Lebanon: Words, deeds and reality

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Lebanese citizens would be delighted to see peace prevail across their beautiful country, which has suffered for so long. The Lebanese people, moreover, have a distinct talent for inventing reasons to celebrate and savor the moment if 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, they were overlooked, while they were also left without protection or security.

Lebanon’s leaders and its people have often misread shifting circumstances. They were optimistic when caution was required, acted hastily when reflection was needed and placed their bets on others while those others were plotting against them and setting traps for them. Their selfishness, tribalism and sectarianism have 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.

Last week, 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 the hope of liberating land and restoring sovereignty — this time seized by Iran — but 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

Eyad Abu Shakra

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, all cloaked in polished political language.

Many, for instance, called on President Joseph Aoun to issue a statement immediately after the Washington meeting, which was 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 widespread 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 in 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 confidently declared: “We have reclaimed Lebanon and its decision-making for the first time in nearly half a century. We are no longer a card in anyone’s pocket, nor an arena for others’ wars.”

The tone of his words suggested a desire to boost morale and rally consensus. Their idealistic spirit was 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, during this “half a century” in which the president believes the Lebanese lost their country are several phases: the introduction of Palestinian militants, the civil war, partial Israeli occupation and, finally, the dominance of Hezbollah with Iran behind it.

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.

Aoun’s idealistic spirit was reminiscent of the daily orders he used to issue during his tenure as army commander

Eyad Abu Shakra

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, Bashar Assad’s Syria and post-Paul Bremer Iraq.

Israel, now once again engaged in direct negotiations, will not therefore be content to merely 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 10-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 Netanyahu and the vision of Trump, we have not seen anything yet.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949