"Strong Lebanon" directs a question to the government about its policies in wartime:
When is the defense strategy, and how are you confronting the displacement, economic, and reconstruction crises?
The "Strong Lebanon" bloc addressed a question to the government and its prime minister, Nawaf Salam, regarding government policies amid the war Lebanon is experiencing, which places the state and its institutions before responsibilities related to protecting national sovereignty, preserving the unity of Lebanese territory, safeguarding citizens’ security, safety, and livelihoods, and formulating a unifying national vision to manage this delicate phase.
The bloc’s question included the following:
When does the government intend to approve a comprehensive national defense strategy, as stated in its ministerial policy statement, and what is it waiting for to do so?
What is the government’s political and diplomatic action plan toward Israel? What are the Lebanese state’s demands in the direct negotiations you announced with Israel?
What policy has the government adopted in managing the war and national defense, and what orders or directives have been given to the security agencies and the army in dealing with the Israeli occupation of Lebanon?
What policy is the government adopting in managing the displaced persons file and limiting its repercussions, and what measures has it taken to ease tensions between the displaced and host communities, prevent worsening social strain, and protect civil stability?
What is the government’s policy for unifying the domestic national position amid continuing disagreements and divisions, including divergences within the government itself?
What is the government’s policy for confronting the worsening economic crisis resulting from the war, particularly with regard to ensuring food and energy security?
What is the government’s policy for reconstruction, for returning the displaced to their villages, and for rehabilitating infrastructure, within the framework of a clear program?
In the rationale accompanying the question addressed to the government, the "Strong Lebanon" bloc noted that Lebanon is still living in a state of actual war, placing the Lebanese state and its constitutional institutions before exceptional responsibilities related to protecting national sovereignty, preserving the unity of Lebanese territory, safeguarding citizens’ security, safety, and livelihoods, and establishing a clear, unifying national vision for managing this delicate phase.
"Strong Lebanon" explained that the government had committed in its ministerial policy statement to work on preparing and approving a national defense strategy, which was supposed to constitute a framework for the state’s approach to the issue of the exclusivity of arms and to matters of war, peace, defense, and sovereignty, as well as for defining roles and responsibilities. However, this strategy has not been approved to date, despite the gravity of the current circumstances and despite the country’s entry into an extremely sensitive security and military phase.
The bloc pointed out that the continuation of the war and its direct and indirect repercussions have not been limited to the security and military aspect alone, but have also led to the worsening of extremely difficult humanitarian, social, economic, and living conditions, particularly through the growing displacement crisis and the increasing numbers of displaced persons, with the additional burdens this imposes on the Lebanese people and the state, and the rise in problems with host communities across various regions.
The bloc said this reality has led to daily pressure on infrastructure, public services, and already limited resources, and has heightened political, social, and economic tensions between the displaced and host communities, in the absence of a clear, declared, and comprehensive national policy for managing this file in a way that guarantees the protection of social security and prevents a slide toward further tension, chaos, or civil confrontation.
The "Strong Lebanon" bloc stressed in the rationale for its question that the economic, financial, and living crisis battering Lebanon for years was not born of the current war, but had already existed and was striking various sectors. However, the current war has greatly exacerbated it by exposing food security, social stability, supply chains, purchasing power, and oil and energy stability to further pressure, risks, and disruption.
"Strong Lebanon" noted that the government meets periodically and takes ordinary decisions from which neither a vision nor a plan to confront the war is apparent, and that Lebanese public opinion still lacks an integrated, clear, and declared government vision for addressing the strategic repercussions of the war, whether on the defense, diplomatic, economic, social, humanitarian, or reconstruction levels. This raises serious questions about the nature of the policies being adopted, their limits, objectives, implementation mechanisms, and expected results.
"Strong Lebanon" considered that the positions and statements issued or circulated by Israeli officials regarding the borders of Greater Israel at the Litani, and regarding conditions related to ending the war, southern Lebanon, the issue of disarmament, and linking any political and security track to concepts of peace, require the Lebanese government to clarify the Lebanese state’s official position explicitly and publicly, in terms of Lebanon’s national and sovereign demands, the constants from which the state proceeds, and the limits of any negotiating approach it adopts in announcing participation in direct negotiations with Israel.
The "Strong Lebanon" bloc stressed that internal political division, and the existence of declared or implicit divergences and disagreements within the executive authority itself, impose a doubled duty on the government to clarify its policy regarding the preservation of national unity and preventing political division from reaching a level that threatens civil peace or weakens the broader national position at this stage. This comes as many roaming tensions are being witnessed in various regions, and as political statements are being heard from political officials about the inadmissibility of a ceasefire, about projects and papers submitted by ministers calling for placing Lebanon under Chapter VII and other measures, and as public threats are being heard from political officials warning the government and the Lebanese of popular and constitutional coups, all of which deepens division and threatens civil peace.
