Articles

As Israeli forces continue their intermittent targeted raids in southern Lebanon and systematically dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure in the region, the sixth round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, which concluded Wednesday in Rome under U.S. auspices, appears to have officially and concretely launched the long and perilous process of the IDF's gradual withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Following two days of meetings on Tuesday, July 14, and Wednesday, July 15, in the Italian capital, both authorized American and Lebanese sources described the outcome of this sixth round of Lebanese-Israeli talks as "fruitful" and "positive." The U.S. Embassy in Beirut indicated that concrete measures had been agreed upon for the establishment of the first two pilot zones, which should allow the Lebanese army to deploy in sectors to be vacated by the Israelis. The precise technical details will be finalized in the coming days, the U.S. Embassy noted, adding that this will enable a move toward broader discussions leading to the implementation of "all aspects" of the framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel "with the aim of reaching a comprehensive agreement" between the two countries. This positive assessment of the Rome talks was shared by a Lebanese source as well as by a senior Israeli official, quoted by Maariv, who stated Wednesday that Lebanon and Israel had reached "an agreement regarding the first two pilot zones in southern Lebanon." The official further noted that both countries regard "the disarmament of Hezbollah as a fundamental objective" of the ongoing process defined by the framework agreement. Trump renews pressure over Sharaa Regarding the fate of Hezbollah, President Donald Trump renewed his pressure on Wednesday over the role that Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa could play in dismantling the Hezbollah militia. "President Sharaa would like to step in and deal with Hezbollah, and I'm thinking of giving him the green light," the White House chief declared, elaborating that the Syrian leader would be "more precise than the Israelis in his approach to dealing with Hezbollah." "He will do it differently, without destroying buildings," he added. This proposal, already put forward by President Trump on several occasions in recent days but rejected by the Lebanese, will likely be raised during the visit President Joseph Aoun will make to Washington on July 21, where he will be received at the White House. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will also undoubtedly discuss it during his planned visit to Washington at the start of next week. Sleiman Frangieh and Mahmoud Komati sanctioned by Iraq Also worth noting, in the chapter on curbing the militia activities of the pro-Iranian party, the Iraqi government has added Lebanese Hezbollah to its banking sanctions list in an evident bid to cut off the pro-Iranian party's funding sources. At the same time, Iraqi authorities also imposed banking sanctions on Marada leader, former minister and MP Sleiman Frangieh, and on the Deputy President of Hezbollah's Political Council, Mahmoud Komati—both of whom had already been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. These sanctions come in the wake of meetings held a few days ago in Washington between Iraq's new Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi and President Trump. Al-Zaidi framed those talks as centered on a "strategic partnership" with the United States. President Trump set the tone for that partnership by indicating that American companies would handle the extraction of Iraqi oil. "The Iraqis," the president stated, "no longer want to deal with anyone else — they want to deal with the United States, and that is actually one of the reasons I was convinced he (al-Zaidi) would make an excellent Prime Minister." U.S. strikes on IRGC positions On the Iranian front, the U.S. military continued its attacks on Wednesday morning and throughout the day and evening, targeting missile and drone launch sites, as well as radar systems and military infrastructure belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in southern Iran, along the coastline facing the Strait of Hormuz. The island of Hengam, also in southern Iran, was likewise struck in the American attacks. President Trump noted in this regard that "next week could be the worst Iran has ever experienced"… It is worth noting in this context that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), under the U.S. Department of the Treasury, has imposed sanctions on seven individuals and entities accused of involvement in an international network participating in the IRGC's arms procurement efforts.

