Listen to the article
We are being led to believe that attorney Majd Harb has committed a serious offense by submitting an urgent draft law proposal, signed by several MPs, to establish additional airports in Lebanon.
The opposition to this proposal can be categorized into three main groups. While none of these groups have relied on weak excuses to justify their rejection, their stubbornness is undermining the nation’s interests and obstructing the development of new airports in Lebanon.
The first group of objectors seek guarantees for their own factions. Some beneficiaries want Hamat Airport to be the new airport; others are pushing for Qleiaat in the north as a backup for Beirut, while a third group wants Riyaq. It is the same old song: sectarian division now applies to the airport as well, with each sect having its own alternative plan for a new one.
The second group believes that improving the current airport is a better option than bearing the cost of building a new one, arguing that Lebanon cannot afford more than one airport. It is worth noting, however, that smaller countries, like Cyprus, have more than one airport.
When late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri decided to expand and modernize Beirut Airport, he was met with widespread opposition. Critics claimed that Lebanon did not need such a large airport and that corruption was behind the decision. Years later, it has become clear that Beirut Airport is now too small to handle its current traffic, proving the relevance of Hariri’s vision over the shortsightedness of his critics.
The third group opposing a new airport consists of those who benefit from the current situation, namely Hezbollah and its affiliates.
Hezbollah openly claims that the airport is under its control. We don’t know what enters or leaves the airport because its location makes it a safe haven within Hezbollah’s sphere of influence. There is an erroneous belief that a new airport would undermine Hezbollah’s power, but logic suggests that the same security forces would be responsible for the new airport, so there is no need to worry about other militias taking control of it.
The problem is a much bigger one. Beirut Airport is now hampered by numerous obstacles that severely limit its operation.
One issue is the presence of seagulls and waste from the Costa Brava landfill, posing a threat to aircraft safety. The air traffic control towers are also understaffed. Furthermore, the security situation around the airport is problematic. Gunfire during celebrations, funerals,
and political speeches, in the adjacent Hezbollah-controlled southern suburb of Beirut, turn the area into a permanent shooting ground, and planes have been damaged as a result.
There is no point in discussing the runway, which is technically good but unusable due to illegal construction in the surrounding area. Buildings have risen too high, making it unsafe for planes to take off and land.
Additionally, the road leading to the airport is no longer the welcoming gateway to the Beirut we want. Instead, it resembles a partisan military barracks, more reminiscent of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s headquarters than an international airport—a reality that is unacceptable.
We need not dwell on the airport’s cleanliness, maintenance, and overall appearance. Cleanliness requires only diligent oversight, but it is clear that the airport is not being managed properly. While current management bears responsibility, competition could redefine the role of Beirut International Airport or any new facility.
Lebanon is certainly capable of having a new airport, but those who stand to lose from it might not be able to tolerate it.
