Lebanese Forces: Cabinet decision sets Lebanon on path to statehood

LBCI

12 hours ago

The media office of the Lebanese Forces party said that the 'historic' decision taken by the Cabinet yesterday should have been made 35 years ago, were it not for the reversal of the Taif Accord, which explicitly called for 'the extension of the Lebanese state's authority over all Lebanese territory through its own forces.'
In a statement, the party added that the government's decision should have been implemented 21 years ago, had U.N. Resolution 1559—based on the Taif Agreement—not been reversed. The resolution explicitly called for 'the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.'
It further noted that the government's move to task the army with ending illegal arms should have been in force 19 years ago, were it not for the reversal of U.N. Resolution 1701, which explicitly affirmed 'the importance of extending the authority of the Lebanese government over all Lebanese territory in accordance with Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), and the relevant provisions of the Taif Agreement, and exercising full sovereignty, such that there are no weapons without the consent of the Lebanese government and no authority other than that of the Lebanese government.'
The statement added that the Cabinet's decision should also have been enforced eight months ago, were it not for the reversal of the ceasefire agreement, which clearly stated the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that the only forces permitted to bear arms would be the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), Internal Security Forces, General Security, State Security, Lebanese Customs, and municipal police.
It continued: 'After all these reversals of foundational texts—starting with the Taif Accord, through international resolutions, and up to the ceasefire agreement, the presidential oath, and the ministerial statement—the faction responsible for these reversals should have apologized to the Lebanese people for what it has committed against them and the country over the past 35 years. Instead, it brazenly attacked President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, as if the President were responsible for the 2006 war, the May 7, 2008 clashes, the war on the Syrian people, or the 'support war' and its disastrous consequences on Lebanon. And as if the Prime Minister were the one who paralyzed political life, delayed government formation, and led the country to financial and economic collapse because of his wars and alliances with the most corrupt.'
The statement argued that after all the death, destruction, disasters, and displacement caused by the 'resistance axis,' after its allies abandoned it, and after it failed to secure their interests, and with the overwhelming majority of the Lebanese people now committed to the path of a real state, that axis should have reviewed its actions and the damage it caused to the nation, the people, and its own environment. 'Instead,' it said, 'it poured its anger on the President for adhering to his oath of office and on the Prime Minister for sticking to the ministerial statement.'
The media office concluded that the August 5 Cabinet session put Lebanon back on the path toward becoming a real and functional state, and that the first step in that process is adhering to the foundational texts—exactly what the President and Prime Minister have done.