Juvenis ad majora natus "Born for greatness." This is the motto of Saint Stanislaus, noted prophetically in the margin of Elias Boutros Howayek's booklet at the end of his theological studies. He was 27 years old at the time and had been in Rome since 1866, sent by Patriarch Boulos Massaad to complete his theological studies, which he had begun at the Ghazir Seminary in 1859, and to prepare for the priesthood. Marked by his keen intelligence and his meticulous adherence to the rules, this man destined for greatness would become no less than the 72nd representative of a long line of holy Maronite patriarchs, of whom he is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding figures. His greatest achievement was his battle for the birth of Greater Lebanon (1920). He owes his beatification today to a miracle attributed to his intercession: the healing of a Druze Lebanese army officer, Nayef Abou Assi, a family man who had been disabled due to a spinal condition (bilateral spondylolysis). One morning in April 2005, the man woke up free of all his symptoms. He attributed this miracle to a man dressed in white, holding a staff, whom he saw in a dream and who appeared to him announcing his recovery. Born in 1843 in Helta (Batroun), a tiny village in an obscure corner of the Ottoman Empire, Elias Howayek was indeed the man of Providence who would go on to champion, before Georges Clemenceau and then before the League of Nations, the idea of creating a Greater Lebanon — two months after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919), which placed part of the Middle East under French mandate. It has become fashionable these days to criticize the defender of the Lebanese state for his choice — which was not his alone — in favor of a pluralistic Lebanon, at the risk of seeing Christians become a numerical minority. And yet behind this decision — to say the least — lies a rare degree of political, economic, and ecclesiological foresight. First, Greater Lebanon shielded Lebanese Christians from dhimmitude; furthermore, by incorporating Beirut, Tripoli, the Bekaa Valley, and Jabal Amel into the "Lebanese mountain" core of the Mutasarrifate, it restored the country's "breadbasket" and protected it from a famine similar to that of 1915. It also secured rich water resources for the country, and crowned it with one of the most beautiful coastlines in the Mediterranean, along with a uniquely strategic promontory. But if geographic Lebanon was a true gem, its human and spiritual calling was no less precious: in the mind of its champion, it was meant to serve as a setting for coexistence, bringing together "the wolf and the lamb" (Isaiah) — a messianic biblical ideal that Lebanon would strive to embody, and of which John Paul II would say it is "a model of freedom and pluralism for the East and the West" — a model that continues to inspire Lebanon to rise above itself, despite all the historical failings the country has faced. An exemplary and formative journey Before being unanimously elected on January 27, 1898, to the weighty office of Patriarch of the Maronites — a role he carried out with equal integrity and competence until his death in 1931 — the man had followed, again providentially, a thorough and formative path. The eldest of eight children and the son of a priest who himself became a priest (he was 7 years old when his father was ordained) and later a bishop, Elias Howayek became the personal secretary and trusted confidant of Patriarch Boulos Massaad, who entrusted him with several delicate missions to the Sublime Porte, the Holy See, and the French capital. He then served as patriarchal vicar for 17 years, mastering the subtle inner workings of the patriarchal curia, before being elected. His bearing was such that when he defended himself before the Sultan in the midst of the World War against accusations of 'treason' over his ties with France, no interpreter was needed — such complete sincerity was written across his face. Sent to Rome in 1897 by Leo XIII to head the Maronite College, Patriarch Howayek gave up that role two years later upon the death of Patriarch Massaad. Upon his return to Lebanon, he went directly to the patriarchal seat of Bkerké, where a synod was in session. He was elected unanimously on the very day after his arrival. Explanations A little over five years after the proclamation of the State of Greater Lebanon on September 1, 1920, at the Residence des Pins, the Patriarch had the opportunity to elaborate on his political position. The government of Aristide Briand had appointed, on December 23, 1925, the diplomat Henry de Jouvenel as High Commissioner. Upon his arrival in Lebanon, he set about actively reassuring the various components of Lebanese society and gathering their views. In the same spirit, he launched the drafting of a Constitution for the nascent state, which was adopted on May 23, 1926. Thus, in response to the sixth question of a fundamental questionnaire addressed to the Maronite Patriarchate — 'Should parliamentary representation be confessional or not, and why?' — Patriarch Elias Howayek and the Maronite bishops set out, on January 8, 1926, the reasons for their position in the following terms: "The country is made up of diverse religious communities. They differ not only in their beliefs, but also in their traditions, customs, social mores, and approach to social issues. Consequently, election on a confessional basis allows these communities to be represented in the assembly in a defined proportion. There they learn to know one another and to reach agreement, each accepting to give ground through mutual concession. This dynamic will gradually lead to an osmosis and a unification of political life. Conversely, abolishing the political system based on communal distribution at this point in time would upset the balance, favor one community at the expense of another, and breed rivalry and resentment. For this reason, we believe that representation must remain based on confessional affiliation" (Archives of Patriarch Elias Howayek, Document A 46, File 45)." "What strikes the reader in this masterful exposition, which combines conciseness with depth," comments Professor Georges Hobeika, Vicar General of the Maronite Lebanese Order (OLM) and Rector Emeritus of the Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, "is that Patriarch Howayek approaches diversity, pluralism, and divergence within human societies as a natural given. He sees nothing abnormal in the heterogeneity of traditions, customs, social mores, and views shaped by religious beliefs. He respects the right to difference and holds it firmly as a sacred, non-negotiable right. Anything less would have been surprising."

