“Lebanon Debate” – Fadi Eid
The Lebanese arena is witnessing a noticeable political escalation, represented by a systematic campaign targeting the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, after he announced his move towards direct negotiations with Israel, which sparked a wave of sharp objections, especially from the forces associated with the Iranian axis, which saw the move as a direct threat to balances that have existed for years.
Aoun’s response was clear, as he considered that betrayal did not lie in seeking to stop a war imposed on Lebanon, but rather in plunging the country into conflicts that served external agendas, and this position put him in the heart of an open political confrontation that went beyond his person to affect the position and role of the presidency.
Informed people are not surprised that the team objecting to the President of the Republic’s step imposed by the “Iranian Support” war is redistributing its campaigns according to the stage, moving between targeting the Presidency of the Republic, the Prime Minister, or various political forces. However, the current focus on Baabda reflects a deep concern about a different path, which may be represented by moving from rhetoric to action, specifically to a negotiating path that may change the rules of the game.
For this team, the insiders add, the problem does not lie in the usual political criticism, but rather in the possibility that the negotiation will lead to undermining the basic pillar of its discourse, that is, the concept of the “enemy,” especially since opening the door to serious negotiation with Israel threatens to drop the pretext that justifies the continuation of weapons outside the framework of the state.
Hence, insiders believe that the clear goal is to obstruct this path, or at least empty it of its content, and turn it into a formal process without results. However, the challenge before the President of the Republic lies in moving forward, especially since the negotiation option did not come from a vacuum, but was imposed as a result of wars in which the state was not the decision-maker.
Data indicate that the official Lebanese trend towards negotiation played a role in pushing the international community, specifically the US administration led by Donald Trump, to pressure for a ceasefire, despite the opposition of Benjamin Netanyahu, and this development contributed to limiting the expansion of the confrontation, at a time when Israel was continuing its field advance.
On the other hand, according to insiders, the conditions of the opposing team for negotiations, from stopping attacks to complete withdrawal and reconstruction, seem unachievable without direct negotiations, as previous experiences have proven that the balance of power alone is not sufficient to impose these conditions, especially in light of clear international and regional transformations.
The reality of the field also changed after it worked and is still working, despite the ceasefire, to possess actual pressure cards, from its control of border areas to its military superiority, while the image of the “deterrent balance” that was previously promoted, retreated beyond the north of the Litani, with the continuing wave of displacement of the people of the south, who formed the first line of defense against the advance of the Israeli army in the first place, which pushes this reality of negotiation to be a practical option, not just a political one.
Insiders do not neglect to talk about international support and its role in creating a climate supportive of Lebanon and Lebanese legitimacy, in its attempts to stop the Israeli aggression through diplomacy and effective American intervention, after all Western and Arab initiatives hit a dead end. Just as Washington worked to stop the war in Gaza, it is the only one capable of pressuring Netanyahu to stop his aggression against Lebanon. In addition, international support is clear to strengthen the role of the Lebanese state and its institutions, in exchange for a general trend to end the phenomenon of weapons. Outside of it, and in this context, the President of the Republic enjoys international cover that allows him to continue on this negotiating path, which can be said to be a difficult path, but it is necessary to spare Lebanon from more dangerous scenarios, not the least of which is remaining in a spiral of open conflicts.
