Nation is ready for no-war stance, but not normalization.
Emergency services and area residents gather at the scene after an Israeli airstrike in the town of Nabatieh, southern Lebanon, on June 27. Photo by EPA
Despite Israel’s recent military gains and a rapidly changing Middle East, Lebanon remains wary of making peace with its long-time enemy, maintaining a “no-war” stance and shunning normalization, at least for now, Lebanese official sources and analysts said.
Shocked by the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel, for the first time in its history, found itself engaged in a four-front war involving Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran.
Syria was not spared, even after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and the country’s new leadership began peace and security talks with Israel.
Although Israel has achieved significant military successes, it has been unable to fully achieve its objectives.
Gaza lies in ruins, yet Hamas militants continue to fight and hold Israeli captives. The Houthis in Yemen still fire occasional missiles at Israel, while Iran struck back hard after last month’s Israeli attack and its regime remains in place.
Hezbollah in Lebanon was severely weakened and compelled to accept a cease-fire in November, meant to end 14 months of devastating conflict. However, Israel has refused to fully withdraw, maintaining five positions in southern Lebanon, continuing strikes on Hezbollah operatives and suspected sites, and holding Lebanese prisoners.
Although Hezbollah has been left with almost no options, it remains reluctant to lay down its arms.
Riad Tabbarah, Lebanon’s former ambassador in Washington, explained that the Iran-backed Shiite group awaits the outcome of U.S.-Iran negotiations that would address not only Iran’s nuclear program and missile systems, but also the fate of its allied militias in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
“It is unrealistic to expect Hezbollah and these other militias to decide on what to do with their arms before some indications of where the U.S.-Iran negotiations are going,” Tabbarah told UPI.
In the meantime, Israel has other plans. By asserting its military dominance and with backing from the United States, Israel is seizing the opportunity to shape a new regional order through potential peace agreements.
Is it truly time for peace — a long-awaited peace that could be genuine and lasting?
The war in the region is not yet over, as the warring parties remain locked in a path that pushes them, inevitably, to go all the way.
Israel has yet to achieve what it considers a “full and ultimate victory,” a goal that includes the permanent elimination of Iran’s nuclear threat the potential overthrow of its regime, elimination of the prospect of a Palestinian state and the enforcement of normalization across the rest of the region, according to Fares Boueiz, Lebanon’s former foreign minister, who was involved in the 1991 Madrid peace talks.
Boueiz said that Iran is unwilling to abandon its nuclear program or its aspirations for regional dominance, nor is it prepared to be stripped of its once-powerful military assets in the region.
“I am afraid that the war may not be over, and all parties may be forced to continue, as the conditions for peace are not yet present,” Boueiz told UPI, adding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking “a peace imposed by force and based on nearly impossible conditions.”
He said everything that has been happening in the region for many years was meant to pave the way for a peace “that is neither balanced nor just.”
The region today is a far cry from the spirit of the 1991 Madrid Conference, which marked the beginning of a genuine peace process aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli right-wing extremist dealt a devastating blow to that process, cutting short one of the most promising moments for peace.
Today, the foundational principles of the Madrid Conference — mutual recognition, negotiation, compromise and, most importantly, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state — are virtually absent.
Instead, Israel appears to be pursuing a peace imposed by force, acting as a victor through repeated military campaigns, rather than as a partner in a just and lasting resolution.
For Lebanon, where Hezbollah has suffered devastating blows in the ongoing war with Israel, “peace remains off the table for the time being,” according to an official Lebanese source. “To us, peace means [a state of] no-war and no-normalization as long as Israel occupies our land.”
Lebanon, whose army has taken control of most of southern Lebanon and pushed Hezbollah away from the Israeli border, has been seeking U.S. guarantees that Israel will withdraw, halt its airstrikes and release Lebanese prisoners.
Without such assurances, Lebanon argues that it cannot persuade Hezbollah to relinquish its weapons, while attempting to disarm the group by force could trigger “big problems in the country,” according to the official source, referring to the risk of civil war.
He said to facilitate the process, the United States understands that Israel must begin implementing the cease-fire agreement and take “a significant step and make a goodwill gesture,” starting with a withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
While the Lebanese remain divided on the issue of peace with Israel, the Gaza war and the latest round of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel have prompted a growing number of voices to publicly advocate for engaging in a peace process.
With Hezbollah unable to continue fighting Israel — having lost most of its commanders and much of its military capability — and war-ravaged Lebanon still grappling with an acute financial crisis, the Lebanese people are simply exhausted.
“No one can reject peace — even if it is imposed — because without peace, war will be forced upon us again,” Mona Fayad, an anti-Hezbollah political activist, writer and psychology professor, told UPI.
Fayad, a Shiite, blamed Hezbollah for starting the war with Israel when it opened “a support front” for Gaza from south Lebanon on Oct. 8, 2023, and said the group is now incapable of sustaining the fight.
She called for seizing any opportunity to restore calm, but emphasized that Lebanon should not begin the peace process without the involvement of the Arab states, and not before the war on Gaza ends and the Palestinians are granted their rights based on the two-state solution.
“No one is ready to normalize ties with Israel. The Lebanese will not visit Israel while Gazans are being bombed, and would Israelis feel safe coming here? It’s simply illogical,” Fayad said.
Normalization, the centerpiece of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace policy, was moving at a reasonable pace before Oct. 7, 2023.
“Saudi Arabia, the prize jewel of normalization, was on the verge of breaking any remaining barriers in that process,” said Tabbarah. “Oct. 7 reversed the process back … and now Saudi Arabia vows not to normalize before a Palestinian state is established.”
He explained that United States and Israeli pressures for normalization therefore shifted to Syria, where the new regime seems to lean toward some kind of coexistence with Israel, short of normalization.
But the Syrian population is putting the brakes on it, and normalization doesn’t seem to be likely now or in the foreseeable future.
“Neither cessation of hostilities nor normalization can qualify as permanent peace, which will remain fragile at best,” Tabbarah said. “There was a score of cease-fires, a few normalizations and even a couple of peace treaties in the past 78 years — and the Middle East remains on fire.”
