Articles

The following text is a translation of the speech delivered in Arabic by our colleague Michel Hajji Georgiou during a panel discussion organized on Friday, May 15, in Beirut by the news and analysis website Janoubiya , in tribute to the memory of the writer and political scientist Mohammad Hussein Shamseddine. The event featured the participation of our colleague Ali Mohammad Hassan al-Amine, director of Janoubiya , former minister Ibrahim Mohammad Mahdi Shamseddine, our contributor and political scientist Hisham Dibsi, and the writer and political scientist Hassan Bazih. The objective of the text is to place Shamseddine's thought and work within the continuity of the historical, political, and moral Libanist and statist heritage of the ulema of Jabal Amel.

The file of Lebanese citizens exiled to Israel is among the most complex and sensitive in the Lebanese context, because it stands at the intersection of three deeply intertwined dimensions: the consequences of the Syrian and Israeli occupations, the legacy of the civil war, and the profound divisions surrounding the very concepts of the State, sovereignty, and justice. The State was absent from South Lebanon for decades, leaving the population at the mercy of the tensions between occupation forces and militia arms. When it returned after liberation, it came with a strict security and judicial logic, devoid of any genuine spirit of comprehensive national reconciliation. This is why the file has remained an open wound: Lebanon never underwent a true transitional justice process commensurate with the post-war era and the multiple occupations that had scarred it.

Obviously, one could not have expected spectacular results or decisions from the third round of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations held Thursday and Friday at the State Department in Washington. However, it must be acknowledged that the mere fact that these bilateral face-to-face discussions took place in Washington under the auspices of the US Administration represents a significant breakthrough in itself. Beyond this politically symbolic parameter, some positive signs emerged Friday evening following the marathon meetings held by the Lebanese and Israeli delegations. The State Department emphasized that the exchanges took place in a 'positive atmosphere that even exceeded our expectations.'

On Thursday, May 14, the world's attention was focused on Beijing, where a meeting between the President of the United States, who still sees himself as a major power, and President Xi Jinping, who aspires to be even greater, could have significant consequences for many countries, both in the short and long term. For some—likely many—these consequences could be dramatic. What will become of the state of the world after this? No one could say for certain yet. President Trump likely spoke first about trade. President Xi did as well. The former will quickly tout his victories—a word he cherishes—on his site, as is his custom.

May 14, 2026 marked the beginning of the third round of direct negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese delegations in Washington at the State Department headquarters. Contrary to expectations, the Israeli delegation was not headed by former Israeli minister Ron Dermer, who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather by Israel's ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, as had been the case in previous meetings. On the Lebanese side, however, the delegation was this time headed by former ambassador to Washington Simon Karam, an experienced negotiator who had already been appointed by Republic President Joseph Aoun to the ceasefire monitoring committee in South Lebanon (before the current conflict).

Radical shifts are taking shape across a world that, over the past two decades, has seen the slow disintegration of the global order established after the Second World War, giving way to a new system now beginning to emerge on the horizon. Since the start of his second term, and in line with his National Security Strategy (NSS 2025), President Donald Trump has redefined US priorities. First and foremost are domestic affairs – America First – and the American continent itself. As for the rest of the world, Europe, he argues, should takes responsibility for its own defense and no longer rely on the United States as it has done since 1945. In his view, Russia, despite its bellicose posture, is no longer considered a threat, having proven incapable of defeating Ukraine and incapable of invading Europe.