Lebanese and Palestinians: Betting on Dialogue

The importance of the plan for governing Palestinian camps in Lebanon lies not only in the administrative or security measures it might propose to regulate relations between the state and the camps, but also in the political and social opportunity it offers to redefine Lebanese-Palestinian relations, shifting them away from conflict, separation and confrontation toward dialogue, closer ties, engagement and the development of shared interests.

The participatory approach, which should underpin this process, is less about gathering opinions, recording positions or broadening attendance at meetings than about embracing a political and social philosophy rooted in creating shared spaces and finding common ground among parties that retain their identities, beliefs, and political and ideological differences, yet can cooperate without requiring one another to relinquish their distinct characteristics or convictions.

The central principle of this approach is to elevate dialogue above immediate political and partisan confrontations by establishing a common foundation grounded in international law, conventions on human rights, children's rights and women's rights, fundamental freedoms, the Lebanese Constitution, applicable laws and relevant international instruments. This foundation would provide a framework for managing differences, defining responsibilities and identifying the best ways to uphold recognized rights and fulfill obligations.

The aim is not to ask Lebanese and Palestinians to share the same political interpretation of history or the same ideological outlook, but to enable them to cooperate on issues that shape their shared lives, drawing on legal and humanitarian principles that transcend party loyalties and factional affiliations. In this sense, the participatory approach is a philosophy aimed at developing the capacity to build consensus, rather than a means of imposing agreement or erasing differences.

Current positions: common ground and differences paving the way for dialogue

The launch of the national plan for governing Palestinian camps on October 30 brought Lebanese-Palestinian relations back to the center of political and media debate. The positions expressed publicly during the first week showed that discussions were not confined to the issue of weapons or the scope of the state's security authority. They also addressed civil and social rights, living conditions in the camps, the responsibilities of Lebanese, Palestinian and international institutions, and the nature of participation in developing solutions.

On the Lebanese side, emphasis was placed on the state's responsibility to extend its authority and enforce the law throughout its territory, as well as on the fact that security arrangements cannot be separated from improving refugees' living and social conditions or addressing the problems that have accumulated in and around the camps. The importance of coordination between official institutions and Palestinian and international bodies was also stressed, along with the need to avoid reducing the plan to security measures divorced from social and humanitarian considerations.

In turn, publicly expressed Palestinian positions have shown a willingness to recognize the responsibilities and sovereignty of the Lebanese state, while stressing that resolving security issues must not serve as a pretext for postponing recognition of civil and human rights, or for disregarding the distinct characteristics of Palestinian society and its right to participate in decisions affecting its life and future. They have also emphasized the need for two-way dialogue and for relations based on a clear definition of rights, duties and responsibilities, rather than on the imposition of unilateral measures.

In media debates and human rights circles, a number of concerns have been raised over the issue of weapons, rights guarantees, Palestinian representation, and the limits of the role of Lebanese and international institutions. Demands have also addressed the rights to work, own property and pass it on through inheritance, as well as social protection. They have further stressed the need to take account of living, health and environmental conditions inside the camps, rather than merely devising regulatory measures with no tangible impact on residents’ lives.

The significance of these positions lies not in their reflecting an already established consensus, but in their highlighting areas of common ground that can be built on, questions that must be asked, and concerns that need to be addressed. It is therefore important to move beyond asking whose position is right and instead consider how to turn common ground into practical rules for cooperation, and how to manage differences without destroying the space that brings the two sides together.

From the Cairo Agreement to the Need for a New Framework

It is impossible to understand the complexity of Lebanese-Palestinian relations without revisiting the 1969 Cairo Agreement, the political, security, Arab and regional circumstances surrounding it, the specific context of the weapons issue, and the arrangements governing the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon. The war in Lebanon, together with the collapse of state institutions and the intertwining of local and regional conflicts that accompanied it, subsequently made this issue part of a broader national crisis.

However, revisiting that period today should not aim to recreate its divisions or turn it into a fresh source of confrontation. Circumstances and points of reference have changed. The task now is to build a relationship governed by state institutions and the law, while safeguarding the human and national rights of Palestinian refugees.

The Lebanese Constitution, the Taif Agreement, the 2017 Unified Lebanese Vision on Palestinian Refugee Affairs, and relevant international instruments provide a basis for examining this relationship. This does not mean placing all these texts on an equal legal footing, but rather recognizing that each has its own status and function, and that serious dialogue requires identifying the appropriate frame of reference for each issue.

This is not a matter of choosing between sovereignty and rights, or of pitting security responsibilities against social and humanitarian demands. The Lebanese state is responsible for safeguarding its sovereignty and enforcing its laws, while Palestinian refugees hold human and civil rights that cannot be reduced to their political or security status. Likewise, the right of return and Palestinian national identity are not incompatible with the need to regulate refugees’ daily lives in Lebanon in accordance with the law.

The issues of weapons and of civil and social rights must therefore be addressed along clearly defined, complementary tracks, without either becoming a precondition used to put the other on hold or a means of exerting pressure on the other side. The aim is to build trust and clarify responsibilities, not to create new sources of conflict.

