In the past years, and precisely since the involvement of Hizbullah in the war between Israel and Hamas, which has caused rising tensions with the Christian community because of its criticism directed against the Shiite Iranian organization, the question being asked in Lebanon today can be summed up by the simple interrogation: Lebanon where to?
The country’s body politic was shaped by the Taif agreement signed between the three major communities under Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship in 1990. This agreement, which aimed to end the Lebanese Civil War, was a significant moment in Lebanon’s history. The Christian community played a crucial role in its formation. Thirty-four years have elapsed since then, and today’s political reality does not resemble at all the situation that prevailed in 1990 at the end of the civil war that began in 1975.
The main transformation resides in the mounting power of the Iran-founded Hizbullah movement and its growing grip on Lebanese politics. This ever-increasing influence is a cause for concern, as both the Sunni and Christian camps have weakened and are unable to withstand Hizbullah’s growing appetite for power and its battering rams against all constitutional institutions. The situation’s urgency is clear as Hizbullah’s dominance continues to grow.
Hizbullah has made no secret of its ultimate goal of including Lebanon as the 32nd province of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Already today, Hizbullah declares openly that its allegiance is only to the supreme leader of Iran according to the religious principle of “wilayat el faqih” (the rule of the divine leader – akin to divine leadership), a step shy of admitting that the Lebanese jurisdiction does not apply to the organization.
The Christian camp’s consistent criticism of Hizbullah revolves around the fear that Hizbullah’s actions, particularly its potential to drag Lebanon into a war with Israel without consulting the legal authorities, could lead to a catastrophic outcome for Lebanon. The constant criticism expressed by the Christian camp against Hizbullah has focused on the accusation that Hizbullah is dragging Lebanon into a war with Israel without consulting the legal authorities of Lebanon, which is likely to generate a disaster in Lebanon. As a result, Hizbullah decided that the time had come to challenge the Christian dominance of Lebanese politics. Hizbullah’s claim, propagated through its supporters, is that the Christian community in Lebanon represents only 15.7% of the population. This is in stark contrast to the Lebanese body politic, which operates based on the 1932 census, unchanged since then, that states Christians represent between 33-35% of the population, giving them control of the Lebanese institutions.
The Christian camp answered Hizbullah’s thrown gauntlet by expressing readiness to negotiate a corrected constitution establishing a federal regime or a canton-like solution in Lebanon, comparable to Switzerland. It is an accepted fact by all parties that such a re-organization can happen only through a national consensus that would adapt the reformed constitution to the actual reality of Lebanon. This would mean that in return for Hizbullah’s acknowledgment of their autonomy in a federal structure, the Christian camp would automatically lose significant positions in the body politic, such as the presidency, the army commander, and the parity between Christians and Muslims in the Lebanese parliament. In other words, it would mean the disappearance of the Christian camp as the supreme governing authority in Lebanon and allow Hizbullah to take over Lebanon legally and “democratically.”
The Implications for Israel
What would be the future implications for Israel if such a revolutionary change occurs?
- Lebanon would lose its identity as a multi-cultural republic and become another Arab state affiliated with Iran. The Christians will become a minority in a Muslim state, as they are in other Arab states, such as their situation in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The Christians will stop putting the brakes on Hizbullah and concentrate on running their semi-independent canton.
- The process of iranization of Lebanon will be accelerated, and Lebanon will become a copy of the Iranian society run by clerics andmullahs.
- Hizbullah, having become the decisionmaker in Lebanon, could, at its discretion, “invite” Iran to send troops to Lebanon to be deployed in south Lebanon, facing Israel. Inviting Iran would be legitimate, precisely as the Lebanese President Suleiman Frangieh invited the Syrians to intervene militarily in Lebanon in 1976 to protect the Christian community from the assaults of the PLO and the leftist parties, which were about to overrun the Christian defenses. This would mean establishing a physical border between Iran and Israel, a land border that does not exist today. Moreover, since this Iranian presence would be considered legitimate according to international law, Israel will have either to live with a neighbor who has vowed its destruction or decide to confront the new reality and the threats it poses to the very existence of the Jewish state.
Lebanon is reaching a point of no return in transforming its character and identity. This change is bound to happen in the foreseeable future. It will lead not only to the loss of Christian-dominated politics but will instead install an Islamic regime similar to the one existing in Iran since the outburst of the Islamic Republic in 1979. This change will not necessarily occur as a result of a military conflict with the Christian camp but rather through dialogue and coercion based on the Christian fear of Hizbullah’s military power. This radical change might have dire implications for Israel, which will have to live with a rival that has vowed to bring an end to the Zionist dream.
