Listen to the article: audio text automatically generated by an automated system

0:00

4 minutes read

Lebanon is trapped in a complex network of 'no's' that requires a miracle to escape, amid much helplessness.

The dispute, which turned into a conflict among Lebanese who are supported and battered by the conflicts of others, is ostensibly about negotiations with Israel under American sponsorship, but fundamentally about Lebanon's future, its position in the region, its role, and the local and external roles within it. There is a big difference between those who object to errors and deficiencies in the formula of the 'Tripartite Framework,' which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as 'the beginning of the beginning,' and those who oppose direct negotiations in principle for another reason, not to reach a better agreement. While among those standing in the 'yes' camp, some argue in a 'yes, but' manner, those in the 'no' camp are careful not to appear as if they are operating on a 'no, but' basis.

This is because the persistent network of 'no's' controls the game in Lebanon, and influences and is influenced by the game management in Iran, even though President Donald Trump suggests that he is the one managing both games. There is nothing but facilitation and obstruction in the course of both games. And everything is out in the open.

Israel's slogan is: No withdrawal or redeployment before disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its infrastructure, and without a peace agreement with Lebanon. The party's slogan is: No direct negotiations and no disarmament, but resistance. The state's slogan: No agreement without full withdrawal and implementation of the state's monopoly on weapons. Iran's slogan: No negotiations except in the Iranian-American track, which encompasses the Lebanese track. America's slogan, and that of the Arab and international majority, is: No withdrawal, no aid, and no reconstruction without ensuring that the state disarms 'non-state armed groups.' The state wants to disarm without clashing with the party, which refuses to give up its weapons and its decision on war and peace. And 'manage it' as Prime Minister Taqi al-Din al-Solh used to say in such difficult situations during the Lebanese war.

It is an illusion for Hezbollah to bet on a full Israeli withdrawal without an agreement and without any conditions, and to assume that Iran will include it in its negotiations with America by pressuring Netanyahu. What matters to Tehran is the survival of the party and its weapons, regardless of what happens in Lebanon and the withdrawal or non-withdrawal. What it is betting on is the role of the party and its other arms in the Iranian regional project, which is the 'Wilayat' project, where the constant is the weapon and its role, and the variable is everything in Lebanon and the region.

Everyone knows why the party threatens a civil war that no one wants in defense of its weapons, and mocks those who call on it to hand over its weapons to the army and suffice with its role as a political party on the grounds that this is the safe and decent way out of the deep predicament. Throughout the support war for Gaza and Iran, which the party waged alone against the official and popular majority, the 'Shiite duo' through the Speaker of Parliament prevented any discussion in parliament about the war. Moreover, discussion of a matter more dangerous than the war—the fact that monopolizing the decision of war and peace violates the charter of co-existence.

It is important for the President and the Prime Minister to succeed in having Lebanon negotiate for itself in the Washington talks, and to break the artificial link to the Islamabad talks between America and Iran. But the problem is that Tehran is present inside Lebanon, and it is waiting for the state in the south. Discussion is open in the street and in councils. Nothing prevents discussing the 'Tripartite Framework' in the cabinet and parliament, even if it is not a complete agreement or a treaty, and there is no constitutional requirement to present it there. The time has come to stop the addiction to crises and wars and imposing them on everyone, and to return to the fundamentals of the democratic game and the logic of compromises. The biggest lie is what Yasser Arafat used to call the 'democracy of the jungle of weapons.'

How much we need a counter-weapon: Pope Leo XIV's emphasis on 'the importance of culture in confronting the darkness of the mind and the violence of emotions.'

As quoted from Nidaa al-Watan

Promotional material

Promotional material

Disclaimer: All published articles represent the opinion of their authors only.