Aside from some calls for a conference with specific goals that preserves Lebanon's identity as known over the past decades and contributes to neutralizing it from regional problems, Lebanon is struggling for its "existence" and future. This struggle occurs among a group of sects, with some seeking to retain their current status out of fear of losing it, while others aim to expand their influence and control within the Lebanese state and its authorities, thereby diminishing the influence of others.
However, no matter how many goals, intentions, and ideas exist, the common denominator among them all is that the premises that each Lebanese sect relies on to demand or avoid calling for a new conference, or "new establishment" for Lebanon, now require new definitions and understandings. These include "Lebanon's neutrality," the "Taif Agreement," and "resistance." Each Lebanese faction interprets these phrases according to its own lexicon, necessitating many updates.
Moreover, whether a new international or foundational conference for Lebanon is held or not, no component among the Lebanese factions will succeed in encroaching on the current shares of the other parties in the country, with either Western or Eastern international support, for free. Countries build their policies and alliances based on interests, meaning that the possibility of expanding any Lebanese faction's share in future power at the expense of others will not be free of charge or within an ideal world imagined by some in our country.
An informed source emphasized that "holding any conference for Lebanon and its future cannot ignore the reality that the Lebanese will not be alone at the table; more than one regional and international party will negotiate alongside them, and often on their behalf." They lamented in a conversation with “Akhbar Al-Yawm” that "many people think that the West or friendly countries to Lebanon, always support it at all times. While the reality is that they support us if their interests require it."
The source called for "careful consideration of the current American administration's interests, which has a primary focus: how to militarily confront Russia in Ukraine and economically counter China. Meanwhile, European and French interests revolve around everything related to Europe's future. Accordingly, it can be seen that Lebanon is not a priority for anyone, and it is left to manage its affairs as best as it can amidst a corrupt political class."
They added, "As for the Arab countries, there is nothing indicating that Lebanon is a priority for them. Although the Taif Agreement is frequently mentioned, the interests of some Arab countries and their alliances no longer align with the aspirations of free Lebanese. Thus, some countries can be classified as friends of Lebanon, but only during a specific phase; their interests may necessitate that they are not so in other phases."
They concluded: "We are in a very difficult situation now, and it is essential to unite around a clear roadmap among countries, alliances, and conflicting or converging external interests, rather than entering into alleys that will not benefit Lebanon, but perhaps serve some private interests."
