The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) in Lebanon is a secular political party and founded in Lebanon in 1932 by Antun Saadeh. It attracts members from all religions and sects. It advocates for a secular government encompassing all Lebanese people. It has taken a resistance stance and defends Lebanon against all invaders, such as Israel.
Lebanon is currently under occupation and ongoing airstrikes by the Israeli military. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel will remain occupying Lebanon even after Hezbollah has been disarmed.
Hezbollah was founded as an armed resistance group in response to the 18-years of brutal Israeli occupation of the south of Lebanon, and were successful in driving the occupiers out.
It has been the goal of the U.S. and Israel to disarm Hezbollah, and turn over the security of Lebanon to the Lebanese Army alone. This goal had been in the process, but was deliberately halted by the Israeli bombardment, occupation and total destruction of the south of Lebanon, with airstrikes continuing in central Beirut and elsewhere among locations which are not, and have never been associated with Hezbollah.
Israel has been acting with impunity because they enjoy a blazing green-light from President Donald Trump, who has sanctioned more war crimes by Israel than any U.S. President in history.
Steven Sahiounie of MideastDiscourse interviewed Lebanese journalist and official at the Syrian Social Nationalist Party
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): Talks between Washington and Tehran were held in Islamabad, and there were conflicting statements regarding whether Lebanon would be included in the negotiations. In your opinion, will Washington accept Tehran's conditions to include Lebanon, and what will be the reaction of the Lebanese government?
Wael Malaeb (WM): It is clear that from the very first day of announcing, or reaching a ceasefire declaration, Tehran has insisted that any ceasefire must include all fronts in the conflict. When Tehran says "all fronts," it means Beirut, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and all supporting fronts in this war, which it considers auxiliary fronts. However, in my view, we consider the Lebanese front to be the main one, because the core battle is about eliminating the resistance in Lebanon-- this is Netanyahu's battle.
As for Washington, we have also seen contradictory statements from Donald Trump-- rejecting something in the morning and then agreeing to it in the evening. I believe the matter is not in Trump's hands but in Netanyahu's. We saw the massacre that occurred on April 8 in Beirut, its suburbs, and the mountain regions, which resulted in hundreds of martyrs and wounded. This was a reaction to the ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran and a clear message from Netanyahu that he rejects this path and any ceasefire.
We know that for Netanyahu, a ceasefire means going to court and facing trial. It means defeat and failure to achieve any of his stated objectives. Therefore, Washington today does not really care whether Lebanon is included or not-- it wants an agreement. Trump wants to end this war at any cost. Despite his public stance, he likely believes he has become entangled in the Middle East, suffering losses both militarily and morally, and failing to achieve key goals in Iran, including regime change. He wants to end this situation, but Netanyahu and Israel insist on continuing the war and are pressuring against including Lebanon in the agreement.
2. SS: The Lebanese government has announced that it will negotiate directly with Israel in Washington. In your opinion, why is Prime Minister Nawaf Salam insisting on normalization with Israel despite opposition from a large segment-- or even the majority-- of the Lebanese people?
WM: From our perspective, the current Lebanese government was brought in to implement a clear agenda. Since the election of the Lebanese president-- which took place under international and regional diplomatic pressure, particularly from the Quintet Committee-- it was clear that either Joseph Aoun would become president or there would be no president after a long vacuum.
Similarly, the appointment of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister came suddenly. All expectations were pointing toward Najib Mikati, and there was an agreement on him, but suddenly Salam's name appeared and he was brought directly from the International Court of Justice in The Hague to head the government.
It is evident that there is a prepared project for this authority in Lebanon, and its features are gradually becoming clear. Why insist on normalization? When we say normalization, we mean that those pursuing it are already in contact. For example, when the Lebanese government tasked its ambassador in the U.S. to communicate with the Israeli ambassador, they are already in daily contact.
Lebanon itself is under American political influence, so naturally its ambassador in Washington follows that policy. This normalization is therefore symbolic and part of a broader trajectory. The government wants to set precedents in Lebanon's history-- such as banning resistance activities, instructing the media not to use the term "resistance," and attempting to reject the Iranian ambassador.
Even though these decisions were not fully implemented, they were still made. Now the government is attempting another precedent-- having a Lebanese diplomat sit with an Israeli diplomat, even once. This is happening despite the fact that the majority of the Lebanese population rejects normalization.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
