Berri to Williams: We’ve offered Blood for Odayse Tree’s Sake, How about Oil Fortune?

Probably one of the weird facts and an apparent political irrationality in this country is that the inner debate intensifies when it comes to the Resistance's arms and that certain parties refuse any dialogue which does not guarantee depriving the Resistance of its arms. This coincides with "Israel's" decision to impose a real maritime situation on Lebanon so as to introduce seizing a part of Lebanon's fortune of gas and oil.

As Lebanon faces this challenge, we could say that if the Resistance's arms weren't there, then we should have made them exist, at least to provide the necessary protection for this national fortune existing at the bottom of the regional waters and which will actually rid Lebanon of its deep political crisis in case the government invests this fortune well. But what is happening now is that some parties are ignoring the importance of this defense job of the Resistance; instead, they insist on cancelling the Resistance's arms because of some fears which may be legitimate; however, treating such fears certainly must not take place as counter fears of the other parties are aroused.

Well, the paradox is that the new opposition refuses participating in the Dialogue that lists the discussion of the Defense Strategy on its agenda; instead, these parties condition that the agenda be limited to treating the issue of Hizbullah's arms during a certain period of time so that they rejoin the Dialogue. This strikes the previous agreement regarding the Defense Strategy that is supposedly evident; hereupon, such fact brings the discussion back to pre-dialogue period, as if it is required that a certain party direct the Dialogue the way it wills, disregarding the sizes and importance of the other parties; this, in fact, signifies an obvious disregard to the balances of the current powers.

Therefore, as some parties haven't realized yet the importance of owning power to defend Lebanon's right in investing its oil fortune, the total value of which equals nearly 200 to 300 Milliard dollars - upon experts' estimates, this issue has recently been under discussion by MP Nabih Berri and the United Nations' Special Coordinator for Lebanon Michael Williams.

During one of the meetings, Berri and Williams concentrated their discussion on the extent of the United Nations' authority over determining the marine borders between Lebanon and occupied Palestine, whereby Williams considered that Resolution 1701 does not include this part, and, thus, it is not required that the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon) or the International Organization undertake this mission.

-Berri: "Mister Williams, what you're suggesting isn't accurate, especially when I've participated in drafting Resolution 1701, and I'd like to remind you that the UNIFIL include a maritime force, which makes us suppose that the United Nations can play a role in helping us define the borders, unless the maritime force is only supposed to monitor our regional waters and shores."
-Williams insists on his stance: "The UN is not specialized in defining marine borders, and in cases like those you are currently facing, the countries involved in this issue usually are the ones to negotiate how to define the marine borders in common."

Berri: "Let me bring you back in time to the April Arrangement in 1996, which was about forming a committee including an officer representing Lebanon, another representing the Military of the "Israeli" Occupation, and representatives for the UNIFIL. The mission of this committee was to discuss all matters that could disrupt peace; hence, such fact could provide cover for the UN to take part (now) in defining borders, which is something that has been altered, by "Israel", into a problem against security."

Then Berri replies in a high tone: "After having offered several martyrs and wounded people to defend the famous Odayse tree, aren't we going to defend our national fortune? We're going to use all means to protect this fortune from any assail or theft, and none but God can stop us."

Loaded with excess "political weight", Williams left Ain Al-Tineh Headquarters before returning later to inform Berri that the UN atmospheres were better; in the meanwhile, the American Ambassador in Beirut, Mora Connelly, was also transferring positive atmospheres to Berri, calling Lebanon to concentrate on the technical part of the conflict over the borders with "Israel" (occupied Palestine). Connelly called Lebanon to stay away from political arousal as much as possible.
Since the oil issue represents a comprehensive national priority, Berri considers that the oppositionists of the Resistance's arms must support these arms particularly now, at least from the beneficial perspective that demands preserving these arms so as to prevent "Israel" from "biting" our oil fields.

Thus, private calculations regarding these arms must be stopped. Besides, Berri points out that the value of the oil reserve, which ranges between 200 and 300 milliard dollars, is enough to pay back the public debt and transfer Lebanon to a state of economic and financial ease.
Seeing that the Dialogue is a grand chance that mustn't be lost, Berri expresses his belief that the refusal of the March-14 Political Alliance's to participate in it is based upon one of these probabilities: Either they intend to enlarge their opposing requests so that they attain a certain price - this is in case we refer to good intentions to explain this matter, or they find it inconvenient for the situation to calm down and the inner tension to lessen because they wish to keep the government under pressure - this is in case we refer to bad intentions to explain this matter.

Correcting "mistaken sayings" by the characters of the March-14 Political Alliance, Berri iterates that Hizbullah Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, indeed offered Hizbullah's vision of the Defense Strategy as the Dialogue table was set in March, 2006 in the Parliament. Berri says that on that day, Sayyed Nasrallah needed about an hour to explain Hizbullah's vision regarding this Strategy. And after Sayyed Nasrallah finished his words, the Chief of "the Lebanese Forces", Samir Geagea, commented that what he had heard deserved to be studied and reflected upon, asking the Sayyed to offer him enough time so that he could make his response ready.

Furthermore, Berri stresses that there are recordings and proceedings of the discussed issues of that session - as well as others. "And they're not my recordings and proceedings, but the Parliament's; they can be published if all Dialogue participants agree on that."

As Berri reiterates "readiness to discuss how to execute what we've agreed on during the previous Dialogue sessions", he points out that "after ratifying the clause concerning the treatment of the Palestinian arms outside the camps, Sayyed Nasrallah, MP Saad Hariri, and I formed a committee to contact the Palestinians. Indeed, I met Ahmad Jibrael once, and Sayyed Hassan met him once, but MP Hariri met him thrice. However, further developments complicated the discussion of this point."

Regarding the STL (the Special tribunal for Lebanon), Berri points out that it the Dialogue table approved of it in a few minutes. He also declared that an agreement was made with MP Fouad Siniora, whereby this agreement would give a period of time to the ministers of the Amal Movement and Hizbullah to study the protocol of the Tribunal and make their remarks on it. Yet, Siniora went back on this agreement, holding the Cabinet very soon in order to ratify the protocol as it was. Hence was the resignation of the ministers.