The war in Ukraine continues to be at the center of a wide-ranging debate, fueled in part by near-daily bombardments targeting key nerve centers on both sides, and more specifically the Russian and Ukrainian capitals. To better understand the various dimensions of this long-standing conflict, it is necessary to revisit the background and origins of what led to this (fratricidal?) war — examining the motivations and aspirations of the various parties involved, including the West (the United States and Europe, extended to all NATO member states with the exception of Turkey) — and also to recall the early stages of the Russian offensive and the failed attempts to achieve peace, or at least negotiations, bearing in mind that responsibility in this context is shared by many. Jean-Patrick Dayras, Rear Admiral (ret.) In a series of five articles, our contributor Jean-Patrick Dayras, a rear admiral in the French Navy, presents his vision and analysis of the issue. To fully grasp the ins and outs of the various aspects of the war in Ukraine, some fundamental questions should be raised from the outset. What do Russia and Ukraine represent for the West? What might be the concrete consequences of a clear-cut victory by either of the two protagonists? And by extension, what would the implications be for the West and the Middle East? Before addressing these different angles, an overview of the background and origins of this conflict is undoubtedly an essential starting point. The trigger for the conflict was, to a certain extent, the Maidan movement, which was driven by Ukrainian youth. They perceived former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign the association agreement with the European Union in November 2013 as a betrayal of the direction they had hoped their country would take. The main motivations of this younger generation at the time were: the aspiration for a higher standard of living; the building of a rule-of-law state; the fight against corruption; freedom of movement and the ability to travel, study, and work more easily in Europe; and the affirmation of cultural and political identity. Part of the younger generation, particularly in western and central Ukraine, felt culturally closer to Europe than to Russia — unlike the eastern regions. The country was therefore far from sociologically homogeneous. In this context, Maidan was a broadly popular movement. The United States supported the Ukrainian opposition, both politically and by funding, over the course of many years, programs backing civil society, independent media, and democratic institutions. In the background, there were clear geopolitical interests. Following Georgia and the Baltic independence movements, Russia had clearly signaled its leitmotif: "no further." Did the CIA — always highly active and frequently involved — support or provoke Maidan? It is possible, though not certain. The United States' track record since 1970 suggests it was not uninvolved. Russia portrays Maidan as a CIA-backed coup. That is not proof in itself. But it is possible — even reasonable — to think so. European and American political leaders expressed their support for the protesters and for closer ties with Europe. Moreover, Ukrainian media, social networks, universities, student associations, and civil society organizations — some of which received funding from Western sources or international foundations — played a significant role in this regard. Russia, for its part, was expanding its influence on economic, media, and political fronts in order to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Economic Union. Out of the frying pan and into the fire After Maidan, relations between the two countries were radically transformed. The Yanukovych government fell in February 2014. A referendum was held in Crimea in March 2014, following which, given the outcome, Russia annexed the peninsula. This annexation has been condemned as illegal by a large number of UN member states, who deliberately overlook the history of Crimea's attachment to Ukraine. In the spring of 2014, pro-Russian separatists — backed by Russia with financial support, weapons, and advisers — seized control of cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the Donbass. Ukraine launched an operation to retake the occupied territories. The war on Ukrainian soil had begun. Initially, it was a civil war! The Minsk Agreements (I and II) The Minsk I agreement (aimed at halting the war in the Donbass) was signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the OSCE, and the separatists. However, the ceasefire was quickly violated and fighting resumed. The Minsk II agreement was signed on February 12, 2015, by Petro Poroshenko, Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and François Hollande. It provided for military and political measures, but their implementation was the subject of deep disagreements. Low-intensity fighting continued between 2015 and 2022. The Minsk process officially remained the diplomatic basis for negotiations, but it was never fully implemented. Regarding this agreement, Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande subsequently made public statements — ones that did little credit to either of them. In the wake of Maidan, Ukraine signed an association agreement with the European Union. It undertook reforms in the areas of justice, policing, and anti-corruption, with results widely considered mixed. It gradually deepened its cooperation with NATO without becoming a member. The first point, and especially the last, are fundamental and cannot be overlooked when examining the responsibilities of the various parties in this tragic conflict — one involving two countries that share deep historical ties with each other and with Europe, and which therefore cannot be viewed in the same light as other conflicts between rival nations with long-standing grievances. The invasion and the Western response On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, with the stated aim of ensuring Russian security and protecting Russian-speaking populations in the eastern regions. This act of aggression is contrary to international law, all the more so given that Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Yet in invoking this argument, the United States and European countries failed to acknowledge their own wrongdoing — as reflected in their various behaviors and numerous harmful actions, particularly regarding the legitimacy of the change of power in 2014. This question remains the subject of intense political and historical debate. The failure to acknowledge this wrongdoing amounts to a form of responsibility, if not outright culpability. Everything appears to have been premeditated and deliberate. Even today, this goes unmentioned by those who advocate for the eradication of Russia — and the word is not too strong — while speaking out about it in the West today is enough to invite accusations of being pro-Russian. Is this really how Western values are meant to be championed? Is this how enlightened peoples are supposed to be guided toward understanding world affairs — particularly European ones — and what is truly at stake? Without delay, and under the influence of official "Services" and lobby groups opposed to Russia — particularly those within the European Union — Western populations rallied behind Ukraine. It is worth recalling that before 2022, various media outlets and news websites had conducted street interviews revealing that many people struggled to locate Ukraine on a map. Older surveys on geographical literacy had similarly shown that in several Western countries, a significant portion of the population had difficulty placing certain Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, on a map. Following the Russian invasion, scientific polls focused on support for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, arms deliveries, the reception of refugees, and fears related to the conflict. However, these polls did not address geography, nor the underlying causes of the invasion. This is yet another reason to question whether Western political leaders were genuinely trying to "bring down" Russia