The third round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel will be held tomorrow in Washington, D.C. This courageous decision by the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is regarded as a significant step in Lebanon’s favor, based on an assessment of the balance of power between the two sides. Any alternative approach could lead to further destruction of this small country and weaken its state institutions. President Aoun, as a military commander, knows all the intricacies of his country and understands better than anyone that liberating the homeland through peace is far more beneficial than continuing the wars of others on his land.
Those wars brought no benefit and have instead reinforced occupation realities. Today, 68 villages and towns are under Israeli control, while Hezbollah continues to tie its decisions to the regime in Tehran, that rogue state. According to strategic calculations, Egypt was significantly stronger than Lebanon during the October War of 1973, when Sinai and the Suez Canal were liberated. However, the then- Egyptian President Anwar Sadat chose the path of peace, understanding as a military leader that continuing the war would lead to further losses for his country.
Sadat believed that Israel, in its pursuit of regional dominance through force and occupation, was not seeking peace at the time. He had turned a deaf ear to the media noise, did not align himself with the positions of some Arab states, and remained unaffected by internal media campaigns in Egypt. He took a historic and difficult step by visiting Tel Aviv and addressing the Israeli Knesset. In doing so, Sadat was able to liberate the remaining parts of his land and redirect military expenditure towards development. As a result, Sadat secured gains for Egypt while temporarily losing some Arab support, which, however, returned to Cairo years later, admitting they had been wrong.
Today, Lebanon is facing a complex crisis marked by three years of war, with daily casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and towns razed to the ground, similar to Gaza, along with a widespread displacement so severe that 30 percent of the population is now homeless. Lebanon is suffering from a severe economic and living crisis as a result of Iran’s control over Lebanese decision- making. Iran is waging its wars using the people of some countries to achieve local gains. Lebanon’s local situation and the deep divisions caused by Hezbollah from the time it initiated the war in 2013 have placed the country on the brink of a “ticking time bomb” of civil war. This time, there may be no savior, as the entire world is preoccupied with more pressing matters.
This highlights the importance of Saudi advice calling for a return to the Taif Agreement, full implementation of its provisions, and renewed negotiations in Washington. This seems to be the only cure for Lebanon’s chronic illness. The Arab option has always been in Beirut’s best interest. Ending the war and pursuing peace would serve Lebanon and its people. I have repeatedly stated that peace is deadly for Israel, while war is its lifeblood, because it fears the surrounding Arab world. Thus, Israel reluctantly pursued peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states.
On the other hand, Israel exploited Hamas’s adventure on October 7, 2013, to eliminate Gaza, and even the West Bank and Lebanon. Israel seeks further expansion in Lebanon, which is teeming with Iranian proxies. The decision by both Presidents Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam to engage in direct negotiations and refrain from taking any serious steps toward peace before an Israeli withdrawal, cessation of hostilities, disarmament of Hezbollah, and implementation of relevant resolutions will restore stability in Lebanon. Therefore, both presidents should follow the example of President Anwar Sadat and ignore internal media noise, which is controlled by Iran. It is noteworthy that many Lebanese citizens are wary of the wars that have continued since 1969, wars that have served the interests of others and further weakened their country
