Khaled Abou Zahr
Can you name the one country in the world in which a news magazine would put a philosopher on its cover? The answer is France. This helps us understand how the media and political thought leaders might address complicated issues. Lebanon is a complicated problem that has a simple solution. Yet, as Emmanuel Macron received Nawaf Salam at the Elysee Palace this week to show support, the message is too fragmented and has too many layers, while trying to advocate a balanced approach.
The statement of supporting, in principle, the disarmament of Hezbollah but favoring a gradual and negotiated approach, while pushing the narrative of separation between the group’s military — I would say terrorist — and political wings is in fact bringing more confusion. Paris is looking to act primarily as an indirect supporter of Lebanon rather than a central player, positioning itself as a discreet architect seeking to stabilize the country without provoking internal divisions or directly opposing Israel. This will go nowhere for Lebanon.
To start, I have trouble accepting the way France is looking to push Hezbollah into the political life of Lebanon, especially when making a quick comparison with French political life. In French elections, for example, Renaissance and the center-left and far-left parties tend to treat the conservative parties as outcasts. They will push for television and other media outlets to boycott the right-wing parties and will also label them as fascists. Yet, when it comes to Lebanon, despite Hezbollah being a terrorist organization embedded within the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, French pundits — and other Western ones too — will claim with all confidence that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese DNA, as well as part of its political life, and hence should not be excluded.
They will add that Hezbollah is the true representative of the Shiite community and, with this statement, consider that they are capable of understanding the nuances of Lebanese society, unlike those who hold the superficial view that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. More importantly, not once will they stop to think that, just as this organization is totalitarian toward the Lebanese state, its basis is dictatorship over the Shiite population.
Obviously, just like every communist dictatorship, they can wrap it up in social and medical support and financial aid to help the pill go down. Still, ultimately, the Shiite population is robbed of its free will. These French analysts are correct that Hezbollah uses a narrative of oppression within its own community and that, as a result, they are now respected. But is this true? What respect is there when you are forced off your land?
There are also, just like in communist regimes, perks and help given to the locals. Hezbollah’s financial networks are a cornerstone of this system, just like its weapons. These are the two sides of the same coin.
Moreover, this is not an implicit recognition — it has been declared by the French presidency, even though Hezbollah last week killed a French soldier participating in the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. Hence, this recognition of Hezbollah, which opposes negotiations with Israel, is a direct hit on the efforts by the Lebanese presidency and government to show unity. It offers the perfect argument that the strongest recognized party opposes negotiations, so how will you respect any agreement?
We are in a mirror situation of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The PA can negotiate as much as it wants, but as long as Hamas refuses the principle of negotiations and rejects peace, it is a waste of time.
It is also dangerous for Lebanon to believe that the increasingly aggressive approach of the Europeans toward Israel will help it. I wrote at the beginning of the war in Ukraine on the lessons Kyiv should learn from the Lebanese. I think today the Lebanese should look to see if the Europeans have been able to help the Ukrainians really achieve something. This is not about the conferences, loans and other financial and military support, but in terms of the negotiations. The answer is no. Simply because the European agenda is different from the Ukrainian one and this is normal and fair. The same is true for Lebanon.
Sometimes, things are as they look and France needs to stop philosophizing and shift its narrative. It needs to stop pushing the military and political wing theory. We all know that this is done within the balance France seeks with Iran and not for the future of Lebanon. Moreover, suggesting that Hezbollah is the true representative of the Shiite community is a grave mistake that accepts a totalitarian state within the state.
Ultimately, these two main concepts render everything else that Macron can do for Lebanon useless, as he is legitimizing the two main justifications for Hezbollah’s raison d’etre and indirectly accepting it as a true resistance movement. There can be no real peace if we let an organization that is part of the Iranian regime attain moral supremacy.
The current Lebanese crisis was caused by Hezbollah supporting Iran in its war with Israel and the US. While we remember that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, it is now back in the south at the invitation of Hezbollah, which has proven its inability to defend the Shiite community or Lebanon. The support Lebanon needs today is not philosophical but humanitarian and the implementation of Hezbollah’s disarmament: a full disarmament of its military arsenal, financial architecture and social organizations. Nothing less.
Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