while concealing their true original intentions — namely, to tie Ukraine to Europe, and above all to NATO, at any cost. The United States knew, or should have known, that this would constitute a casus belli for Russia. Following the independence of the Baltic states (1989–1991), and later in the wake of events in Georgia that led Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states in 2008, Russia had made clear its desire to maintain buffer states shielding it from the West. Are the Western values so frequently invoked — yet never clearly defined — rooted in nothing more than a desire for revenge? A desire to punish Russia, the former USSR? That is hardly a vision for the future. Many European countries have gone to war, fought one another, and mourned countless deaths across numerous battlefields. How did they nonetheless manage to make peace? Was Boris Johnson's credo that "the Russians must be eradicated"? It would appear so. On this occasion, Johnson displayed a hatred directed not just at Putin, but at Russians as a whole. Yet a rapprochement between Russia and Europe had been considered during two distinct periods: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Yeltsin had sought to develop close ties with Western countries, and some European and Russian leaders had raised the possibility of deeper integration over the very long term; then in the early 2000s, under Vladimir Putin, relations with the EU were relatively constructive and grounded in a spirit of cooperation. During this second period, discussions centered on a strategic partnership — not EU membership. From 1996 to 2022, Russia was a member of the Council of Europe, an organization distinct from the European Union, before being expelled following the invasion of Ukraine. Why, between 1996 and 2020, was no attempt made to grant Russia associated state status, as could similarly have been done with Turkey or Morocco? Where would we stand today — particularly given the rivalry between China and the West, which is already very much a reality?

This Tuesday marks the sixth round of direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli delegations, held this time in a European capital — Rome — rather than Washington. From the very first day, an initial breakthrough: Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced from Jerusalem that Israel is ready to "move forward" with the implementation of two "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon, according to AFP. However, under the terms of the June 26 framework agreement, implementation of the zones must begin with an Israeli withdrawal. He described the process, led under US auspices, as the "only way forward." Also according to AFP, the Lebanese delegation "was instructed to demand the immediate start of the withdrawal of Israeli forces from two pilot zones before any further discussion," the Lebanese presidency had indicated on Monday evening. According to a Lebanese diplomatic source familiar with the substance of the negotiations, "the Lebanese army is ready to gradually take control of the localities from which the Israeli army withdraws." The July 14 meeting ended around 6 p.m. and was described as "positive" by LBC sources. This first confirmation of a result is significant for the Lebanese, even though many more details remain to be discussed and obstacles are plentiful. These negotiations will be a test on multiple fronts for the Lebanese side, which is under pressure to deliver results during this round, given the progress made in the previous one in June that led to a framework agreement. The main focus of these talks, therefore, is the establishment of "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon from which the Israeli army must withdraw so that the Lebanese army can deploy, with no Hezbollah presence whatsoever. However, this process still faces significant opposition on the Lebanese political scene. Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan stated on Monday that "this framework agreement is tripartite in appearance only, when in reality it is unilateral — meaning Israeli." Opposition to the framework agreement also comes from his ally, Amal movement leader and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who made a notable statement on Tuesday. While apparently hostile to the continuation of direct negotiations, he nonetheless leaves the door open to a degree of flexibility. "The pilot zones are rejected," Berry said in an interview with the newspaper al-Joumhouria , arguing that these zones should have been far larger, "otherwise the withdrawal will take two years." He did, however, add this enigmatic remark: "If I notice the slightest sign of success, I am prepared to stay silent — but I see none." Although Israel claims to be willing to withdraw from buffer zones, it continues on the ground to carry out demolitions in southern villages. On Tuesday, it was noted that the Israeli army particularly targeted the area expected to become one of the pilot zones — the two villages known as Zawtar (east and west). Regardless, the Lebanese authorities are showing consistency in pressing ahead with these negotiations, despite all the challenges. From the Baabda Palace, developments are being closely monitored, with results not expected to be known until tomorrow in principle. President Joseph Aoun, who was in Qatar along with his wife to offer condolences for the death of the country's former emir, Sheikh Hamad Al Thani, closely followed the Rome talks. He is also preparing for his visit to Washington on July 21. The Iranian front still ablaze In southern Lebanon, on the ground, the semblance of a truce — at least on Hezbollah's side, which appears to need it to regroup — persists despite the deteriorating situation on the Iranian front. American strikes on Iran continued throughout the night from Monday into Tuesday and throughout the day on Tuesday, and the blockade promised by US President Donald Trump takes effect at 8 p.m. (Levant time). Iranians have condemned new strikes on the city of Bushehr, where the nuclear power plant is located. The turmoil around the Strait of Hormuz and the resumption of hostilities have triggered a fresh surge in oil prices, with the barrel once again crossing the $80 mark. Negotiations appear to be at an impasse for the time being, with the exception of a statement by President Trump on Tuesday in which he suggested that a deal is still "possible". In a television interview, however, he stressed that the memorandum of understanding was a "test" for the Iranians, and that they had shown they were unable to abide by it. He assured that victory will be American, whether through negotiations or war. Meanwhile, according to Arab media outlets, the U.S. military is currently deploying more than 50,000 troops in the region. The Iranians, for their part, are attempting to respond — still through increased strikes on countries in the region, while sparing Israel for the time being. Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have all had to intercept Iranian missiles. These attacks were directly claimed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as were the ongoing strikes targeting oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Another direct offensive move from Iran came in the form of a bill passed by the Iranian Parliament imposing a toll on vessels transiting the Strait — a response to President Trump's statement the day before, in which he said he wanted countries to pay for the protection of their ships passing through. It should be noted that natural straits are, by international law, free passages for all vessels, and only services provided by neighboring countries can be charged for. Meanwhile, Monday evening's ballistic missile attack on a Saudi airport — launched from Houthi rebel-controlled territory in Yemen, with the Houthis being Iranian allies — continues to draw statements of support for the kingdom. Most notable among these are those coming from Lebanon, particularly from President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, which serve as clear signals of solidarity with Saudi Arabia against the Iranian axis.

