The town of Ersal, which lies on the Lebanese eastern borders, did not need the confrontations that broke between its citizens and the army of their country in order to become famous. This town had already gained fame for more than a year for being the “capital" of the Syrian revolution's supporters in Lebanon. Thus, Ersal gained a political identity both in Lebanon and in Syria. This identity turned into a sectarian one, in agreement with the sectarian lines that now separate the conflicting parties on the Syrian arena, including the supporters and opponents of President Al-Assad. Therefore, it is hard to understand the ongoing conflict in Lebanon these days between those who support the army's actions in Ersal on the one hand and those who criticize those actions on the other, without taking into account what Ersal has become. This town is viewed by some Lebanese citizens as having become home to the “terrorists" who are fighting the Syrian regime. On the other hand, there are Lebanese who support this town for opening its homes to the refugees and to those who are running away from the death attacks of the Syrian regime against its opponents. The town of Ersal, in addition to some border towns in the region of Akkar as well as Tripoli and the daily confrontations there, practically embody the failure of the lame slogan of “self-distancing" that the Lebanese state had brandished in the face of the Syrian crisis. In this framework, the fact that the army has become the victim is no coincidence. Indeed, the army was asked to carry out security missions in areas of high political and sectarian tension. This army – which aspires to gain the image of “the army of the entire nation" – can suddenly turn into a tool to carry out the political desires since the Authority that oversees its actions is biased towards one specific Lebanese side. In addition, the interests of this Authority's most members and their very political existence are connected to the persistence of the Syrian regime. This led to the army's recent involvement in several incidents in the aforementioned regions. This also led to confrontations between the army members and some parties that are well-known for their sectarian affiliations as well as political positions in support of the Syrian revolution. Since the army lost some of its members, it is only natural for its command to insist on handing in the perpetrators and to take the harshest legal measures against them. However, the law can be viewed as being just only when it is equally applied to all citizens. Thus, when the army is carrying out its duties by pursuing wanted elements in some areas like Ersal, one must wonder about other elements who are accused of assassinations in other areas where the people in charge openly refuse to hand in those defendants. When the army demands the handing in of defendants in Ersal, one must wonder about the fate of the defendants in cases pertaining to attacks against the army officers and members in other areas that were never investigated. Some had considered that the Nahr el-Bared Camp represents a “red line" when the army was carrying out its operations there. And some thought that Pilot Samer Hanna was responsible for his own death for flying his plane to the Southern town of Sajad. These same parties are now volunteering to defend the army! What Speaker Berri said yesterday regarding the fact that “it is not acceptable for the army to require permission to enter this or that area" is correct. We hope that this call will be applied to the army actions in all the regions and that it will not be put aside after arresting the wanted men for attacking the army members in Ersal.
