Settlements and sovereignty: The ongoing debate among Christians

The "Mikhael Daher or chaos" was the settlement that the United States orchestrated and was approved by the American envoy Richard Murphy and the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad to appoint the former minister and deputy, Mikhael Daher, as the next president of Lebanon after the end of President Amin Gemayel's term in 1988.

However, the settlement did not succeed, and the elections were disrupted, just as they were today, due to the failure to achieve the required quorum in the parliament session because the former Army Commander, Michel Aoun, and the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, opposed the Murphy-Assad agreement.

This is the settlement that the head of the Marada Movement referred to, which led to the deterioration of the situation and sparked wars of liberation and elimination in 1989 and 1990.

In addition, the Taif Agreement, which resulted in a constitution that reduced the powers of the Maronite President and limited the influence of the opposing Christian leadership, ended the "Mikhael Daher or chaos" and placed Lebanon under Syrian mandate.

From Bkerke, the presidential candidate urged his Maronite opponents to learn from their mistakes and not to repeat them because the settlement would remain ongoing.

Moreover, Franjieh wanted to say from Bkerke that he was the Maronite president who guaranteed the implementation of a series of obligations, including the file of displacement, relying on his personal relationship with President Assad and defensive strategy. He also considers that he can rely on his ally, Hezbollah, who supports his nomination in order to discuss the weapons issue, whereas others do not dare.

The Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) preferred not to comment on this call.

However, the Lebanese Forces saw the settlement as a coup against the Taif Agreement and the state. The Christians support any settlement based on the foundation of one state, weapon, and sovereignty.

According to Maarab sources, the Christians took advantage of every opportunity to end the war and establish the state.

From this perspective, the acceptance of the Taif Agreement in the 1990s was not to cover up the Syrian occupation of Lebanon and accept reality.

Therefore, the Christians will not accept any settlement jeopardizing the state's establishment and sovereignty.

As for the guarantees, Maarab sees that there are no guarantees from the axis of resistance that overturned the Taif Agreement and then the Doha Agreement, which stipulates not using the one-third blocking minority, even though the agreements were lucky to have Arab and international sponsorship.