In the second chapter of this series of texts on the grand sweep of History and the story of my son, Raphael, The Time of Repetition, the Time of Acceleration , I explored the return of the discourse of civilizational supremacy inherited from the sixteenth century, and its embrace by the advocates of a new civilization in which technologies such as artificial intelligence are destined to matter more than human beings. Yet in its cautiously optimistic conclusion, the text returned to Lav Diaz’s film Magellan and to the director’s decision to portray the figure of the Filipinos’ victorious resistance against the conquistadors, Lapu-Lapu, as though he were a specter rather than a historical figure who had truly existed. The power of such specters in the face of domination inevitably brings to mind Jacques Derrida’s celebrated Specters of Marx , published after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the Soviet bloc. Far from defending communist regimes, Derrida argued that, despite defeat, the demand for justice carried by the spirit of Marx would continue to haunt us. If Derrida’s text returns to me today, it is also because, as Lebanese, we are living through a moment in which we must confront two potential defeats and discover how to resist them. The first concerns the highly probable advent of a civilization in which human beings are progressively erased in favor of machines. The second is more local: our own defeat in the face of yet another Israeli invasion of our territory. I realize that speaking of “defeat” may seem counterintuitive at a time when the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel is being presented by some as the path to peace and prosperity. Personally, however, as Israel continues to bomb southern Lebanon, I find it difficult to share such optimism, particularly when the outlines of a future conflict among us, the Lebanese themselves, are already beginning to emerge. How can we resist these two defeats, both born of the same movement of erasure: the erasure of humanity on a global scale, and the erasure of part of Lebanon on a local one? Being neither a Redshirt, nor a Brownshirt, and certainly not a Yellowshirt, the color associated with Hezbollah, I feel orphaned, without narratives or specters to help me resist these twin threats of erasure. It is precisely to feel a little less orphaned that, in the pages that follow, I would like to evoke six specters that serve as my manuals of resistance against the risk of erasure. 1. The Specter of Walter Benjamin: The Angel of History If Walter Benjamin’s specter is the first to come to mind, it is because, in a sense, it was he who gave me the confidence to undertake the writing of this series of texts. It was an attempt to return to History, something that did not seem obvious to me at a time when, beneath the bombs, denouncing the horrors of the present appeared far more urgent. Yet amid my doubts, Benjamin’s final essay, On the Concept of History , came back to mind. Written in 1940, at the very heart of the turmoil of the Second World War, it was composed shortly before Benjamin himself became one of its victims because of his Jewish identity. Personally, I cannot help seeing a profound significance in the fact that his final act of resistance against Nazi barbarism was to turn his attention to the very notion of History. Without entering into a detailed reading of the essay, I will simply mention his famous interpretation of Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus , through which Benjamin projects his own vision of History. It is a vision that stands in stark contrast to the optimistic belief in History as a continuous march toward progress. In Klee’s painting, Benjamin sees an angel facing the past while being relentlessly driven toward the future by the storm of progress, longing to remain where he is, longing to linger over the catastrophe before him and repair what has been shattered. Even if this is Benjamin’s own interpretation of the painting, he projects onto it his understanding of the resistant historian’s task: to rescue from oblivion the unfinished struggle of the defeated, whose significance is so often erased by official History, the History written by the victors and by the worshippers of progress. Needless to say, such attentiveness to the meaning of the defeated’s struggle resonates with particular force at a time when our collective History is increasingly filtered through algorithms and when, in Lebanon, we are already witnessing attempts by our occupiers to rewrite it. I am thinking, among other things, of Netanyahu’s recent claim that Christian Lebanese villages wished to be annexed to Israel. Yet such attentiveness to the memory of the defeated is only possible if one has first refused to remain indifferent. 2. The Specter of Antonio Gramsci: Indifference I know it has become something of a commonplace to say so, but the question of indifference strikes me as essential because, in an age like ours, dominated by the endless proliferation of images, no one is immune to becoming indifferent. I am referring, of course, to the new form of behavioral standardization embodied by compulsive scrolling, where every image is flattened into equivalence. Within a fraction of a second, we move from images of destruction in southern Lebanon to photographs of a friend’s vacation, or to AI-generated fabrications. If the second specter I summon is Antonio Gramsci, whose life oscillated between defeat and resistance, with much of his work written in prison, it is precisely because of his reflections on the idea of indifference . A reflection developed in the short essay I Hate the Indifferent , published in 1917, shortly before Gramsci founded the Italian Communist Party. Here again, rather than offering a detailed commentary on the text, I will simply highlight one of its central ideas: for Gramsci, indifference is not a passive attitude but a silent form of complicity in the tragedies that have unfolded throughout History, such as the rise of fascism in his own time. It is this conviction that leads him to write, at the very beginning of the essay: “Indifference is parasitism, cowardice; it is not life.” He concludes by affirming that, if he is truly alive , it is because he takes sides. Although I would not go so far as to say that I “hate” the indifferent, since I distrust definitive judgments about people, Gramsci’s reflection speaks to me because it makes me understand that, in my stubborn refusal to remain indifferent to the follies of Netanyahu and the gurus of Big Tech, there lies a determination to remain alive. A determination not to allow my mind to be colonized by this standardization that seeks to place every image on the same plane. 