Peter Germanos Political analyst


Lebanon stands today at the edge of exhaustion, a state hollowed out, a society fragmented, and a sovereignty repeatedly violated. For decades, solutions have been proposed in the language of “balance,” “coexistence,” and “regional stability.” Yet none have addressed the core truth: Lebanon cannot survive as a battlefield for others. Neutrality is not a luxury; it is an existential necessity.

Neutrality, in the Lebanese context, does not mean weakness or disengagement. It means reclaiming the state from competing foreign axes and internal militias. It means enforcing a single authority over arms, diplomacy, and national decision-making. Countries like Switzerland or Austria did not become neutral by accident; they chose to remove themselves from external conflicts to preserve internal cohesion. Lebanon, by contrast, has been forced into every regional confrontation from 1969 to today, without ever consenting as a unified nation.

The argument against neutrality often invokes geography: Lebanon is “too exposed,” “too small,” “too divided.” But geography did not condemn Lebanon, politics did. The refusal to adopt neutrality has turned the country into an open arena where regional powers settle their scores. The result is visible: economic collapse, demographic flight, institutional decay, and a permanent state of insecurity. Neutrality would not solve everything overnight, but it would redraw the rules of the game. It would transform Lebanon from a proxy battlefield into a protected political space.

Yet neutrality faces a paradox: it is resisted not only by internal actors, but also by those who claim to support Lebanon internationally, particularly France and parts of Europe. Under the banner of “stability,” European diplomacy has consistently favored containment over resolution. The logic is simple but flawed: better a fragile equilibrium than a disruptive transformation. In practice, this has meant tolerating parallel powers, legitimizing ambiguity, and avoiding decisive pressure where it matters most.

France, in particular, has maintained a long-standing approach of engaging all actors, including those operating outside the state’s authority. This policy is presented as pragmatic mediation, but it often results in the normalization of imbalance. By refusing to confront the structural causes of instability, Europe inadvertently prolongs them. Stability, in this sense, becomes a euphemism for stagnation.

This pattern reflects a deeper historical mindset. The Near East is still too often treated through a lens inherited from the colonial era, managed, observed, and “stabilized,” rather than empowered. As with past African mandates, the objective is not full sovereignty but controlled equilibrium. Decisions are shaped not by the aspirations of local populations, but by broader strategic calculations: migration flows, energy routes, and regional alliances.

Lebanon pays the price of this approach. Instead of being supported in reclaiming its sovereignty, it is encouraged to adapt to its own dysfunction. Instead of neutrality, it is offered perpetual balancing. Instead of peace, it is given time.

But time has run out. Neutrality is no longer a theoretical option; it is the last remaining path to prevent total disintegration. For Lebanon to live, it must step out of the wars of others and the world must allow it to do so.


المصدر : Transparency News