The complexity of the Lebanese crisis teaches us not to rush to hasty conclusions regarding the Middle East and its numerous religious groups

By Chaden Hani

Once again last month, the Arab World was caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shiite regional struggle that keeps threatening the future of this region’s people. In light of the United States’ renewed support for Saudi Arabia, which has been rearranging its internal policies in light of changing regional realities, Saudi authorities summoned the Lebanese-Saudi Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, to an unexpected visit to his second home. Shortly after and amidst obscure circumstances still unclear to this day, on the 4^th of November, Mr. Hariri resigned from his post as PM by means of a solemn anti-Iranian speech broadcast on Saudi Arabia’s news channel, Al-Arabiya.

The resignation had an earthquake effect on Lebanon’s internal politics and triggered international concern. Warnings multiplied about the risk of confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the effective political forces in the Middle East.

Was Hariri’s resignation his attempt to spare Lebanon from a Saudi-Iranian confrontation, or was it imposed on him? The overall political situation in the region is undoubtedly convoluted, both in its local and regional implications. This latest crisis began with President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, affirming his support for the country’s anti-Iranian policies in the region, and inaugurating a new era in US relations with the region’s various countries, particularly Israel, based on perceived common interests.

Since the beginning of Mr. Hariri’s premiership on the 11^th of November 2016, and after the election of General Michel Aoun as President, Lebanon began to recover and to rebuild its institutions that had collapsed due to all the internal political struggles. However, Iran’s external interference in Lebanese affairs, manifested particularly in its support of Hezbollah and their dragging into regional wars did not stop, which led to Saudi aggravation towards the Lebanese situation. As a result, Saad Hariri would have taken the initiative of resigning, a measure which he regarded as positive in his television interview with the reporter Paula Yacoubian, and as a protest to reemphasize the necessity for Lebanon to readopt the policy of distancing itself fully from regional conflicts, a position adopted by Lebanon since the beginning of the “Arab Spring.”

Official US sources relay US presidential support for the Saudi Crown Prince’s anti-corruption decisions and initiatives. The same sources also reflect his concern for the Lebanese situation, advising Lebanese security authorities to take seriously Saudi Arabia’s warnings regarding the security of Hariri and the threats directed against him. Reactions varied among Lebanese leaders, but the presidency delayed its response until Hariri returned to Lebanon, when the circumstances that had led to PM Hariri’s resignation would become clearer, “for it is not acceptable to declare one’s resignation from abroad, according to recognized practice and regulation.” In a meeting involving the ambassadors of the countries representing the International Support Group and ambassadors of Arab countries, President Aoun said the focus at the moment was on maintaining national unity, “which now appeared to be stronger than ever.” He also raised the legal dimension of the issue, given the immunity benefitting a sitting Prime Minister according to international treaties and agreements of which both Lebanon and Saudi Arabia are signatories. He added that any country’s abduction of a person without reason represented a breach of the International Declaration of Human Rights.

At the same time, foreign countries intervened to express their support for Lebanon and emphasized the need for Hariri to return to Beirut. The most prominent of these was France. French Foreign Minister Jean Yves Le Drian paid a visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met with PM Hariri, and in agreement with Saudi Arabia, he extended an invitation to Hariri on behalf of French President Emmanuel Macron to go to France with his family for a few days.

Subsequently, the French presidency announced on Thursday evening that resigned Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri would be in Paris on Saturday, and would be received by the French President at the Elysée Palace before returning to Lebanon. This indeed happened, and PM Hariri returned to Lebanon after brief visits to Egypt and Cyprus. He has since recanted on his resignation, after holding off for a few days pending more clarity on Hezbollah’s position regarding Lebanon’s “self-distancing” policy.

The French initiative provided a way out of the crisis that gripped Lebanon due to Hariri’s resignation announcement. President Aoun called it “the door-opening to a solution.” For its part, Saudi Arabia declared through its foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, that Hariri was living in the kingdom “willingly” and that he could leave “whenever he wanted.” He called the claims of his detention in Saudi Arabia “invalid” and “unacceptable.” Al-Jubeir was the highest Saudi authority to discuss the matter of Hariri’s stay in the Kingdom.

Of note is the invitation of Saudi Arabia to Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Ra‘i to visit Riyadh to meet with King Salman bin Abdulaziz and the Crown Prince, which was initiated through their Chargé d’Affaires in Beirut, the Minister Delegate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Walid Al-Bukhari, two weeks before the resignation of Hariri. The historic invitation was not deterred by the ensuing events. It was the first visit by a Maronite patriarch to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it has gained considerable attention given that we cannot separate King Salman’s encounter with the head of the Lebanese Maronite Church from the transformations that the Kingdom is currently undergoing. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has been pushing for openness at various levels, focusing on dialogue between religions and the protection of diverse religious expressions in the region, according to sources of the Maronite Church.

There is no doubt that the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was a strong reflection of the Saudi-Iranian conflict and a historic moment, which the world must pause to analyze and understand. Was this a push back against the growing influence of Iran’s “rule of the jurist,” and will this episode lead the leadership of Hezbollah to reconsider its interventionist policies in the Arab world? Or is this a foreign intervention, seeking to refashion the map of the Middle East through a geopolitical redrawing similar to the Treaty of Sykes-Picot?

This significant crisis has unified opinions both inside and outside of Lebanon, and despite some difference in positions, most parties reacted with a considerable measure of wisdom, notably Hezbollah who could easily have taken a defensive position in several respects. We need to be mindful of the fact that, despite the characterization of the party as a terrorist organization, its constituency remains largely Lebanese, and it has always maintained a patriotic discourse as pertains to its vision, even though there are some who deeply disagree with it. As we saw, the “Lebanese street” united around the person of its prime minister who, in the Lebanese perception, faced a real crisis. The “street” in its great majority considers that any external threat to any of Lebanon’s constituents, even if it is viewed by the world as a terrorist organization, leads public opinion to defend and embrace it. Therefore, any solution to the issue of Hezbollah in Lebanon must emanate from inside Lebanon, and should come about as a result of consensus and unanimity concerning the country’s political approach.

The global Church has united in prayer for Lebanon, but what role can it play in the midst of such hurricanes in the Arab region? It is best for the Christian position to remain neutral vis-à-vis the various political parties that are active both inside and outside Lebanon, as the Church may be called to play a reconciling role between Sunnis and Shiites. Christians, both in the Arab world and the West, would also do well to seek the true motivations behind emerging political attitudes locally and internationally, rather than to rush after those who might be holding some hidden intentions. We must resist bias and prejudice that lead to the rejection of some at the expense of longer-term solutions.

Our hope for peace and stability is real, but we are fully aware that peace will come about only after many attempts by those who believe that reconciliation is necessary. We are called to draw closer and to embrace the “other,” following the example of Jesus with Zacchaeus the tax collector. Jesus chose to enter his house and to sit and eat with him. He chose to understand his condition and reality, which led Zacchaeus to experience a profound change of heart. He was thus transformed from beneficiary to benefactor towards the world around him. Are the Church and its people today ready to humble themselves and draw closer to Muslims? Are we willing to understand, embrace, and draw them in through the Cross of Christ? Unity is the goal for which Christ strove, and every manner of division is not from God (Ephesians 14:2).