The liquidation of Lebanon: political folly and the suicide of the state at the negotiating table

In the realm of international relations, negotiation is traditionally regarded as the art of extracting the possible from the impossible. However, in the political lexicon of the current administration in Lebanon, this process has devolved into a demonstrable act of political folly — a reckless gambit that transcends mere incompetence to border on a deliberate conspiracy against the very survival of the state.

By scurrying towards ‘direct negotiations‘ with the Israeli enemy, the authorities are not only flouting the 1955 Anti-Israeli Boycott Law, which criminalises the slightest contact. They are placing the entire Lebanese entity, spearheaded by its military, into the firing line of a comprehensive civil war.

The art of exchange or the trap of liquidation?

At its core, negotiation is a trade-off — a quid pro quo. The Israeli enemy — a power that has never offered ‘charitable gifts’ — will not be satisfied with mere technical or maritime border arrangements.

The transparent Israeli demand, which lies beneath every diplomatic overture, is the total dismantlement of the Resistance.

Here, the ‘political idiocy’ of the government is laid bare: how can a decaying authority negotiate the disarmament of a force that is fundamentally beyond its executive reach? How can it promise what it does not possess, unless it is planning a suicidal bet that gambles with the blood of its own citizens?

Lebanon — The fatal trap

Any negotiated outcome that mandates the Lebanese army to disarm the Resistance, raid its depots, or arrest its combatants is, in reality, a death warrant for the military institution itself.

The administration, believing it can appease ‘foreign agendas’ through such commitments, is effectively pushing the army into an inevitable collision with the very people it is sworn to protect.

This path leads to three catastrophic certainties:

1. The Fragmentation of the Military: The collapse of the army along sectarian and ideological lines at the first sign of internal confrontation.
2. The Disintegration of the State: Lebanon’s transformation from a political entity into an open ‘militia playground’, where the central government loses the final vestiges of control.
3. An Israeli Playground: Once the army falls and sedition is ignited, Lebanon becomes a security vacuum, totally vulnerable to the enemy’s whims, allowing them to achieve through internal strife what they failed to secure through direct military aggression.

Slaughtered National Pact and legal treachery

The purported consent of the President cannot be used as a shield to bypass this ‘legal treason‘.

The Anti-Israeli Boycott Law is not a mere detail to be sidestepped by a ‘political understanding’; it is a pillar of the Lebanese national doctrine. To circumvent it through direct talks is to demolish the foundation of Lebanon as a state of confrontation.

Furthermore, the ‘National Pact’ (Mithaqiya) is slaughtered the moment a faction in power decides to gamble with the fate of an entire people. By turning the Lebanese people against one another, they seek to satisfy external diktats that view Lebanon as nothing more than a ‘security file’ to be liquidated.

Lebanon — Perpetuating conflict, not ending it

This trajectory does not lead to peace; it perpetuates war in its most hideous form: internal strife.

The rush to negotiate from a position of profound weakness, devoid of a vision that preserves national unity, renders the government a mere tool for the implementation of the Zionist agenda to fragment Lebanon.

Sovereignty is not reclaimed by tearing the national fabric, and dignity is not preserved by conspiring against those who defend the land.

Those who believe the path to ‘stability’ passes through the destruction of Lebanon’s elements of strength and the dismantling of its army are either political simpletons or agents for hire, driving the country toward the ultimate abyss.

Featured image via the Canary