It is rare for the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) not to be the first to react to issues that directly concern them, such as the visit by Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rai to occupied Palestine and meeting with collaborators who were part of Antoine Lahd's South Lebanon Army (SLA). But this time it seems that the FPM's tongue is tied and they remain silent, although the "Lebanese refugees to Israel" had been one of its priorities since 2005.
In contrast to their usual habit, Michel Aoun supporters in the FPM did not seem to be concerned with the latest public affair which had gripped the country over the past few weeks. They chose to remain silent about Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rai's visit to occupied Palestine and his meeting with collaborators who were part of Antoine Lahd's South Lebanon Army (SLA). The official silence was only broken by MPs Nabil Nicolas and Hekmat Deeb, in addition to party official Pierre Raffoul, who recently criticized the visit. The FPM rank and file, however, is officially disengaged.
On the surface, the FPM could hide behind the Patriarch's stature and avoid making any comments, which would spark a dispute between Bkirki and Rabieh at this stage. However, it could not completely evade the issue, as the file of those who fled to occupied Palestine has been an FPM cause since 2005. This is particularly so given that the Patriarch revived the question by praying for the Lahdists in Haifa and refusing to call them traitors.
Regardless if Rai wanted to deliberately embarrass the FPM and push them into a confrontation with Hezbollah, the Aounist perspective cannot be circumvented. In the first session of parliament in July 2005, Aoun preceded his statements about the thousands of Lebanese refugees to Israel by declaring, "I did not come here to defend them because they are not collaborators. But I am not saying they are innocent."Similar words from Rai could have opened a rational debate on their situation and put an end to those who are doubting his patriotism and the reasons behind his current visit, but he said quite the opposite. He could have spoken about the families of the collaborators, without speaking about the collaborators themselves, but he did not do that. Instead he opened the doors wide for criticism from a large section of the Lebanese - including the families of the martyrs they killed - who refuse to absolve the collaborators.
This explains, more or less, the Aounists’ silence over what the Patriarch stands for, and the sensitive file they failed to close in the past nine years. They passed a law containing a practical solution on the "refugees to Israel." However, it was not enforced due to the web of implementation procedures at the ministries of justice, defense, and interior. According to MP Ziad Aswad, the regulations never saw the light of day.
Aoun then proposed a second bill to resolve the complications of the regulations, but it still waiting to be included on the cabinet's agenda. Aswad, who is in charge of this file, along with FPM official Ziad Abs, said the issue was included in the memorandum of understanding with Hezbollah, in its sixth item on "Lebanese in Israel." Back then, they agreed to employ their efforts to bring them back, without neglecting the most important point, which is to differentiate between the treatment of the collaborators and that of their families.
However, the agreement was hindered due to the sensitivity of the issue. Ultimately, "we created a list along with Hezbollah of those who could be brought back and another list of those who crossed red lines and could not return," Aswad explains. "Those were mostly former combatants who committed intentional crimes in the villages and had direct contacts with Israeli intelligence."
Aswad believes it is not fair to "look at criminals and victims as equals. Some of those who fled were forcefully conscripted. Others were under the influence of propaganda by a political side to scare the residents of Hezbollah, telling them it was coming to slaughter them. Either fight in Lahd's army or die."
The occupation ended and Hezbollah did not retaliate. Yet the fear pushed many residents to flee. "It makes no sense for the state to throw them at the wolves’ feet and fail to protect them, refraining from giving them any alternatives, then to call them traitors," Aswad continues. "The residents of my region, for example, did not join Lahd voluntarily. They did not stand with Israel against their state or thought one day of collaboration or fighting for the enemy. Samir Geagea displaced the people in the region and they could not reach Beirut. The SLA was imposed on them by force."
On Sunday, Aswad toured the homes of some families with relatives in Israel. He was informed of the difficulties facing their return, especially since their children studied in Israeli universities and speak Hebrew. They explained the dilemma of authenticating their degrees in Lebanon or finding jobs. "The issue should have been closed eight years ago," the Jezzine MP adds. "The longer it takes, the difficulties of their return will multiply."FPM members realize their silence towards the Patriarch's visit could raise the suspicions, even the ire, of resistance partisans. But the experience between Rabieh and Dahiyeh has shown that their relationship was more than a written memorandum or an excited audience. Collaboration is not a matter of opinion, according to the Aounis. But safeguarding Bkirki – regardless of its occupant – from disputes and campaigns is not open to question either.
If the Patriarch's visit is to be discussed, "it should happen within boundaries and with respect, away from media campaigns and arbitrary accusations," said FPM MP Alain Aoun. However, "the [current] criticism crossed the red line, when some began to doubt Rai's patriotism and his concern for Lebanon."
Thus, it is no longer a question of the visit's consequences. "It harms Bkirki's standing directly. Those who want a civilized and respectful discussion should speak to Rai face to face, like Hezbollah did."
MP Nabil Nicolas stresses that the FPM had always called for separation of church and state. Otherwise, "a priest who decides to get involved in politics should accept the reactions to his political positions and bear the responsibility along with those who made him a spiritual and political leader."
"I, as Nabil Nicolas, say that Rai should have shut down the deviant voices in Haifa and speak on behalf of the victims. But he did not do so," he declares. "So let each person bear the responsibility of his words and deeds."
Follow Roula Ibrahim on Twitter: roulaibrahim@
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!