Lebanon, which yesterday was a meeting place for life and a beacon of thought and openness, now stands weighed down by its wounds, carrying on its shoulders the burdens of years of wars and divisions. Yet despite all that, it still retains the possibility of rising again, and its right to be reborn on foundations that are more just and stable.
It is not easy to speak of Lebanon as a passing crisis, nor can what is happening there today be reduced to a narrow political headline, because what this country is experiencing is the result of a long trajectory of wars, divisions, and interventions, the price of which has been paid by successive generations of its people.
Since the outbreak of the civil war, and through the many stages of conflict that followed, tens of thousands of victims have fallen, and Lebanese society has suffered deep human and economic hemorrhaging. Meanwhile, sharp divisions have become entrenched among its components—divisions that were never a true expression of the nature of this people, but rather the result of policies that nurtured sectarianism at the expense of national identity.
We all know how wars begin, and how their first spark is ignited, but human history has never offered a definitive answer as to how they end, nor to their true meaning when they do. Who wins in a homeland that has lost its sons? Who triumphs among a people exhausted by division? Wars, however varied their narratives, leave behind one single truth: a loss shared by all sides, and scars that no settlement can erase.
Over time, sectarian affiliation has been transformed from a state of diversity into an instrument of division, and from a source of richness into a means of conflict. This has been directly reflected in the structure of the state, weakening its institutions and opening the door to internal conflicts and political rivalries that have often gone beyond the interests of the citizen.
In the context of these complexities, one cannot ignore the fact that most political forces in Lebanon, to varying degrees, have at different stages been linked to external support or influence, imposed by the circumstances of conflict or calculations of balance. Yet the continuation of this reality is no longer justifiable; it has become one of the most prominent causes of deepening internal division and weakening independent national decision-making.
The current phase requires restoring the primacy of an inclusive Lebanese identity, so that national belonging becomes the rule, not the exception. When everyone stands under the roof of Lebanon first, the language of mutual accusation disappears, standards of treason fall away, and the only point of reference becomes the interest of the state and the people.
Turning to the outside world, under whatever pretext, has never brought lasting stability. On the contrary, it has often entrenched divisions and turned the domestic arena into a space for settling scores, the price of which is paid by the Lebanese citizen alone.
Amid all this, the issue of weapons outside the framework of the state has emerged as one of the most complex questions facing Lebanon today. Opinions differ between those who see it as a necessity in a complicated regional context and those who regard it as an obstacle to the establishment of a fully sovereign state.
What is worrying is that some proposals raised under the banner of addressing this issue sometimes slip toward escalatory methods or approaches that may produce more tension rather than contain it. Confronting any issue through the logic of direct confrontation or imposing facts by force will only reproduce crises and widen the circle of strain.
The call for stability cannot be based on a logic of escalation, just as building the state cannot be achieved through means that reproduce violence or justify it in any form. Violence, whatever its background, does not build a state; it threatens what remains of it.
The Lebanese have paid a heavy price as a result of political conflicts and internal divisions, and to this day they continue to face harsh living conditions amid the declining role of some state institutions and the continuation of tensions that obstruct any genuine path to reform.
What Lebanon needs today is not more alignments, but a comprehensive national approach that restores the value of the inclusive state and opens the way for responsible dialogue that addresses contentious issues in a realistic spirit, far from the language of accusation and treason.
Accordingly, we affirm the following:
- The need to launch a serious national dialogue that addresses sensitive issues within the framework of the state and its institutions.
- Strengthening the independence of national decision-making and limiting any external influence on political life.
- Rejecting any approaches based on escalation or the imposition of facts by force.
- Working to overcome sectarian divisions and entrench the concept of citizenship.
- Protecting civilians, safeguarding their dignity, and rejecting any practices that put them at risk.
- Supporting a genuine reform process that rebuilds state institutions on sound foundations.
Lebanon does not need a new victor, but a real end to repeated losses.
