Lebanon has become a theatre of armed conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, since the decision of then-Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah on October 8, 2023, to join the war initiated by Hamas. Nasrallah termed Hizbullah a “support front” meant to wage a war of attrition on Israel, diverting its attacks to its northern front and allocating units and formations that would have been otherwise directed to Israel’s southern front opposite Hamas.
Although not agreed upon by all the Lebanese political factions, Nasrallah’s assault strategy was generally accepted as long as the exchange of fire was limited in its geographical dimension and the deployment of short-range weaponry. Israel accepted this formula for war for almost 10 months.
On July 27, 2023, Israel was horrified when a Hizbullah rocket killed 12 Druze teens on a playground in the Israeli Golan Heights. Under heavy pressure from within, Israel decided in September 2024 to change the rules of engagement and wage an offensive military campaign designed to enable the return of 80,000 Israeli citizen refugees who had been forced to abandon their homes from Israel’s northern border facing Lebanon. Israel unleashed a massive air and ground attack against Hizbullah, defying the equation that had existed beforehand on the rules of engagement with the terrorist organization by taking the initiative. In the few months of the military campaign, Israel succeeded in decapitating Hizbullah, eliminating most of its field commanders and, first and foremost, killing Hassan Nasrallah and his supposed successor, Hashem Nasr el Din.
Israel’s campaign was not limited to Hizbullah’s front lines along the Lebanese-Israeli border. The restraint that Israel had shown since the end of the second Lebanese war in 2006 was replaced by intensive bombardments all over Lebanon and by a ground incursion that erased 29 Lebanese villages, destroyed almost 40,000 apartments, and displaced more than 1.5 million inhabitants of the south of Lebanon who found refuge in Christian, Sunni, and Druze areas. This displacement raised social tensions and triggered a crisis that could quickly evolve into open conflict between the different sectarian communities. Many in Lebanon describe the situation as the verge of a new civil war.
Moreover, about 400,000 Syrian refugees who had fled to Lebanon with the outbreak of the civil war in Syria returned to Syria (an undreamt development). Some 150,000 Lebanese went to Syria and Iraq.
The destruction on the ground and the devastation of the areas attacked by Israel justified the claims of those who accused Hizbullah of dragging Lebanon into a disastrous war they never thought would happen in their worst nightmare.
Still, Lebanese opinion was not unanimous in condemning Hizbullah: parts of the Christian and Sunni parties and most of the Shia community are still siding with Hizbullah and hoping to see the terrorist organization survive the war with Israel.
Focus on the Christian Community
One must look more closely at events in the Christian community. Since October 2022 the Christian community has lost two important positions in the sectarian distribution of state roles: the post of president allocated to the Christian Maronites has been vacant because of the obstruction by the Hizbullah and Amal political parties. The Shiite duo favors their candidate, Suleiman Franjieh. The post of the governor of the Bank of Lebanon is also vacant after the arrest of its former governor, Riad Salameh.
A third Christian position is also about to be lost: The Army chief, Joseph Aoun, a Christian, is due to retire in January and there is no agreement on his successor. His tenure in office has already been extended once, and there is no consensus on allowing General Aoun to retire in 2025, at the age of 62. If the post is vacant, the chief of staff, General Hassan Aoudeh, a Druze general, would lead the army, an option disliked by the Christian community.
However, the thorniest issue is the election of a president, who traditionally, must be a Maronite Christian. According to the Lebanese constitution, only he can ratify any agreement signed with a foreign entity (Israel), and in his absence, no agreement can be ratified and implemented. In the aftermath of the September attacks, the Lebanese began the process of electing a president. However, Iranian intervention (visits of the foreign minister and the speaker of the Majlis) convinced the Lebanese (except for parts of the Christian parties) that the election would have to wait until the war was over, or until a cease-fire was obtained with Israel, a possibility that seems remote, considering the total lack of acceptance by the Lebanese of the conditions put forth by Israel on that issue.
The Lebanese accepted UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006 which called for a cease-fire and withdrawal of non-state forces from south Lebanon and the handing over of all weapons to the Lebanese army. However, the Lebanese accepted the resolution without specifying details of its implementation. This is a position rejected by Israel. Israel demands the right of hot pursuit if and when a threat occurs and the deployment of international forces on the border between Syria and Lebanon to prevent the flow of arms from Iran from reaching Lebanon.
With this background, three major events occurred:
- Samir Geagea, the leader of the biggest Christian party, the Lebanese Forces, called for convening all parliament members (Christians and Sunnis) without the participation of the 26 Shiite parliament members who boycotted the session. Geagea declared the procedure legal as recognized by the Constitution. This declaration has provoked fury in political circles and unleashed a series of attacks from both sides of the map, claiming that this decision if carried out is tantamount to tearing up the fabric of the Lebanese body politic and causing the dismemberment of Lebanon as a state.
- The Druze leader Walid Jumblatt declared in an interview that since the elimination of Hassan Nasrallah, no one knows who is in charge in Hizbullah. The explanation of this sentence is clear: Hizbullah has chosen to continue its path of confrontation with Israel, at any price.
- The Maronite Archbishop has called for the re-opening of the Taif Accords, signed in 1990, which ended the Lebanese civil war and redistributed the main leadership positions of the state according to a sectarian key that is no longer valid today.
In sum, Lebanon finds itself at a crossroads, struggling to survive as a state. Hizbullah’s ongoing war with Israel and the mounting social pressure from 1.5 million displaced persons exacerbate Lebanon’s unraveling. As always, the Lebanese seek foreign intervention and aid to save them from themselves. A swift ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States might trigger the beginning of a return to normalcy in Lebanon. However, from experience with Lebanon, there is only a slim chance that any agreement would be honored because of the unwillingness of any Lebanese administration to fight Hizbullah.
Lebanon is on the verge of big changes and certainly will concentrate on revising the Taif Accords which shaped the Lebanese landscape since 1990: it’s time for change!
