The public liberties in Lebanon are sacred and constitute an essential component of its identity, that if it is touched, the structure falls down, therefore it is guaranteed by the constitution and laws, and this is what distinguishes Lebanon and this is what distinguishes it from its Arab The Christian conscience Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir “If we were given the choice between coexistence and freedom, we would choose freedom”.
Lebanon, which has sanctioned this concept at home and abroad, is today exposed to subjugation attempts by the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon, Walid Bukhari, by blocking electronic media in Saudi Arabia that do not appeal to his interests and not those of the country he represents, and is trying to hide his lapses in his administration at the Saudi Foreign Ministry. The many sowed discord between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, until the matter came to his “expulsion” by the Arab Al -Faour, in a precedent that we have never experienced in the relationship between the Sunnis and the Kingdom.
Bukhari banned the “Lebanese debate” in Saudi Arabia because the site committed the major sin of criticizing the Saudi ambassador’s meddling in an unrelated Lebanese issue, which is the “Taif agreement” which is become a constitution, and most importantly, the “Lebanese debate” exposed the miserable failure of the ambassador in the “Taif Forum”, which was boycotted by the first representative of the Sunnis, the Movement for the Future, and by the most prominent representative of the Shiites, the “Shiite duo”, and more than half of the Christians, so he was afraid of being exposed, and in the way of burying an ostrich by the head in the sand, Bukhari tried to bury the “Lebanese debate” in Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the site may have piqued Bukhari’s displeasure when he put his finger on the ambassador’s wound represented in his inability to fill the void of Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and recruited his informants to publicly threaten us to ban the site in Kingdom.
Bukhari resented the “Lebanese debate” for refusing to be a member of the “ambassador press” club and for opening a free space for writers and journalists, who did not cover up Bukhari’s shortcomings, but rather highlighted them.
I am amazed by this diplomat who should have become an expert on Lebanese affairs: instead of going to exercise his entrusted role of ambassador, he exercises diplomacy in dealing with issues and respects different opinions by virtue of his work in a society dependent on freedom , then slips into further issues that lose its sobriety and contradict the policy of the kingdom which began a major policy of opening up under the leadership of Prince Mohammed bin Salman two years ago.
In light of the above, one cannot understand how Saudi Arabia, which has become an example of openness and progress today, leaves its diplomacy in the hands of amateurs who “shuffle”, incite and take revenge?
