November 14, 2026
“Lebanon Debate” – Political Editor
Israeli actress Gal Gadot sparked widespread interaction during her appearance in Beverly Hills, where she tearfully expressed her concerns about the rise of anti-Semitism globally. On the other hand, voices are emerging in Lebanon calling for peace and normalization with Israel, in an irony that reflects a stark contrast to the reality of a country that has been subjected to occupation, the destruction of villages, and the fall of victims.
In the same context, a Pew Research Center poll showed that 73% of Germans and 78% of Spaniards and Swedes hold a negative view of Israel, even though these peoples were not subjected to direct occupation or destruction by the Hebrew state. This reality raises profound questions about the motives of some Lebanese people for rushing towards normalization, ignoring their direct experience with Israeli attacks, and how peace has become for some people enthusiasm for normalization instead of focusing on ending the occupation and respecting sovereignty.
However, the greatest danger lies in the attempt to impose a false political equation on the Lebanese, based on them choosing exclusively between Hezbollah or Israel. A realistic reading confirms that rejecting Hezbollah’s weapons and demanding the exclusivity of weapons in the hands of the state is a legitimate sovereign position, but it does not grant Israel a certificate of innocence for its attacks, nor does it make normalization an inevitable result of the party’s opposition.
The Lebanese are not obligated to have to choose between two parties that violated the state’s sovereignty; Hezbollah has overstepped its institutions and imposed an armed reality, while Israel’s occupation of the land, its destruction of villages, and its killing of civilians constitute a blatant violation of sovereignty. Accordingly, objection to the party does not mean alignment with Israel, and rejecting the Israeli occupation does not justify the continuation of weapons outside state institutions.
The flaw in some Lebanese discourse does not lie in the desire for peace, but rather in dealing with normalization as an exclusive response to Hezbollah’s weapons, ignoring that Lebanon’s issue with Israel precedes the party’s existence and does not fall with its disappearance. Accordingly, the national position is based on one indivisible principle: rejecting weapons outside the state and rejecting foreign occupation at the same time, so that Lebanon remains for the Lebanese state alone and no one else.
