- 14:30
Lebanon once again stands on the brink of a military confrontation that threatens to replay the all-too-familiar scenes of devastation and loss. As regional tensions escalate and the prospect of a U.S. strike on Iran looms, Hezbollah appears ready to place Lebanon squarely in the eye of the storm in defense of the Iranian regime, with little regard for the country’s national interests.
Amid this rising threat, the Lebanese state and political forces opposing Hezbollah are largely unable to exert meaningful influence. Rather than advancing a strategy to protect the country from conflict, they have remained spectators, offering only rhetorical objections that fall short of a proactive political initiative.
Raising the tone of political discourse or banking on shifts in the regional balance of power does not absolve any Lebanese party of its national responsibilities. Lebanon’s protection will not be secured through passive positioning or by waiting for regional settlements. It requires a bold political initiative that reclaims sovereign decision-making and asserts that the country’s security is not a marginal detail in geopolitical rivalries, but an absolute, non-negotiable priority.
For decades, Lebanon has existed in a state of open hostility with Israel, punctuated by periodic wars and their staggering costs. This reality has left the country vulnerable to every regional tremor and perpetually at risk of becoming an arena for foreign conflicts. The political taboos surrounding potential normalization with Israel must be confronted and dismantled. Lebanon’s national interest should supersede all other considerations.
These considerations include the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and the longstanding framework of a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. It is time to acknowledge that the Arab Peace Initiative has, in practical terms, long since lost its momentum. This has become particularly clear amid shifting regional priorities and the wave of bilateral normalization agreements with Israel in recent years. As for the two-state solution, it remains an inherently complex endeavor that ultimately depends on the two principal parties, Israelis and Palestinians.
Lebanon has paid a heavy human and economic toll under the banner of the Palestinian cause. Continuing to anchor its own stance on peace to Palestinian developments is unlikely to alter outcomes on the issue. Lebanon’s refusal to normalize ties with Israel has not facilitated the emergence of a Palestinian state. Nor would a peace agreement be decisive in determining whether such a state ultimately comes into being.
Accordingly, Lebanese-Israeli peace must be viewed through the lens of Lebanon’s security, stability, and national interests, not through ideological reflexes or regional calculations in which Beirut has little influence. Peace can no longer remain a theoretical proposal or an isolated opinion.
It must evolve into organized political actions, such as advocacy networks and campaigns in which political parties and public figures publicly prioritize Lebanon’s national interests. The option of peace must be integrated into public debate as a serious political project, one that can address ongoing crises while opening pathways to stability, prosperity, and a more viable future.
In this regard, Sunni and Shiite Muslim figures and forces—rather than Christian actors—should take the lead of any peace initiative. Lebanon’s historical balance of power offers a compelling precedent. Independence from France in 1943 could not have succeeded without a clear and forward-leaning Christian position in favor of ending the mandate. Muslim opposition was already assured, while many Christians maintained privileged ties with France. Likewise, the end of Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon in 2005 gained broader national legitimacy, and ultimately succeeded, when Muslim figures joined Christian forces in that cause.
Any serious and credible strategic shift in Lebanon’s relationship with Israel will therefore require an explicit and progressive position from Sunni and Shia actors. In Lebanon’s delicate confessional balance, the identity of those advancing an initiative is often as consequential as the initiative itself.
Practically, this would entail electing Sunni and Shiite members of parliament in the upcoming legislative elections who openly endorse peace with Israel. These parliamentarians would present rigorous studies highlighting the positive impacts of peace on Lebanon’s security and economy, covering tourism and manufacturing as well as emerging opportunities in artificial intelligence and other high-value technologies.
Crucially, these representatives must articulate how peace could serve the interests of the Shia community and southern Lebanon, which have historically borne the brunt of conflict with Israel. In parallel, political delegations comprising Sunni and Shia figures should engage Arab and Islamic capitals to present Lebanon’s perspective on peace with Israel and underscore its importance for domestic and regional stability.
In the absence of a clearly defined, forward-looking project embraced by the state or any major political force, Lebanese politics has deteriorated into the management of perpetual crises. Deadlines pass without a horizon, economic and social crises deepen, and the role of the political class is left largely to contain fallout, instead of tackling root causes with a strategic vision.
Within this dysfunctional environment, a project for peace with Israel may be the one initiative that articulates a fundamentally different conception of Lebanon’s future. It would not only disentangle Lebanon from endless cycles of war, but redefine the country’s regional posture.
Lebanon stands at a crossroads between open-ended crises and a new strategic vision. Ultimately, the wager is not on the slogan of “peace” itself, but on Lebanon’s ability to move beyond merely surviving crises and instead restore hope in a functioning state.
Comments