Dr. Fadia Kiwan

Lebanon has bargaining power it can use in negotiations. Israel has become involved in a war of attrition, and everyone knows that in such situations, ending the war today is always better than prolonging it. We should also remember that settlers in northern Israel left their homes and are demanding security and stability as a condition for returning.

They will only return safely when Lebanese civilians in the south are also able to return safely to their homes.

I firmly believe that Lebanon initiating direct negotiations that are independent from the Iran, Israel, and United States conflict is in its highest national interest. It is well known that multilateral negotiations are dangerous for weaker parties, and that negotiations inevitably lead to compromises and settlements.

So should Lebanon allow Iran to negotiate on its behalf? And would Iran even do that? Would it not instead negotiate for one of its own regional allies rather than for Lebanon itself?

When Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, arrangements for his funeral were quickly made in a reserved way, with major commemorations postponed. But when Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei was targeted, the response was to escalate the front against the enemy in revenge.

This reflects how alignment is driven by ideology rather than politics. It is deeply rooted in generations shaped by the doctrine of Wilayat al Faqih and the ideology of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. More dangerously, the idea of martyrdom has become intertwined with the memory of Karbala, feeding a strong sense of grievance, injustice, and marginalization, which in turn is used to justify hatred, resentment, and even a desire for self-destruction.

In this context, does hiding among innocent civilians, even among one’s own supporters, and causing the deaths of children, women, the elderly, and people with special needs, count as martyrdom?

True martyrdom is on the battlefield, where enemy tanks and soldiers are advancing, and it is an act of bravery regardless of the circumstances that led there. But fleeing and blending into civilian populations is the height of cowardice and moral failure.

I return to the issue of negotiating with the enemy and I repeat that negotiation is the only path, not military war, to push the enemy to withdraw from all our land and to release the prisoners, in exchange for Lebanon committing to return to the 1949 armistice agreement and ensuring it is not violated by anyone for any reason. This requires a courageous decision from those who were drawn into or became involved in the Iran Israel United States conflict.

The decision is simple: the Lebanese state should take possession of their weapons, military equipment, and ammunition that they have brought in over the past 26 years, meaning since the liberation in 2000.

In return, the state commits to protecting them like all other citizens.

Then the people of the south will return to their homes, villages, and towns just as the residents of northern Israeli settlements return to their homes.

Yes, it is a guarantee of return, security, and stability, which would create a win win equation between Lebanon and Israel.

After Lebanese people have gone too far in showing pride in defending Arab and Muslim causes and finally the Iranian regime, it is time for them to calm down and think about their own interests, the interests of their people, and Lebanon’s higher national interest.

I know the issue is not that simple and that there are complex matters that negotiators must address. The first is the demarcation of land borders, which must respect Lebanon’s internationally recognized borders and move away from all interpretations of lines of fire and ceasefire lines. The Lebanese state may also consider requesting blue helmets, meaning an international police force entrusted with securing Lebanon’s southern border at the beginning.

Then there is maritime border demarcation, which requires us to reverse the concessions imposed on us in recent years and to adopt transparent internationally recognized rules for defining maritime borders based on the land border, not the other way around.

I apologize but I wanted to share this dream with readers.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar