Asylum has always been an unsolvable dilemma, if not complicated, since the Palestinians fled to Lebanon, and a large part of them were distributed to the camps, which have become hotbeds for fugitives from justice and time bombs as a result of the multiplicity of loyalties and agendas of the factions and organizations that control their arena, most of which hire members for regional and international conflicts.

Today, Lebanon is experiencing a major crisis of Syrian refugees as a result of a revolution that the Syrian people launched against the rule of Bashar al-Assad, who used the Russians, the Iranians, and many Iranian militias to suppress the revolutionaries, which led to the displacement of some of them to escape the massacres that were committed and the arrests. Obviously, Lebanon had a large share of the number of refugees compared to its area.

Yesterday, the position of the European Parliament, which was represented by the vote of the majority of parliamentarians on the decision to support keeping the Syrian refugees in Lebanon, sparked negative reactions. The French representative in the European Parliament, Thierry Mariani, considered in his tweet, “that among the elected French officials only those who belong to The National Assembly voted against this insult to the Lebanese and their future.”

The French MP’s rejection of this vote and its characterization is an insult to Parliament and the international community that wants to remove the refugee existence from its geography.

At the Lebanese level, opinions differed, especially since the number of refugees in Lebanon is inaccurate, given that there are no statistics documenting their number. Through all the crossings, and the memory of the Lebanese is still retrieving photos and videos that documented the theft of materials that were supported by the Banque du Liban from the money of depositors, to be sold in the Syrian markets at high prices for the benefit of the Lebanese and Syrian militias present on that spot.

Regarding the vote of the European Parliament, a source from the sovereign team believes that there is a problem between the recommendations of the latter and the Lebanese constitution, even if the international covenants provide for opening the doors to the displaced and refugees as long as they are exposed to a threat to their lives in various countries of the world.

There is an exception for Lebanon that must be alerted and that cannot be neglected. It is represented by what the Lebanese constitution noted in Article “I” of the Preamble to Taef, and it served as a reinforcement and development of the historical national pact between Christians and Muslims, which stipulated the following:

“The land of Lebanon is one land for all the Lebanese, so every Lebanese has the right to Residency on any part of it and enjoying it under the rule of law, so there is no sorting of the people on the basis of any affiliation whatsoever, no fragmentation, division, or settlement.”

As a result, we cannot comprehend this regime’s opposition to the return of the displaced and reluctance to support their return rather than aiming to blackmail and coerce them in order to dissuade them from returning.