Lead:
Opinion columns across Lebanese outlets over the past 96 hours engage with three intersecting crises: the proposed replacement of UNIFIL with alternative international military forces in the south, internal disputes over parliamentary prerogatives and salary reforms, and the broader question of whether Lebanon can transition from sectarian to state-based governance under pressure from regional and international powers.
Voices & Positions:
In Al-Diyar, multiple columnists contest France's proposed role in establishing a replacement international force in southern Lebanon. One writer argues that Israel rejects French mediation precisely because it would undermine exclusive American hegemony in regional security arrangements, presenting a potential fracture in Western coordination. Another contributor frames the UNIFIL successor debate as symptomatic of Lebanon's inability to defend its own territory—a failure rooted in factional paralysis rather than external circumstance.
In both Al-Diyar and Al-Nahar, writers address the constitutional conflict between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Defence Minister Michel Mounssé over parliamentary authority. One analyst notes that President Joseph Aoun's intervention to mediate the dispute reveals underlying questions about ministerial accountability to parliament, framing the amnesty law debate as a proxy for power distribution within the cabinet.
Multiple contributors emphasize Lebanon's sectarian-to-state transition as a prerequisite for stability. One writer argues that without dismantling patronage networks that protect officials from accountability, Lebanon cannot adopt policy frameworks that serve institutional interests rather than communal loyalties. Another contends that recent parliamentary sessions—including votes on general amnesty and capital punishment abolition—expose the absence of a coherent state logic capable of transcending faction.
Writers critical of American policy diverge sharply on diagnosis. Some argue the Trump administration conflates military force with diplomacy, creating instability rather than order. Others suggest Washington itself exhibits tactical uncertainty on the Lebanon file, caught between support for Israel's unilateral actions and pressure to stabilize ceasefire arrangements.
Tension & Convergence:
Writers converge on the observation that Lebanon remains structurally unable to exercise state sovereignty in the south or enforce constitutional norms internally. They diverge on whether international intervention—whether European or American—offers remedy or merely consolidates Lebanon's subordination to external actors. A secondary divide separates those who view sectarian politics as incidental to governance failure from those treating it as the systemic root.
Editorial Takeaway:
The dominant voice today is that Lebanon's institutional crises—military replacement, cabinet conflict, parliamentary incoherence—are symptoms of a deeper incapacity to subordinate faction to state logic, a condition that no external force can remedy.