Lebanon’s position on the question of negotiations will take shape when the three presidencies converge on a balanced vision of a situation in which lines of longitude intersect with lines of latitude, in the familiar metaphor for unresolved cases. In this context, it can be said that the visit of Prince Yazid bin Farhan to Beirut has raised the level of optimism by curbing exaggeration in adopting populist positions from this camp or that.
It may be said that, in recent weeks, the Lebanese situation has reached a point at which engagement among states on finding solutions to crises is gaining momentum, and even the most difficult adversaries are meeting on the necessity of advancing the language of political positions as a substitute for rhetoric that merely raises voices, even though exchanges, within the bounds of logic, can yield openings.
Saudi leadership’s concern for Lebanon, whose current crisis is close to undermining its political formula, is a concern free of ulterior motives, aimed at reinforcing the cohesion of the political structure so that it does not collapse on everyone. It is the same concern that, had it not been undertaken through the Taif Agreement, would have led the state to fragment. This is a lesson that the present generation, living through the crisis, would do well to heed, through the mutual exchange of trust between political and partisan forces on the one hand, and the state, represented by its presidential and military institutions, on the other. Such trust is achieved through respect by these forces for the provisions of the country’s constitution, as well as for the principles contained in the Taif Agreement, whose value was demonstrated by the fact that the decade following it saw Lebanon regain some of what befits a nation possessing the capacities that oblige its people to preserve and develop them, so that the country does not become an arena of conflicts or a refuge for factions that turn it into a battlefield, each aligned with its own external patron, and a place where voices rise targeting others. Lebanon is also experiencing conditions reflected in tens of thousands of people, some of whom have lost family members, while most have lost homes, businesses, and even hospitals. Alongside these losses, there is a decline in ambition among younger generations.
As these conditions continue to worsen, some repeat the phrase: “the battlefield decides,” while others add: “the authorities should be ashamed of their people and withdraw from the sin of direct negotiations.” These are cited by way of example, not an exhaustive list.
There are priorities. Lebanon stands politically fragmented, amid the ruins of homes and institutions visited by their owners, as tears stream from their eyes. It is the duty of the state, away from excessive theorizing, to undertake the challenge of confronting this reality, just as Iran continues to exert efforts to secure whatever gains it can obtain.
Those raising their voices must take into account that “the battlefield does not decide” alone. There is also a need for some restraint and for initiating the reconstruction of the homeland. It is out of this concern that Prince Yazid bin Farhan’s visit came, to affirm the commitment of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, as well as that of the founding father before him, to stand by every Arab state facing political hardship.
Here is Lebanon, living through one of the most complex political crises, one that renders its decision unsettled, prompting the Kingdom to play its role in the hope that Lebanon will not suffer, internally, what has befallen others... when regret is of no use.
