A harsh language, stringent talk and longitudinal and secondary “headlines” were distributed by Brigadier General Jamil al-Sayyed on newspaper pages and television channels during Eid el-Fitr and upon his return to Beirut from Damascus. Al-Sayyed thus dispensed accusations in bulk under Hezbollah's protection with the sole goal of putting an end to the international tribunal investigating the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. With all bluntness, the former director of the Lebanese General Security accused the state of Egypt, its embassy in Beirut and one of its diplomats of spreading strife. He also announced his wish to use power and raise his hand on Al-Hariri in clear disrespect of the legitimate and judicial institutions in the country. This has been Hezbollah's behavior as well ever since the famous sit-in and the invasion of Beirut in 2008. Most speculations and political analyses pointed to the fact that the situation in Lebanon could only head toward calm - even if temporarily - under the impact of the tripartite Saudi-Lebanese-Syrian summit which was held in Beirut at the end of July. This summit aimed at easing the tensions and the political disputes because during the last few years, the Lebanese arena had witnessed a dangerous sectarian and denominational mobilization which almost took the country back to the climate of civil war. However, stability did not seem to be to the liking of some, and Jamil al-Sayyed thus came out on behalf of others to distribute accusations, defy, intimidate and threaten with slaps and the use of power based on Hezbollah's strength. He returned from Syria and lost his temper, thus threatening with words like “poison” and swearing in a press conference he will take what belongs to him with his own hands if Al-Hariri's does not do him justice. He then demanded that Al-Hariri be subjected to a lie detector to make sure he was not “supporting and funding the false witnesses,” also calling on him to recognize he sold his father's blood to implement the “New Middle East” project. On the other hand, he urged the Lebanese people to stage civil disobedience, rebel and “reject the fait accompli even if by taking to the streets and toppling the state by force.” I am not interested in defending Al-Hariri, but the threats issued by Brigadier General Al-Sayyed should be written down so that he is held accountable in case his claims turn out to be false. For its part, Al-Hariri's government should take these threats seriously and put them at the disposal of the relevant authorities inside and outside of Lebanon, i.e. in the files of the international tribunal. I do not know how Brigadier General Al-Sayyed was a Lebanese official and the General Security chief. He is supposed to be knowledgeable about local and international laws, yet he is asking Saad al-Hariri to annul or terminate the tribunal after it became independent or “internationalized” based on a Security Council resolution. Moreover, this case is not only related to Al-Hariri's family since it concerns other Lebanese who were assassinated and has therefore become a matter of public right and not one of private right. However, it seems that Al-Sayyed is sensing the imminent threat and is being pushed by others to “spice up” the talk, mislead the people and obstruct the truth, while assuming that the international tribunal could be annulled through a political decision based on Al-Hariri's mood! Al-Sayyed opened files, expanded the defiance and filled the accusations with claims of documentation, stressing the necessity to hold the false witnesses accountable. This is the same tune played by Hezbollah and his allies to sabotage the situation and lead the country back to chaos. Still, he seemed incompatible with the current Lebanese phase and the only one from the Future Movement who faced Jamil al-Sayyed's momentary “insanity” with a stringent language was probably Deputy Okab Sakr who refuted his statements and reminded of his actions, his oppressive practices and his security, financial and administrative corruption. In the meantime, the observers are wondering: Could Al-Sayyed have returned from Damascus without discussing what he will say in Beirut? Or do Damascus' allies have a plot that is positive on the outside and negative on the inside? Why did Al-Sayyed return from Syria while brandishing his sword in the face of Al-Hariri, who recognized his mistake toward it? The Lebanese atmosphere is cloudy and the situation is open to a new political stage which will follow the verbal and security mayhem, especially after Hezbollah's cadres interfered to protect Al-Sayyed upon his return from Paris in a clear defiance of the Lebanese apparatuses and systems. This means that the upcoming stage will witness a period of clashes that will show the extent of the steadfastness of the regional understandings. In this context, Hezbollah Deputy Nawaf al-Moussawi, who participated in Al-Sayyed's reception along with Hezbollah cadres to ensure the safety of the latter, stated: “We have come to support truth and justice after the conflict was transformed into a sectarian one.” This carries numerous and dangerous meanings, placing these understandings at stake and on a tightly-pulled rope. Today, the communication lines between Riyadh and Damascus are open and the relations are very good, which was not the case following the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri. Therefore, Syria is required to clarify the situation - even if the ongoing Lebanese dispute is an “internal one that does not concern it” - especially since whenever they visit it, some of its allies start issuing threats, casting accusations and proceeding with the escalation by using a bleak rhetoric. I believe that Damascus must send a clear message showing it is still committed to the understandings reached during the tripartite summit and that it does not agree with the statements of Jamil al-Sayyed following his visit to it, statements that were suspicious and featured attempts to intimidate the state. Such a step would prevent the destruction of the doors of understandings and would make Al-Sayyed, among other figures, stop giving people the impression that their statements were based on Syria's advice.
