Recent political developments have affirmed that the country is at a dangerous and unprecedented turning point, perhaps even more delicate and critical than the civil war period (1975–1990), when barricades were raised and the Lebanese were split as a result of local schisms and foreign influence. Escalation in the region (from Israel’s war on Gaza to its war on Lebanon, and finally the direct clash between Israel and Iran) has reshuffled regional cards. The contours of a new phase are currently being drawn in blood and fire, not negotiation, which, at least as far as Lebanon is concerned, has not yet crystallized.
Even indirect negotiations are not an option for Lebanon, whose sovereignty is violated daily by land, sea, and air. Indeed, the “mechanism” formed to oversee the implementation of the November 2024 ceasefire agreement has been paralyzed by Israel’s disregard. The Lebanese must find ways to confront Israel’s ongoing aggression themselves. Indeed, these assaults could escalate and expand at any moment, without any political, moral, or legal restraints.
Lebanon’s current strife, which has deep historic roots, presents new and grave risks. Fragmentation deepens disputes that are not about minor details but about major strategic choices that bear directly on Lebanon’s future and existence. Making things worse. This division coincides with growing anger and despair among the many Lebanese who have lost their homes in the recent war. Moreover, nothing suggests that reconstruction will begin anytime soon.
The surreal political scene swings between two extremes. One narrative advocates maintaining the arms, even for rearmament and confrontation, despite seeing some of its capacities vanish and its old theories have collapsed following a harsh, if not fatal, blow. The other narrative gives no weight to Israeli attacks, turning a blind eye as though they targeted parts of the country that do not matter.
At this critical moment for Lebanon, it must abandon outdated theories and avoid reviving modes of resistance that have already failed in practice. On the other hand, the stop cheering for Israel and its brazen behavior in Lebanon must also stop. It is not tenable to keep overlooking Israel’s aggression or antagonizing a segment of Lebanese who have lost their homes, property, and livelihoods, and who cannot even harvest their tobacco or olive crops.
Both contradictory narratives have brought ruin. They deepen Lebanon’s fragmentation and pose serious threats to Lebanon’s existence. Nothing facilitates the foreign assault on the country more than aggravating divisions. It is dangerous to make inflammatory speeches without providing serious and realistic alternatives to the approaches that had collapsed during the war. While surrender and defeatism cannot be accepted, neither can subjecting the country to renewed peril.
Between these two sides of the binary, Lebanon remains trapped in a waiting game. Meanwhile, neighboring countries move forward along new paths. While these paths have yet to fully develop, they clearly indicate that Lebanon is failing to align with the emerging regional dynamic. The Lebanese must engage in a genuine national dialogue that is neither folkloric nor performative, finding solutions that address the dangerous circumstances the country is now facing.
Unifying the domestic front, however difficult, remains the only viable course for preventing further losses and allowing Lebanon to speak to the world with a single voice. All other options fail the daily test of sovereignty.
