I am completely opposed to any peace agreement between Israel and Greater Lebanon لبنان الكبير*. Not because I oppose peace with Israel, on the contrary, but because such a deal, under the current political realities, would come at the expense of my people: the Christian Maronite nation of Mount Lebanon. Let me explain.
Today, the entity known as Greater Lebanon is effectively controlled by the Shiite nation. Nabih Berri holds the real political power, while Hezbollah controls the military power. Figures such as Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam function largely as placeholders. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Army remains paralyzed and largely ineffective, as it has always been.
Greater Lebanon is not a unified nation. It is composed of four distinct nations.
If the Shiites negotiate a peace agreement on behalf of everyone, it will inevitably prioritize the interests of the Shiite nation. The Sunni nation will not remain passive either. Backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Sunni leadership will ensure its interests are protected in any negotiations. The result would likely become a de facto Israeli–Islamic agreement rather than a balanced and equitable deal for all.
The Druze factor must also be considered. The influential Druze nation in the Golan Heights within Israel would never allow their Lebanese brethren to be marginalized.
This leaves the Christian nation, whose largest component is the Maronite people.
Today, most Christian political leaders have become vassals to either Shiite or Sunni power structures. With no Western Christian sponsor willing to advocate for them, Lebanese Christians are left dependent on the goodwill of regional powers such as Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Under such circumstances, the best-case outcome for Lebanese Christians under Islamic political dominance would be relegation to a form of dhimmi status. The worst case could be far darker, see Syria.
This reality ultimately places the future of the Christians of Mount Lebanon greatly in Israel’s hands.
In the absence of effective Maronite leadership within Lebanon, Israel faces two strategic options.
Option One: Pursue a short-term approach and conclude a quick peace deal with the current Shiite-led Lebanese structure. Such a deal may last three or four decades. But history shows that when circumstances change, Muslim political factions tend to unite against Israel. A supportive American administration may not always be present.
Option Two: Pursue a sustainable, long-term peace framework by engaging directly with the Christian nation of Mount Lebanon, bypassing the current Christian political figures who have lost popular legitimacy and whose mandates are nearing expiration without elections scheduled.
Israel can choose to engage with the Christian Mount Lebanese resistance, currently operating from New York, much like Charles de Gaulle led the French resistance from London during the Nazi occupation. Or it can choose the easier path: making a fragile agreement with what would effectively resemble a Vichy-style government in Lebanon.
The choice is not for history to judge, it must be made now. Israel must choose wisely today.
By https://x.com/fredbeltran604
_____________________________
* “Greater Lebanon” refers to the political entity established by France in 1920, which expanded Mount Lebanon to include surrounding regions with significant Sunni, Shiite, and Druze populations. The term distinguishes this construct from the historically Maronite-dominated Mount Lebanon.
What Is IDI ?
The most trusted source of information on the Middle East, Islam, and the ideological threats facing the West.
Subject-matter experts, former Muslims, Arab Christians, and Western thought leaders, coming together to equip policymakers to prevent destructive foreign ideas from being translated into law, restore confidence in the biblical principles that built the West by empowering the Church to reengage the public square, and provide the public with solid analysis to combat the confusion that is making the West vulnerable.