For months, even years, the general amnesty project has been bogged down in tiresome negotiations. However, it was believed that the coming to power in Syria of President Ahmad el-Chareh and his insistence on the handover to the Syrian authorities of Syrian detainees in Lebanese prisons would give a serious boost to this issue, knowing that Islamist detainees, Lebanese and Syrian, constitute the largest part of the prisoners likely to be benefit from this law.
But as soon as we get to the heart of the matter, conflicts resurface. If, as is often the case in Lebanon, the discussions and issues quickly take on a confessional color, in this specific case, there is another issue, which concerns the army. It is also because of the troop’s reservations that the Minister of Defense was forced to withdraw from the hemicycle during the previous meeting of the parliamentary commissions responsible for studying this issue.
It is “the day after” the release of the prisoners that worries the troops. This question essentially concerns Islamist detainees and their behavior once released. Sources close to the army believe that its credibility is at stake, at a time when it is being asked to accomplish a mission that is both delicate and essential for the future of the country, that of monopolizing arms and imposing state authority over the entire territory.
In such circumstances and if the detainees accused of killing soldiers, or attacking the army, are released under the amnesty law, some parties could rush to make them heroes among their co-religionists and this would only deal a blow to the credibility of the army and its motivation. Precisely, in the current situation and in the climate of tension which reigns between the different communities and in particular in the state of ferment in which the Sunni community finds itself, the release of certain leading figures could be considered as a great triumph for them. Enough to awaken community reflexes and mobilize crowds around slogans that are destructive for the army and for state institutions. How can we avoid such behavior, especially at such a delicate time and when the supporters of these detainees are already preparing “the festivities” which should celebrate their release?
Certainly, this is not the first time that an amnesty law has been adopted in Lebanon. There was one in 2005, which also allowed the release of the leader of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea, but at the time, the situation was different. There was thus a local agreement with regional (Saudi in particular) and international coverage to adopt the amnesty law. Moreover, during his years of detention and after his release, the leader of the FL never ceased to be one of the most important Christian figures, and his conflict was not directly with the army. This is not the case today for certain Islamist figures who could be included in the amnesty bill. The latter are directly involved in the death of soldiers and they were close to the Islamist parties who had fought the army in the heights of Anti-Lebanon in 2016 and 2017. This is why it would be very delicate to proceed with their release at this time. Among these figures, there is of course Sheikh Ahmad el-Assir who has many supporters in the Saida region, but also other Islamist figures in Tripoli. Releasing them would in any case constitute a precedent which would be frowned upon by the soldiers and would be likely to discourage them. But at the same time, if we start to make exceptions, this can only increase the appetites of the different political parties and this would result in emptying the amnesty law of its meaning and its content. That’s a bit of what’s happening today. The deputies find themselves faced with this imbroglio and each group is now seeking to set its conditions, whereas initially, it was a question of repairing an injustice done to numerous detainees, kept in prison, for different reasons, and often without having benefited from a trial. The President of the House, however, promised that the law would be adopted before the Adha holiday and it is on him that the possibility of finding a compromise that is fair, while preserving the State and its institutions.
