Aoun: Negotiations with Israel to end the war, and we reject humiliating agreements
Amid escalating regional tensions, the Lebanese president, in decisive statements, affirmed that the primary objective of negotiations with Israel is to end the ongoing state of war, emphasizing his unwavering stance against any settlement that compromises national sovereignty. During a meeting with a delegation from the Hasbaya region in southern Lebanon, Aoun explained that he seeks a formula to end the conflict, similar to the historic armistice agreement. He then rhetorically questioned whether that agreement represented a humiliation for Lebanon, answering unequivocally: “I assure you that I will not accept an agreement of humiliation.” In a clear implicit reference to Hezbollah, which has criticized the direct negotiation process and deemed it a “sin,” Aoun asserted that those who dragged the country into this devastating war are the ones committing the true “treason” against the nation and its people.
The roots of the conflict and the 1949 Armistice Agreement
To understand the implications of the current statements, it is essential to revisit the historical context governing Lebanese-Israeli relations. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Lebanon has been involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet it was among the first countries to sign the 1949 Armistice Agreement. This agreement, which Aoun referenced in his remarks, outlined the cessation of hostilities between the two sides and constituted a legal and international framework upon which successive Lebanese governments have relied to affirm their respect for internationally recognized borders. Invoking this agreement in the context of current negotiations with Israel reflects an official desire to return to diplomatic frameworks that guarantee Lebanon's security and stability, steering clear of reckless military adventures that often inflict heavy losses on the country in terms of lives and infrastructure.
The repercussions of negotiations with Israel on the Lebanese domestic scene
These statements are of paramount importance given the sharp political divisions in Lebanon. The decision of war and peace has long been a fundamental point of contention among Lebanese political forces. On one hand, state institutions insist that this decision rests solely with the Lebanese government to ensure national consensus. On the other hand, armed factions, most notably Hezbollah, unilaterally make field decisions that drag the country into open conflict. Aoun responded firmly to his critics, asking: “Those who dragged us into war in Lebanon are now holding us accountable for our decision to go to negotiations, claiming there is no national consensus. My question to them is: When you went to war, did you first secure national consensus?” This stance reinforces the demands of a broad segment of the Lebanese population for the state to extend its full sovereignty over its territory and for weapons to be exclusively held by the Lebanese army.
Regional and international dimensions of the decision for peace and war
On both the regional and international levels, the official Lebanese position calling for an end to the war through diplomacy carries reassuring messages for the international community. Major powers and the United Nations are striving to implement international resolutions, particularly Resolution 1701, to prevent the conflict from escalating into a full-blown regional war that could be devastating. Emphasizing that pursuing peace is not treason, but rather that treason lies in "dragging the country into war to serve foreign interests," represents a clear declaration of rejection of turning Lebanon into an arena for settling regional scores. This approach is supported by Arab and Western countries, which consistently affirm their support for Lebanon in its efforts to assert its sovereignty and recover its economic and political stability.
