Negotiation and its violation of the constitution

Source: Nida Al Watan – Said Malik

Lebanon has been, and continues to be, subjected to Israeli aggression, which has claimed thousands of innocent lives and left many more wounded, as a result of a reckless decision taken by Hezbollah that has entangled the country and inflicted upon it the gravest damage and most severe losses.

In light of this reality, a responsible stance was imperative. The President’s decision to engage in direct negotiations with Israel to secure a ceasefire, paving the way for potential peace talks that could move Lebanon from a state of war to one of safety and peace.

Instead of being commended for this bold decision, the President has been subjected to a systematic campaign and extreme accusations of treason, solely because he reclaimed Lebanon’s negotiating position from the Iranian regime and made it an independent national matter belonging exclusively to the Lebanese people.

In an attempt to thwart the President’s initiative, the same faction that dragged Lebanon into these tragedies has claimed that his efforts violate and contradict the Constitution.

However, upon reviewing the Constitution, one finds no provision whatsoever that mentions Israel. Even Lebanon’s southern borders are defined in Article 1 as the administrative boundaries of the districts of Tyre and Marjeyoun. So, which constitutional provisions are they referring to?

A closer examination of the Constitution clearly reveals that it explicitly establishes 3 key principles in this regard. First, the government is responsible for setting the general policy of the state pursuant to Article 65 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is the authority that decides on matters of war and peace, including the decision to enter into negotiations. Second, under Article 49, the President of the Republic is the head of state, the symbol of national unity, the guardian of the Constitution, and the guarantor of Lebanon’s independence, unity, and territorial integrity. No one has the right to outbid him in this regard, as he alone has sworn an oath to preserve the nation’s land, unity, and safety. It is especially unacceptable for those who have plunged Lebanon into repeated setbacks, through reckless decisions that enabled the Israeli enemy to penetrate Lebanese territory and seize more than 500 square kilometers of it, in service of a cause that neither concerns Lebanon nor its people, to question the President’s authority.

Enough of these accusations and political grandstanding. The President of the Republic is best placed to safeguard Lebanon and its territory.

The third principle is that the Constitution grants the President the authority to negotiate international treaties pursuant to Article 52. So again, which constitutional provisions are they invoking?

As for the argument that the President, who has sworn to uphold the laws, including the Lebanese Penal Code criminalizing dealings with Israel, as well as the Israel Boycott Law of 23 June 1955, is bound by these laws, this claim is unfounded. These laws apply to individuals, institutions, companies, and private entities, not to the state itself, which retains sovereign decision-making authority. The President, as the guarantor of Lebanon’s independence, unity, and territorial integrity, operates within this sovereign framework. Moreover, these laws pertain to commercial and transactional dealings, not to sovereign matters, which fall squarely within the domain of governmental action.

One must also ask: when the 1949 Armistice Agreement was signed, did it require a constitutional amendment? When Parliament ratified the 17 May 1983 Agreement (before its annulment), did that necessitate a constitutional change? When the 1996 Understanding was reached with Israel, albeit indirectly, was a constitutional amendment required? What about UN Security Council Resolution 1701? The 2022 maritime border demarcation? The November 2024 agreement? Did any of these arrangements require constitutional amendments, whereas today it suddenly does?

Enough accusations and political one-upmanship. The President is entrusted with safeguarding Lebanon’s unity, security, and the recovery of its occupied land. Instead of supporting him, obstacles are being fabricated to hinder his efforts. Enough obstinacy and denial. The Lebanese people stand behind the President, for he holds the authority and determines the course forward.