The Lebanese authority is uncouth. It is unpleasant, annoying, and arrogant. One may say that it is insolent. It lacks innocence, wit, tolerance, courtesy, civility, and hospitality. It does not assess regional circumstances, or take into account psychological factors, the requirements of an open struggle with the enemy, and the necessity of keeping the finger on the trigger. The Lebanese authority is odious, ugly, and repugnant. It lacks etiquette, courtesy, and realism. It lacks the talent of respecting borders, being aware of the nature of equations, and courtesy in dealing with sensitivities. It intentionally shuts its eyes to the history of the past decades, their beautiful and luminous phases, the brilliant achievements, and the contributions that are enshrined in the memory. This is my country, and I'm entitled to defame it and persecute its authority. It is a conceited and immoral authority. Imagine that it sometimes suffers from symptoms of dignity and is under the illusion that Lebanon is entitled to have a state; to impose its sovereignty on all its territory and through its legal security institutions; and for its inhabitants to obey the law; for a war not to be waged unbeknownst to it; and for peace not to be made in its absence. It is an immature and rash authority. It is an ailing authority that is plagued and accused. It knows neither its boundaries nor those of its capacities and rights. It sometimes gets bored from the long season of humiliation so it tries to raise up its head or its index, or be mistrustful. It is as if it forgot that Lebanon's mission is to be an arena; a mailbox; a training field; a laboratory for foreign projects, and that its function is to live under its rubble – under the rubble of its wars and that of the wars inside it and against it. I accuse the Lebanese authority of being ill-intentioned, misestimating, and misbehaving. I accuse the leaders of the Lebanese national dialogue of being rash and stubborn. They have dared touch the untouchable. They agreed four years ago on ending the armed Palestinian presence outside the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and organizing the weapons inside them. They were under the illusion that it is Lebanon's right to witness the establishment of a state within and to enjoy sovereignty. May God forgive them. They hurt the feelings of Colonel Saeed Moussa (Abou Moussa), the general secretary of Fatah-Intifada as well as the feelings of others. When I learned that Colonel Abou Moussa was visiting Saida for the first time in decades, I regarded it as a good omen. I thought that this man had definitely come to congratulate the Lebanese on their reconciliations and to support the improvement of Lebanese-Palestinian relations as well as the Lebanese voices calling for improving the living conditions inside the camps. I thought he wouldn't miss an opportunity to launch an initiative, as if he were announcing the closure of camps affiliated to his organization in respect for the will and authority of the Lebanese. However, I soon found out that I was mistaken. The visitor made declarations that are in full contradiction with the interest of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples. He said that the weapons outside the camps exist in a context that is broader than Lebanon and are related to the open struggle with the enemy, and that he rejects the mere idea of introducing these weapons into the camps. He forgot to say that these weapons are a guarantee against nationalization. He will probably say this at his next visit. I expected him to apologize from the Lebanese because he fought the Syrian forces in the streets of Saida without consulting them, and his cannons resounded on the coast and in the mountains while he forgot that he was a guest. He fought “Yasser Arafat's biased leadership” in Tripoli without consulting anyone. I expected him to also apologize because Fatah al Islam, which bloodied the Nahr al Bared camp, the Lebanese army, and others, was a byproduct of his organization. He did not simply refrain from apologizing. He said things that reopen wounds, as if the Lebanese and the Palestinians needed any more pain. He reminded the Lebanese of a beautiful song by Fayrouz that says “The old nights of the past are back”. Then we heard of those who were trying to make things better by calling the Lebanese authority to open a dialogue on the Palestinian weapons outside the camps. A dialogue implies the formation of a committee followed by subcommittees. Then the search for a mechanism begins, provided it is not found. In fact, Colonel Abou Moussa was accusing the Lebanese authority of insolence, and of interfering in the internal affairs of his positions that are distributed on the Lebanese territory, and which are not needed by the Lebanese resistance for deterring any potential Israeli attack. The approach of having contempt towards Lebanon and consecrating it as an arena, and having contempt towards the will of the Lebanese, their interests, and their right to live in a normal state as is the case in Honduras, Chad, and Myanmar, this approach is extremely dangerous for both Lebanon and the Palestinians. The visitor should've done the opposite of what he did. May God have mercy on the days of “biased leadership.”
