What It Will Take to Build Peace in Lebanon | Opinion

In Lebanon, half a century ago, Pope Paul VI asserted that "development is the new name for peace," a sentiment that resonates deeply in the current context. As a Catholic bishop, my firsthand experiences as a pastor among displaced families during the war have reinforced my conviction that decisions regarding war and peace must be made by the Lebanese state, with all Lebanese individuals seeking their security from the same institutions.

However, the question remains: are we building a foundation for lasting security or setting the stage for future conflicts?

Upon my recent trip to Washington to engage with U.S. policymakers, the portrayal of Lebanon's war between Israel and Hezbollah appeared to be a straightforward battle, primarily centered around Lebanon's Shi'a community. However, the reality on the ground in southern Lebanon paints a different picture. This region houses Lebanon's Shi'a, Christians, Druze, and other communities whose lives and livelihoods have been intertwined for generations.

Since the onset of the war, Christians have also been displaced, and these communities have been gradually dwindling over the years due to successive crises prompting young Lebanese to emigrate. While rebuilding a house may eventually be possible, the task of reconstructing a community proves far more challenging. When individuals repeatedly lose their homes, livelihoods, relatives, and sense of security, their basic question becomes: "Who will protect us?"

Protection extends beyond the mere presence of weapons. A young person's sense of belonging and future prospects play a crucial role. When the state fails to provide this, other entities step in, such as Hezbollah, which has grown its influence through various means including education, healthcare, salaries, social assistance, weapons, and ideology.

To ensure that young Lebanese choose to support the state over armed groups, we must offer them meaningful opportunities. This entails investing in essential sectors like schools, universities, local businesses, infrastructure, and jobs. A young person should not need to rely on an armed organization for basic security or survival.

If people believe the Lebanese state cannot shield them from external threats or offer them a viable future, the argument for turning to another protector becomes more compelling. Yet, if they witness the Lebanese army safeguarding their villages, the state facilitating their return home, institutions aiding their recovery, and an economy presenting opportunities for their children's future, the allure of seeking protection elsewhere weakens.

Consequently, the future of Hezbollah's weapons must be viewed in the context of the Lebanese state's credibility and attractiveness. An ideology cannot be vanquished by a missile alone but requires a more compelling alternative. For Lebanon, this alternative should be citizenship: the notion that every Christian, Shi'a, Sunni, or Druze can belong to a unified state, with the country's destiny no longer dictated by foreign wars or local conflicts.

This highlights the importance of education. Through our Leadership Academy for Peace, we train young Lebanese, irrespective of their faith, to grasp leadership as a service to the entire nation. Lebanon needs political leaders who can combat corruption, rebuild institutions, and convince young Lebanese that their future can be shaped within the country.

As a bishop, I recognize that military force may temporarily eliminate an immediate threat but also engenders fear, humiliation, and resentment, fostering conditions for a new cycle of conflict. Christians have a unique perspective on this matter, as our future cannot be secured by an indefinitely militarized Lebanon or by alienating another community.

Lebanon thrives when its Christians, Shi'a, Sunnis, and Druze choose to coexist within a single country, entrusting their future to it. When any community perceives that the state neither represents nor safeguards them, the national compact is undermined.

Lebanon doesn't need to embrace Hezbollah's weapons or endure perpetual military pressure. An alternative path exists: a sovereign Lebanese state capable of safeguarding its borders and citizens, managing weapons and decisions regarding war and peace, and providing each Lebanese community with reasons to place their trust in national institutions rather than armed factions or foreign influences.

Achieving this objective demands more than mere disarmament; the state must deliver on security, safety, and economic recovery. Therefore, Israeli withdrawal and the cessation of ongoing military operations should not be perceived as concessions to Hezbollah, but as integral components of forging a Lebanon where people can confidently rely on the state for protection.

Pope Paul VI grasped that peace is not merely the absence of war but the establishment of conditions enabling people to live with dignity and envision a future. Development equates to peace as it equips people with something to build rather than something to fight for. This endeavor may appear slow and arduous, but progress can be made incrementally: a family returning home, a young person securing employment, a child receiving an education, a village being rebuilt.

When Washington deliberates on Lebanon's future, they must transcend the immediate military operation and consider how their decision will shape the nation over the next five or ten years. Will it result in a Lebanon where communities continue to seek security, livelihoods, and belonging outside the state, or a Lebanon where Christians, Shi'a, Sunnis, and Druze increasingly perceive their security and future within the Lebanese state? In my view, this represents the true gauge of whether we are progressing toward peace.