No one disagrees that stability, as the Lebanese understand and seek it, is not a priority for Israel. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past, and it is evident today.
Worse still, the only "stability" the Israeli leadership wants for Lebanon is total submission to Benjamin Netanyahu's criteria of "coexistence" and "good neighborliness." And the criteria of the US, which has a monopoly on mediating "peace" in the Middle East, are not very different.
The latest American "veto" on Gaza- the first since the US presidential elections - has left no room for doubt that Washington does not disagree with the Likud leadership on what constitutes Israel’s "right to self-defense," even if this so-called "defense" entail committing atrocities, displacing millions, changing international maps, and destroying the last shreds of confidence in regional coexistence.
Of course, the tragic series of events in Gaza continues, and it is more likely to expand eastward to the West Bank rather than to end. The lip service to peace by officials in Joe Biden's administration changes nothing.
In Lebanon, it seems that we will see the "Gaza scenario," despite the efforts of the US Envoy Amos Hochstein, who, like some Lebanese politicians, is playing a "waiting game" as facts are created on the ground that are impossible to ignore and difficult to accept.
While confusion prevails in our Arab world amid a long array of divergent concerns, the last few weeks of the US President’s term, I believe, could be the most perilous for our region.
Amid this confusion, helplessness, and tragedy, we hope today for a "miracle" following the transition in Washington, which will replace a Democratic Party that has failed to achieve anything significant in the region with a Republican leadership whose will and ability to adopt serious and constructive approaches to these issues are doubted by many.
Many of us, as observers and as Americans of Middle Eastern descent who are concerned with regional affairs, have argued that it is very logical to "punish" the Democrats for colluding with Israel's Likud in the Gaza disaster. On the other hand, others claimed that we were not in a position to inflict "punishment" and that we ought to "minimize losses," especially since the only real alternative to the Democratic administration (whose approach is rooted in Obama’s questionable selective idealism) is a Republican leadership that shaped policies to personal whims and interests, disregarding institutional guardrails and accountability.
The reality is that while the "Israeli lobby" was reaping the fruits of decades of "smart and patient investment" to ensure the loyalty of power figures, wealthy groups, media conglomerates, and companies with political influence, Arabs and Muslims found themselves on the sidelines in the final moments, as usual faced with three options:
The first option was to support the Republican candidate and President Donald Trump, and there are a variety of personal and particular reasons people chose to do so. Indeed, among those who voted for Trump, some had convinced themselves that no administration could be more hostile to Arabs than the Biden administration... and before it, the Barack Obama administration.
The second option is to grudgingly bite their lip and vote for the Democratic candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris, considering her the "lesser of two evils” because she is less hostile to immigrant communities and more tolerant of minorities. However, those who made this choice also acknowledge the Democratic administration's weak, hostile, and inhumane policies since the Al-Aqsa Flood operation.
The third option was that of the naive, who voted for the "third party option" to take a stand against the two major parties competing to curry favor with the "Israeli lobby." Most of those who chose this option voted for the leftist Green Party candidate Jill Stein, thus "burning bridges" with both parties for nothing and losing whatever sympathy they had enjoyed among members of the two parties.
Here, there is a need for candor. The "Israeli lobby" has one goal, and there is no opposing "lobby". Instead, we have scattered groups with different goals and agendas, who share nothing but roots in the Arab world or Islamic world. As a result, as in our own countries, there is no unified Arab project in America.
With regard to Lebanon in particular, Lebanese divisions in the country also reflect on the corridors of power in the US. If some Lebanese are now very enthusiastic about the rise of Massad Boulos (the father-in-law of President Trump’s son), whom they expect to do "wonders" and "save Lebanon," they should realize that the administration has much higher priorities that take precedence over fleeting promises made during election campaigns.
If the "unity of the fronts" that Hezbollah adopted of its own accord has shaken national unity and undermined domestic stability, then the enthusiasm of some Lebanese for the new Trump administration - who they hope will help them settle the scores internally - will also pose a serious threat to the country’s fragile national unity.
I say this for two reasons:
The first is Netanyahu's perpetuation, through his scorched earth policy, of internal displacement that stirs sectarian tensions and fears.
The second is Trump's own claim that "Israel is smaller than it should be." That is a clear hint at altering maps and permanent occupation, which would not only destroy prospects for peace, but also undermine Washington's credibility as a fair and trusted mediator and sponsor.
