Lebanon”s Role in the Middle East Peace Process
Lebanon is the smallest Arab country, after Bahrain. However, it has far more people than Bahrain: 3.97 million versus 718,300. And it has considerably far fewer resources than the tiny oil-rich island kingdom situated in the Gulf. Yet Lebanon, whose role as a major participant in the broader Middle East peace process until recently was not considered essential, now finds itself at the forefront of a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Allow us to explain.
Ironically, during the earlier stages of the Arab-Israeli crisis, when Lebanon still had no direct quarrels with Israel, it used to be said that Lebanon would be the second Arab country to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish state. Today, given the twists and turns that fate and geopolitics have thrown at their country, the Lebanese will very likely be the last people in the region to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
That having been said, we cannot stress enough the importance of seeing to it that such a peace treaty is signed. Small does not mean irrelevant. In this instant, the second smallest of the Arab countries plays a major role in the region”s political future.
Again, let us explain.
While Lebanon in and of itself does not have the means to represent a threat to Israel, the country”s geographic location – sitting on the borders of Syria and Israel, gives it an advantage, or as the case may be, a disadvantage.
But others within Lebanon do have that power to create serious problems for Israel along the Jewish state”s northern border, and in so doing, can keep the Arab-Israeli dispute going, even if Syria were to sign a separate deal with Israel.
Among them are Hezbollah and a number of pro-Syrian paramilitary organizations as well as the vast network of intelligence agents Syria left behind in Lebanon when it withdrew shortly after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
It is without doubt to the advantage of the United States and Israel to ensure that Lebanon remains an independent and stable nation.
History has shown us what happens when a state is weak, as was (and remains) the case in Lebanon. History is also repeating itself in Lebanon, where first the Palestinians took advantage of the frail central government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) became a state within the state.
After the departure of the PLO from Beirut the central government continued to be weak, allowing other groups, some acting at the behest of foreign powers, to emulate the Palestinians and establish themselves as a parallel authority to the Lebanese government.
Lebanon”s continued instability serves the enemies of democracy. That is why it is imperative that the country not be omitted from the next round of talks, if and when they take place.