Mohammad Raad
Al-Akhbar Newspaper
Diversity is a defining characteristic of the composition of Lebanese society. Imam Musa al-Sadr once considered it a national wealth because of the interaction it encompasses among different origins, backgrounds, experiences, temperaments, sciences, cultures, systems of human and moral conduct, arts, literature, customs, traditions, and capabilities.
Stability, just as in times of tension and crises, depends above all on the implicit level of conviction among Lebanon’s diverse components in their commitment to shared coexistence, a shared destiny, the sovereignty of a single law, and a unified understanding of the principles, foundations, and provisions of the National Accord upon which Lebanon’s constitution and laws are based.
At every historical juncture, the Lebanese- or some among them- pause to revisit the pages of their history, reflecting on the conclusions of past agreements that were never practically implemented during periods of stability. They also contemplate the external factors that have undermined shared living, only to divide once again along newly invented slogans and interpretations suited to the phase at hand, the circumstances of those benefiting from tampering with Lebanon’s internal affairs, and the requirements of serving the contested objectives of both internal and external parties to tension and conflict.
It is true that, in the end, one observes a rise in levels of local understanding and reconciliation. Yet it is equally true that prevailing balances of power are what shape the formulas of agreement at every stage. More importantly-and this deserves attention-those tasked with governing Lebanon according to these agreed arrangements gradually neglect strict adherence to what was agreed upon, whether out of courtesy, miscalculation of consequences, or due to a tendency among some in power to allow personal inclinations to prevail over the necessity of faithfully implementing agreements without circumvention, disregard, or improvised interpretations.
A quick review of the slogans raised by the Lebanese at every moment of crisis is enough for an observer to realize how similar they are in substance and objectives, expressing the same concerns and demands of their proponents. Their colors and forms may change, but their essence and meaning remain constant. Independence, for example, does not carry a single unified meaning for all Lebanese, depending instead on the patronage each group receives from a particular state or international axis.
With the multiplicity of patronages, the drive for national independence fades, while tendencies toward factional or sectarian independence and distinction grow stronger. Thus, national unity withers in favor of a heightened sense of differentiation and particularism linked to centers of influence in the region or the world.
Since material utility becomes the standard by which interests are defined, the interests of the sect, party, or denomination become the axis around which relationships are measured. At that point, the national interest becomes merely a seasonal, passing guest among the Lebanese-one whose stay may be long or short.
The matter becomes even clearer when approaching Arab belonging or Arab identity. The swords of sectarian or confessional affiliation are quickly drawn, portraying the Arab sphere as primarily a Muslim sphere. Promoting this concept in Lebanon requires certain cosmetic courtesies and material concessions so that non-Muslims will accept participation in Arab alignment in form rather than substance, while being assigned an artificial intermediary role-serving as a gateway for the exchange of political interests and utilitarian services between the Arabs and a West detached from any affiliation not measured by the standard of private profit or personal benefit. Such a West has no objection to dealing with any party, regardless of religious or sectarian identity, so long as private gain is secured, showing little regard for principled or ethical values except insofar as they contribute to additional profit or advantage.
Overcoming the dilemma of building a unified or reasonably cohesive Lebanese society within a country, whose internationally recognized geographic borders are established can succeed only through constitutional and legal mechanisms that protect the right to difference while preventing dependency-in other words, mechanisms that guarantee the right of individuals or communal components to preserve their particularity under the umbrella of safeguarding national sovereignty.
The National Accord Document that emerged from the Taif Agreement outlined-albeit imperfectly-an advanced framework for addressing the Lebanese dilemma. It left a flexible opening by dedicating a clause to liberating Lebanon from occupation by all available means, anticipating any pressure on sovereignty or violations that might fracture the entire consensual structure. It relied on the expectation that developments and the growth of Lebanon’s experience in shared coexistence could address differences arising from divergent orientations and foundations, also in defense of national sovereignty. Thus, while some Lebanese believe that complying with the dictates of the US administration protects the country’s sovereignty from external interference, others view submission to any external international authority as a relinquishment of Lebanon’s sovereignty, a destabilization of its stability, and a threat to its unity.
The picture becomes clearer still when some Lebanese consider coexistence with the “Israeli” occupation of parts of the country to be more protective of national sovereignty than the Lebanese exercising their legitimate right to resist occupation and to strengthen the national spirit and unity-the permanent drivers of safeguarding sovereignty and upholding respect for international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The grave mistake committed by the current Lebanese authorities lies in misjudging the importance of that opening and moving to eliminate it at a time of Zionist aggression against Lebanon, when the Lebanese are in need of greater national cohesion, rather than creating divisions that obstruct such unity while simultaneously responding to the demands of the Zionist enemy threatening Lebanon’s sovereignty and unity.
The government decision issued on 5 August 2025 constitutes a blatant stab at the National Accord Document as a whole, taken at the wrong moment. The necessary process of repair, therefore, requires rescinding this decision, as well as the even more damaging decision issued on 5 March 2026 banning resistance activities and the consequences and instability resulting from it.
Claiming to safeguard the Taif Agreement and the consensual framework that emerged from it necessarily requires restoring matters to their previous state, rather than engaging in clever maneuvering that dismantles what was built to achieve national accord and to attempt the construction of a state founded on law and sovereignty.
Finally, as I finished writing these lines, news reached me of the foreign minister’s decision regarding Iran’s ambassador. I said to myself that this is one Lebanese translation of the concept of neutrality that some in our country boast about-measured according to the supply-and-demand balance in the volatile market of competing tutelages.
*Head Of The Loyalty To The Resistance Parliamentary Bloc
No comments:
Post a Comment