In Lebanon, the dual threat of civil war and Israeli occupation

At least, the terms of the contradiction are clear. Lebanese Hezbollah leader Naïm Kassem and President of Lebanon Joseph Aoun radically opposed each other yesterday, showing how deeply divided Lebanon is while the war with Israel has never truly ceased.

The Hezbollah leader described the government’s decision to negotiate directly with Israel as “a gratuitous, humiliating, and unnecessary concession, the only justification being unconditional submission”. The Lebanese president brutally responded two hours later that “true betrayal is committed by those who lead their country into war to serve foreign interests”. It is clear that he was referring to Iran, the Hezbollah’s sponsor.

Context: Lebanese leaders are at odds over negotiations with Israel, highlighting the deep divisions within the country.

Fact Check: Iran is seen as a key player in the conflict, with Hezbollah’s ties to the country being a point of contention.

The Lebanese internal dimension

This profound fracture complicates any resolution of the Lebanese crisis, which has its own dynamics compared to what is happening in the Gulf, with Iran. The internal aspect of Lebanon is crucial, with the specter of civil war constantly looming, more than thirty years after the country was torn apart for years.

Context: The internal situation in Lebanon poses a significant challenge to resolving the crisis, with the threat of civil war ever present.

Why these harsh exchanges?

Lebanon was included at the last minute on April 17 in the ceasefire agreement concluded with Iran by the United States. Israel wanted to continue its war with Hezbollah despite the truce on the Iranian front, but Donald Trump ultimately imposed the ceasefire. Yesterday, the Hezbollah leader thanked Iran for this truce, but in Paris, credit is claimed for convincing Trump to impose it on their Israeli ally.

Context: The ceasefire has not resolved the conflict, with ongoing fighting in the south of Lebanon and challenges in disarming Hezbollah.

Fact Check: The role of international actors, particularly the US and Iran, in the conflict resolution process is highlighted.

The Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm

The Hezbollah refuses to disarm, aligning clearly with Iran’s strategy to pressure Israel and the US. This logic led the Shiite movement to fire on Israel when the death of Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, was announced, plunging Lebanon back into war, to the dismay of other communities in the country.

Context: The continued refusal of Hezbollah to disarm is a major obstacle to peace efforts in the region.

Double intransigence

Friends of Lebanon, starting with France, propose to give the Lebanese state, and therefore its national army, the means to enforce the government’s decisions to disarm Hezbollah. At the same time, Israel would evacuate the territories it occupies in the south, which it is turning into a lasting buffer zone.

Context: Efforts are being made to address the root causes of the conflict, including disarming Hezbollah and resolving territorial disputes.

Fact Check: The challenges of mistrust between Israel and Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah’s broader strategic goals, are emphasized.

How to prevent the logic of war from prevailing again?

Once again, the fate of the Lebanese people is not truly in their hands.

Context: The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing challenges in preventing a return to conflict in Lebanon.