3. The Specter of Pasolini: The Fireflies If the third specter that haunts me is Pier Paolo Pasolini, it is not only because he paid tribute to Gramsci in his collection The Ashes of Gramsci , but above all because he devoted a large part of his work to denouncing the colonization of the human mind by the standardization imposed by the emerging consumer society of his time. It is a denunciation that runs throughout his work, culminating in his famous Article of the Fireflies , published in 1975, shortly before his assassination. In that essay, Pasolini observes the gradual disappearance of fireflies from the Italian countryside, decimated by industrial pollution, before turning them into a metaphor for an authentic humanity that is slowly fading away, replaced by the artificial lights of television, consumerism, and spectacle, those very same artificial lights that, in another guise, now shine through the screens of our smartphones. If Pasolini showed such deep affection for society’s outcasts and losers, it was precisely because he saw them illuminated by that same fragile light, the light of the fireflies that Dante places in the depths of darkness, in contrast to the great radiance of Paradise. The way he poeticized the defeated, transforming them into figures of resistance, resonates deeply with me because, with the repeated ordeals we have endured as Lebanese, I cannot help seeing us as fireflies wandering through the darkness. Yet in his essay, Pasolini announced, in a tone of resignation, the likely disappearance of those fireflies. And so I cannot help asking myself how we, who resemble them so closely, can still find the strength to survive under the threat of erasure posed both by the Israeli invasion and by this new phase of the society of the spectacle, which playfully invites us to embrace a world where weapons will soon be controlled by artificial intelligence. 4. The Specter of Nietzsche: The Convalescent Without denying that Nietzsche’s thought can, with some justification, be appropriated by the far right, I invoke his specter because the central question running through his work could, in the language of this essay, be formulated as follows: How can one continue to affirm life when everything seems to lead toward defeat? If this question occupies such a central place in his philosophy, it is first for a biographical reason. Nietzsche was a man of frail health, frequently crippled by debilitating migraines and severe visual disorders that at times left him nearly blind. Yet his illness became far more than a biographical detail. It shaped both the form of his work, whose aphoristic style was largely dictated by his physical condition, and its substance. One need only consider the many references to illness in works such as Human, All Too Human or Ecce Homo , where he writes: “It was illness that brought me back to reason.” This idea of illness as the starting point for self-transformation also appears in Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in the celebrated chapter entitled The Convalescent . There, Zarathustra, overwhelmed by the thought of the eternal recurrence and by the idea that everything that has been will return again, collapses into illness for seven days. Yet he eventually rises transformed, capable of saying yes to existence. If this figure of the convalescent speaks to me so powerfully, it is because, alongside the image of the fireflies, I have always perceived Lebanon as a country of the living dead. Or, more precisely, as a country where one passes from life to death, and from death back to life, in the space of a heartbeat. Hence the image that clings to us: a country where celebration can resume almost immediately after a period of devastation. Some call this Lebanese resilience. For my part, whenever I emerge from the darkness of our great History into the semblance of an ordinary life, it is less resilience than convalescence in which I recognize myself. This is undoubtedly why I have always felt a special affection for Nietzsche’s famous words, “Without music, life would be a mistake,” because more than once, and this is true for my generation as well, music has enabled me to transform anger into an affirmation of life. 5. The Specter of Kurt Cobain: The Music of Anger Although Kurt Cobain’s life might seem to contradict Nietzsche’s figure of the convalescent, since he took his own life in 1994, I invoke his specter first because his farewell letter can, paradoxically, be read as a manifesto against erasure. In it, he quotes the famous line from Neil Young’s song: “It’s better to burn out than to fade away.” Yet I also invoke him, and above all, because in the aftermath of the Lebanese Civil War, officially brought to an end in 1990, the anger expressed in his music became the anthem of my own anger, as well as that of an entire generation of young Lebanese. Of course, Kurt Cobain’s anger was not born from the end of a war. It sprang instead from what, borrowing one of Nietzsche’s recurring themes, could be described as the latest form of nihilism, one born out of the American victory over the Soviet bloc. A victory that seemed to seal the end of every form of utopia and impose a single value upon