I believe that the overwhelming majority of Lebanese citizens would be delighted to see peace prevail across their beautiful country that has suffered for so long. The Lebanese people, moreover, have a distinct talent for inventing reasons to celebrate and savor joy the moment even a glimmer of hope appears that the dark clouds of misery could be lifted.
The Lebanese people have, for a long time - and often alone - borne the burdens of the “game of nations,” the misfortune of their geography, and the ambitions of the “great powers.” Time and again, it was not part of calculus, but it has also lacked immunity and resilience.
More than once, its leaders and its people have misread shifting circumstances. They were optimistic when caution was required, rushed forward when reflection was needed, and placed their bets on others - others who were plotting against them and setting traps from them. Their selfishness, tribalism, and sectarianism has repeatedly driven them to ignore harsh truths and to overlook hard-earned lessons about the need for unity and cohesion. The intelligence for which the Lebanese have been known - for decades, even centuries - fails them every time they choose mutual denial over coexistence. And this remains the case today.
In recent days, Washington hosted a meeting between the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon. Given the chronic lack of a consensus in Lebanon, interpretations naturally diverged. Some praised the “courage of negotiation,” in hopes of liberating land and restoring sovereignty - this time seized by Iran - and others condemned the meeting as a “first step toward surrender and normalization” with Israel, which continues its military occupation and near-daily massacres.
The reactions of Lebanese politicians, media figures, and even ordinary citizens in the street were striking: deliberate disregard for realities on the ground combined with an insistence on reviving the underlying divisions and conflicting factional interests were cloaked in polished political language.
Many, for instance, called on President Joseph Aoun to issue a statement immediately after the Washington meeting held under the auspices of the administration of Donald Trump. In fact, such a demand of both the president and the government is entirely justified, given the scale of destruction and occupation: 2,300 killed, 7,000 wounded, and 1.2 million displaced.
At the same time, others were either skeptical of the usefulness of any dialogue with the Israeli government under the pressure of bombardment and territorial expansion, or they doubted the wisdom of trusting an American administration that, since the war on Iran was declared, has been a “partner” of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing plan to reshape the Middle East, as he himself has laid it out.
In a brief statement reflecting what many saw as good intentions, Aoun declared confidently: “We have regained Lebanon for the first time in nearly half a century; we are no longer a card in anyone’s pocket nor an arena for anyone.”
The tone of his words suggest a desire to boost morale and rally consensus, and their “idealistic” spirit reminiscent of the daily orders Aoun used to issue during his tenure as army commander. Observers, however, could not fail to read between the lines and note how such statements could open the door to blame games and efforts to settle the score.
Indeed, over this “half-century” during which the president believes that the Lebanese had lost their country encompasses several phases: the introduction of Palestinian militants, the civil war, partial Israeli occupation, and finally the dominance of Hezbollah and, behind it, Iran.
Patterns of competing loyalties and sectarian attitudes stand behind this era. The Palestinian militants’ presence could not have grown without Islamic, especially Sunni, Arab nationalist, and leftist support. The civil war drew in all sects, though Israel primarily relied on Christian right-wing forces, which it saw as an adjunct to its intervention and temporary occupation.
Later, that occupation- combined with the global decline of the left and the rise of political Islam, both Shiite (Iran) and Sunni (Afghanistan) - allowed Khomeinist Iran to broaden its influence in “Hezbollah’s Lebanon”, “Assad’s Syria”, and “post-Bremer Iraq.”
Israel now once again engaged in direct negotiations, will, therefore, not be content merely to watch Lebanon from behind a “border strip.” In any case, what borders does Israel recognize, given its freedom of action across the Middle East and its increasingly explicit ambitions for the land between the Nile and the Euphrates?
Last week, a Sunni intellectual wrote: “We study history to understand and benefit from it, not to repeat it or weaponize it for incitement and revenge!” He then asked: “Why is history sometimes written in a language of vengeance and provocation?”
Conversely, a Shiite commentator wrote: “Your Excellency, we had hoped the speech would reflect the joy of the Lebanese at the ceasefire and their return home - a speech reassuring them that their government stands with them against occupation, that the future will be better, and that it would be a unifying address for all Lebanese... not angry escalation against the interior and a prelude to normalization and peace with the enemy that undermines coexistence and goes against the will of the majority.”
Finally, a “pro-resistance” newspaper supported the latter view. “The agreement on a temporary ten-day truce does not amount to a settlement in as much as it reflects an intersection of regional pressures with facts on the ground imposed by the resistance through force. While the Israeli enemy insists on using the truce as a platform to complete its war objectives by other means, Lebanon finds itself facing a complex challenge: managing an ambiguous truce, a clear imbalance in negotiating power, and a resistance that insists on keeping its finger on the trigger and rejecting any return to the state of affairs that had prevailed before the second of March.”
In short, wishes will not be enough to shape the future. Between the calculations of Benjamin Netanyahu and the vision of Donald Trump, we have not seen anything yet.
