A "golden" trio participates in today's negotiations on the fate of Lebanon and its people, in the absence of the latter entirely from the table: a state without a head and president and in the lap of what remains of the remnants of legitimate government, voluntarily surrendering and absent from participating in these negotiations, but it will be forced to sign off on the "squandering" of Lebanon's sovereignty.
This article was originally published in and translated from the Lebanese newspaper Nidaa Al-Watan.
The "golden triangle" consists of the United States, Israel, and Hezbollah; however, a representative for the latter, as the first two partners consider the third partner a terrorist organization, and "sitting" with them is not permissible.
Each party in this "triangle" works to secure its interests at the expense of a "sick man" named Lebanon. How?
These negotiations are initiated by the United States, driven by its international responsibilities and regional alliances, to prevent the deterioration of the situation in southern Lebanon into an open war between the two confronting parties, Israel and Hezbollah, fearing the "re-explosion" of Lebanon, with the resulting repercussions across the entire Middle East, making it difficult to stabilize the region afterward.
The reasons that drive the United States to try to resolve this crisis peacefully are:
-- Its alliance with Israel, which suffers from extortion and military attrition, both of which Hezbollah uses to pressure its citizens. This new and dangerous situation in wars has compelled it to make a decision to definitively end this threat, either peacefully or through war, providing a motive for the United States to resolve this crisis peacefully.
-- Its friendship with a longstanding democratic state in the East, namely Lebanon. Since an "explosion" in Lebanon could lead to outbreaks in many neighboring areas in the region, making it difficult for the United States to restore calm to the region later.
-- Its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security, whether in the Middle East or any other region in the world.
On the other hand, Israel aims, through these negotiations, to restore stability and security in the north by putting an end to this type of emerging threat on its northern borders due to the presence of weapons in the hands of an illegitimate organization located along its northern borders and ready at any moment to provoke it into attrition wars that recur annually or every decade, posing a constant disturbance to its stability.
Therefore, its leaders have agreed to eliminate this threat, whether by peace or war, for decades.
This has prompted the United States to expedite the peaceful resolution of this crisis due to its international responsibility and to protect Lebanon from the woes of military intervention.
On the other hand, Hezbollah, through its negotiating representative, aims to avoid an open confrontation with Israel, whose destructive and deadly measure is witnessed in Gaza.
It also monitors daily indicators of losses it suffers among its ranks and the scale of destruction and displacement from the south, even before the actual battle or war begins.
The daily indicators of losses suffered by Hezbollah in its ranks and the scale of destruction and displacement from the south even before the start of the actual battle or war confirm its intention to avoid an open military confrontation with Israel.
The decision of Hezbollah to attempt to avoid an open military confrontation with Israel is confirmed by the limited military skirmishes it initiated in Lebanon, ostensibly in support of Gaza.
It believes that the reduced level of confrontation it has adopted ensures regional credibility in defending its slogan of "unity of the arenas." On the other hand, it also believes that this does not constitute a sufficient reason for Israel to engage in an open war, which it does not desire.
Despite the magnitude of the losses it has incurred from the south to Beirut, Hezbollah has not escalated in kind, fearing expansion and strengthening the justification for Israel. However, in the science of wars, "it is true that you know how to go to war, but you do not know how to return from it."
Therefore, regardless of the level of confrontation with Israel, it seems determined to definitively end this type of threat, whether peacefully or through war, especially since Hezbollah initiated it, oblivious to its goals.
Despite the high rhetorical "ceiling" of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah in his recent media appearances, it prefers a peaceful solution, regardless of the bad geographical realities, provided it does not expose its combat capabilities, which keeps it away from northern Israel.
This is for two reasons: The first is because the primary goal of his weapons is not to throw Israel "into the sea" but rather to tighten control over the Lebanese state.
The second is to find pretexts to cover this weapon by raising new slogans against Israel and its confrontations in the south.
All of this happens at the expense of a "sick man" named Lebanon, where there is no head of state, no unified legitimate government, and no "functional" parliamentary council in a "crumbling" state.
According to Nidaa Al-Watan, the agreement will unleash Hezbollah with its weapons in the Lebanese interior, continuing to work for an "impossible" project: "governing Lebanon from one component."
Therefore, the negotiations may alleviate setbacks for the "patient," but they will not achieve "healing," which must remain the work of the Lebanese people.