Different names but same voices. They are the names and voices of the contributors and participants in media and political campaigns on sites and institutions in the Lebanese State. After President Michel Sleiman and the Internal Security Forces, it is now the turn of former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. He, according to those staging and brandishing the campaigns, is part of the American national security and should be held accountable for all his black period. Even, more, he is the spearhead of the American project, according to a source who did not notice that this project receded and was defeated in the entire region, not only in Lebanon. The only place where Siniora is entitled to speak is before the judiciary, according to an “understanding” deputy. In the eyes of his critics, Siniora is blamed for the security agreement between the Internal Security Forces and the United States, which undermines the safety of the telecommunications of the Lebanese - among whom are resistance and opposition members, such as those making the above statements – and [is accused] of exposing these telecommunications before the American-Israeli lurking enemy. Aside from the pretext of threatening the telecommunications, one of the interpretations for the campaign staged against the head of the Future Movement parliamentary bloc is the attempt to make him, his movement's media outlets and his various political wings join the agreement, which enabled the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri to visit Syria. It is not acceptable for Al-Hariri to adopt a policy, which his supporters and media outlets do not abide by, as reported frankly two days ago. But Siniora dos not take anyone into account and says in a recent statement that “some are appointing themselves as victors in Lebanon, issuing certificates in patriotism and ethics and various good things in this country, while neither anyone has appointed them, nor have they received an authorization from the Lebanese people. Nonetheless, they take the lead and give these certificates.” This statement briefs what those behind the campaign do not want to hear. In his response, Siniora indirectly condemns the Israeli colonization's invasion, warning against the repercussions and threats of the policy of Judaizing the occupied Jerusalem. But these two positions are conflicting, according to those running the campaigns that hold some as treacherous, accuse them of working for the enemy and issue fatwas on the involvement in the American and Israeli projects. He who refuses to undergo the patriotism “blood test,” whom Siniora has extensively talked about, could not be honest in condemning the building of settlements and all the Israeli policies, according to a closed-minded person who worked so much on expanding his knowledge about Lebanon to the extent of becoming unjust. One of the previous opposition writers did well in pointing to considering this as the core of the issue: The “political Sunnism”, represented by Siniora, poses a threat to the resistance and Lebanon. [He said it bluntly] without any makeup or [talk about] American national security or use of any other verbal beautifying expressions. Siniora perhaps does not need someone to defend him and his policy, which could bear many reservations over aspects that have to do with its finances, taxes, and economics, during his lengthy term as a finance minister and all through his premiership (although Siniora's critics are not concerned about these policies today, even though they use them as a reserve in their attacks on the man, despite the fact that this policy was not drafted by him alone, but was approved by the alliance that ruled Lebanon between 1990 and 2005). But what requires attention is the entrenchment of this methodology that hides behind the resistance, in an attempt to destabilize great political agreements that were reached in the Taif Agreement 21 years ago. The resistance, according to the notion of Lebanese symbols adopted by the most active groups in staging campaigns and leveling accusations, is equivalent to the dominance of one group over another and the continued endeavor to tame and domesticate whoever has a different opinion, under the pretext of defending “the other opinion.” This is the lowest level of vulgarity.
