I remember how we learned of Imruu al-Qais’s response to the news that Banu Asad had killed his father, the king of Kindah at school: “Today, wine; tomorrow, serious matters...” In a sense, there is a parallel, though not identical, saying in the Levant: “The drunken stupor is gone, and now the idea comes-” the day after a long night of drinking...
These sayings come to me amid split opinions in Lebanon over the outcome of the latest round of Israeli-Lebanese “direct talks.” It was not long before statements were issued by Hezbollah Secretary-general Sheikh Naim Qassem, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, and his prime minister, Nawaf Salam, affirmed the chasm between those optimistic about the round’s outcome and those fearful of it and its consequences.
Regardless of my personal position, I believe we must account for several important facts without which no objective analysis can disregard. First, the “direct talks” were imposed by the US administration. Second, Washington’s relationship with the two negotiating sides is not neutral, since it is a strategic ally of Israel. Third, the round of talks in question was held while Israel was waging, and still is waging, a fierce war on Lebanese territory. This “war” has killed more than 3,500 people, destroyed homes, and displaced more than 1.2 million people from over 60 cities, towns, and villages stretching from the border to the districts of Sidon, Jezzine, Western Beqaa, and Hasbaya.
What, then, about the outcome? The official statement released by the US State Department mentions the following:
1- While the Israeli and Lebanese sides reached an understanding in which both would work to create conditions conducive to lasting peace between the two countries, full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and establishing genuine security along their shared border, the statement noted Israel’s inherent right to self-defense (!) without any reference to a ceasefire or to Lebanon’s right to defend its land.
2- The statement said that the two countries recognize the significant challenges faced by the Lebanese state from non-state armed groups, which undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and threaten regional stability. Both countries understand that those groups’ activities must be curtailed. In other words, the Lebanese negotiator officially accuses—despite the continuing occupation—a Lebanese component, Hezbollah, of threatening regional stability.
3- Despite the deaths of thousands of victims, both Israel and Lebanon affirm that the two countries are not at war, and commit to engaging in good-faith direct negotiations, facilitated by the United States, with the objective of achieving a comprehensive agreement that ensures lasting security, stability, and peace between the two countries. They also agree to a cessation of hostilities, under US sponsorship, for an initial period of ten days, as a gesture of goodwill by the Government of Israel, intended to enable good-faith negotiations toward a permanent security and peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon.
4- Extending this initial period is conditioned on tangible progress in the negotiations, and as Lebanon effectively demonstrates its ability to assert its sovereignty; that is, to confront Hezbollah, which is effectively the group accused of undermining the situation internally and threatening it regionally.
5- Israel shall preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time, against any planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks, and the cessation of hostilities shall not be impeded by this right. This sentence explicitly declares the right to preemptive self-defense. This preemptive self-defense is what has so far allowed the Gaza Strip to be wiped off the map, and accounts for most of the destruction that has taken place in southern Lebanon.
6- The Lebanese government will take meaningful steps to prevent Hezbollah and all other rogue non-state armed groups inside Lebanese territory from carrying out any attacks, operations, or hostile activities against Israeli targets. That is, it will play the role of border guards. Washington, Tel Aviv, and Beirut will recognize Lebanon’s security forces as having exclusive responsibility for Lebanon’s sovereignty and national defense, and that no other country or group has claim to be the guarantor of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
7- The Lebanese and Israeli sides ask Washington to facilitate further direct negotiations between the two countries with the objective of resolving all remaining issues, including demarcation of the international land boundary, with a view to concluding a comprehensive agreement that ensures lasting security, stability, and peace between the two countries.
An agreement of this spirit and background would not have been reached if it not for the residues of Lebanon’s chronic sectarian and political divisions. Indeed, its most dangerous symptoms come out when efforts are made to strengthen one’s position against a domestic partner through an external enemy.
The Lebanese have neither learned nor drawn lessons from the tragedies of the past. Indeed, over the past few years, Shiite-Sunni tension has compounded what had originally been a Christian-Muslim conflict. This tension rose steadily with the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Hezbollah’s security dominance over Lebanon, and Iran’s participation in the Syrian war in support of the Assad regime.
For this reason, many Lebanese, including Shiites, today see no harm in naively betting on Netanyahu’s “goodwill” toward them and toward Lebanon.
Of course, today’s fresh wound will cool. The terms demanded for “normalization,” which will cover school curricula, the banking system, and the security apparatus, and that “Israeli hegemony” will impose on the Lebanese by force, may disappoint most of them. Unfortunately, the regret will come only after it is already too late.
Doesn’t the Gospel of Mark say that “a house divided against itself... cannot stand”?
