After his recent statements ... Has Aoun started to turn away from Hezbollah?

The warning of Lebanese President Michel Aoun about Lebanon's fall into "hell" sparked the anger and mockery of many Lebanese at the same time, but it seemed - to some - an indication of a kind of differentiation from the position of his strategic ally Hezbollah, and his ally, Amal Movement, led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. .

At a time when the "Shiite duo" insists on naming their ministers and adhering to the money bag Aoun is armed with the constitution, calling for adherence to its principle, which does not stipulate the allocation of any ministry to any sect, and called for "the abolition of the sectarian distribution of the ministries that are named sovereign."

Aoun’s statements made many people wonder: Did Aoun and his successor, the Free Patriotic Movement - headed by Gebran Bassil - begin a gradual withdrawal from the alliance with Hezbollah for fear of the stick of US sanctions?

The constitution or the norms?

Perhaps it is the first time in the history of the relationship between the two parties (Aoun and Hezbollah) that the fate of their understanding is subject to discussion, whether in public or behind the political corridors. Perhaps Aoun’s mere statement that “there was no talk about breaking the Mar Mikhael understanding” confirms this.

The Mar Mikhael understanding goes back to the year 2006, and specifically on February 6, when the St. Michael Church witnessed a meeting between the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah and General Michel Aoun, and resulted in the signing of a document of understanding that included 10 basic points under the banner "Preserving and Protecting Lebanon" .

And while Aoun's recent statements appeared to be at least unusual in form and style, it seemed remarkable that the pillars of the "Shiite duo" had not been announced - until now - any position on the president's words that refused to assign any ministry to any sect, contrary to their demand.

When Al-Jazeera Net asked one of the prominent symbols of the Amal movement about its position on Aoun’s statements, the answer was: “We do not accept entering into any argument with the president of the republic, and the supreme authorities announce their position on his speech, but we must not forget that Lebanon is governed by customs more than the constitution, and we will remain attached to our demand, and we are not It is possible to make concessions in the matter of the money bag, which we demand to propose several names to take over, provided that the president-designate chooses one from among them. "

An understanding is at stake.

While analysts in Lebanon began to present the hypothesis that the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah was shaken, Walid al-Ashqar, a member of the National Movement’s political council, considered that the distinction in internal positions from Hezbollah goes back to many years, and does not cancel the deep alliance on the basic strategic principles stipulated in the understanding paper Mar Mikhael in the year 2006.

He also confirms that differentiation from Hezbollah in the internal file has nothing to do with the US sanctions, especially that the files of the National Movement are clean and do not have any suspicions of corruption. If the Americans found any evidence of Bassil’s conviction, they would not have waited so long to impose sanctions on him.

He added in a statement to Al-Jazeera Net that "the party did not meet the current in approving anti-corruption bills, but rather failed with the spoilers, and did not pressure its allies, the Amal Movement and the Marada Movement, to assume their responsibilities."

However, writer and political analyst Tawfiq Shoman (who is close to Hezbollah) believes that Aoun completed the recent positions of Gebran Bassil, which also reflected a kind of clear divergence from Hezbollah, by re-introducing UN Resolution 1701 on resolving the Lebanese-Israeli conflict, and accelerating the demarcation of the sea and land borders, and trying to meet The Maronite Patriarch calling for the issue of neutrality.

Tawfiq Shoman considers that the Shiite duo’s attachment to the money bag stems from the financial and economic aspect of the French initiative.

He points out that Hezbollah wants to participate in re-engineering Lebanon's financial face, specifically at the level of naming a new governor for the Bank of Lebanon, and the role of the Ministry of Finance in rebuilding the port.

A

As for Mustafa Alloush, a member of the political bureau in the Future Movement, Mustafa Alloush believes that Aoun took his positions because he realized that his Christian environment no longer believed in the idea that he had inspired for many years, in terms of considering that the alliance with Hezbollah is a protection for Christians, specifically at the level of confronting some violent groups Like ISIS and others, that is why Aoun sought - according to Alloush - after the failure to manage the government and the explosion of the Beirut port to take a useless distance from the party "to enhance the popularity of his crown prince Gebran Bassil."

Alloush considers that "it is too late for Aoun after he brought Lebanon to this gendarmerie as a result of his alliance with Hezbollah, which brought him to the presidency of the republic."

Political pious

and goes a

professor at the

American University Makram Rabah further than that, and describes the

positions of

Aoun and Bassil "political dissimulation."

Rabah told Al-Jazeera Net that, “Aoun acts as if he is neutral and irresponsible, while he is launching his positions with Bassil to send a distancing message to the Americans for fear of sanctions.” He does not exclude the possibility that Aoun coordinates his positions with Hezbollah, especially since it came a day after meeting with a Hezbollah deputy Allah Muhammed Raad.