the world, one perfectly embodied by the iconic cover of Nevermind : the relentless pursuit of the dollar. Yet despite these different historical circumstances, songs such as Smells Like Teen Spirit were embraced by my generation because they functioned as a form of catharsis, transforming our childhood spent beneath the bombs into an energy capable of setting us back in motion. It is an energy we need once again today. It was this same energy that led me, along with several young Beirutis, to form bands inspired by Nirvana. And, curious as it may seem, our concerts, organized by a collective called Generation X , took place in the basement of a church in downtown Beirut that still bore the scars of the war that had only recently ended. How did the rock musicians of that collective persuade the church’s priest to lend them the basement, so that a generation of young people could gather there and give voice to its anger? One day, I would like to devote a project to that period, both to uncover the answer and to reconnect with that territory called time. Because yes, time itself can be a territory. 6. The Specter of Frederick II Hohenstaufen: The Court of Palermo More than the notions of defeat or resistance, it is a utopia that I wish to evoke through this final specter. A utopia for Lebanon embodied in a place: the Court of Palermo in the thirteenth century, during the reign of Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen . Known as Stupor Mundi (“Wonder of the World”), he was also branded the Antichrist after being excommunicated twice by the pope of his time. Within the context of this essay, I cannot help seeing a certain irony in the fact that a sovereign so passionately devoted to knowledge and to the encounter of cultures should have been given such a name, while Peter Thiel, one of the foremost advocates of a technological future, now labels as “Antichrists” all those individuals and institutions that slow the advent of such a civilization. As for the Court of Palermo, I see it as a utopia worth pursuing for Lebanon because, reflecting Frederick II’s own intellectual curiosity, it embodied a civilization of exchange rather than erasure, where Western thought, Arab philosophy, and Greek culture flourished side by side. If Lebanon is to emerge from the ordeal we are living through, I can only hope that, in the future, its many communities will be able to engage in harmonious exchange, just as they once did at the Court of Palermo. Meanwhile, there are other territories that continue to haunt me. More personal territories. But they will be the subject of the next chapter.

On Monday, July 13, Yemen is dominating the regional news agenda as the fragile truce reached in April 2022 is coming under intense strain following an Iranian power play that has reignited the Yemeni front. This military gambit is attribuable to the continuing escalation in the conflict between Tehran and Washington, after the United States decided to reinstate the blockade it had previously imposed on Iranian ports. Specifically, the Yemeni government carried out strikes on the runways of Sanaa International Airport, which is under Houthi control, in an attempt to prevent an Iranian aircraft carrying a delegation from the Iran-backed Shiite group from landing. The delegation was returning from Tehran, where it had attended the funeral of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Despite repeated warnings from Yemeni authorities, who had instructed the group to return aboard a flight operated by Yemenia, the country’s national carrier, the delegation insisted on flying back on the Iranian aircraft, even though Yemeni airspace is closed to Iranian aviation. The aircraft nonetheless continued its flight despite the government’s objections, but reportedly landed in Hodeidah, the Houthi-controlled Red Sea port city in western Yemen. The tone quickly hardened. Yemen’s Ministry of Defense said the strikes were prompted by the Houthis’ insistence on returning aboard an Iranian aircraft. According to the government, the flight not only violated Yemeni airspace but also represented “a new act of interference by the Islamic Republic.” The Houthis immediately threatened retaliation after explicitly accusing Saudi Arabia of carrying out the strikes, raising the prospect of renewed hostilities with Riyadh for the first time since the U.N. brokered truce reached in 2022. The Straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb Amid steadily rising regional tensions, the Sanaa incident can only be seen as another chapter in the standoff between Tehran and Washington, largely centered on the Strait of Hormuz. The incident followed another night of intense U.S. strikes against Iranian military and logistical targets, and Iranian retaliatory attacks against American positions in Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and even Oman – a country that had until then been spared by Tehran, which had sought to reach a cooperation agreement with the sultanate for the management of Hormuz. The architect of a network of allied groups, each more nefarious than the last, Tehran appears to have chosen the Houthis this time to take center stage. By doing so, it is giving its main regional ally, Hezbollah, room to breathe after being decapitated and weakened by Israel during the two disastrous wars referred to as wars of support for Hamas and then for the mullahs’ regime. At the same time, it is avoiding the involvement of another regional actor, Israel, whose territory has been spared Iranian strikes despite hosting U.S. bases. Activating the Lebanese front could have given Tel Aviv the pretext it has been seeking to resume its attacks against Iran. Whatever the case, the central question is whether the Sanaa incident is merely a warning to Washington, with which Tehran is engaged in an open confrontation, or whether it marks a new phase in that confrontation. The seriousness of the incident will therefore be assessed based