The participatory approach: a philosophy for building common ground

The six months set aside for consultations are particularly important, as they offer an opportunity to move from a discussion of the plan to a broader dialogue on relations between Lebanese and Palestinian societies. This opportunity should not be limited to gathering comments on a government proposal or recording the reservations of the parties concerned. Instead, it should become an interactive process that helps identify shared interests and build the capacity for cooperation.

Participation is not simply an administrative or technical mechanism for improving decisions, nor is it an invitation to submit predetermined positions to public consultation. It reflects a philosophy based on acknowledging differences and seeking a broader set of shared reference points that everyone can draw on, regardless of their party affiliations or political and ideological beliefs.

This means that dialogue should not seek to persuade Lebanese people to abandon their national concerns, or ask Palestinians to relinquish their identity and rights. Rather, it should determine how to protect those rights and allocate responsibilities through a shared legal framework. Each side can retain its beliefs and positions while cooperating with the other on matters relating to daily life, work, education, health, rights, freedoms, security and stability.

Drawing on international law, conventions on human rights, children’s rights and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, as well as the Lebanese Constitution, laws in force and relevant United Nations resolutions, can shift the debate away from partisan confrontation and towards finding ways to better uphold rights and fulfill obligations. These frameworks do not erase political differences, but they establish rules to prevent those differences from leading to violations of the rights of individuals and groups.

However, it is important to distinguish between the various legal frameworks, their nature and the extent to which they are binding, as well as the international declarations and principles that provide a basis for dialogue. The aim is not to give all texts equal legal standing, but to use each reference within its proper scope, relying on the law where it provides the applicable framework and on humanitarian principles where the protection of dignity and freedoms is at stake.

Understood in this way, the participatory approach involves more than just institutions and leaders. Relations between the two peoples are shaped not only by governments, parties and factions, but also by local communities, municipalities, trade unions, universities, cultural and human rights organizations, women’s and youth associations, and individuals who live with the consequences of policies and decisions every day.

These actors’ contribution goes beyond offering feedback. It includes developing a shared understanding of the problems, proposing practical solutions and building trust that official decisions alone cannot ensure.

The next six months: from dialogue on the plan to dialogue on the future

The stakeholders in this process are not limited to the Lebanese state and Palestinian representative bodies. They also include the State of Palestine, the United Nations and the European Union, as well as international institutions, civil society organizations and the local communities concerned.

Each of these actors has its own role and responsibilities. The challenge, however, is to bring their different contributions together within a clear framework that respects Lebanon’s sovereignty, Palestinian rights and international obligations, without reducing the two societies to mere recipients of decisions made far removed from them.

It is essential that these six months become a period of serious dialogue, rather than simply a procedural window consumed by meetings and disputes. This calls for measured public positions, avoiding the rekindling of partisan and ideological divisions whenever a contentious issue arises, and making room for discussion aimed at finding common ground and possible consensus.

Participation must also be part of an ongoing process, and Lebanese and Palestinian societies must have the opportunity to join discussions on the issues raised, rather than merely hear the decisions made by their leaders.

The aim is to create spaces for dialogue between the camps and the surrounding Lebanese communities, as well as between institutions and civil society organizations, and to address questions of coexistence as a shared responsibility, while respecting each side’s distinct legal and political status.

The question that should guide this phase is not how to prevail in our disagreements or prove our partisan positions right, but how to better uphold the laws, constitutions, rights and freedoms that serve as our common points of reference.

How can respect for the law become a safeguard for Lebanese and Palestinians alike? How can we move from demands, advocacy and mutual opposition toward partnership, responsibility and cooperation?

From conflict to consensus

Moving toward consensus does not mean eliminating disagreements or sidestepping difficult questions. Nor does it mean that Lebanese-Palestinian relations must be free of differences. Vibrant societies do not necessarily share the same outlooks and interests, but they can develop rules for managing their differences and preventing them from turning into lasting conflicts that stifle any possibility of cooperation.

The future of relations between the two peoples should not remain captive to the Cairo Agreement, the consequences of the war in Lebanon or the divisions that marked earlier periods.

Likewise, the launch of the governance plan should not become yet another occasion to revive tensions between sovereignty and rights, between the state and the camps, or between Palestinian national identity and belonging to Lebanon.

The aim is to build a shared space that preserves differences without allowing them to undermine opportunities for interaction, and that places the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms above shifting partisan and ideological positions.

A space where Lebanese people can defend their state's sovereignty and Palestinians can remain committed to their rights and national identity, while both sides can work together toward a more stable, dignified and just life.

The next six months are not simply a period for finalizing a government plan, but an opportunity to test the ability of Lebanese and Palestinian societies to build a new relationship grounded in serious dialogue, legal and humanitarian principles, and the development of shared interests.

The point is not for either side to abandon its convictions in order to cooperate with the other, but for both to develop the ability to cooperate despite their differences.

This is where the true value of the participatory approach lies: moving from conflict, separation and confrontation toward dialogue and closer ties; shifting from entrenched positions that hinder communication to finding common ground that makes consensus possible; and replacing the management of crises inherited from the past with the building of a shared future that safeguards everyone's rights, dignity and sovereignty.