On 13 April 2025, during a visit to an African country, a former French colony, my host had the TV on in the background. France 24 channel, a state owned, publicly funded news network was showing a report commemorating the 50th anniversary of the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975.
This surprised me. Not because the network focused on France’s historical militia allies’ perspective, nor because I, yet again, had forgotten this date. I was rather surprised that this date still meant something, given that the last Lebanese war ended as recent as 27 November 2024 with a signed ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel (in reality, only Lebanon abides by it and, tens of people have been killed with almost daily airstrikes).
Lebanon has been in cold or actual war since its independence in the 40s, mainly with its strongest enemy in the region, Israel. This included countless incidents against the country’s infrastructure to full-fledged war. To name but a few, Israeli airstrikes hit power plants in 2000 that caused electricity blackouts in half the country, destroyed 13 civilian planes parked at Beirut International Airport in 1968, conducted the full-on Operation “Grapes of Wrath” in 1996, the 2006 July War, the 1982 invasion of Beirut, and too many other events that never allowed the country a period of growth without fear of destruction or division.
The Lebanese civil war between 1975-1990 was in essence between those who fought Israel and those who supported it. It was fascinating that the warring sides used some of the most advanced weapons the world had manufactured back then to fight in this tiny country. Lebanon doesn’t have an arms manufacturer.
One must look to the indirect participation of both sides of the cold war benefiting from the arms industry which has historically been an economic lifeline for building cities. Moreover, since geopolitics dictate matters of peace and war, we cannot view Lebanon without the context of what is happening in Syria, Palestine and Israel.
The theme continued after the civil war, ultimately resulting in strong religious fundamentalism presence in Lebanon (majority of startup resistance parties were secular) with Hezbollah essentially monopolizing the fight against Israel. Another result for the struggle, was the strengthening of a secular dictatorship in Syria, and killing off any remaining secular Palestinian armed resistance. In Israel, the 2000 withdrawal from the formerly occupied southern Lebanese region, effectively ended the life of its Labor party and intensified Israel’s right-wing stance today.
As for Lebanon, it became a manifestation of contradictions and polarizing narratives. Its mélange of religious and ethnic minorities, committed to a democratic parliamentary process. But this was contradicted by political corruption, a crippling identity crisis, weakness of a protective armed force, lack of vision for unity, and opulent foreign interference.
This situation was also the result of the drawing of borders one hundred years ago, which caused ancient cities to be deprived of their lifeline ports. This granted centralized, distant capitals like Damascus and Beirut a dismissive and condescending attitude of remote regions. In today’s borders, the now Turkish Iskenderun port was the lifeline of historical Aleppo in Syria. The port of ancient Tripoli in north Lebanon was the lifeline of Syrian Homs, and the currently Israeli Port of Haifa was the historical lifeline of the Jebel Amel region of Southern Lebanon.
The 20th century started with less than 30 countries in the world and ended with more than 200. The multiplication or limitation of countries is normal. Are we approaching the end of the current borders? If so, it doesn’t seem like we’re heading towards a unifying vision, rather a provocative, vengeful approach. Internal fabric is still weaved by international balance of power, Realpolitik is controlling the fate of lands and the people staying or forcibly removed from them.
Political conflict cannot be explained by a single dimension, it is rather a game of shadows. It will be a dangerous pursuit if people of the region are continued to be considered second-class citizens. Originally, the rhetoric of the people of the region, who are rich with historic and cultural depth, didn’t identify personally with being of a religious sect. Rather, religions and sects grew like flowers with nature. Unfortunately, so can fanaticism.