
After what happened in Beijing and Jeddah, we are no longer surprised when a Saudi diplomat close to the court said, “We absolutely do not want a president who is an enemy of Syria, which is your gateway to the Arab world, in addition to being, historically and geographically, the beating heart of the Arab region. We also do not want him to be an enemy of Tehran, since it has become clear that the ayatollahs have abandoned ideological policies, and have taken a pragmatic view of approaching balance with neighboring countries, whether in geopolitical interests or in geostrategic interests.
I am confident that no one can stop the implementation of the agreement that was held in Beijing, under the auspices of Xi Jinping. “This is our desire after we noticed where the conflicts are leading us, and this is the desire of the Iranians. And as you say in the Lebanese dialect, our journey is long between us and them, and God willing, it will be a bed of roses, not with thorns, nor with blood.”
When he asks, “However, some of your friends or allies take direct, public, and eternal hostility towards both Syria and Iran as a slogan for their policies at home and abroad,” he answers, “We do not pressure anyone to change his mind, or to change his position, but we believe that the course of Events must have a positive impact, sooner or later, on the Lebanese arena.
-The ambassador did not say, “Beware of repeating the black day in 2016 (the election of General Michel Aoun) in 2023.” However, what is evident from his words is his adoption of this saying. Oligarchy?”…
-This may be what the Lebanese reality imposes, the constitutional reality, even in form. However, what we understand from our Saudi colleagues is that we must choose the head of state with the utmost precision, with the utmost prudence, and without “shocking those who seek to save you and your country from what you describe as … hell”!
So, the Saudi gate will be open to us (which is the gateway to economic and financial advancement) if we bring in a head of state from outside the system. What about the Qatari portal, where the categorical rejection of any president “has half of him in Beirut and the other half in Damascus?”
The Qataris have their opinion about the president’s personality and the president’s name, and they made efforts to market this name, based on their close relationship with Iran, without taking into account the opinion of those who told them that the road to Baabda must pass through Damascus as well.
Here, there are those who ask the question, “Would the Saudis pave the way between Doha and Damascus by accepting the Syrians with a figure who would have a balanced relationship with all parties?”
Some in Lebanon are decision makers (Is there any opinion or decision after the Beijing agreement?) Far from the words we mentioned. The famous orientalist Henry Corbin said, “The problem with religions is that jurists have transgressed all the logical boundaries of these religions.” Does this not apply to policies?
