Lead:
Lebanese columnists across Annahar and Addiyar examine governance paralysis, the fraught status of international peacekeeping arrangements, personnel disputes within the cabinet, and broader questions about whether Lebanon's political system can survive without fundamental structural reform. The discourse reflects simultaneous crises: constitutional ambiguities, military escalation from Israel, displacement burdens on schools, and tensions between executive and defense ministry leadership.
Voices & Positions:
In Addiyar, the unnamed columnist argues that substantive peace requires state capacity, sovereignty, borders, security guarantees, and enforceable agreements—not the "emotional peace" that currently dominates Lebanese discourse. They contend that emotional sentiment cannot substitute for institutional frameworks.
In Addiyar, another columnist observes that President Joseph Aoun has intervened to mediate tensions between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Defense Minister Michel Mounssa following a political dispute rooted in constitutional ambiguities over ministerial authority within parliament.
In Addiyar, a writer contends that the proposed European-led alternative to the UN peacekeeping force (UNIFIL) represents a breach of American exclusivity in regional policy engineering and reflects divergent Israeli-American interests over southern Lebanon's future arrangements.
In Addiyar, contributors argue that Lebanon's sectarian-quota system remains the fundamental obstacle to institutional stability and that electoral reform is prerequisite to systemic survival.
In Annahar, columnists examine whether Benjamin Netanyahu's potential departure from Israeli politics might alter Turkish-Israeli tensions, though the premise remains speculative regarding his electoral outcome.
Tension & Convergence:
Writers converge on the diagnosis: Lebanon's constitutional framework is inadequate, sectarianism corrupts governance, and international arrangements (whether UNIFIL or proposed replacements) fail without Lebanese state capacity. They diverge sharply on causation: some blame Lebanese political actors for exploiting ambiguities; others emphasize external powers (the United States, Israel, Turkey, and European states) engineering outcomes without Lebanese sovereignty. Columnists also split on whether institutional paralysis reflects temporary dysfunction or terminal institutional design.
Editorial Takeaway:
The dominant voice today is that Lebanon confronts not a crisis of personalities but a structural failure requiring either fundamental constitutional redesign or acceptance of permanent subordination to external powers.