Articles

There are certain keywords whose mere utterance is enough to put your interlocutor from the camp of the Momana’a on alert: the moment one pronounces “Palestine,” “resistance,” “America,” or “Israel,” something triggers within him, a kind of mental switch, and he stiffens to the point where any calm, objective discussion becomes impossible. The problem in Lebanon today is no longer that of divergent opinions, but rather the absence of the thinking process itself. Ready-made positions are summoned instantly, discourses repeated unchanged, choices maintained in spite of everything that shifts around them. As though we never questioned ourselves, never re-evaluated anything, never asked: are we still genuinely thinking about what we are doing, or are we merely repeating what we have grown accustomed to, simply because it has become part of our identity? This is precisely where the danger begins, when repetition substitutes itself for thought.

The conflicting statements and abrupt reversals by President Donald Trump are set to reshape relations with Europe, NATO and America’s allies. They are also likely to trigger reactions from countries in the Pacific and the Middle East that once viewed U.S. protection as credible. The West is playing for moderation and seeking a role in securing the Strait of Hormuz once hostilities end. Will the United States find itself sidelined in the region in favor of another, unlikely protector? And will Lebanon’s settlement be brokered by France – with or without Europe? Following the U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026 – an operation about which neither Western and European leaders nor governments, nor NATO officials, had been informed – President Donald Trump called on them to back him by helping safeguard security in the Strait of Hormuz and by providing direct support for U.S. operations. Most heads of state and governments declined.

In his opening address to the eighth Fatah congress, President Mahmoud Abbas laid out the official vision of Palestinian legitimacy as it stands today and as it must take shape in the near future, sounding the alarm over the dangers wrought by the continuing war on Gaza, the unprecedented pace of settlement expansion in the West Bank, the relentless Judaization of East Jerusalem, and the Israeli government’s unswerving pursuit of the displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land — a confluence of threats he described as posing existential risks of an altogether exceptional gravity.

Iran responded Monday to a new U.S. proposal aimed at breaking the diplomatic deadlock and bringing a lasting end to the war in the Middle East, its Foreign Ministry said, adding that exchanges with Washington were continuing "through the Pakistani mediator". Iran reiterated its demands on Monday, particularly calling for the release of frozen Iranian assets abroad and the lifting of international sanctions suffocating its economy. The spokesman also insisted on the payment of reparations for the war, which he described as "illegal and baseless". On Sunday, Iranian media denounced the "excessive conditions" imposed by the United States in its latest offer. According to the Fars agency, they demand that Iran maintain only a single active nuclear site and transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to the United States.

With this sixth instalment in the “Israel-Hezbollah” series, we continue to examine the current situation through the lens of history, steering clear of the impassioned, ideological or romantic narratives that often obscure realities on the ground. Readers may draw their own conclusions. Previous articles revisited Hezbollah’s rise since the Taif Agreement, its first two wars with Israel, and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon in May 2000. Following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon on May 24, 2000, and at the insistence of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the United Nations officially certified on June 16, 2000, that the pullout was complete and in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 425, which was thereafter deemed implemented. UNIFIL subsequently delineated an Israeli withdrawal line known as the “Blue Line,” identifying 13 disputed points between the two countries covering an area of less than one square kilometer. The line is often mistaken for the Paulet-Newcombe line, drawn in 1923 as the border separating Lebanon and Palestine under the French and British mandates.

In our previous article, we reviewed Gibran’s life. In this second installment, we explore several facets of the thinker: the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche, Gibran the rebel, and his role as a precursor of Lebanese nationalism. “I am a son of earth and sky. The forest is my church, the field my sanctuary, and the stars my companions in meditation.” Gibran Khalil Gibran “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman – a rope over an abyss .” Friedrich Nietzsche During his stay in Paris, Gibran discovered Nietzsche, a revelation that profoundly transformed both his thought and his style. He moved from a melancholic, nostalgic poet to a thundering prophetic voice. His writing became aphoristic, prophetic, and powerful.