Peace in the Middle East can only be achieved through strong states with which it is possible to conclude reliable agreements. That’s what they’re thinking about Israel and, to a large extent, actions both in Loop as in Lebanon or soon in Iran They are going in this direction. As long as terrorists or their sponsors control territories neighboring Israel, it will be impossible to reach meaningful compromises. Only patches intended to be violated.
For example, no one doubts that Actions against Hamas and Hezbollah hide more than revenge military. It could even be that the brutality with which operations were carried out in Gaza and Beirut was part of it. “intensify to defuse” that Netanyahu defends so much. A shock doctrine after which terrorist groups would be excluded from the map political and cohesion forces would take power in both territories and reach agreements with Tel Aviv.
In principle, It’s not that complicated. This was achieved with Egypt, this was achieved with Jordan and This was achieved even with Yasser Arafat when he was leading the Palestinian Authority and everything seemed to be moving towards a true two-state solution. However, this has never been achieved in Lebanon, at least since the start of the civil war in 1975, when Muslims, Christians and Jews clashed without respite for fifteen years.
Since then, there have been up to three peace agreements which were of no use: that of 1990 which ended the war as such, that of 2000 which established the borders of Israel in what is called Blue line and that of 2006, which established an exclusion zone south of the Litani River under the control of the regular Lebanese army and a multinational UN force. It marked a month of intense conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, but in reality it was just a step forward: eighteen years later, we are in the same situation.
Two years without president
What was the main problem with the 2006 agreement approved in UN Resolution 1701? First, Hezbollah’s reluctance to actually withdraw from the region. As soon as they could, they took control of several border towns and combined specific incursions into Israeli territory with almost constant projectile launches that prompted several evacuations of residents, many of whom did not still able to return to their homes.
NOW, if Hezbollah could take control of the south This was due to the lack of resources available to the UN forces and, above all, the palpable absence of a Lebanese army as such. Hezbollah has always been superior in numbers and weapons to the regular troops of a failed state in which no elections took place from 2009 to 2018 and in which the distribution of seats makes it impossible from 2022 to agree on enough parties to nominate a president. The Prime Minister, Najib Mikatiacts as head of state when this is not his legal attribution.
Bringing together so many forces from such different backgrounds in common accord will always be a challenge. In the Lebanese Parliament there are Hezbollah terrorists and representatives of the Armenian people. The distribution is also irregular: the party having obtained the most votes, Hezbollah, is fourth in terms of representation; Those who won the most seats, Samir Geagea, a member of the March 14 Alliance, and Gebran Bassil, deputy of former president Michel Aoun, did not get enough support and ended up giving up on continuing suggest names.
Joseph Aoun’s appeal
One of the disadvantages they faced was precisely the desire to impose a blockade, not only on Hezbollah, but, personally, on Hasan Nasrallah. The late leader of Hezbollah had as only option for Suleiman Frangieh, grandson of the former Lebanese president from 1970 to 1976, a mandate interrupted precisely by the civil war. Frangieh is of Christian origin, but he served as a minister under different governments of different types in the 1990s and 2000s. His approach to Hezbollah is likely linked to his close relationship with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
The head of the Lebanese army, Joseph Aoun.
Reuters
With Nasrallah’s death, the United States and France are moving their diplomatic pieces – remember that Lebanon was a French protectorate until it gained independence once World War II ended – to achieve the election of a consensual personality who can bring stability to the country. It is understood that if Hezbollah ceases to be a military and political actor in the country, it will be able to rebuild itself towards something resembling harmony between the different ethnic groups living there.
The chosen one seems to be Joseph Aoun. In his favor, his status as Commander-in-Chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces, called upon to play a very important role in the future of the country. Aoun, a Maronite Catholic, speaks Arabic, French and English and received counterterrorism training in the United States. The fact that this same parliament, unable to appoint a president, agreed in 2023 to extend his mandate at the head of the army, allows us to be optimistic about a possible inauguration.
The country that Aoun would find – without any connection with former President Michel – would be broken into a thousand pieces, with open war in the south, a bombed capital day and night and a painful economic situation. That said, international support and the disgrace of Hezbollah allow dream at least of stability. And it is this stability, as we have said, that can lead to peace.
In recent years, terrorists have effectively controlled the country and led it to disaster with popular support of only 20% of the vote. The United States and France believe this change, supported by Israel, could ease tensions in the region in the future. The present, however, remains just as dark.