on what happens next. This is because the geostrategic stakes involved in bringing the Houthis into the ongoing conflict are considerable. The main one concerns the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The Houthis, who control the port of Hodeidah along this strategic waterway, have the ability to block access to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, thereby significantly disrupting international trade. Tehran, which again announced on Monday the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has thus shifted the conflict to another equally strategic geographic area, at the risk of seriously disrupting global trade. In this devious game it is playing, Iran is seeking to show the Americans that it still holds several cards it will not hesitate to play in order to secure concessions in its negotiations with Washington. Those negotiations have not been broken off. They have merely been suspended, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei confirming on Monday that diplomatic efforts were continuing with Qatar, Pakistan and Oman to “prevent an escalation of tensions.” According to him, Tehran had been in contact “in recent days” with Qatar and Oman, despite both having been targeted by Iranian strikes, as well as with Pakistan. The events from Sunday night into Monday, and throughout the day on Monday, clearly show that these efforts have fallen far short of being conclusive. Could they lead to a complete breakdown? Only the next developments will tell. Esmail Baghaei also warned that Tehran would no longer consider itself bound by the memorandum of understanding reached with the Americans in June if they failed to honor their commitments. A way of responding to Donald Trump, who had effectively sounded the death knell for the ceasefire the previous week. Houthi Strikes on Southern Saudi Arabia While exchanges of threats are common during sensitive negotiations that could determine the fate of the entire region, developments on the ground take on a far more significant – and potentially dangerous – dimension. The Houthis were quick to carry out their direct threats against Saudi Arabia, which they accused of striking Sanaa airport. Early in the evening, they launched ballistic missiles at Abha airport in the southwestern part of the kingdom, near the border with Yemen. At least six missiles targeted the facility, according to media outlets affiliated with the Iran-backed group. The Saudi Ministry of Defense confirmed the attack, saying that the missiles had been intercepted. The strikes follow the same logic as the Iranian attacks against Gulf countries, which were carried out in retaliation for U.S. strikes. Through its Yemeni ally, Tehran appears to be seeking to drag Riyadh into a conflict from which it had kept its distance from the outset. The objective is the same as that pursued in the strikes against Gulf countries: to pressure Arab monarchies into reconsidering their alliance with the United States. An objective the Islamic Republic has never sought to hide, but one it has so far failed to achieve. “A 20% Fee” Washington, for its part, is pursuing a strategy largely inspired by Iran’s own tactics. In response to Iranian provocations, the Americans are responding with counter-provocations. U.S. President Donald Trump announced bluntly on Truth Social that the naval blockade that had helped severely cripple the mullahs’ regime’s economy would be reinstated, along with U.S. control over the Strait of Hormuz. Just as Tehran seeks to impose service fees, Trump said he wanted to collect “a fee equivalent to 20% of the value of cargoes” transiting the maritime route, despite the fact that the waterway is governed by international law, which is supposed to guarantee freedom of navigation without obstruction. Iran responded by saying that it would “under no circumstances allow” Washington to interfere in the management of the strait, which Tehran wants to place under its strict control. President Trump also announced that he would address the nation on Thursday evening. According to The New York Times , Trump notified Congress of the resumption of hostilities with Iran. In his message to Congress, he said that U.S. forces had carried out defensive military operations on July 7, the newspaper reported. Blockade or not, Tehran is holding on to its regional influence through its allies. According to several analysts, the Houthis possess numerous “disruptive assets” that prompted Sanaa’s forceful response. By striking the city’s airport themselves to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing, Yemeni authorities are sending Tehran a direct political message: it is not permitted to use Yemeni facilities under the current circumstances. This is because the Iranian aircraft incident carries another message, one that was quickly understood by the Americans and may have contributed to Donald Trump’s decision to reinstate the naval blockade. Tehran sought to show that it still retains freedom of movement and the ability to take the initiative despite the sustained strikes, and that its allies still have the ability to disrupt its adversaries’ plans. The Iranian flight shows that, in the event of a blockade, the Islamic Republic could still have an air corridor to its Yemeni allies. This corridor would allow it to deliver the equipment and personnel (members of the IRGC) needed should it decide to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and reactivate the Yemeni front. It is, however, too early to speak of a genuine reactivation of that front. Western Pressure On the diplomatic front, Western pressure on Iran continues to intensify. London has announced a ban on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on its territory, while French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has ruled out any lifting of European sanctions as long as Tehran continues its nuclear program, ballistic development and destabilizing actions in the region.