Amnesty law a distortion of what Lebanon could have been

The Lebanese are well known for their humor in difficult situations. The first WhatsApp message I received following Wednesday’s vote in Lebanon’s parliament approving the amnesty law was a meme with an urgent news sign copying a major media outlet stating: “General amnesty law to include those married for more than 20 years.” The law, passed a day after the abolition of the death penalty, was delivered following months of tension among Lebanon’s political parties. These negotiations made clear the extent of the dysfunction in the confessional political system.

The stated reasons for the law are to ease tensions, reduce overcrowding in prisons and turn the page. Yet, in this law, every group looked after its own interests. The Sunni political forces were interested in prisoners connected to battles in places such as Tripoli and Abra, some of whom were jailed without being presented to a judge. Hezbollah was interested in drug-related offenses and other prisoners in the Bekaa. Some Christian forces were interested in Lebanese who fled to Israel after the latter’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000 and were subsequently convicted or prevented from returning.

As a quick reminder, the Sunni prisoners were taken as a result of the Tripoli clashes, which were repeated Sunni-Alawite battles largely linked to the Syrian civil war. Sunni groups in Bab Al-Tabbaneh generally supported the Syrian opposition, while the Alawite community of Jabal Mohsen was aligned with the Assad regime. As for Abra, this was a 2013 confrontation between Sheikh Ahmed Al-Assir’s Sunni militants and the Lebanese army in which 18 soldiers were killed. Hezbollah’s support for Bashar Assad and its military intervention in Syria directly impacted these confrontations. Hezbollah dominated the state and, whether the group assisted the army or not, it is unthinkable that this action was not directed with its interests in mind.

Menassa’s position is incomplete. Why treat Hezbollah differently than he treats Sunni extremists?

Khaled Abou Zahr

The main tension in this law was regarding the Sunni component. Defense Minister Michel Menassa wanted to give a speech to parliament stating that the army opposed an amnesty for those convicted of attacking or killing soldiers. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam blocked him from speaking, arguing that the government had not formally adopted a position on the bill and that Menassa could not present an independent government position. As a result, Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement walked out of the vote.

Despite the walkout, Hezbollah got the amnesties it wanted for its own people. I understand the position of the defense minister. However, it is incomplete. Why treat Hezbollah differently than he treats Sunni extremists? Didn’t Hezbollah fight in Syria? Weren’t the Tripoli clashes and, to a certain extent, Abra a spillover from the Syrian civil war? Didn’t Hezbollah drag Lebanon into wars and commit terrorist acts against the Lebanese as well as internationally? Doesn’t Hezbollah, both then and to this day, bear arms? What is the difference between Al-Assir and Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem? More importantly, why isn’t the army executing the plan that has been decided by the government — disarming Hezbollah — with the same strong will and decisiveness it took against Al-Assir? The answer is simple: muscle.

Everything that has taken place is a travesty. It is the same as the bankers’ Ponzi scheme

Khaled Abou Zahr

Hezbollah, despite being weakened, still has firepower and influence — hence the refusal or inability of the army to take concrete actions against it. To date, neither Hezbollah, which sits outside prison, nor Al-Assir’s group, which sits in prison, have stood before a judge. Lebanese justice did not speak before this amnesty. This law is a distortion of everything that Lebanon could have been at the end of the civil war. The Syrian occupation, followed by the Iranian one with Hezbollah, forbids this from ever happening.

Everything that has taken place is a travesty. It is the same as the bankers’ Ponzi scheme. Are they also absolved of wrongdoing while hard-working Lebanese have lost their life savings? There is no way Lebanon can function with this type of political system and a confessional trade-like mentality of all political parties.

We cannot interpret it as a national reconciliation — it is more like confessional bargaining. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Lebanon will not face the same challenges in another five years or a decade because the root causes of this situation have still not been addressed. This starts with, but goes beyond, Hezbollah delivering its arsenal to the Lebanese Armed Forces. Indeed, as long as this does not happen, there will always be double standards.

The army needs to regain its real role. Reading the geopolitical changes, and how the winds are changing fast, it is only a matter of time before we witness a trading places scenario that will keep Lebanon trapped in a cycle of violence and instability.

I know that I will once again sound like a broken record but this type of law and the comedic act of Hezbollah and the FPM storming out of the session while knowing they are getting what they want make me even more convinced that the only solution for Lebanon is federalism. The country needs more than an amnesty law or an attempt to display modernity with the abolition of the death penalty. This does not change the archaic political system. But a new political system would.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is the CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.