Beirut -

After the violent attack launched by the Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, against the leader of the Lebanese Forces party, Samir Geagea;

The political polarization around the events of "Bloody Thursday" in Lebanon jumped to a new stage.

Nasrallah accused Geagea of ​​provoking a civil war in an effort to achieve demographic gains that create a kind of "Christian canton", while at the same time reassuring Christians that he does not carry a project against them, stressing that Geagea is their opponent and that of Lebanon.

Analysts saw that Nasrallah's designation of a speech to attack Geagea, with what Hezbollah represents internally, regionally and militarily;

It gave impetus to the forces as a local Christian political party, and to its regional and international specifics.

Hezbollah and the Amal Movement organized a demonstration last Thursday to demand the dismissal of the judicial investigator of the Beirut port explosion, Judge Tariq Al-Bitar, but clashes witnessed during which 7 people were killed and dozens injured.

The clashes took place in the Tayouneh area separating between Chiyah (majority Shiites) and Ain al-Rummaneh (majority Christian).

Hezbollah and the Amal Movement accused the Forces Party of involvement in the killing of the demonstrators.

Yesterday, Monday, Nasrallah described the incident as a "massacre" committed by the forces in an area of ​​intense symbolism that restores the contact lines of the civil war (1975-1989), calling on the army to complete its investigations after surveillance cameras showed a soldier's death.

Troops reply

 However, the Forces Party denied this accusation, and considered that what took place was a spontaneous reaction by the people of Ain al-Rummaneh, "who were attacked and assaulted."

Elie Khoury, advisor to the head of the Lebanese Forces Party for foreign relations, believes that the broad title of Nasrallah's speech regarding the forces is his intentional neutralization of the army, despite what was revealed by the surveillance cameras, and his continuation of accusing them instead of waiting for the investigations to end.

Khoury told Al Jazeera Net that the forces were surprised by Nasrallah's anticipation of the investigations, and viewed him as embarrassing in front of the Hezbollah and Amal movement's audience, "as if they were unable to retract a false accusation."

Khoury points out that Geagea does not bother to dig up the past when attacking him, "because we got used to that when our opponents reached a critical political stage, accusations based on fallacies and Geagea's imprisonment following a political ruling."

He said that the Christians - led by the troops - learned from the experience of the war after it ended with the loss of everyone, and we do not push to repeat the scenario of the past.

However, "Christians defend themselves and their existence, spontaneously and not with preconceived intentions, and they do not want to go to war."

Geagea's advisor believes that Christians feel threatened, and there is "a state of tension and tension in which they live as a result of suspicion of targeting them, and we hope to work to dispel tension."

He wonders: "Why did you overlook the wounded in Ain al-Remmaneh and their great material damage in exchange for focusing only on the duo's losses during their attack on Ain al-Remmaneh?"

He stressed that the "forces" cannot cover killings in their areas, no matter what the cost.

foreign agendas

Nasrallah highlighted the regional and international relations of the Forces Party, in return for reminding him that Hezbollah was the spearhead of defending the presence of Christians in Lebanon and Syria against Islamic organizations (ISIS), according to his opinion.

Here, Elie Khoury says that Nasrallah, in every political dispute with the "forces," attacks his regional opponents, accusing them of colluding with them, such as Saudi Arabia, America and even Israel.

He added that the position of the "forces" opposing Hezbollah is clear because it carries a project that transcends the borders of Lebanon, and "we see that Hezbollah is the only obstacle to the establishment of the state after the Taif Agreement (1989)."


show of strength

The Lebanese focused on Nasrallah's indication that his party has 100,000 trained and equipped fighters in Lebanon with their various weapons, which he followed up with a question: "With whom do you want to conduct a civil war?"

Here, writer and political analyst Ibrahim Haidar points out that Nasrallah insisted on displaying his power, without calling for calm.

Haidar believes that Nasrallah also wanted to provide protection and cover for his first Christian ally, President Michel Aoun and head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, after the latter launched a violent attack on his Christian opponent, Samir Geagea.

Accordingly, Nasrallah - according to Haidar - wanted to go to the Christians to say that the "Mar Mikhael" agreement between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement (2006) is their salvation for coexistence and political and sectarian reconciliation.

Haidar says that the forces benefited from his escalation against them, because the Christian street would see it as a party under attack after it tried to protect it from the threat in their areas.

He said that Nasrallah seeks to present himself not only as a Shiite party, but as the owner of absolute power in drawing the scales of civil peace.

But he is "unable to enter into the vortex of infighting, as well as the forces."

For his part, writer and political analyst Ali Shukr believes that Nasrallah's speech was accurate without compliments to anyone, and he gave a realistic description of the Christian street and its choices from the party's perspective, as a defender and defender of Christians in several battles.

Shukr believes that Nasrallah's escalation is a formality, and that he was implicit in an effort to calm down, and absorbed tension with the forces, in exchange for establishing a deterrent force, because clash and confrontation are not in Hezbollah's interest in a very complex and sensitive circumstance.

However, he expected that the conflict between Hezbollah and the forces would establish a new stage called mobile indiscretions, and transform Lebanon's regions into arenas of confrontation and lines of contact at every dangerous political juncture.

However, Elie Khoury points out that the forces "are no longer a Christian party only, but are expanding throughout Lebanon and have affiliates from different sects, and this will be revealed by the elections," and their slogan is "building a strong and independent state without illegal weapons."


Suspension of investigations and the government

So far, Najib Mikati's government is still unable to meet, after the two parties, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, requested the removal of the judicial investigator in the Beirut port explosion, Judge Tariq Al-Bitar.

Nothing new happened about the fate of Al-Bitar, who adheres to his constitutional and judicial powers, while some political forces are looking for a constitutional way out to stop his hand, due to their inability to achieve this by a political decision from the government.

Ali Shukr points out that the inability to control matters between the political forces and the threat to civil peace will push towards the removal of Al-Bitar, "because his survival means the continuation of the crisis, and Hezbollah will bear the repercussions of what is happening.

Likewise, Ibrahim Haidar believes that the escalation is still controlled, although chaos is controlling Lebanon.

The analyst rules out achieving a settlement to open the way for the government soon, as long as Hezbollah and the Amal movement did not back down from their demand for the removal of Al-Bitar.

In Haidar's opinion, Hezbollah insists on linking the fate of the government's sessions to the dismissal of Al-Bitar and the events of Tayouneh, and the fundamental problem today is about the extent to which Al-Bitar can withstand pressure and proceed with the investigation, "instead of bringing in a judge who preserves the interests of political forces, at the expense of the truth."