Lebanese from all social classes agree that their country is currently going through the most difficult period in its history, as its sovereignty is threatened and its role marginalized. Despite this general assessment on the gravity of the situation, the political action needed to avert these anticipated dangers appears far less than this global consensus would suggest.
The absence of a comprehensive national effort, the weak performance of institutions in meeting the demands of the current situation, and the skepticism of some politicians regarding the army's performance are key issues in the Lebanese public debate. This is accompanied by a prevailing conviction that the dangers facing and surrounding Lebanon are as old as Lebanon itself. Reaching to a situation with greater sovereignty over its territory and borders, a general consensus on a unifying Lebanese identity, and on the necessities of national belonging instead of sectarian affiliation, is no longer just an option, but an imperative. This transition has its conditions, which are still awaiting those who will commit to and respect them. And among these conditions is the state's monopoly on the use of force, the belief that all sects are equal and subject, without exception, to the law, without any political or other interference.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri and the Shia community believe that independence remains a battle incumbent upon every Lebanese citizen, in order to safeguard the nation, its existence, and its sovereignty from any dependency. This is an accurate assessment, but it requires clear and practical steps.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who rose from the military to the pinnacle of politics, understands the requirements of Lebanese security through undeniable practical experience. He has identified the most critical issue: the transition from a stage of "non-state" to a stage of functioning government. He believes that the realities and changes surrounding Lebanon necessitate dealing with political and practical challenges confidently, decisively, and without resorting to accusations of treason. Otherwise, Lebanon will remain sidelined, losing significant opportunities and bearing even greater burdens than it currently faces.
In the context, the recent President Aoun's initiative, to negotiate with Israel under UN, US, or other international auspices—an initiative to which the United States has yet to respond—represents the magnitude of Lebanon's embarrass. The demands, as outlined in the proposal, suggest to restoring Lebanon's sovereignty over its territory, the withdrawal of the occupying army from its positions in the south, border demarcation, and a genuine opportunity for the Lebanese army to deploy throughout Lebanon, with guarantees of calm along the shared border. This would be a crucial step toward region. Lebanon is keen not to miss this opportunity and to be an active participant in this gradual regional shift.
The unenthusiastic American response to the Lebanese proposal reflects a strong inclination towards the Israeli perspective, which includes the Israel's right to conduct military operations against those it considers terrorists and saboteurs anywhere in Lebanon, even though Hezbollah has not carried out any action against the Israeli occupation since November 2014.
The proposal also includes the most problematic aspect for Lebanon and its army, which is committed to a gradual plan to disarm Hezbollah without engaging in a military confrontation with any segment of Lebanese society. This approach is criticized by Washington and Tel Aviv, who believe it insufficient, as Israel suggests that a major military operation is now necessary to completely eliminate the threats of Hezbollah.
The Israeli threats and the American tendency to support Tel Aviv’s position, in addition to the unjustified American criticisms directed at the Lebanese army, bring back the importance of moving from the prevailing “non-state” logic to the logic of the state that must be reinforced, where there are unified institutions, national effectiveness without exception, and standing behind the national army and supporting it strongly.