By: Naji Ali Amhaz

In my previous writings, when I addressed the concept of "peace" with Israel, I operated from a political perspective rooted in the traditional Maronite elite school of thought. This school views "peace talk" merely as a tactical maneuver to buy time, alleviate military pressure on Lebanon, and seek political exits to restore the stability lost since before the "Al-Aqsa Flood." However, for this talk to transform into a reality with set dates for implementation represents an "existential threat" to the Lebanese entity in general, and to the Maronites in particular.

Our predecessors among Lebanese leaders realized, through their deep historical intuition and experience, that peace with Israel is the end for anyone seeking to hang themselves and be cursed by history. They always maintained that Lebanon would be "the last country to sign a peace treaty," knowing full well that the leaders of the Israeli entity themselves do not dare to move forward with it. The assassination bullet that remains lodged in the memory of Yitzhak Rabin’s death is a living testament to the Israeli society's rejection of this path. Similarly, Yasser Arafat was effectively buried alive in the siege of his headquarters before being laid to rest in the ground, all because of the "Oslo Accords."

Even President Anwar Sadat, who emerged victorious in the 1973 war and spent five years mobilizing Egypt’s elite, intellectuals, and artists to prepare public opinion for peace, was not spared; he was assassinated only two years after signing the Camp David Accords. Half a century after official peace, "popular normalization" in Egypt remains impossible. The film The Embassy in the Building by artist Adel Imam remains a realistic embodiment of the falsehood and fragility of this peace.

Even Jordan—a country lacking the basic components for survival, with no agriculture, no water, and no maritime borders—lives on American aid and the protection of the Zionist lobby, which works tirelessly to secure its funding. Washington and Tel Aviv watch over Jordan’s stability only because they know that with the passing of the King or any moment of instability, this peace will collapse, and new forces will arise to reshuffle the deck. Truly, even if Israel offered Lebanon $50 billion annually and promised to rebuild the country in exchange for peace, Lebanon would still be the loser.

What peace are we talking about when Israel has not ceased its killing, destruction, and occupation of parts of our land for three years? An Israel that claims to desire peace responded to the "Gaza support front" with massive destruction that targeted the South, the Suburbs, the people, and the trees. If there were any genuine intention for peace, the 18 years of prosperity and construction in the South would have been an opportunity to build upon. Instead, Israel chose the language of fire and gunpowder, deepening the wounds that Lebanese people had just begun to heal.

What can be said to the families of more than 2,500 Lebanese victims—martyrs and wounded—who fell in a massacre perpetrated by the Israelis in ten minutes? At the very least, wait until they are buried.

Real peace requires a broad popular consensus, a coherent government, and a prosperous nation with leading educational and medical institutions and a vibrant cultural climate. One cannot speak of peace in a country where deposits have been looted, cities destroyed, and where the people are so divided that they trade insults on social media.

It is naive to believe that signing a peace treaty might bring a "Nobel Prize" while simultaneously antagonizing domestic components (such as Hezbollah). Logic dictates that whoever seeks external peace must first appease and convince their partner in the homeland that this path serves everyone’s interest, rather than imposing it by force.

Furthermore, if Israel were even one percent convinced that Hezbollah would accept peace, it would have—by American and European decree—handed Lebanon over to Hezbollah (as happened in 1976) to sign the agreement with them. As for the rest of the political players, whether they sign or not, what real impact do they have on Israel?

Seeking peace while there are approximately 270,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and while 1.5 billion Muslims and Arabs consider the Palestinian cause central to their religious doctrine, is political suicide for the Maronites. If the Israeli himself lives behind concrete walls and missile defense systems, never sleeping without his body armor and weapon by his side for fear of revenge from those whose families he killed, how can a Maronite bear the cost of such a peace in a blood-soaked conflict nearing a century?

Any Maronite who signs a peace treaty will find themselves in direct confrontation with a hostile regional environment, and American promises of protection will be of no use. Those who think "international legitimacy" will protect them are delusional.

Even Farouk al-Sharaa in Syria (or any established figure) would not dare sign a peace, knowing he would be branded an apostate by the Takfiri organizations from which he emerged. Moreover, Israel itself does not accept signing a peace with an extremist; the "Zionist political mind" rejects it. (Imagine a picture of Einstein next to an extremist "Abu al-Baraa" in international forums—they would be laughing at them). Signing a treaty with Israel in these circumstances would be viewed as a "legal death warrant" by Takfiri groups competing to target those they deem "infidels."

What Sheikh Pierre Gemayel could not do despite the circumstances, and what the "King of Politics" President Camille Chamoun (the Gallant Youth of Arabism) fled from—even turning against the British to protect his Arab standing—no Maronite figure today can venture to do. These leaders were masters in the international hierarchy, yet they did not dare commit this historical blunder.

Even Israel, which rejected peace with the powerful Hafez al-Assad on the pretext that a peace signed by an Alawite leader would not survive, will not accept real peace with a Maronite president amidst a sharp national divide—unless its goal is to embroil the Maronites in a long-term conflict with their Sunni and Arab surroundings.

The Lebanese government’s move toward peace under the pressure of fire and gunpowder is not "peace"; it is a "declaration of surrender." A "Peace of the Brave" would require Israel to first demonstrate that it will not respond to every spark by destroying Lebanon. It requires:

Complete Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territories.

A comprehensive ceasefire and a demonstration of goodwill toward the Lebanese people.

The provision of tangible, real incentives (as happened in Wadi Araba and Oslo) instead of a policy of coercion.

I have written before about peace from the perspective of political stability and border demarcation, but I never imagined that some would overlook these existential and self-evident points. Peace is not a real estate deal; it is a fateful decision that requires national unity. Otherwise, we are burdening the Maronites with a historical error that future generations will never forgive.

Share

Comments

Add your comment