From “One Lebanon, Not Two” to a Single Government for Lebanon

The slogan of the late Lebanese Prime Minister Saeb Salam, following the events of 1958, was “One Lebanon, not two.” This slogan, symbolizing unity between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, was raised after the turmoil that shook the country and ended with the election of Army Commander Fuad Chehab as President of the Republic. Fuad Chehab succeeded Camille Chamoun, the president whose term ended amid events rooted in the hostility between him and Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose every speech sent shockwaves across the Arab world from the ocean to the Gulf.

In our time, the question has become extremely simple: Does Lebanon have a single government headed by Nawaf Salam, the nephew of Saeb Salam, or several governments, each with its own agenda, controlled by this minister or that?

It was only natural for Nawaf Salam to settle the matter and prevent Defense Minister Michel Mneimneh from speaking during the parliamentary session that witnessed the vote on the amnesty law, with all its pros and cons, which best reflects the state of Lebanon, with all its decay and divisions.

Nothing illustrates this Lebanese decay more than the alliance between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement. This alliance opposed the amnesty law and sided with the Defense Minister, who sought to express the Lebanese Army’s position on the amnesty law, thereby undermining the existing system from its foundations by portraying the Army as an entity independent of the Council of Ministers. In other words, the Army possesses its own opinion alongside the Council of Ministers’ decision, which represents the executive authority... or so it is assumed.

For the Defense Minister to speak in a session of the Chamber of Deputies meant that Lebanon now had four authorities: the executive, the legislative, the judicial... and an authority named the Lebanese Army authority, instead of the Army being under the command of the executive authority, represented by the Council of Ministers collectively and the Presidency. Is a new authority really needed in a country going through a phase that can at best be described as critical, in which it will be decided whether Lebanon is a viable country or not?

The alliance between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, i.e., the Aounist current, named after Michel Aoun, is no coincidence. Aoun’s term, between 2016 and 2022, was effectively “Hezbollah’s term,” nothing more. Michel Aoun placed the Lebanese state at the service of Hezbollah, i.e., at the service of Iran. This occurred at a time when Hezbollah consistently objected to any activity by the Lebanese Army on Lebanese territory.

Its first objection was to the presence of the Lebanese Army in southern Lebanon. Who remembers the downing of Major Samer Hanna’s helicopter in southern Lebanon by a Hezbollah fighter, who was later released? Who remembers that Michel Aoun justified the killing of the pilot officer by saying, “What was (Samer Hanna) doing in southern Lebanon?”

Michel Aoun did this before becoming President of the Republic. This was during the phase of presenting his credentials to Hezbollah, a phase that lasted ten years, beginning in 2006. This preceded his arrival at Baabda Palace as Hezbollah’s candidate, who does not object to any decision made by the party.

The alliance between the Aounists and Hezbollah demonstrates opportunism without parallel. It also reflects a bet on undermining Nawaf Salam’s government from within, for the sole purpose of stalling any progress in the ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. The Prime Minister did well to block Michel Mneimneh, who was nothing more than a retired officer with good intentions, unaware of the extent of the damage caused by their misapplication, particularly by Iran, which completely controls Hezbollah.

Ultimately, Lebanon has a concern far greater than the amnesty law and all its loopholes. The country faces a historic test: how to rid itself of the Israeli occupation. This occupation is precisely what Hezbollah wants to persist, primarily to justify retaining its weapons in the eyes of other Lebanese citizens.

Nawaf Salam’s actions were a quintessentially national act at a time when Lebanon had no alternative but direct negotiations with an Israeli aggressor that is doing everything in its power to alter the character of southern Lebanon through further destruction and bombings of villages and towns in that area.

From this perspective, Lebanon is not permitted to drown in the intricacies of the amnesty law and similar matters. The country currently possesses no option other than confronting the reality that Israel is the sole beneficiary of Hezbollah’s retention of its arms. Anyone who rushes to rescue “Hezbollah” and seeks to dismantle Nawaf Salam’s government is placing themselves in the service of Israel and the occupation. Everything else is merely detail, all of which serves the project advocated by the Islamic Republic, one of whose objectives is to turn Lebanon into an Iranian hostage in the negotiations—whether direct or indirect—between Washington and Tehran.

It is disgraceful for the Aounists and their followers to once again place themselves at the service of Hezbollah and Iran. In fact, such behavior is more than natural for a faction that has never ceased stabbing the Lebanese Army in the back. Did not Michel Aoun flee in October 1990 to the French Embassy in Baabda, while army officers and soldiers bravely confronted the Syrian Army advancing toward the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Defense in Jnah? Those who facilitated the entry of the Syrian Army into Baabda Palace and the Ministry of Defense in 1990 are easily working in 2026 to serve Iran’s project in Lebanon.