Attack on UNIFIL, a new test Lebanon must pass

The international community is waiting for Lebanon to meet specific criteria to be supported and pulled out of its current impasse. However, the death of the Irish UNIFIL soldier has added to the tests that Lebanon is facing in preparation for the presidential elections and restoring its authority.

 

The countries concerned with Lebanon urge the Lebanese to take action on their own because they believe that the only way to change the behavior of the Lebanese government is through peaceful means. This is because, in Lebanon, internal and sectarian factors intersect with regional conflicts. Thus, using force would mean "getting involved in bloodshed," which neither Lebanon nor the region's circumstances can tolerate.

Most countries do not have the authority necessary to impose a new president when they claim that the Lebanese should be the ones to decide on fundamental rights and avoid including themselves in presidential elections. And even if they have a preferred name, they cannot impose it so long as there is a party that can prevent his election, even though he is guaranteed to have a majority in parliament.

The killing of the Irish soldier shows, however, that the use of force and violence is still, at a minimum, a method that undermines the role of the state and power, regardless of the intentions behind it or who is responsible, whether it was a message related to the international situation in Lebanon or was a purely local indication of the spread of weapons.

Some think this conclusion affirms the obvious, given that Lebanon has been on this path since the middle of the 20th century and that the authority has been through many troubles for decades.

However, those who see the murder of the Irish soldier as an additional test of Lebanon's capacity to implement reforms and end corruption and wasteful spending hold the view that if the crime passes without elucidating the details of the Lebanese authorities will affect the country's position regarding the identity of the ruling structure in the future.

The Al-Aqibya incident revived the idea of combating impunity, which the financial and economic crisis forced a retreat from in the last stage. As a result, the international community and the Lebanese prioritized the decline in their living standards, and responsibility for those who stole their deposits, looted their money and squandered their futures became required of them.

It is difficult for some to believe that the incident and its interactions will not have an impact on external tests of Lebanon and its power due to the numerous conversations, leaks, and information that require documentation and confirmation of the facts of the Irish soldier's death, as well as what is said about the perpetrators hiding from view, whether what happened was in an unintended form or in a preplanned way.

But what is the stance of the caretaker cabinet and the outcome of the official Lebanese investigations?

In the opinion of some sources that already monitor the political consequences of the crime, the delay in disclosing the circumstances, particularly in the course of the investigations, presents a challenge to the current caretaker government and Prime Minister Najib Mikati. The latter must show a high level of seriousness in handling such a major incident that affected the "UNIFIL" soldiers, which necessitates more than expressing condolences at the Naqoura headquarters.

Accordingly, Mikati probably already has calculations for the composition and reconfiguration of power.

The same sources doubt if General Joseph Aoun, the army's commander, will remain the front-runner among presidential candidates if somehow the military fails to disclose the details of the incident and arrest even one or more people suspected of being involved in the operation.

Moreover, it will be embarrassing for him and his supporters, who want him to hold the "first position," if the details of the crime are not made clear.